16 September 2013

Is climate change already dangerous? (1)

by David Spratt

First in a series
Download full report
… the (climate) disruption and its impacts are now growing much more rapidly than almost anybody expected even a few years ago. The result of that, in my view, is that the world is already experiencing ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system’… The question now is whether we can avoid catastrophic human interference in the climate system.
— John Holdren, senior advisor to President Barack Obama 
on science and technology issues, 2008
The stated purpose of international climate negotiations is to avoid “dangerous” climate change or, more formally, to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. Most of the climate action movement and most NGOs identify with this goal.

 But if climate change is already “dangerous”, what then is our purpose?
  • To return the planet to a safe climate (Holocene conditions)? 
  • To accept that climate change is already irretrievably dangerous state of affairs? In which case the purpose instead becomes …
  • To prevent a plunge into an even worse “catastrophic” breakdown of human society and planetary and climate system elements?
And if conditions existing today for some elements of the climate system and the existing greenhouse gas levels and radiative forcing are already sufficient to push more climate system elements past their tipping points and create “catastrophic” breakdown without any further emissions, what then is our purpose?

This paper sets out the evidence that dangerous climate change has already occurred and canvasses possible responses.


1a. Safe boundary

A landmark research paper by Rockstrom, Steffen et al. in 2009 established that “human activities have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state… The result could be irreversible and, in some cases, abrupt environmental change, leading to a state less conducive to human development…” They observed that 
“a new era has arisen, the Anthropocene, in which human actions have become the main driver of global environmental change”.

To meet the challenge of maintaining the Holocene state, the authors proposed a framework based on “planetary boundaries” which “define the safe operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system and are associated with the planet’s biophysical subsystems or processes”. The boundaries are “values for control variables that are either at a ‘safe’ distance from thresholds — for processes with evidence of threshold behaviour — or at dangerous levels — for processes without evidence of thresholds”.

The authors proposed nine boundaries, including a climate boundary that “human changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations should not exceed 350 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and that radiative forcing should not exceed 1 watt per square metre (W/m2) above pre-industrial levels”.

But CO2 concentrations now exceed 400 ppm by volume, and the 2007 IPCC report estimated greenhouse gas forcings of 3 (2.5–3.5) W/m2 above pre-industrial levels.  By this metric, climate change is now clearly dangerous, exceeding the safe boundary by wide margins: more than 50 ppm CO2 (equivalent to +0.5ÂșC of warming) and by more than 1-2 W/m2.

1b. “Burning embers”: five concerns

Figure 1: The updated “reasons for concern”
The “burning embers” diagram of the third IPCC report in 2001 was revised and updated by Smith, Schneider et al. in 2009, and will be updated again in the new 2014 IPCC report to include the colour purple to indicate worsening climate risks.  It provides five “reasons for concern”:
  1. Risk to unique and threatened systems;
  2. Risk of extreme weather events;
  3. Distribution of impacts;
  4. Aggregate (total economic and ecological) impacts; and
  5. Risk of large-scale discontinuities (abrupt transitions, “tipping points”).
A tipping point is a step change, or passing of a critical threshold, in a major earth-climate system component, where a small push or change unleashes a bigger change in the component through positive feedbacks, which amplify the change.  The classic case in global warming is the ice–albedo feedback, where decreases in the ice cover area change surface reflectivity, trapping more heat and producing a temperature rise and further ice loss.  A discussion of tipping points and the limitations of current tipping point science may be found a future post in this series.

This overview focuses on Arctic tipping points (concern 1. above).  It is beyond this paper’s scope to provide comprehensive and robust evidence for all five concerns, but one can note in passing that recent climate-change impacted extreme weather events, such as Superstorm Sandy, would reasonably fall within the definitions of concerns 2. and 4.  The disproportionate and sizeable impacts of climate change on poor and developing nations, which have already been documented by UN agencies and aid organisations, constitute reasonable evidence for concern 3.  The imminent loss of most of the world’s coral reef systems clearly qualifies under 1., and so on.
 Next post: Case studies on dangerous climate change for Arctic sea ice and Greenland


  1. David - this is a fine piece of work, and sorely needed.

    With regard to the recommendations for necessarily radical action for mitigation in addition to stringent Emissions Control, I wonder if you'd agree that the imperative of Carbon Recovery - via widespread native afforestation for biochar - is actually dependent on the successful deployment of one or more modes of Albedo Restoration, without which intensifying climate destabilization seems highly unlikely to allow the establishment and retention of the requisite areas of new forests ?

    One typo worth getting is in Kevin Andersen's statement where "astrology" should read "austrology" as it refers to the 'Austrian' school of economics.

    In case you haven't seen it, Aubrey Meyer at GCI has written a fine critique of the exclusion of the feedbacks from AR5 due to intellectually corrupt input by UKMO, with its deficiencies demonstrated on the CBAT analysis tool, which may be of interest.



  2. So, do you plan to get rich while Paris burns?

    You are a prolific writer, too good to be true, give it away if you really mean what you say. Hansen doesn't charge for his reports, you do. Hansen doesnt go waco trying to scare people into buying in into his research, you do. I would like to believe you are honest but you make it hard. No info on you anywhere, very little. And you are not climate expert, neither is your partner.

    1. Anonymous -
      since you lack the integrity even to sign your ad hominem smears,
      it is hard to take your comment as anything but incompetent malicious trolling.

      As for the absurd criticism of David somehow profiteering by charging for his writing -
      which any writer has a perfect right to do if they choose -
      it seems you missed the link under the image of the report above,
      where it says:
      "Download full report"