Doomsday: Attributions

The high concentration of natural disasters taking place all over the world includes:

  • Hurricanes and cyclones such as Harvey, with its flooding of Houston and the rest of Southern Texas and Louisiana, Maria and its devastating destruction of Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands, Irma and its impact on Florida, and the flooding in India, Pakistan, and Nepal
  • Mudslides in Sierra Leone
  • Deadly Mexican earthquakes
  • Bushfires in Queensland, Australia, where temperature reached 42.5oC (109oF), the Canary Islands, and Southern California

These have resulted in the combined loss of hundreds of lives, the displacement of millions who have lost their homes, and collective fiscal losses that are fast approaching trillions of dollars. The recovery will take months if not years.

For people directly affected, the impacts certainly felt like doomsday, the end of the world, the Sixth Extinction, or whatever else you are inclined to call a global calamity. For the new GOP Senate candidate from the State of Alabama, all of these are just signs of God’s unhappiness the human race for engaging in certain activities (of which Mr. Moore does not approve).

In the last few blogs, I have dealt with various aspects of future impacts of our activities on the physical environment and how they will result in global doomsday. I have phrased it as occurring in the near future that I defined broadly as “now”: within the lifetime of my grandchildren. Here we are talking about the literal “now” in local communities, countries and regions.

A valid question to ask is how do we know (and how sure are we) that human activity has made a significant contribution to these existential disasters – which means that some of the dangers are within our power to mitigate.

Here is how Wikipedia defines attributions of climate change:

Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent climate changes on Earth, commonly known as ‘global warming‘. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly in the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the troposphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[3]

There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, and volcanic activity.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.[4] The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.[5]

As the scope of the climate events changes, so will the way in which we attribute human contributions. The attribution of global climate change will also be different than that of local weather events. Attributions will likewise differ for past events and predicted future events.

According to the IPCC, its measurements of our historical impacts on the global climate make it 95% certain of humans’ dominant contributions to climate change. A summary of the IPCC report of human contributions can be found here.

Visual summaries of the various observations are given in Figures 1 and 2.

Attribution of global warming – simulation of 20th century global mean temperatures (with and without human influences) compared to observations (NASA)Figure 1 – Attribution of global warming – simulation of 20th century global mean temperatures (with and without human influences) compared to observations (NASA)

Figure 1 shows a computer analysis of observed global temperature change over the 20th Century. The analyses of conditions with and without human contributions show only short-term fluctuations until mid-century, after which they split sharply. Toward the end of the century the global temperature without human contributions is a bit lower than in the beginning – a difference attributed mainly to the impact of volcanic eruptions (which result in a slight cooling immediately afterward). The observed temperature change is close to 1oC, in agreement with that calculated to include human contributions. In the case that exactly 100% means full accounting for the temperature increase relative to the prediction of slightly lower temperatures without human contributions, this shows a human contribution to climate change of more than 100% over this period.

Atmospheric and anthropogenic CO2 and 14C in tree ringsFigure 2

The main forcing mechanism of human contribution to the climate is the carbon dioxide emitted through burning of fossil fuels. Figure 2 shows the correlations between the measured changes of the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide compared with the human-caused emissions. The curves look similar in shape; both of them kick sharply up in the middle of the 20th Century. Unfortunately, the two curves are shown in different units so direct comparisons are impossible. I am teaching my General Education students how to make such comparisons, using the tools from my book, Climate Change: The Fork at the End of Now. I am not going to repeat the calculation here. You will have to take my word that the jump in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from 1950 to 2000 taken from the figure amounts to about 0.4 trillion tons of carbon dioxide while the human emissions amount to 0.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide. These numbers are a rough approximation but are close enough to convince us that they are closely related. Section c of the same figure provides probably the most convincing evidence for the origin of this extra carbon dioxide.

Here is the background:

14C is a radioisotope of carbon with atoms that contain 6 protons and 8 neutrons as compared to the more abundant isotope of carbon (12C), which contains 6 protons and 6 neutrons. The radioisotope is unstable and slowly converts to nitrogen (14N) by converting one neutron to one proton. The conversion rate is measured through a parameter called half-time. It means that if we start with a certain amount of the material, half of it will convert into 14N in that period of time. The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. The natural abundance of this isotope in the atmosphere is about one atom in a trillion. Plants that grow by photosynthesis of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere end up with the same amount of the carbon isotope.

Combustible fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas (mainly methane), gasoline, and various oils, are deposits of organic materials formed from decayed plants and animals. These organisms were alive many millions of years ago – way longer than 5,730 years – so all of their 14C had plenty of time to decay completely. In other words, any emissions of this type of more stabilized carbon dioxide into the atmosphere should reduce the atmospheric concentration of 14C. This reduction is shown in Figure 2c. Unfortunately, this experiment had to stop around mid century because of the prevalence of nuclear atmospheric testing at that time, which added a great deal of 14C to the atmosphere. We are left with the convincing data up until that time. Most of the carbon dioxide that we added to the atmosphere until that time came from combustible fossil fuel use. Carbon dioxide is the main anthropogenic greenhouse gas connected to our energy use (see June 25, 2012 blog or search for “greenhouse gas emissions” throughout the blog). The increase in temperature shown in Figure 1 came mostly from that same addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning those fossil fuels.

The increase in temperature has immediate consequences.

Figure 3 shows one important consequence of an increase in average temperature. It shows two identical distributions of temperature over the same time period with a small shift to an overall higher temperature. If we define an extreme heat event through frequency of a fixed high temperature such as 100oF (how many days in a year we reach that target temperature or higher), the figure clearly shows that the probability of the extreme event increases greatly.

Figure 3 – Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change

The anthropogenic increase in global temperature has other direct implications.

A vital implication from an important law in Physical Chemistry called the Clausius Clapeyron Equation tells us that the vapor pressure of almost all liquids steadily increases as the temperature increases. That means that the amount of humidity in the atmosphere is increasing as we warm the planet. Most of the impacts of the increase in global temperature manifest themselves through the water cycle: rise in sea level, increased desertification through enhanced transpiration and heightened land evaporation, shifts in precipitation patterns, etc.

Next week I will focus on how climate change is impacting some specific areas as well as some steps that we need to take right now to mitigate (minimize) and adapt to these dangers.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Anthropocene, Anthropogenic, Climate Change, IPCC, Sustainability | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Doomsday: Timing?

Figure 1 – IPCC projections of future climate change impacts based on two different scenarios

Figure 2 – Relationship between global mean equilibrium temperature change and stabilization concentration of greenhouse gases

Trying to estimate the timing of doomsday is not a very honorable activity. Doomsday theorists abound and they don’t enjoy a great reputation for accuracy. Here’s a historical list of such apocalyptic predictions.

I feel more comfortable, substituting doomsday with the phrase 6th Mass Extinction – as used in the PNAS article that I described last week – or “self-inflicted genocide,” a term I have used repeatedly here, even though that relabeling might be considered a matter of semantics. By using these terms, scientists are less afraid of being labeled as false prophets; we consider some of the societal and political activities happening now as existential threats, greatly heightening the feasibility of doomsday scenarios.

