Who is James G. Anderson and What Does He Know About Climate Change?

 



Recently, I had an opportunity to repost a video which I viewed several years ago from Harvard Professor James G. Anderson regarding climate change. I have actually watched the video two or three times in the past, but there are certain parts that have now become more interesting as time has moved forward. 

In the video, Anderson reveals why the term "global warming" is very inappropriate and doesn't accurately describe what is really happening. Then he describes what will happen as times moves forward with warmth and moisture entering the stratosphere as a result of climate change - as ice continues being removed from both poles, eventually the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles will disappear. This is a hugely important distinction, as the global climate system today utterly depends on those temperature differences for the way it behaves. I will go into more detail regarding this phenomenon in my next article and how it will affect the planet's oceans. The existence of plants and animals relies not only on this climactic behavior, but also on having an intact ozone layer. Essentially, climate change is eliminating BOTH the current climactic behavior AND the ozone layer. No ozone layer means that staple crops will be fried with UV radiation along with everything else sunlight shines on. No staple crops means no food. Stratospheric moisture caused by climate change is causing more damage to the ozone layer, but so are extreme wildfires (also caused by climate change). 

Once the information seeps in, it becomes obvious that trees will die off as well. No trees and no plants means very little life will remain on the planet. It is made clear that just like many Arctic, Antarctic, permafrost, ice sheet, and glacier experts attest to; once the ice is gone, so too will we vanish. It is also explained that these changes will reach tipping points, which are IRREVERSIBLE in nature. 

Anderson further reveals that extreme weather events over the Great Plains of the US are capable of injecting water into the stratosphere in the summer. This point now is also being seen in other areas such as over the Pacific Ocean as seen in this article. Here is another similar study pointing to the moistening of the stratosphere causing a reduction of ozone and and increasing climate change impacts, among other things. Yet another new article points to a larger than usual ozone hole.

The part I disagree with (along with many other scientists and professors) is his stance on energy requirements and/or current infrastructure being able to be powered by "renewable" energy. The only way society could be powered by current forms of "renewable" energy is if we existed on about 15% of current global energy usage. Mostly, this is due to the current electrical grid being unable to transmit the sheer level of energy necessary to replace the energy being supplied currently by fossil fuels, especially liquid fuels. Needless to say, this isn't likely to occur until the fossil fuel platform can no longer be maintained. Some improvement in the capacity of the electrical grid may occur in the near term, but energy and resource decline render the idea of anything more substantial fairly remote at best. More on this particular topic can be found in Tom Murphy's new book, Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet or Alice Friedemann's new book, Life After Fossil Fuels.

Another topic which Anderson explains about climate change is that the method of measuring climate change, the global mean temperature change, is the least articulate way of describing what is occurring. He goes on to explain oceanic thermal storage and the latent heat of fusion of water to point out why measuring global climate change through global average temperature differences is the worst way to describe the severity of climate change. 

Finally, the three things Anderson concludes are necessary quantitatively to ameliorate climate change are:

1) Terminate adding more carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere [where we are already over 500 PPM CO2e];

2) Draw carbon dioxide levels back down to 300 PPM to reach stability; and

3) Cool the planet to reform and stabilize the cryosphere.

Anyone who follows climate change seriously already can tell you that not one of these is actually feasible today. Now that natural positive feedback loops are pouring more emissions into the atmosphere, terminating emissions becomes impossible. See also articles about ocean heat uptake and a study regarding permafrost thaw. There is no known technology which can draw CO2 levels down on a relevant scale in a timeline necessary, and natural negative feedbacks are in serious decline. There is also no known technology which can cool the planet without serious side effects to climatic patterns and possible agricultural disaster causing massive starvation for millions if not billions of people. 

So, this takes us back to the fact that those 3 required items to ameliorate climate change are in actuality denial of reality. Those who think they are possible are suffering from optimism bias and not comprehending what it would take for humanity to experience radical transformation. Further evidence points to a lack of agency to accomplish these tasks in the first place. At the end of the day, we see that this is precisely why we are looking at NTHE as the eventual outcome of these predicaments. The one item which I haven't mentioned (yet) is because Anderson didn't bring it up, but which has even worse prognostications for climate change and extinction - hydrogen sulfide - and this is the topic for my next article!

More info and research: https://www.arp.harvard.edu/our-research







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to Problems, Predicaments, and Technology

Image
Welcome to my new blog - titled Problems, Predicaments, and Technology -  because that is the title to a short article I wrote over a year ago to point out the difference between problems and predicaments (often called dilemmas ) and explain the role technology use (and the culture surrounding it) has had in creating most of the predicaments we face today. While this blog is mainly focused on Ecological Overshoot, Abrupt Climate Disruption ( ACD ) and Energy and Resource Decline (generally associated with peak oil and collapse), there are a myriad of other predicaments closely associated with these three that will also be covered. Many scientists focus a large amount of their lives trying to figure out how to solve these predicaments as if they are problems in the hopes of coming up with a way to at least mitigate some of the harm society is doing to life on this planet. My efforts here are to point out that in a very real sense, this has been rooted in denial of reality  and opti
Read more

What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation?