I have used Figures 1 and 2 from the IPCC report on various occasions throughout this blog (the earliest being December 10, 2012). The WG1 scenario’s sharp climb into the dark orange zone demonstrates our rocketing towards doomsday, an existential danger that needs to be halted immediately. Reaching this situation by the end of the century in a business-as-usual scenario seems reasonable. Such a sharp marker doesn’t exist in Figure 2, which expresses the future in terms of carbon accumulation in the atmosphere. Daniel Rothman from MIT just put out a paper that works to close that gap, analyzing changes in the carbon cycle that have triggered all the recorded mass extinctions over the last 500 million years (Daniel H. Rothman. “Thresholds of catastrophe in the Earth system,” Science Advances, 2017):

Thresholds of catastrophe in the Earth system

Daniel H. Rothman

The history of the Earth system is a story of change. Some changes are gradual and benign, but others, especially those associated with catastrophic mass extinction, are relatively abrupt and destructive. What sets one group apart from the other? Here, I hypothesize that perturbations of Earth’s carbon cycle lead to mass extinction if they exceed either a critical rate at long time scales or a critical size at short time scales. By analyzing 31 carbon isotopic events during the past 542 million years, I identify the critical rate with a limit imposed by mass conservation. Identification of the crossover time scale separating fast from slow events then yields the critical size. The modern critical size for the marine carbon cycle is roughly similar to the mass of carbon that human activities will likely have added to the oceans by the year 2100.

The threshold seems to be the same. Last week, a paper in Nature Geoscience (September 18, 2017) called into question some of the IPCC’s carbon dioxide estimates (GtC = gigatons of carbon = billion tons of carbon):

Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C

Richard J. Millar, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, Pierre Friedlingstein, Joeri Rogelj, Michael J. Grubb, H. Damon Matthews, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Piers M. Forster, David J. Frame & Myles R. Allen

The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

The paper’s outlook on carbon dioxide emissions is a bit more optimistic than that of the IPCC but it still requires humanity to go zero carbon well before the end of the century in order to prevent doomsday.

Judging by recent developments, the US is not only aiming to double down on business-as-usual scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, we are actively trying to reverse previous attempts to mitigate the coming disaster. Here are some recent examples:

Data-tracking watchdog group, Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI), has reported dozens of instances where the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has deleted references to climate change from its site

This week saw the long-delayed release of the Department of Energy’s evaluation of grid stability. The report was commissioned by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who suggested that the expansion of renewable energy was undermining the reliability of electricity delivery. Back in June, however, a draft of the expert evaluation leaked, and it stated that the US grid was now more reliable than it had been in recent decades. Those conclusions, however, were watered down in the final report.

But the report is also notable for avoiding the use of the term “climate change” anywhere in its 125 pages. This is despite the fact that increased heat will boost demand and stress grid hardware and that climate change is currently driving state-level energy policies. In fact, the report recommends the anti-solution of increasing the use of coal-fired power plants.

For years, climate change activists have faced a wrenching dilemma: how to persuade people to care about a grave but seemingly far-off problem and win their support for policies that might pinch them immediately in utility bills and at the pump.

But that calculus may be changing at a time when climatic chaos feels like a daily event rather than an airy abstraction, and storms powered by warming ocean waters wreak havoc on the mainland United States. Americans have spent weeks riveted by television footage of wrecked neighborhoods, displaced families, flattened Caribbean islands and submerged cities from Houston to Jacksonville.

“The conversation is shifting,” said Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii. “Because even if you don’t believe liberals, even if you don’t believe scientists, you can believe your own eyes.”

Doomsday timing doesn’t have to be global. We can see different markers of individual cataclysms around the world and how they trigger even bigger problems. The necessary massive movement of people from more vulnerable locations to less vulnerable ones creates its own set of issues that we are just now starting to encounter. In future blogs I will try to quantify some of these prospects within a few local communities.

Next week I will return to how and why we attribute climate change to human activities. I’ll examine how we try to determine the human contributions to each of these early markers of the 6th Mass Extinction. I will try to address this both globally and locally, followed by identifying tools that we already have that can minimize these catastrophic impacts – if we have the will to do so.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in administration, Anthropocene, Anthropogenic, Climate Change, IPCC, politics, Sustainability, Trump | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Doomsday Early Signs: The Science

The New York Times last week tried to highlight the dangers of climate change. On Friday, Alexander Burns opened his contribution with the following two paragraphs:

For years, climate change activists have faced a wrenching dilemma: how to persuade people to care about a grave but seemingly far-off problem and win their support for policies that might pinch them immediately in utility bills and at the pump.

But that calculus may be changing at a time when climatic chaos feels like a daily event rather than an airy abstraction, and storms powered by warming ocean waters wreak havoc on the mainland United States. Americans have spent weeks riveted by television footage of wrecked neighborhoods, displaced families, flattened Caribbean islands and submerged cities from Houston to Jacksonville.

On Thursday, Tom Friedman wrote an op-ed on the contradictory ways in which President Trump is handling two seemingly low-probability global doomsday events: North Korea’s use of nuclear weapons on the US or its allies, and climate change:

The other low-probability, high-impact threat is climate change fueled by increased human-caused carbon emissions. The truth is, if you simply trace the steady increase in costly extreme weather events — wildfires, floods, droughts and climate-related human migrations — the odds of human-driven global warming having a devastating impact on our planet are not low probability but high probability.

Friedman realized that the major difference between these two possible future events is that the latter has a much higher probability. For a business-as-usual scenario in which we continue with the same policies that we presently hold, the only contentious issue is the timing.

Estimating future events always comes with uncertainty about timing. In terms of climate change, the IPCC has addressed this via different scenarios (October 1, 2013 and October 28, 2014). Doomsday timing depends on our contributions to climate change (August 29, 2017 – dark orange region in Figure 2). A similar approach is to try to predict doomsday through its early signs. Some doomsday scenarios such as North Korea bombing the US with nuclear weapons would likely have few (if any) early warning signs; they would reflect totally irrational, suicidal thinking. Other doomsday scenarios would give us much more to work with. The largest computer file that I have on climate change is dedicated to the early signs that already exist.

A recently published paper in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) deals directly with this issue. All three of its authors are distinguished scientists. One of them, Paul Ehrlich, is a member of the National Academy of Science and was one of the two original formulators of the IPAT identity that I use so often in this blog (November 26, 2012). I am including significant parts of the paper because the main differences between science and stories or opinions are details, methodology, and refutability based on observations. Readers should be able to distinguish between the conclusions of this paper and the New York Magazine article that I discussed last week:

Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines

  1. Gerardo Ceballosa,1, Paul R. Ehrlichb,1, and Rodolfo Dirzob


The strong focus on species extinctions, a critical aspect of the contemporary pulse of biological extinction, leads to a common misimpression that Earth’s biota is not immediately threatened, just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss. This view overlooks the current trends of population declines and extinctions. Using a sample of 27,600 terrestrial vertebrate species, and a more detailed analysis of 177 mammal species, we show the extremely high degree of population decay in vertebrates, even in common “species of low concern.” Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.


The population extinction pulse we describe here shows, from a quantitative viewpoint, that Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions. Therefore, humanity needs to address anthropogenic population extirpation and decimation immediately. That conclusion is based on analyses of the numbers and degrees of range contraction (indicative of population shrinkage and/or population extinctions according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature) using a sample of 27,600 vertebrate species, and on a more detailed analysis documenting the population extinctions between 1900 and 2015 in 177 mammal species. We find that the rate of population loss in terrestrial vertebrates is extremely high—even in “species of low concern.” In our sample, comprising nearly half of known vertebrate species, 32% (8,851/27,600) are decreasing; that is, they have decreased in population size and range. In the 177 mammals for which we have detailed data, all have lost 30% or more of their geographic ranges and more than 40% of the species have experienced severe population declines (>80% range shrinkage). Our data indicate that beyond global species extinctions Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.

The loss of biological diversity is one of the most severe human-caused global environmental problems. Hundreds of species and myriad populations are being driven to extinction every year (1⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–8). From the perspective of geological time, Earth’s richest biota ever is already well into a sixth mass extinction episode (9⇓⇓⇓⇓–14). Mass extinction episodes detected in the fossil record have been measured in terms of rates of global extinctions of species or higher taxa (e.g., ref. 9). For example, conservatively almost 200 species of vertebrates have gone extinct in the last 100 y. These represent the loss of about 2 species per year. Few realize, however, that if subjected to the estimated “background” or “normal” extinction rate prevailing in the last 2 million years, the 200 vertebrate species losses would have taken not a century, but up to 10,000 y to disappear, depending on the animal group analyzed (11). Considering the marine realm, specifically, only 15 animal species have been recorded as globally extinct (15), likely an underestimate, given the difficulty of accurately recording marine extinctions. Regarding global extinction of invertebrates, available information is limited and largely focused on threat level. For example, it is estimated that 42% of 3,623 terrestrial invertebrate species, and 25% of 1,306 species of marine invertebrates assessed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List are classified as threatened with extinction (16). However, from the perspective of a human lifetime it is difficult to appreciate the current magnitude of species extinctions. A rate of two vertebrate species extinctions per year does not generate enough public concern, especially because many of those species were obscure and had limited ranges, such as the Catarina pupfish (Megupsilon aporus, extinct in 2014), a tiny fish from Mexico, or the Christmas Island pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi, extinct in 2009), a bat that vanished from its namesake volcanic remnant.

Species extinctions are obviously very important in the long run, because such losses are irreversible and may have profound effects ranging from the depletion of Earth’s inspirational and esthetic resources to deterioration of ecosystem function and services (e.g., refs. 17⇓⇓–20). The strong focus among scientists on species extinctions, however, conveys a common impression that Earth’s biota is not dramatically threatened, or is just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss that need not generate deep concern now (e.g., ref. 21, but see also refs. 9, 11, 22). Thus, there might be sufficient time to address the decay of biodiversity later, or to develop technologies for “deextinction”—the possibility of the latter being an especially dangerous misimpression (see ref. 23). Specifically, this approach has led to the neglect of two critical aspects of the present extinction episode: (i) the disappearance of populations, which essentially always precedes species extinctions, and (ii) the rapid decrease in numbers of individuals within some of the remaining populations. A detailed analysis of the loss of individuals and populations makes the problem much clearer and more worrisome, and highlights a whole set of parameters that are increasingly critical in considering the Anthropocene’s biological extinction crisis.

In the last few decades, habitat loss, overexploitation, invasive organisms, pollution, toxification, and more recently climate disruption, as well as the interactions among these factors, have led to the catastrophic declines in both the numbers and sizes of populations of both common and rare vertebrate species (24⇓⇓⇓–28). For example, several species of mammals that were relatively safe one or two decades ago are now endangered. In 2016, there were only 7,000 cheetahs in existence (29) and less than 5,000 Borneo and Sumatran orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and P. abelli, respectively) (28). Populations of African lion (Panthera leo) dropped 43% since 1993 (30), pangolin (Manis spp.) populations have been decimated (31), and populations of giraffes dropped from around 115,000 individuals thought to be conspecific in 1985, to around 97,000 representing what is now recognized to be four species (Giraffa giraffa, G. tippelskirchi, G. reticulata, and G. camelopardalis) in 2015 (32).

An important antecedent to our work (25) used the number of genetic populations per unit area and then estimated potential loss on the basis of deforestation estimates and the species–area relationship (SAR). Given the recognized limitations of the use of SAR to estimate extinctions, our work provides an approach based on reduction of species range as a proxy of population extirpation. The most recent Living Planet Index (LPI) has estimated that wildlife abundance on the planet decreased by as much as 58% between 1970 and 2012 (4). The present study is different from LPI and other related publications in several ways, including that here we use all decreasing species of vertebrates according to IUCN, mapping and comparing absolute and relative numbers of species, and focusing on population losses. Previous estimates seem validated by the data we present here on the loss of local populations and the severe decrease in the population size of many others (see also refs. 3, 4, 6⇓–8, 26). Here we examine the magnitude of losses of populations of land vertebrate species on a global system of 10,000-km2 quadrats (Methods). Species vary from common to rare, so that our analysis, which includes all land vertebrate species (amphibians, birds, reptiles, and mammals) deemed as “decreasing” by IUCN, provides a better estimate of population losses than using exclusively IUCN data on species at risk. Obviously, common species decreasing are not ordinarily classified as species at risk. IUCN criteria provide quantitative thresholds for population size, trend, and range size, to determine decreasing species (28, 33). We also evaluate shrinking ranges and population declines for 177 species of mammals for which data are available on geographic range shrinkage from ∼1900 to 2015. We specifically focus on local extinctions by addressing the following questions: (i) What are the numbers and geographic distributions of decreasing terrestrial vertebrate species (i.e., experiencing population losses)? (ii) What are the vertebrate groups and geographic regions that have the highest numbers and proportions of decreasing species? (iii) What is the scale of local population declines in mammals—a proxy for other vertebrates? By addressing these questions, we conclude that anthropogenic population extinctions amount to a massive erosion of the greatest biological diversity in the history of Earth and that population losses and declines are especially important, because it is populations of organisms that primarily supply the ecosystem services so critical to humanity at local and regional levels.


Population extinctions today are orders of magnitude more frequent than species extinctions. Population extinctions, however, are a prelude to species extinctions, so Earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume. The massive loss of populations is already damaging the services ecosystems provide to civilization. When considering this frightening assault on the foundations of human civilization, one must never forget that Earth’s capacity to support life, including human life, has been shaped by life itself (47). When public mention is made of the extinction crisis, it usually focuses on a few animal species (hundreds out of millions) known to have gone extinct, and projecting many more extinctions in the future. But a glance at our maps presents a much more realistic picture: they suggest that as much as 50% of the number of animal individuals that once shared Earth with us are already gone, as are billions of populations. Furthermore, our analysis is conservative, given the increasing trajectories of the drivers of extinction and their synergistic effects. Future losses easily may amount to a further rapid defaunation of the globe and comparable losses in the diversity of plants (36), including the local (and eventually global) defaunation-driven coextinction of plants (3, 20). The likelihood of this rapid defaunation lies in the proximate causes of population extinctions: habitat conversion, climate disruption, overexploitation, toxification, species invasions, disease, and (potentially) large-scale nuclear war—all tied to one another in complex patterns and usually reinforcing each other’s impacts. Much less frequently mentioned are, however, the ultimate drivers of those immediate causes of biotic destruction, namely, human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption, especially by the rich. These drivers, all of which trace to the fiction that perpetual growth can occur on a finite planet, are themselves increasing rapidly. Thus, we emphasize that the sixth mass extinction is already here and the window for effective action is very short, probably two or three decades at most (11, 48). All signs point to ever more powerful assaults on biodiversity in the next two decades, painting a dismal picture of the future of life, including human life.

The doomsday scenario in this paper is the Sixth Extinction (February 3, 2015). The paper reaches the conclusion that not only it is not a new prediction but that we are already in the middle of the extinction process. The methodology was based on detailed investigation of databases that determined we are in a period of extinction both of entire species and also of individuals within non-extinct species. Additionally, the paper addresses the situations of the geographic areas surrounding these individuals and how they serve as proxies for further extinctions. The determination that this extinction is human-caused (anthropogenic) is based on its speed and global distribution. One common argument given the extinction of whole species is that the process is not the end of all life on Earth but a homogenization – a road to lower biodiversity (although presumably humans and domesticated animals, whether livestock or pets, would continue to survive). Examples of individuals dying out are putting this argument to rest.