Image
Today we shall investigate this question: What would it take for humanity to experience radical transformation of individual and collective consciousness within the next decade? This picture looks inviting, doesn't it? But does it realistically represent the world we collectively live in today? In one word, NO. One look at the news stories of today can easily show how individuals, groups, corporations, and nations of all stripes are arguing and fighting for attention, for purposes, and for goals and strategies. Look at social media and it is ripe with every flavor of disagreement known to society. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there are few things everyone can agree on, and even when one IS found, nobody can agree on the ways to solve what everyone agreed the problems are. Now, throw in a PREDICAMENT instead of a problem and guess what happens? From my experience, when a predicament is put into the mix, most people still look at it from the same standpoint the
Read more

Denial of Reality

Image
  In my last written post (to clarify the difference between the files, which contain only links to outside material), I mentioned denial of reality. You might wonder what this has to do with climate change and extinction. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful mental issues that affects humans. Rob Mielcarski explains the evolution of how this came to be, quote: " The singular emergence of human intelligence, and its ability to write and read this paragraph, evolved in a gene controlled machine with an unusually powerful computer, that was created by an improbable simultaneous adaptation for an extended theory of mind with denial of reality, and whose complexity was enabled by the increased energy per gene provided by mitochondria, that resulted from an accidental endosymbiosis of two prokaryotes, powered by an unintuitive chemiosmotic proton pump, that originated in an alkaline hydrothermal vent, on 1 of 40 billion planets, in 1 of 100 billion galaxies, and that plane
Read more

More Cognitive Dissonance

Image
  In my last post , I expressed my concerns regarding methane emissions along with the growing speed which our collective predicaments appear to be gaining. Then I explained precisely why we have thus far not made any real progress on these predicaments based upon our collective denial , which has a considerable amount to do with our basic human psychology. In conclusion, the reality is that very few people are actually paying an ounce of real attention. What they are paying attention to are all the distractions - the hype, advertising, marketing, and propaganda. Today I bring more evidence of the increasing speed of these predicaments as I recall some of my articles which I had privately hoped might be a long way off into the future. I'm not one to try to evade uncomforting news. If I was, I most certainly wouldn't be reading and watching these articles, reports, studies, videos, and other media to try to understand and comprehend fully where we are and where we're heade
Read more

Fantasies, Myths, and Fairy Tales

Image
  Advertisement from the mid-20th century I have often used this expression (the title) to describe many things people tend to think of as solutions for one thing or another that either are not solutions or are unrealistic at best in terms of actually solving something. For anyone just joining these articles, this post  will help get you started so as to be able to comprehend what this article is about.  As I have expressed before, my deep passion is to help explain where we are (as a species), how we got here, why we are in this mess, and what can and/or cannot be done to "solve" these predicaments. My very first post explained the difference between problems with answers or solutions and predicaments (or dilemmas) with outcomes. In it, we discovered that predicaments don't have solutions, and that every solution proffered for a predicament winds up causing new problems and/or predicaments or comes with unacceptable costs or just simply doesn't solve anything. The re
Read more

What is NTHE and How "near" is Near Term?

Image
I distinctly remember my first introduction to the initialism (or abbreviation or acronym) "NTHE" which ushered me into a whole new set of exploration. I was a member of a climate change group on Facebook at the time (which I had been a member of for quite some time) and I saw a post which was discussing it. I hadn't seen this abbreviation before and wondered what it meant, so I did a search and a whole list of links was presented (as usual) along with the spelled out version, Near Term Human Extinction. I clicked on one which took me to a website blog by Dave Pollard . I started reading and was introduced to another person, Carolyn Baker, with whom Dave had a video interview with. Through this video, I was introduced to another person, a professor by the name of Guy McPherson. A video of him presenting information at an Indiana university, DePauw, where my grandmother attended, was available; so I watched it. The information was stark and I noticed the looks on the ki
Read more

So, What Should We Do?

Image
  Pictures of wildfire damage at Glacier National Park in Montana 2016 What type of activities will help in reducing the effects of ecological overshoot? I'm often asked this question when I point out that solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear energy, hydroelectric dams, EVs, and all other technological devices will not help climate change, pollution loading, or any other predicament under the parent predicament of ecological overshoot: "Well, what are your solutions?" Sadly, this question assumes that I am pointing out a PROBLEM, not a predicament. Predicaments don't have solutions. So, I don't have a solution (and nobody else does either, despite claims to the contrary - more on that in a couple of paragraphs). But I can tell them what WON'T help. Buying more stuff, REGARDLESS of what it is, WILL NOT HELP. Because ecological overshoot is a predicament with an outcome and not a problem with a solution , people need to adjust their expectations accordingly.
Read more