Next week I will deal explicitly with the timing of the projected doomsday.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in administration, Anthropocene, Anthropogenic, Climate Change, IPCC, Sustainability, Trump | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Doomsday: The Simple (or Simplistic) Version

I am writing this blog on Saturday, one day before hurricane Irma is scheduled to make an unwelcome visit to Florida. Other unwanted weather events are taking place all around. Human impact, especially the undesirable variety, is taking a toll. The New York Times had a piece today that summarized the combination of some of these events in terms of the feeling of an apocalypse:

CLEWISTON, Fla. — Vicious hurricanes all in a row, one having swamped Houston and another about to buzz through Florida after ripping up the Caribbean.

Wildfires bursting out all over the West after a season of scorching hot temperatures and years of dryness.

And late Thursday night, off the coast of Mexico, a monster of an earthquake.

You could be forgiven for thinking apocalyptic thoughts, like the science fiction writer John Scalzi who, surveying the charred and flooded and shaken landscape, declared that this “sure as hell feels like the End Times are getting in a few dress rehearsals right about now.”

Or the street corner preacher in Harlem overheard earlier this week ranting about Harvey, Irma and Kim Jong Un, in no particular order.

Or the tens of thousands who retweeted this image of golfers playing against a raging inferno of a wildfire in Oregon.

And just last month darkness descended on the land as the moon erased the sun. Everyone thought the eclipse was awesome, but now we’re not so sure — for all the recent ruin seems deeply, darkly not coincidental.

If you thought that, you would be wrong, of course. As any scientist will tell you, nature doesn’t work that way.

Some of our esteemed communicators tried to shift the blame to supposedly sinful behavior:

Meanwhile, some of our key public servants who were appointed to take care of the consequences of these catastrophic events apparently felt insulted when anyone mentioned climate change as a contributing factor that needs addressing:

“Here’s the issue,” Pruitt told CNN in a phone interview. “To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm; versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced.”

“All I’m saying to you is, to use time and effort to address it at this point is very, very insensitive to this people in Florida.”

But isn’t it our responsibility to try to mitigate the risks not only to ourselves but also to our children and grandchildren?

These catastrophic events are happening right now. They are highly visible and cost numerous lives as well as billions of dollars to repair. All the science that we know points to these events continuing to grow at accelerated rates. Throughout this blog, I have framed this future as “the end of now,” where I define “now” as the lifespan of my grandchildren: toward the end of the century.

As I have repeatedly mentioned, such a possible grand doomsday scenario toward the end of the century still leaves us with enough time now to take steps to mitigate and thus prevent or minimize what could be a much larger catastrophe. The implementation of such options is a legitimate topic of discussion.

David Wallace-Wells’ piece in New York Magazine prompted that sort of dialogue. The response was visceral; some described it as fear mongering while others labeled it “climate disaster porn.”  Here I would like to come to the paper’s defense. What the paper is doing is a legitimate way of describing a possible doomsday, albeit without going into scientific details or offering possible mitigating actions. The paper describes a “simplistic doomsday” and thus many people hate it – including many of my students on the few occasions that I have presented such scenarios.

Wallace-Wells addresses heat death, the end of food, climate plagues, unbreathable air, perpetual war, permanent economic collapse, and poisoned oceans. I will paste some key paragraphs from the first and last sections of his paper as they are not self-explanatory. For the rest I recommend that readers reference the original publication.

I. ‘Doomsday’
It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today. And yet the swelling seas — and the cities they will drown — have so dominated the picture of global warming, and so overwhelmed our capacity for climate panic, that they have occluded our perception of other threats, many much closer at hand. Rising oceans are bad, in fact very bad; but fleeing the coastline will not be enough. Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.


IX. The Great Filter
Surely this blindness will not last — the world we are about to inhabit will not permit it. In a six-degree-warmer world, the Earth’s ecosystem will boil with so many natural disasters that we will just start calling them “weather”: a constant swarm of out-of-control typhoons and tornadoes and floods and droughts, the planet assaulted regularly with climate events that not so long ago destroyed whole civilizations. The strongest hurricanes will come more often, and we’ll have to invent new categories with which to describe them; tornadoes will grow longer and wider and strike much more frequently, and hail rocks will quadruple in size. Humans used to watch the weather to prophesy the future; going forward, we will see in its wrath the vengeance of the past. Early naturalists talked often about “deep time” — the perception they had, contemplating the grandeur of this valley or that rock basin, of the profound slowness of nature. What lies in store for us is more like what the Victorian anthropologists identified as “dreamtime,” or “everywhen”: the semi-mythical experience, described by Aboriginal Australians, of encountering, in the present moment, an out-of-time past, when ancestors, heroes, and demigods crowded an epic stage. You can find it already watching footage of an iceberg collapsing into the sea — a feeling of history happening all at once

The paper obviously incited many objections. The author has added a site at New York Magazine, which is considerably longer than the original article, to try to answer some of these critical comments. It is not a scientific paper and was not published in a scientific journal. It doesn’t conform to some of the most basic requirements of scientific publications, the most important of which is refutability. It doesn’t even qualify as “fake news” – a popular concept these days – because it doesn’t pretend to offer news. Nor is it an opinion. It is a call for action that was designed to shock people to into considering the scenario plausible enough to provoke arguments that might lead to political pressure and movement. This was a good enough reason for a reputable publication such as New York Magazine to offer the author a platform. The described methodology – chatting with scientists – is common among popular science “documentary” books that attempt to describe the future. It cannot be refuted because the scientists are not identified by name. People can only argue with the author. The timing of his descriptions and the scenarios on which his predictions are based are well defined. The timing is toward the end of the century under “business as usual scenarios” that I have discussed many times on this blog.

“The Great Filter” segment summarizes the doomsday scenarios. The effect it describes has officially been named the “Shifting Baseline Syndrome.”  Our future generations might not be even aware that they are in trouble. They might think that this is simply how nature works.

Next week I am going to address the doomsday issue from a much more solid scientific foundation to show more concretely that not only is this coming but we are in the middle of it. I want to emphasize that in spite of the urgency we still have time to act.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Climate-Related Doomsday – Early Signs: Harvey

Houston Market Street before and during HarveyFigure 1 Before and during Harvey

Mumbai monsoon floodFigure 2 Mumbai monsoon, August 2017

Most expensive hurricanes in the USFigure 3Cost of recent hurricanes in the US

The three figures above demonstrate early signs of a climate-related doomsday. Figure 1 shows Market Street in Houston both before and during Harvey last week. The side-by-side photographs look like two different worlds. People have referred to the hurricane-powered rain that flooded Houston – in many places reaching depths of close to two feet – as a biblical deluge. Indeed, throughout history, we often have turned to religion to account for natural events that we did not understand. This tendency is fine unless it freezes our resolve to mitigate our own impacts on the physical environment.

Wikipedia describes floods such as the one found in the Bible:

A flood myth or deluge myth is a narrative in which a great flood, usually sent by a deity or deities, destroys civilization, often in an act of divine retribution. Parallels are often drawn between the flood waters of these myths and the primeval waters found in certain creation myths, as the flood waters are described as a measure for the cleansing of humanity, in preparation for rebirth. Most flood myths also contain a culture hero, who “represents the human craving for life”.[1]

The flood myth motif is found among many cultures as seen in the Mesopotamian flood stories, Deucalion in Greek mythology, the Genesis flood narrative, Manu in Hinduism, Bergelmir in Norse Mythology, in the lore of the K’iche’ and Maya peoples in Mesoamerica, the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa tribe of Native Americans in North America, the Muisca, and Cañari Confederation, in South America, and the Aboriginal tribes in southern Australia.

As we can see, floods play a major role in countless religions; in many, they constitute divine retribution for human misbehavior – this fits with the principal elements of climate change. Almost all the religious texts allow for remediation of that wrath through a change in human behavior. Nearly half of the United States, including our government, appears reticent to make such changes.

Biblical deluges and their equivalents are almost always global. So are ours. Figure 2 shows a photograph from a Guardian piece on Mumbai, the largest city in India:

Heavy monsoon rains have brought Mumbai to a halt for a second day as the worst floods to strike south Asia in years continued to exact a deadly toll. More than 1,200 people have died across India, Bangladesh and Nepal as a result of flooding, with 40 million affected by the devastation. At least six people, including two toddlers, were among the victims in and around India’s financial capital. The devastating floods have also destroyed or damaged 18,000 schools, meaning that about 1.8 million children cannot go to classes, Save the Children warned on Thursday.

This is a worldwide problem.

Figure 3 shows the price tag associated with estimates of the damage that recent hurricanes have inflicted on the US. The cost it lists for Harvey is 40 billion dollars. However, while the source of the information is a reputable organization, it reflects an estimate presented at the beginning of the storm. There is no way that anybody could have accurately approximated the final economic impact. Indeed, a few days after that initial figure, some publications came out with an estimate of $160 billion and the September 2nd issue of The Economist – which features the flood on its front page – presented the cost as $100 billion. Real money. Imagine that occasionally, as is expected, we are going to be hit simultaneously by more than one storm of this intensity.

President Trump and others referred to Harvey as a 500-year-storm. Still others referred to it as a 1000-year-storm. This terminology is associated with the perceived probability of such an intense storm in a given year. So a 500-year-storm refers to the probability of 100/500 = 0.2% while a 1000-year-storm refers to a 0.1% probability in a given year.

These probabilities are inferred based on the history of the events – not on evaluation of future probabilities. The list in Figure 3 and the detection of a new hurricane, Irma, which is now crossing the Atlantic, are powerful indications that these historically-based probabilities are no longer valid and that the overarching occurrence we now refer to as climate change is bringing with it different, much higher, probabilities.

Shortly before Harvey hit, President Trump cancelled some of the major efforts that the Obama administration made to try to mitigate the impact of these changes. Business Insider covered the story:

Ten days before Hurricane Harvey descended upon Texas on Friday, wreaking havoc and causing widespread flooding, President Donald Trump signed an executive order revoking a set of regulations that would have made federally funded infrastructure less vulnerable to flooding.

Attribution of the changing climate to human activities is an important issue. Climate and weather have changed throughout Earth’s history (around 4.8 billion years). Direct human impact started only recently. The common starting reference point is the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the 18th century, because it drew its power from fossil fuels. In other words, hurricanes were around but the only clear human contribution to a storm like Harvey before that time was its name. However, it now borders on certainty that human-triggered (anthropogenic) climate change is a major cause in the variability and intensification of the weather events. “Harvey would have been here with or without human contributions,” is a meaningless statement. Yes, Harvey would have probably occurred but as a much less intense storm with a much milder impact. I will return to our attempts to quantify human attributions in future blogs. Here is a summary of the human attribution analysis of Harvey by a noted climatologist:

There are essentially two global warming mechanisms at play here, according to Mann. First, sea levels in the Houston region have risen by more than half a foot over the past few decades due to global warming. That obviously makes it much more likely for an area to flood.

The second — and more complicated — factor is the amount of moisture in the air. As Mann explained, the rising temperatures in the region add up to 1°C to 1.5°C higher temperatures than average a few decades ago. Based on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, Mann calculated that amounts to roughly 3 to 5 percent more moisture in the atmosphere — which means more rain.

“That large amount of moisture meant the potential for much greater rainfalls and greater flooding,” he noted.

He also goes into one last, but less certain, issue: It’s possible that global warming contributed to Harvey “stalling” near the Texas coast, due to “‘stationary’ summer weather patterns” that Mann argued global warming may contribute to. (He cited a recent paper in Nature about it.) This stalling is one of the reasons Harvey has become so dangerous: It’s expected to stay in the area for days, blasting the region with literally feet of rainfall.

“In conclusion, while we cannot say climate change ‘caused’ hurricane Harvey (that is an ill-posed question), we can say that it exacerbate several characteristics of the storm in a way that greatly increased the risk of damage and loss of life,” Mann wrote. “Climate change worsened the impact of Hurricane Harvey.”

Other climatologists agree with Mann. Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, told the Atlantic, “The human contribution can be up to 30 percent or so up to the total rainfall coming out of the storm. … It may have been a strong storm, and it may have caused a lot of problems anyway — but [human-caused climate change] amplifies the damage considerably.”

That helps explain how Harvey suddenly led to what experts have called a 500-year flood.

Other climatologists agree with this 30% attribution.

What about insurance against future events?

An editorial in the NYT summarizes the history of federal flood insurance and addresses necessary steps post-Harvey:

It was clear long before Hurricane Harvey slammed into Texas that the National Flood Insurance Program, the government’s most important means of recovering from such disasters, needed to be overhauled. It fails to account for the full extent of flood risk, encourages development in areas known to be flood-prone and is not realistically funded.

Congress created the program in 1968 after most private insurers stopped selling flood policies or began charging very high premiums because the business had become too risky.

In recent years, the staggering costs of storms like Katrina and Sandy have left the program, which has about five million policies, with a nearly $25 billion debt to the federal government.

Congress is to blame for this. It requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers the program, to subsidize premiums, but has not provided it with money to do so. Reform efforts in recent years have fallen short, but lawmakers have another chance to fix the program, which will lapse if not reauthorized by Sept. 30.

It is being reported that 85% of Houston homeowners don’t have flood insurance.

Stay tuned.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in administration, Anthropocene, Anthropogenic, Climate Change, Sustainability, Trump | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Doomsday Predictions – Disaster Porn?

Figure 1Doomsday Clock

Three weeks ago (before Charlottesville) I summarized the climate-change-related events that took place during my July vacation and promised to expand upon those issues. Given my necessary digression, I am reposting some of those elements here for easy reference. I am also including the relevant section of a critique of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel” movie, in which the critic equates his doomsday predictions to disaster porn.

Here’s a segment of my outline:

Distant Future: the end of the present century – i.e. my definition of “now” (the projected lifespan of my grandchildren):

However, to incorporate some of the sense of conflict that has been playing out between optimists and pessimists, here’s part of a joint critique of Al Gore’s new film and the David Wallace-Wells piece:

“An Inconvenient Sequel,” which opened in select cities on Friday and will open nationwide next week, arrives on the heels of a widely shared New York magazine article by David Wallace-Wells. The piece describes, in dramatic terms, the worst-case repercussions of climate change. “Absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells writes. Some climatologists objected to the article’s characterizations of their work, but the real controversy centered on its approach. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center, at Pennsylvania State University, declared that he was “not a fan of this sort of doomist framing,” and the sociologist Daniel Aldana Cohen described it as “climate disaster porn.”

I teach a graduate course on Physics and Society in which climate change and the transition to the Anthropocene are key components. One of the students last semester was clearly upset and left the course in the middle of the semester; she hated the idea of what she saw as doomsday scenarios masquerading as science. On the other hand, if we want to impact the future in such a way as to negate these predictions, we need to work on understanding how best to approach mitigation.

I didn’t like the Al Gore movie for a different reason. In my opinion, it did not put enough emphasis on the predicted impacts of business as usual scenarios – how a continuation of the ways in which we achieve our current standards of living (e.g. our present energy mix, population growth, water use, etc.) is causing/will cause destruction of the physical environment. “An Inconvenient Sequel” focused almost exclusively on climate events and Al Gore’s activities in the time period following his Oscar-winning first film. There was no discussion at all about how we figure out human contributions to these climate events. This omission detracts a considerable amount of credibility from the advocacy in the movie. It is difficult to make movies about the future or about how we attribute blame, but it is not impossible. His first movie did a much better job at including these important elements.

The two figures in this blog summarize some of the challenges. Figure 1 shows a doomsday clock:

The Doomsday Clock is a symbol which represents the likelihood of a man-made global catastrophe. Maintained since 1947 by the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists‘ Science and Security Board,[1] the Clock represents an analogy for the threat of global nuclear war. Since 2007, it has also reflected climate change[2] and new developments in the life sciences and technology that could inflict irrevocable harm to humanity.[3]

The Clock represents the hypothetical global catastrophe as “midnight” and The Bulletin’s opinion on how close the world is to a global catastrophe as a number of “minutes” to midnight. Its original setting in 1947 was seven minutes to midnight. It has been set backward and forward 22 times since then, the smallest-ever number of minutes to midnight being two (in 1953) and the largest seventeen (in 1991). As of January 2017[update], the Clock is set at two and a half minutes to midnight, due to a “rise of ‘strident nationalism‘ worldwide, United States President Donald Trump‘s comments over North Korea, Russia, and nuclear weapons.”[4][5] This setting is the Clock’s second-closest approach to midnight since its introduction.

Throughout its conceptual existence, the clock – although it allows for the possibility of other scenarios – has been heavily weighted towards world annihilation by way of nuclear holocaust (see February 2, 2016 blog). Here our focus will be climate change.

Figure 2IPCC projections of future climate change impacts based on two different scenarios

Figure 2 shows the IPCC’s projected impacts of climate change as estimated in its Fourth Assessment Report ten years ago (September 24, 2012 and October 14, 2014). One can see in the figure a gradual transition from yellow to orange. As we enter into the dark orange region, we see:

Few ecosystems can adapt; 50% of nature reserves cannot fulfill their objectives. Predicted extinction of 15 – 40% endemic species in global biodiversity hotspots.

This continues, as we progress further into the dark orange zone, with:

>4oC: Major extinctions around globe (as exemplified for USA and Australia). Likely extinctions of 200 – 300 species of New Zealand alpine plants.

We can arbitrarily define the transition from yellow to orange as the transition into end-of-the-world conditions and try to figure out why a respected sociologist and others labeled it disaster porn. Not being an expert in that subject or the use of the phrase, I assume that it stems from porn being considered “cheap” and not “real.” It is obvious, however, that porn is very real to both its participants and producers and it comes with a variety of prices. My job here is to make a case that doomsday scenarios cover a similar range of spectra – from viscerally frightening situations with limited quantitative details to rigorous scientific quantitative evaluations. All of these descriptions seek to encourage the masses to actively seek out ways to immediately implement policies and activities that could keep any sort of doomsday at bay for as long as possible.

Stay tuned and let me know where I succeed and where I fail.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Anthropocene, Anthropogenic, Climate Change, IPCC, Sustainability | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Never Again?? Charlottesville, Nazis, the Holocaust, and Climate Change

My original plan was to dedicate this blog, and several following ones, to pornography. Not the kind that you have in mind – this is not that kind of a blog – but the kind that the sociologist Daniel Aldana Cohen meant when he referred to David Wallace-Wells’ piece in New York Magazine and critiqued other recent efforts to explore the consequences of climate change. I also promised (August 8, 2017) to move away from my coverage of the Trump administration and to restore my focus to climate change.

The recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, were frightening enough to change my intentions.

Figure 1 – Members of the alt-right mimicking the Nazi salute

A demonstrator holds signs during a rally in response to the Charlottesville, Virginia car attack on counter-protesters after the “Unite the Right” rally organized by white nationalists, in Oakland, California, U.S., August 12, 2017. Picture taken August 12, 2017. REUTERS/Stephen Lam

Figure 2 – Sign carried by a counter-demonstrator

Figure 1, without the caption, could have been mistaken for a picture taken in Germany in the mid-1930s while Figure 2 shows a much more modern response from a young counter-demonstrator.

My background is immediately relevant to this situation and forced me to try to address what happened. I gave a summary of my earlier life in my first blog here, more than 5 years ago (April 22, 2012):

I was born in Warsaw, Poland in May, 1939. The first three years of my life were spent in the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis developed their plans for systematic Jewish genocide. Before the destruction of the Ghetto in 1943, I was hidden for a time on the Aryan side by a family friend, but a Nazi “deal” to provide foreign papers to escape Poland resulted in my mother bringing me back to the Ghetto. Then a Nazi double-cross sent the remnants of my family not to safety in Palestine, but to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp as possible pawns in exchange for German prisoners of war. As the war was nearing an end, in April 1945, we were put on a train headed to Theresienstadt, a concentration camp further from the front lines. American tank commanders with the 743rd tank battalion of the American 30th Division intercepted our train near Magdeburg in Germany, liberating nearly 2500 prisoners. Within the year, my mother and I began building new lives in Palestine.

The rest of that blog and the blog that followed tried to explain my perspective on the connection between the Holocaust and the impending disastrous future that unmitigated climate change could bring to us all. The prospective consequences of continuing careless business as usual practices will lead to what I called “self-inflicted genocide,” which is an alternative description of the doomsday scenario that Daniel Aldana Cohen labeled as porn. More on that in the next few blogs.

The show of Nazi symbolism in the violent demonstrations in Charlottesville that resulted in the murder of Heather Heyer and the serious wounding of many others, together with President Trump’s sick responses, caused me (and many others) to resurrect the slogan that titles this blog – with a large question mark.

To be a Holocaust survivor I have to be old. As my short bio describes, I am 78 years old. I was born three months before the start of WWII. Now, and on many other occasions, I am fully aware that I am part of the last generation that survived the Holocaust and the atrocities that the Nazis wrought upon the world. American soldiers saved me along with the rest of the world at that time and it is hard to believe that the same hate that inflamed Germany before WWII is now starting to do the same to American society.

I have convinced myself that – given I am the last Holocaust survivor at the school where I work – it is my duty to be part of the effort to stop the penetration of hate into the highest echelons of our country. I am too old to take part in the demonstrations to counter hate so the only activities that I can pursue are teaching, writing, speaking, and voting.

HBO’s short documentary filmed during the demonstrations, “Charlottesville: Race and Terror,” convinced me to join many others in contradicting President Trump’s attempts to find symmetry between the alt-right participants and the counter-demonstrators standing against hate. The alt-right participants were well organized, their slogans well coordinated, and in many cases even their “uniforms” matched. Their age distribution seems to be very narrow, tilted toward the younger generations, and their ranks were mostly populated by males. Some of their slogans such as “Blood and soil,” were directly plagiarized from Nazis in the 1930s, some, such as “Jews will not replace us,” were a bit more specific to the period. Others were modifications in response to the recent Black Lives Matter movement: demonstrators chanted, “White lives matter.” The resemblance to 1930s Germany was not to the Holocaust itself, but rather the SA (Sturmabteilung – Storm Detachment): the original paramilitary units of the Nazi party that ultimately perpetrated the atrocities of WWII.

There is also an abundance of parallel conspiracy theories between the two eras. Alex Jones, a prominent voice of the alt-right, is propagating the perception that Jewish actors mascaraded as members of the KKK. The HBO video includes a segment with David Duke, ex-grand wizard of the KKK, among the demonstrators. I guess that he must be part of the conspiracy.

The demonstrations did not only parallel 1930s Nazi Germany; they also reflected early 20th Century Ku Klux Klan history and their murderous actions in the US. The KKK in the South targeted Blacks while the Nazis primarily targeted Jews but neither movement spared other non-White or non-Aryan minorities.

The most frightening aspect of these events to a guy with my background is the apparent nod that the alt-right demonstrators are getting from the president of the United States. This makes the correlation with Nazi Germany almost complete. President Trump made the killing of Heather Heyer the only real crime in the event. Aside from this crime, he equated a false symmetry between the alt-right demonstrators and the anti-white-supremacy demonstrators. Fortunately for us now, as opposed to at the rise of the Nazis, and the height of the KKK, we have a powerful anti-Nazi and anti-KKK movement that is eager and ready to confront such demonstrations while the Germans and older American generations didn’t.

Some of the key players in the Trump administration are Jewish. It was reported that they were shaken and upset by the events but they didn’t resign. However, many voices on the right and left, in the business community and in the army raised their voices in protest. One such instance, directly related to my own background and my liberation by American soldiers will serve as an encouraging example and strengthen our hope that in spite of President Trump, America will not deteriorate into a Holocaust-equivalent reality.

Among the estimated thousands of alt-right demonstrators, many of whom carried firearms, social media zoomed in on one guy who was wearing a baseball hat with the insignia of the 82nd Airborne Division on it. The Washington Post covered the backlash: “He put on an 82nd Airborne cap and gave a KKK salute in Charlottesville. Vets had words”:

And the man in the hat — who hasn’t been publicly identified — drew rebuke after rebuke from the official twitter handle of the unit’s association. “Respectfully, anyone who thinks this man represents our culture and values has never worn the maroon beret … and never will,” one tweet for the 82nd’s Twitter account said.

Seventy years ago, members of the 82nd Airborne had fought against the Nazis. On a hot Saturday in 2017, someone wearing their hat was fraternizing with neo-Nazis.

The 82nd Airborne saw heavy fighting during World War II, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Paratroopers advanced into Germany and liberated the Wöbbelin camp, a subcamp of the Neuengamme concentration camp. At its height, Neuengamme held 5,000 prisoners, many of whom were diseased and starving. The unit saw nearly 7,000 battle casualties, according to the museum.

The man looks much too young to have been alive in WWII or at the height of the KKK atrocities. From the quoted feedbacks in the paper we have no idea how he got the hat.

I have a hat like this with the insignia of the 30th Division on it. I have it because I was granted an honorary membership in the Division for being a concentration camp survivor saved by its soldiers. The background of that Division is similar to the 82nd as described above. After discovering the identity of the soldiers that saved me, I have participated for the last 10 years in annual meetings of survivors and liberators around the country. Unsurprisingly, all of the liberators were soldiers in their late 80s and 90s. We became drinking buddies and shared stories. They viewed us, the survivors, as one of the main causes for which many of their friends gave their lives fighting the Nazis. They had nothing to do with the KKK-saluting guy that was photographed in Charlottesville.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Holocaust, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Conflict and Confusion

The Trump administration’s approach to climate-related, policy becomes clear from the following:

The administration gave “official” indication to the UN that it will abandon the Paris 2015 international agreement:

WASHINGTON — The White House formally notified the United Nations on Friday that it intends to abandon the Paris agreement on climate change but remains open to “re-engaging” on the accord.

The United States will participate in United Nations climate negotiations later this year despite its planned withdrawal, according to the administration’s statement of intent.

The letter has no legal weight and does not set in motion the United States’ departure from the pact of nearly 200 nations to curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, it is a political document that affirms President Trump’s declaration in June that the Paris agreement is a bad deal for America.

The US Justice Department has amplified its effort by to catch and prosecute leakers:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday that the Justice Department has more than tripled the number of leak investigations compared with the number that were ongoing at the end of the last administration, offering the first public confirmation of the breadth of the department’s efforts to crack down on unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information.

The announcement seemed designed both to reassure the president, who has criticized the attorney general as being “weak” on leak investigations, and to scare government officials away from talking to reporters about sensitive matters.

Sessions said he was devoting more resources to stamping out unauthorized disclosures, directing Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to actively monitor every investigation, instructing the department’s national security division and U.S. attorneys to prioritize such cases, and creating a new counterintelligence unit in the FBI to manage the work.

The administration is attempting to eliminate “Climate Change” from the vocabulary of the US government:

A series of emails obtained by the Guardian between staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA unit that oversees farmers’ land conservation, show that the incoming Trump administration has had a stark impact on the language used by some federal employees around climate change.

A missive from Bianca Moebius-Clune, director of soil health, lists terms that should be avoided by staff and those that should replace them. “Climate change” is in the “avoid” category, to be replaced by “weather extremes”. Instead of “climate change adaption”, staff are asked to use “resilience to weather extremes”.

The primary cause of human-driven climate change is also targeted, with the term “reduce greenhouse gases” blacklisted in favor of “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency”. Meanwhile, “sequester carbon” is ruled out and replaced by “build soil organic matter”.

A report by The New York Times that seemed to have stemmed from information leaked by government scientists appeared to demonstrate the impact of all these policy changes:

WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.

“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.

The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.

The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.

Except that in reality, there was no such suspense surrounding the publication of the report; it had already been released. The New York Times had just spectacularly failed to do its homework. I quickly found this out when I searched for more information on the report that hadn’t been aware of.

In fact, the report has been available and open to public comment as of the end of last year and can be downloaded in its final draft here.

Almost everybody else caught on immediately and The New York Times apologized. The Washington Post commented on the mistake:

The New York Times on Wednesday appended a correction to a story about a climate change study:

Correction: August 9, 2017
An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.

That correction, which sits at the foot of the story, dutifully straightens out the record. Yet given the magnitude of the screw-up, it should sit atop the story, surrounded by red flashing lights and perhaps an audio track to instruct readers: Warning: This story once peddled a faulty and damaging premise.

The report is long (close to 700 pages) but I’m including the Table of Contents and some of the background of its publication for your reference.

The report is certainly up to date regarding the extent of climate change, future forecasts, and evidence of the key role that humans are playing in the process. It seems counterintuitive that this is an official document of the US Government issued under the same administration that claimed climate change was a Chinese Hoax and that just removed our country from the only international agreement to try to mitigate the human impact on the problem. As I said, the report was opened to the public before the new administration took office. This week the White House Office of Science and Technology must decide whether to approve the final version. The White House has plenty of time to insert its own perspective.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Anthropogenic, Climate Change, IPCC, UN | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Back to Climate Change: A Summary of What Happened in July

Siberian craterFigure 1 Melting Siberian permafrost results in craters

 Antarctic iceberg detachment map

Figure 2Detachment of Antarctican Iceberg the size of Delaware

Even though I was on a vacation in Asia and Australia for a month, in this day and age it is easy enough to follow the news no matter where you are. I was trying to follow both the global news (through my electronic gadgets) and local news via English-language newspapers. Regardless of the scope of the publication, the hullabaloo made by President Trump’s administration dominated the news. It seems that whatever happens in the US is news everywhere. In the midst of all the craziness, climate change garnered almost no coverage. The blogs that I posted in July were written before I left so they do not reflect the news bias. Climate change was not in the news in July but that doesn’t mean that nature took a break as well. Nature and the human impact on the physical environment were very busy. Now that I’m back it’s time to return to my blog’s core questions: how climate change affects the global physical environment and what our options are to remediate the impacts on our children and grandchildren.

The two pictures (Figures 1 and 2) above show the most dramatic climate-change-related events from last month. Figure 1 illustrates the melting permafrost in Siberia. The frozen tundra is not melting gradually – and the melting process releases vast quantities of trapped organic gases that explode to form large craters. The gases are primarily made up of methane, which is 20 times (per molecule) more active as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The release of these trapped gases is one of the main mechanisms that enhance the scope of global climate change. Figure 2 shows a more exaggerated impact in terms of scale – the detachment of a new iceberg from the Antarctic Peninsula. The iceberg is around 2250 square miles; depending on the publication that you read, this is equivalent in size to the State of Delaware or four times the area of the city of London. Nobody that I know would claim that either phenomenon is solely caused by human activities. These sorts of events occurred long before humans even existed. However, nor will any friend of mine maintain that these occurrences are not going through major acceleration due to our warming climate. Similarly, they all agree that by changing the earth’s atmospheric chemistry with our increased carbon dioxide emissions, human activities are a major contributing factor in the warming atmosphere.

Two other related incidences took place last month that I want to mention here: Al Gore released a sequel to his Oscar- and Nobel-winning movie An Inconvenient Truth, and multiple major publications presented climate change-related doomsday scenarios that might occur by the end of the century. One such projection was David Wallace-Wells’ article, “The Uninhabitable Earth” in New York Magazine.

I have organized some of the climate-change-related issues that surfaced in July into three categories and some subcategories:

My new semester starts at the end of August. As usual, I’ll be teaching an introductory course on climate change. This blog is a great help in my teaching so the next few blogs will expand on the outline above.

However, to incorporate some of the sense of conflict that has been playing out between optimists and pessimists, here’s part of a joint critique of Al Gore’s new film and the David Wallace-Wells piece:

“An Inconvenient Sequel,” which opened in select cities on Friday and will open nationwide next week, arrives on the heels of a widely shared New York magazine article by David Wallace-Wells. The piece describes, in dramatic terms, the worst-case repercussions of climate change. “Absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells writes. Some climatologists objected to the article’s characterizations of their work, but the real controversy centered on its approach. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center, at Pennsylvania State University, declared that he was “not a fan of this sort of doomist framing,” and the sociologist Daniel Aldana Cohen described it as “climate disaster porn.” Wallace-Wells, for his part, acknowledged that his piece was “alarmist,” and proudly so. “We should be alarmed,” he wrote after its publication. (Earlier this month, the biologist Paul Ehrlich used a similar defense after co-authoring a study that warned of a coming “annihilation” of vertebrates. “I am an alarmist,” Ehrlich told the Washington Post. “My colleagues are alarmists. We’re alarmed, and we’re frightened. And there’s no other way to put it.”)

Psychologists have studied the dynamics of what advertisers call “fear appeals,” and they have found that while fear is very good at getting our attention, it’s not very good at keeping it. For that, the scary stuff must be followed by solutions that are small enough to be practical but large enough to be meaningful. Wallace-Wells’s article, “The Uninhabitable Earth,” successfully got attention, quickly becoming the most-viewed article in New York’s history.

I’ll look into the clash between more hopeful scientists and those who promote doomsday scenarios next week.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Anthropocene, Climate Change, Sustainability, UN | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Visible Transition to the Middle Class

I am back from a family vacation that took me to Australia, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and a few other Asian countries. I still haven’t completely recuperated from the jet lag (distance, duration, and age) so this blog will be heavy on photographs that I took on the trip. As usual, I tried to look around to see if I could identify any markers with useful global implications that I could use in class and include in the blog. One of the interesting aspects of the countries that I visited is that they span a range from developing to developed nations, starting with Cambodia on one end and ending with Australia on the other.

Table 1 shows the GDP/Capita (PPP – US$) of these countries (taken from the IMF 2016 data). I also included China and the world as a whole to give context. I wrote blogs (August 11 and 18, 2015) that addressed similar issues after my vacation in China and intend to correlate some of the data from these countries with what I covered then.

Table 1

Country 2016 GDP/Capita (PPP) (US$)
World 16,138
Cambodia 3,500
Vietnam 6,499
China 15,399
Thailand 16,888
South Korea 37,740
Australia 48,899

Last week’s blog discussed the global shift taking place in primary carbon emissions origins from the production of electricity to transportation. My analysis points to the growth of the global middle class as the main cause of this shift. “Global Trends” described the group as follows:

There are multiple applicable definitions of what constitutes membership in the middle class. The International Futures model that we use in this report focuses on per capita consumption expenditures rather than GDP per capita. In that model, middle-class membership is defined as per capita household expenditures of $10-50 per day at PPP. Goldman Sachs used a comparable GDP per capita of $6,000-30,000 per year, which yields a similar estimate of 1.2 billion middle-class people in the world in 2010. Kharas (OECD study) calculated the number of those in the middle class at 1.85 billion in 2009; Ravallion (World Bank) calculated that 2.64 billion people were in the middle class in 2005.

Going back to Table 1, it is clear that Australia and South Korea are fully developed countries while the other countries in Southeast Asia that I visited are in various stages of development. Cambodia has yet to reach the “middle class” level; Vietnam is on the lower end and China and Thailand rest in the middle of the scale.

The transportation transition from bicycles to cars in China was mostly generational. These other countries’ transitions from scooters to automobiles have been much more gradual.

Figures 1 and 2 show “typical” urban traffic in Hanoi and Bangkok. Thailand has a similar GDP/Capita to China, and in the Thai capital of Bangkok, traffic looks almost identical to that which dominated Shanghai when I went two years ago – almost entirely made up of automobiles and not much different from what you would see in other large metropolitan areas like Seoul, Sidney, or my home of New York City. The traffic in Hanoi, which sits on the lower end of the middle class scale, is more of a mix of scooters and cars.

Figure 1 – Traffic in Bangkok, Thailand

Figure 2 – Traffic in Hanoi, Vietnam

Figures 3 and 4 show a coffeehouse in Hanoi with its predominant clientele of socializing youngsters and their preferred transportation.

Figure 3 – Coffee shop in Hanoi

Figure 4 – “Parking lot” near the coffee shop from Figure 3

Figures 5 and 6 show the loading of extra-large loads on a scooter and a bike. Figure 5 was taken at a painting gallery near the coffee shop in Hanoi while Figure 6 is from an exhibit at a museum in the same city. It is worth noting that the latter has been deemed worthy of such display.

Figure 5 – A loaded up scooter in Hanoi

Figure 6 – A fully loaded bike, as shown at a museum in Hanoi

Families riding together on scooters (Figure 7) are a common sight in both Vietnam and Cambodia that makes me extremely nervous. I have no idea about any safety rules or regulations in place but safety doesn’t seem to be their primary concern.

Figure 7 – Family transportation near Siem-Reap, Cambodia

Starting next week I will get back to climate change. The headline-dominating stories here in the US and around the world are starting to bore me and many others. Climate change doesn’t seem to be at the forefront of the news now but many things are in motion behind the spotlight and it’s time to refocus.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment