World of 2030

[be cause]

Thank God we're all spiritual beings .. what ever way we f##k the planet we'll keep on rocking b.c.

[Neven]

Well, I am a short-term pessimist and long-term optimist. I think technology will catch up with the problem eventually.
I created two "Furry" backgrounds for my stories and role-playing. In the Mammaloids (currently being retconned) global warming is a second order issue...maybe a meter or two of sea level rise over the Third Millennium (the first order issue is Humanity fighting, and losing, a series of wars with genetically engineered anthropomorphic animals). In GURPS Aesop the year is 1994 but technology is at World War One levels, so global warming is hardly on the horizon (the anthropomorphic animals are magical in origin).

I think you meant to post this in the RHJunior Forum, but accidentally posted it here.

[Archimid]

Nonetheless, you should always look at costs relative to gdp,

Not true. You should use the best tools for the job at hand. GDP can be used as a normalizer for inflation, but you must understand what the GDP really is before you use it.

since GDP grows faster than inflation,

Halt right there. GDP may grow faster, slower and even the opposite direction of inflation. GDP and inflation are different phenomena, related in some ways but independent of each other. They do not represent the same thing.

 

therefore the value of buildings, infrastructure, etc grows faster than inflation meaning that if the same % of them gets lost to flood/fire, etc, its real (CPI-adjusted) value always goes up.

Go ahead and revise your inference. If GDP always went up and always faster than inflation your inference have some validity ( but not in this argument)

(BTW US GDP almost trpled in REAl terms from 1980 to 2018)

BTW during the 70's inflation went up as GDP went down in the US. Not fun.

So the correct method is either nominal losses relative to nominal GDP, or real losses relative to real GDP.

42.

The correct method to answer what question?

Have the cost of natural disasters increased?

After adjusting for inflation the answer is very clear. Yes.

If we adjust by GDP, then the answer is also yes, even in the US, who boasts the highest GDP growth in the world. In other parts of the world with high inflation and even negative GDP growth, but with about the same increase in climate disasters, the numbers must be much worse.

Has the increase in natural disasters cost had a negative impact in economic growth indicators in the US?

No. And the GDP would be the correct tool to come to that conclusion. The "negative local growth" increasing disasters cause and real non monetary impact of the disasters are a different topic.

To bring it back on topic, I reiterate my prediction.  If disaster costs (adjusted for inflation) simply stay at the 2010's level (and BAU) by 2030 the world will be much worse than we are now. We might already be past peak humanity.

[oren]

2030: Humanity will continue on a BAU trajectory (optimistic: a Green BAU). GHG levels will continue rising more or less along RCP8.5. Tensions will be rising, and more individual countries will join the march to collapse, but civilization itself will still be intact (I expect the global collapse to happen mid-century).
And the ASIF will still be infested with lukewarmists and closeted AGW deniers.

Edit: the 2012 record will be easily broken, and in all probability the first BOE of <1M km2 will have happened already.

[bbr2314]

2030

The US / Canada / Australia

*Mostly the same for the largest cities
*Some regions and cities prone to minor catastrophes, with at least two events of Harvey's magnitude or greater occurring by this point
*Increasing populations of homeless individuals + families in the cities
*Business as usual for most

Europe

*Large changes possible in largest cities, minor unrest becoming much more common
*Increasing populations of homeless
*Large influx of refugees from Africa and Asia
*Major political instability, pending or possible collapse of EU, reformation of new political coalitions based on vulnerability to migration quite likely, extremist politics taking national governments by this point

Africa

*Largest cities are 1.5-2X the population of today
*Growing urban populations result in increasing perceived stability, however,
*Growing urban populations also become increasingly vulnerable to DISEASE
*By 2030 Africa will be on the verge of a major population correction

Asia

*Largest cities are 1.5-2X the population of today in developing regions
*China transitions to clean energy but has major social unrest and civil conflict as construction boom ends
*India and Pakistan have full scale conflict, possibly involving nuclear weapons
*Environmental degradation becomes staggering in most tropical regions
*By 2030 Asia will also be almost as due as Africa for a population correction

NET RELATIVE CHANGES

*The US, Canada, and Australia will have the most relative stability due to distance from the largest waves of potential refugees
*Europe is the region of highest income that is most vulnerable to political instability due to large refugee fluxes and faces largest potential relative decline in quality of life for ordinary citizens
*Situation likely to stay unchanged for most urban residents of Earth BUT
*Severe population corrections become increasingly likely in parts of Africa and southern Asia with a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan an event of increasing probability
*Net flow of capital and highest income individuals will favor stability and means to fund stopgap environmental intervention in the US, Canada, Australia, and wealthy areas of eastern Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore)

[El Cid]

This one to Archimid:

Since I have been working with economic statistics for 30+yrs and you do not have a correct understanding of these statistics here is a short primer :

REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation. Here is a chart for the US since the 50s:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%. This means that the output of the country grew 3% more than inflation on average every year. The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things). The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation). The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth. Since the latter has grown 2-3-4% per year annually on average, therefore you can understand that nominal GDP growth constantly outpaced the growth of nominal prices ie. inflation. What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

Example:

You eran 1000 dollars per year. You incur a cost of 100 dollars. That's a big hit, 10% of your annual income. 10 years pass, inflation is 30% during that time, but now your salary is 2600 dollars. You incur the same cost: 100 dollars in old money, which is 130 dollars because of inflation. CPI adjusted the loss is the same, however it is now only 5% of your annual income, much more bearable, since you earn more (you had "real gdp growth" so to speak of). Consider GDP your salary and you will understand why this matters. I hope this makes it clear.

[Archimid]

REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation.

Why does the GDP must be adjusted for inflation?  Do you know this answer? If you do, then apply the same concept to disaster cost. The REAL disaster cost is the disaster cost adjusted by inflation.

Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%.

You said GDP always went up, yet in the graph you posted it clearly shows many times GDP has gone down, with the 70's having many years of negative GDP growth and high inflation.

The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things)

Yes, that's what GDP growth measures. Productivity, not value.

The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Very much so, but productivity growth is not value. It represents economic growth, not the value of things within the economy.

Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation)

"not costs in themselves" wow.  You want me to consider cost as proportion of the GDP and ignore the actual cost. Sorry but no. If GDP was salary and I followed that advise with items I purchased that is a sure path to bankruptcy. I'm sorry, but the actual cost matters and it is extremely important information.

The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth.

The productivity of the economy is certainly determined by GDP growth, but only after an inflation adjustment. In the same way the true cost of natural disaster (monetary value) is the cost of natural disasters after adjusting for inflation.

What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

You are so close to getting it. Let's use your analogy. Let's say GDP is like a salary and natural disaster cost are like items you might purchase.

1. The cost of the items are completely independent from your salary. If you want to know the value of an item overtime you adjust the prices for inflation and compare. Salary is completely independent of that comparison. The same is true for GDP vs inflation. Adjusting for inflation tells you the actual cost, regardless of GDP growth.

2. When making the decision to purchase an item, salary does matter. The lower the price of the item relative to the salary the less significant the price becomes. For someone with a low salary buying a bowl of rice for 5 dollars might be a significant expense. To someone with a high salary the same bowl of rice for 5 dollars might be an insignificant percent.  The cost of the bowl of rice remains unchanged.

3. Salary and cost are not the only factor when purchasing an item. For example, some people have very high salaries but also have very high debt loads or costs of living. For such high salaried people the 5 dollar bowl of rice might be out of their reach.


Do you understand the difference now?

[Klondike Kat]

This one to Archimid:

Since I have been working with economic statistics for 30+yrs and you do not have a correct understanding of these statistics here is a short primer :

REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation. Here is a chart for the US since the 50s:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%. This means that the output of the country grew 3% more than inflation on average every year. The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things). The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation). The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth. Since the latter has grown 2-3-4% per year annually on average, therefore you can understand that nominal GDP growth constantly outpaced the growth of nominal prices ie. inflation. What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

Example:

You eran 1000 dollars per year. You incur a cost of 100 dollars. That's a big hit, 10% of your annual income. 10 years pass, inflation is 30% during that time, but now your salary is 2600 dollars. You incur the same cost: 100 dollars in old money, which is 130 dollars because of inflation. CPI adjusted the loss is the same, however it is now only 5% of your annual income, much more bearable, since you earn more (you had "real gdp growth" so to speak of). Consider GDP your salary and you will understand why this matters. I hope this makes it clear.

Well said.  Everyone should be able to understand that now.

[magnamentis]

always interesting to see several participants meaning the same, being right and ending up with in a dispute because of a different angle, different wording and not to first agreeing on terms.

may i remind you all that a cilinder is a circle from one (top) angle and a square from another (side) angle?

it's such a waste of energy that we, and that includes myself of course, alway need so much energy to come to terms while sharing the same or a very similar view.

this, just to make sure it's understood is a compliment to all of you, combined with a call to increas the angles and perspectives how to look at things and express them.

[kassy]

The REAL disaster cost is the disaster cost adjusted by inflation.

Using numbers to make it objective sounds good but do they cover the whole story?
No they don´t.

It also depends on the disasters. Species that die out don´t come back but you can rebuild the beach houses until people don´t want to live there anymore when too much disasters hit close in time.

And of course the REAL cost does not cover individual human tragedy while that too is real.

[Archimid]

Using numbers to make it objective sounds good but do they cover the whole story?

Not even close.

[oren]

All else being equal, disaster damage should have gone down sharply thanks to orders-of-magnitude-better forecasting, warning systems, and more suitable building codes.
The fact that this hasn't happened should tell you something. But that is really off-topic here.

[gerontocrat]

Why the concentration on disasters? My guess it is a story of transition from places being livable, to places becoming less livable, to places becoming unlivable.

Extract from recent post by AbruptSLR

In addition to the overly simplistic nature of the IAM used by AR5 (such as they ignore interactions between impacting factors such as SLR, tides, storm surge, rainfall runoff, barometric pressures, etc.), but they largely ignore the matter of biocapacity and anthropogenic ecological footprint (see the attached image and the second linked website):

Title: "Earth Overshoot Day"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

Extract: "(World Biocapacity / World Ecological Footprint ) × 365" 

Footnote: When do you guess that Earth Overshoot Day will occur in 2019?

When do you guess that Earth Overshoot Day will occur in 2030?

[piongain]

Ok just because you are all adding to my growing depression humour me please. Whatever your individual view is of the future say at points 2030, 2050 and 2100, how much better are those futures in the hypothetical scenario that every last human being on the planet from FF CEO to politician to average citizen woke up in the morning, saw the damage we are doing and committed 100% to whatever the best course of action is from your point of view. Remember not to bite me

[Rodius]

Ok just because you are all adding to my growing depression humour me please. Whatever your individual view is of the future say at points 2030, 2050 and 2100, how much better are those futures in the hypothetical scenario that every last human being on the planet from FF CEO to politician to average citizen woke up in the morning, saw the damage we are doing and committed 100% to whatever the best course of action is from your point of view. Remember not to bite me

I dont think it will make much difference for at least ten years.

Even if we did it perfectly.

To me, the atmosphere controls the game now, the temps will increase to at least 3C based on 410ppm CO2 (based on global temps during previous times it was similar to today).

The increases will just happen.

What we need to do now, on top of stopping greenhouse producing activities, is to prepare for the changes.
Figure out what to grow, what not to farm (most meats), simplify our lives (Rich world only), grow and eat locally. Make sure each part of the world can feed itself sustainably, work as a global community and allow people to migrate as needed, and the places they migrate too need to allow it to happen.

When events happen, act in a coordinated manner.

IF that was possible, we should reach the other side of the change over and rebuild.

[Sam]

When you leave out all that they left out - about July 29, 2019.

When you include everything they left out - about 1973.

Sam

[Pmt111500]

Ok just because you are all adding to my growing depression humour me please. Whatever your individual view is of the future say at points 2030, 2050 and 2100, how much better are those futures in the hypothetical scenario that every last human being on the planet from FF CEO to politician to average citizen woke up in the morning, saw the damage we are doing and committed 100% to whatever the best course of action is from your point of view. Remember not to bite me

This "waking up" would likely include the end of procreation until sustainable levels of living standards can be reached. So in 2050 the population of Earth would be in steep decline towards 2-4 billion. Reforesting and new foresting by providing clean enough water and ocean algae fertilization by dumping the necessary nutrients of the overconsumption society we currently have go a long way in getting the CO2 out of the atmosphere. This might be enough to stop the AGW before the critical limits for continental ice sheet disintegration are passed. Failing the above, BOE, that may happen very soon, could change the currents and their dynamics in Arctic Ocean and subsequently rain patterns all over the temperate NH. This would then destroy some of the crop growing regions, requiring further population reductions. Possibly this would involve committees on who have the rights to reproduce at all. People probably still want to enjoy some of the benefits of the global culture diversity we have today so all the connectivity we now have shouldn't be done away... ASIF will still be strong as ever and be selected to be a global advisory body. Hoping this isn't biting, but this is what might happen by "waking up".

[oren]

Ok just because you are all adding to my growing depression humour me please. Whatever your individual view is of the future say at points 2030, 2050 and 2100, how much better are those futures in the hypothetical scenario that every last human being on the planet from FF CEO to politician to average citizen woke up in the morning, saw the damage we are doing and committed 100% to whatever the best course of action is from your point of view. Remember not to bite me

2030 siginificant change in the environmental trajectory,  2050 huge change. 2100 most of the ship turned around. Human civilization saved.
Sharp reduction in procreation, everybody 99% vegan, WW2-style effort to remove FF from all aspects of civilization, WW2-style reduction in consumption of unnecessary frivolities. Electricity and transportation and agriculture purely on renewables.  Industry purely on renewables. Construction and other hard-to-fix activities neutralized by forestry and/or carbon removal.
The sad thing is that it shouldn't even be difficult or tragic for anyone (except for those now growing rich by killing the environment). The tragic thing is that I don't see it ever happening, judging by the trajectory of human civilization and the basic psychological and economic patterns driving individuals and nations.

[Sam]

The tragic thing is that I don't see it ever happening, judging by the trajectory of human civilization and the basic psychological and economic patterns driving individuals and nations.

I agree Oren. What changing to meet these needs requires is nothing less than changing human nature itself. This article in the New Yorker gives a pretty good idea of what we are up against to do that.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Sam

[El Cid]

Sharp reduction in procreation, everybody 99% vegan, WW2-style effort to remove FF from all aspects of civilization, WW2-style reduction in consumption of unnecessary frivolities. Electricity and transportation and agriculture purely on renewables.  Industry purely on renewables. Construction and other hard-to-fix activities neutralized by forestry and/or carbon removal.

I think the above is mostly realistic by 2100 other than going vegan. Animals have a role in agriculture and used that way they are good and not bad for the planet (see integrated regenerative agriculture).

Renewable energy is already competitive and will be even more so in the next 10-20 yrs, so no reason not to phase out all carbon-based energy production.

Problem is: energy is just a piece of the picture, because all unnecessary consumption must be reduced, from plastics to most of tourism, big homes, etc. That is going to ber much more difficult...

[magnamentis]

Sharp reduction in procreation, everybody 99% vegan

can't resist to ask whether you see a correlation between being vegan and procreative capabilities?

LOL

no reply needed, just kidding

[Michael Hauber]

Global temperatures about 0.2 degrees C warmer than now.  As the warming is not uniform some areas maybe be 0.4 warmer than now.

Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.

Frequency of hurricanes etc to be statistically indistinguishable from now.

Climate change deniers who predicted a reversal of the steady warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s, will ignore the failure of cooling to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Catastrophists who predicted a major acceleration of the warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s will ignore the failure of catastrophe to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Food security?  Climate change will steadily erode our ability to supply food.  The worlds population will steadily grow.  Science will steadily improve our ability to supply food.  At some stage food production might fall short of demand and cause serious problems for society.  Hard to predict whether it will be this decade (how much will advances in science, that is learning to do stuff we don't know how to do know help us out?), but considering the number of golf courses, non productive ornamental gardens and protected wilderness parks on the planet I think we might have a way to go yet.  Of course when these are being converted to agriculture because we need to eat its probably too late to avoid the food crisis.

[wdmn]

@Michael Hauber

Nice b8 m8.

[b_lumenkraft]

I remember how much hate Tom got for opening new threads and look how popular some of these threads have become.

#justsaying

[Wherestheice]

Global temperatures about 0.2 degrees C warmer than now.  As the warming is not uniform some areas maybe be 0.4 warmer than now.

Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.

Frequency of hurricanes etc to be statistically indistinguishable from now.

Climate change deniers who predicted a reversal of the steady warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s, will ignore the failure of cooling to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Catastrophists who predicted a major acceleration of the warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s will ignore the failure of catastrophe to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Food security?  Climate change will steadily erode our ability to supply food.  The worlds population will steadily grow.  Science will steadily improve our ability to supply food.  At some stage food production might fall short of demand and cause serious problems for society.  Hard to predict whether it will be this decade (how much will advances in science, that is learning to do stuff we don't know how to do know help us out?), but considering the number of golf courses, non productive ornamental gardens and protected wilderness parks on the planet I think we might have a way to go yet.  Of course when these are being converted to agriculture because we need to eat its probably too late to avoid the food crisis.

You say this like there wasn't a great acceleration in warming between 2000 and now. I think we would need some serious luck to only warm .2 C by 2030.......We are emitting more greenhouse gases than ever. So just with that warming will continue to accelerate. Were almost certainly gonna lose more ice by 2030 (probably even a BOE), and theres a good chance we will lose some of the aerosol masking affect. And this is just a few of many factors that are causing warming.

Things are picking up fast. If we continue to underestimate and downplay the situation, there isn't gonna be a civilization around in a few decades to tell the tale of how we failed.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Rodius said:
To me, the atmosphere controls the game now, the temps will increase to at least 3C based on 410ppm CO2 (based on global temps during previous times it was similar to today).


But don't we actually have to use CO2e which is even higher? Add in all the CFV, NOx, Methane, etc.

[Archimid]

My prediction for 2030 is that people that were predicting slow, easily adaptable climate change will pretend they never said such things. It is likely they tell everyone they have been warning us about the incoming doom for decades. Most of them will immediately forgive themselves for slowing down action against climate change.

Only a few of them will remember their part in making us unprepared and accept the responsibility.

[RikW]

I won't be surprised if Michael Hauber is mostly correct. I think average numbers will be higher then he says, more around 0.3-0.6 degrees higher temperatures. But I don't expect there to be collapse of society for example, or huge climate problems compared to our current problems. It will be getting worse, but it will be slow so we are still the so-called heated frog who doens't really see the change. We will think, in then 10's and 20's it was also hot.

Greatest difference will be it won't be 5 minutes to midnight, but 10 seconds to midnight, even though change is happening, CO2 output will be stabilized or just have started to decrease slowly. Too little and almost too late.

[Klondike Kat]

Global temperatures about 0.2 degrees C warmer than now.  As the warming is not uniform some areas maybe be 0.4 warmer than now.

Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.

Frequency of hurricanes etc to be statistically indistinguishable from now.

Climate change deniers who predicted a reversal of the steady warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s, will ignore the failure of cooling to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Catastrophists who predicted a major acceleration of the warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s will ignore the failure of catastrophe to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Food security?  Climate change will steadily erode our ability to supply food.  The worlds population will steadily grow.  Science will steadily improve our ability to supply food.  At some stage food production might fall short of demand and cause serious problems for society.  Hard to predict whether it will be this decade (how much will advances in science, that is learning to do stuff we don't know how to do know help us out?), but considering the number of golf courses, non productive ornamental gardens and protected wilderness parks on the planet I think we might have a way to go yet.  Of course when these are being converted to agriculture because we need to eat its probably too late to avoid the food crisis.

Seems reasonable, although I would disagree with eroding our ability to supply food, as recent changes have had the opposite effect.  But who knows?

[El Cid]

I won't be surprised if Michael Hauber is mostly correct. I think average numbers will be higher then he says, more around 0.3-0.6 degrees higher temperatures. But I don't expect there to be collapse of society for example, or huge climate problems compared to our current problems. It will be getting worse, but it will be slow so we are still the so-called heated frog who doens't really see the change. We will think, in then 10's and 20's it was also hot.

Greatest difference will be it won't be 5 minutes to midnight, but 10 seconds to midnight, even though change is happening, CO2 output will be stabilized or just have started to decrease slowly. Too little and almost too late.

I agree with you completely

[oren]

I agree with you completely

Same here.

[gerontocrat]

I'm thinking tipping points. e.g.s

A few years ago the Amazon had a long and severe drought. There were fires, and worries on whether they could become a general burning out of the Amazon forest. Since that time temperatures are a bit higher, there is a lot less forest. If Bolsonaro and his cohorts win, the Amazon will lose even more forest even faster. A long-term drought in the Amazon could have disastrous long-term consequences after a disastrous fire.You can chuck in the forests and tundra of North America and Eurasia as other examples.

Current fishing practices will ensure total catch will be in severe decline by 2030. Will that tip ocean eco-systems into irreversible decline as the fishing fleets remorsely chase ever lower stocks? As Antarctic and Arctic sea ice declines, one of the foundations of the ocean eco-system, krill, will be in decline anyway.

Much arable agriculture (including England's arable fields dependence on river water) depends on irrigation. Which major groundwater sources (aquifers) will be beyond redemption by 2030. Don't assume desalination can fix all this, not even for the cities.

Will Phoenix, Arizona, fail to fix its water deficit? Will the Colorado water sharing agreement depend on water flows that no longer exist? 

Environmental degradation is a slow motion train wreck - until it is not.

[Archimid]

I think we will know this year. If we get a long overdue respite from billion dollar disaster then maybe there is more respite on the way. If the catastrophic storms, floods and fires continue at about the same rate as the last 4 years or get worse then the chance for slow climate change is almost none.

I think that watching the arctic will give you the best idea of how doomed or ok we are. If the decline continues we are f'ed. If it stabilizes, and nothing else breaks, then MH might be right.

However, given the uncertainties we have today and the possible consequences, it should be assumed that the worst will come to past, not the best. There is sufficient information today to know that the worst can very easily happen.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Archimid:
So weather disasters in the next year or so (or absence thereof) will tell the story? In US:
Temperature is forecast to be above normal this summer on West, Gulf and East coasts:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=2
Much warmer all over in fall:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=5
Warmer all over in winter:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=8
And warmer nearly everywhere next spring:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=11

[Juan C. García]

Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.

I think that must of the scientists didn't saw coming the Arctic sea ice melt that we had in the last 19 years. There was an acceleration that was hard to predict. Other scientists saw this acceleration and they forecast it will continue. It hasn’t happened after 2012 and I don’t know if it will happen or not, but it is not important to me if it doesn’t happen.
The Oceans are trapping 90% of the heat and they are already melting the ice on Greenland and Antarctica (OMG = “Oh! My God” = “Oceans Melting Greenland”). From my point of view, this will be one of the important events on the next 30 years (including 2030, of course).
There is now an acceleration on sea level rise. We had 43 mm (4.3 cm) of sea level rise in the last ten years and I expect maybe the double for 2019-2030. That will make humanity understand that global warming is real. We will see changes not as far as the poles, but changes on the coastal cities, like is already happening on coastal cities in Florida.

Edit:
So what do I expect for 2030? Global consciousness on the importance of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I hope this will happen on 2019, though!

[wdmn]

I'm thinking tipping points. e.g.s

A few years ago the Amazon had a long and severe drought. There were fires, and worries on whether they could become a general burning out of the Amazon forest. Since that time temperatures are a bit higher, there is a lot less forest. If Bolsonaro and his cohorts win, the Amazon will lose even more forest even faster. A long-term drought in the Amazon could have disastrous long-term consequences after a disastrous fire.You can chuck in the forests and tundra of North America and Eurasia as other examples.

And -- as you said -- it looks as though deforestation in the Amazon could tick up significantly over the next couple of years:

"Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research (INPE) has calculated that Bolsonaro’s policies could increase annual Amazonian deforestation from 6,900 square kilometres to 25,600 square kilometres in 2020."

https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/04/blog-ghazoul-forest-conservation-brazil.html


On the other hand, even Americans are starting to wake up to what is happening. The next 10 years will be full of more awakenings, and quite certainly attempts at massive political responses. Whether they will succeed or fail is another thing.


And back on the first hand, one of the more interesting things I've read recently is that emissions from the tar sands in Canada are up to 64% higher than reported.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oilsands-carbon-emissions-study-1.5106809?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

This was not due to a fudging of the numbers, but of reporting standards that are inadequate. The companies were following all of the rules. If this is happening in Canada, I wonder how widespread it is elsewhere? And I wonder how far above RCP 8.5 our emissions might actually be? And how much farther along the path to perdition...

[Tom_Mazanec]

wdnm said:
On the other hand, even Americans are starting to wake up to what is happening. The next 10 years will be full of more awakenings, and quite certainly attempts at massive political responses. Whether they will succeed or fail is another thing.

Juan C. García said:
So what do I expect for 2030? Global consciousness on the importance of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I hope this will happen on 2019, though!

Maybe. But I don't see it yet around where I am...alarmists are still alarming, deniers are still denying. I changed my view on AGW only because I changed my view on PO...I always knew BAU would heat up the Earth if it went on, I just was surprised how long it is going on. And as long as the political situation is as it is, I will have to reluctantly continue voting for a GOP while simultaneously crying "A pox on both parties!" If I had a candidate who agreed with me on all issues it would be different, but I guess the only way to do that is if each person votes for themselves. Then it would go to the House for POTUS and each congressperson would cast a vote for themselves, for example. Nobody would get elected.

[Archimid]

Thanks for the links Tom_Mazanec.

After the 2015-2016 the world entered a new warmer climate regime. Is the increase frequency and intensity of disasters normal in the new climate regime? So far yes, but I need a bit more confirmation for the model that belongs to me. It is the expected consequence.

I think that the current rate of disaster is not sustainable. We will only know until we sustain it for long enough.

[Alison]

The next 11 years will not be very different from the past 11 years, IMO. We may see a year as bad as 2012 in the Arctic... but really big changes need more time, I think

[Tom_Mazanec]

Since we will have a turn-of-the-decade next winter, I anticipate seeing many predictions on 2030 (on all topics) starting in several months.

[Shared Humanity]

And back on the first hand, one of the more interesting things I've read recently is that emissions from the tar sands in Canada are up to 64% higher than reported.

This is certainly worth reporting and contemplating but "64% higher" will do nothing to mobilize public opinion. A picture is worth a thousand words or, in this case, a single percentage.

[Shared Humanity]

Thanks for the links Tom_Mazanec.

After the 2015-2016 the world entered a new warmer climate regime. Is the increase frequency and intensity of disasters normal in the new climate regime? So far yes, but I need a bit more confirmation for the model that belongs to me. It is the expected consequence.

I think that the current rate of disaster is not sustainable. We will only know until we sustain it for long enough.

I fully expect that weather disasters will continue to proliferate. Expect to hear historical and unprecedented ever more frequently. By 2030, we will have worn out the words.

[Sam]

Sigh,

I watch in horror each day as the rate of progression of catastrophic climate change inexorably increases. All the while, as expected, the political climate in countries all over the world goes deeper into denial, and people behave like people procreating and expanding as if the world were an unlimited playground.

The trends continue unabated and are accelerating as expected. The arctic ice is failing in ways that are almost beyond words. Yet, we have become so inured to it, that it hardly makes a dent in our perceptions. Rather than focus on the dominant factors we focus on the least important ones seemingly in the vain hope that somehow things are not as bad as they seem.

The ice thickness is failing rapidly. The Nares straight and the Beaufort have become monsters eating the last vestiges of "old" ice. We appear surely on pace to go well below 4 million km^2 of ice extent. Due to the silly 15% ice cover per many square kilometers being counted as all ice, the real condition is far worse.

Based on volume collapse, we look likely to see the first day with essentially no ice in the arctic ocean to arrive on schedule by the mid 2020s - and probably earlier - 2022-2023.

As we approach that, the weather is getting ever weirder, not just because of the general warming, but even more because of the weakening heat engine. Greenland will act as a bulwark to pause that collapse for a few centuries. But, the climate will be nothing like what we have known.

I fully expect that by 2030 that we will see:

1) a dramatic shift begin in the climate as we begin seeing ice free periods in the arctic ocean.
2) dramatic shifts continuing to accelerate in the decline of the deep oceanic currents that were driven by the ice.
3) anoxic zones expanding in both the atlantic and pacific oceans by the shifting and dying ocean currents
4) large scale impacts to ocean ecosystems as a result. These have already begun. By 2030 they should have truly dramatic impacts on fisheries.
5) weather shifts in rain and drought that jeopardize crops in major food producing zones.
6) a near complete collapse of the availability of fossil fuels in Africa to Africans that combined with weather shifts, resource wars, drought and pestilence lead to a dramatic increase in people trying to flee to safer and better places. That then in turn leads to war in Africa and in the middle east and possibly Europe.
7) a near complete collapse in fossil fuels for most of oceania.
8 ) an oscillation in the weather patterns where winters are warmer in general other than in the northeastern US, and where the late summer pattern shifts to a polar jet stream trying to orbit Greenland with dramatic impacts on the whole northern hemisphere.
9) the collapse of the ice bridges on several major glaciers in Antartica, particularly in West Antarctica (Thwaite's especially) resulting in massive impacts on the ocean systems around Antarctica. These are already underway as the distance to bottom under the ice edge is dramatically impacting the Krill along with massive over fishing by humans
10) resource wars. We already have Iraq and Syria in flames. Next up is Venezuela in a cold war like struggle over control of their oil. That began several years ago and will get progressively worse.. Next is Iran. That could quickly turn into a hot war with several potential outcomes, none of which are good. Over a dozen war games run on those scenarios have the US losing in all cases. Many lead to the loss of Saudi Oil terminals, and plummeting global oil supplies leading to collapse of markets and economies all over the world. I would not be surprised to see Turkmenistan and the other -stans, and the central European states consumed in these wars.
11) oscillating areas of drought and deluge as the climate shifts
12) even more massive translocation of people in many regions, not just Africa.
13) several nations breaking out of the pause on nuclear weapons development as a hedge to protect their perceived national interests. Chief among these: Japan, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia (before or after the collapse of the House of Saud). The current "cold" war like battle over resources may turn hot in some areas by 2030 leading to the exchange of strategic nuclear weapons. Other tensions over movement of peoples, resource limitations and the like may similarly lead to other wars.
14) many nations seem likely to shift to nationalistic or tyrannical governments in response to these pressure. The tendency will be to blame "them" for "our" problems in many societies. And that will inexorably lead to hostilities small and large.

In short - I see a pretty hostile future ahead by 2030. These events may unfold more slowly. Cooler heads may prevail for the worst parts involving humans. But our history as a species suggests the opposite.

By the 2050-2070 timeframe I fully expect that the last of the ice in the Arctic ocean will be gone. It will remain gone for over 100,000 years. Greenland will be under intense melting pressures. And in millennia (or less), that ice too will be lost. At that point, the atmospheric engine in the northern hemisphere dies. And the northern hemisphere converts to an equable climate system. The oceanic currents die for a time in the north leading to massive dead zones in the major oceans, which then convert to emitting hydrogen sulfide rather than oxygen. Life on earth becomes extremely difficult for all species everywhere. The key events here will likely be the collapse of the northern tundra, and the boiling of the clathrates from the shallow seas of the arctic ocean. The pulse of carbon into the atmosphere will render all human actions irrelevant. We will then repeat the PETM - possibly worse.

Our time to act to lessen the near term disasters is all but gone. Likewise, our chance to avert the world shifting to a hothouse earth in a rapid fashion is all but gone.

Attempts to limit global warming to 1.5 C failed. This is now long since in the rearview mirror. So to is 2 C. 2.5 C might be doable with massive concerted global action. That won't happen. More likely is that we will ultimately see a 10 C rise - a hothouse earth. Antarctica will be the control on that. It will take a very long time for the ice there to melt. And just maybe, the climate can recover over the next several hundred thousand years to something similar today, allowing some new species to ascend. They, whoever or whatever they are, will have the disadvantage and advantage of not having fossil fuels to destroy themselves. They are unlikely I think to be the descendants of the human line.

Sam

[Midnightsun]

I think everything will be almost the same, but shittier. It's going to happen slow enough to not cause widespread panic, but the "good old days" of steady climate and economic growth will be gone. Here are my predictions.

I haven't seen anyone here really dig into the problems with food production. Periods of drought interspersed with floods have killed civilizations before. Food insecurity causes unrest.

Food prices overall in Sweden increased 2-3% after the drought 2018. Potatoes went up by 20%. Nobody is starving, but that's just from one bad summer.

2030 in EU: Increased immigration, increased spending on firefighting and decreased food production will cause unrest to be more frequent (yellow vests, burning cars etc). Continued polarization of political parties. More problems with MRSA, declining herd immunity and vectorborn diseases. Summers are now hot and dry, south Europe is getting quick desertification, resulting in internal immigration. Winters are unpredictable and false springs become a dreaded phenomenon due to the adverse effects on plants and insect life.

North America: increase of national disasters is taking a toll on the budget and food security. Homelessness will continue to increase and medieval diseases in their camps will start to become a big problem, infecting non-homeless as well. Water contamination has continued and a larger part of the population is now in deeper poverty, both food-insecure and safe-water insecure.

SE Asia: The heatwaves are becoming a huge problem. Food production is down. Island populations have started relocating. China has probably done something unthinkable in order to decrease population growth. Several cat5 cyclones per year result in strained economies.

MENA: So very very dry and hot. Several more nations have imploded like Syria did.

Africa: Droughts. Lots of 'em. South Africa has a similar collapse like Venezuela, caused by lack of maintenance and planning. Mozambique is long gone and is now a saltmarsh.

South America: Brazil has decimated the Amazon and is now facing a big problem with soil erosion and floods. Food insecurity all over.

Artic: the endemic species are not doing well at all. Walrus and seal populations have collapsed and polar bear pop is now following. In the fringe areas the polar fox is almost gone, red fox having taken over. +30C-summer heatwaves are now the norm, causing a fast change in the flora. BOE... Possible.

Overall: diseases. Old ones rear their ugly heads, new ones pop up.

[Klondike Kat]

The next 11 years will not be very different from the past 11 years, IMO. We may see a year as bad as 2012 in the Arctic... but really big changes need more time, I think

Agreed.  It will take more time.

[bbr2314]

I am not sure how much more time it will take. The changes we have seen since 2012 have been fairly astonishing over very wide areas. But the biggest shift besides less ice in the Arctic has been the worsening & prolonging of winter over the triangle between Hudson Bay, the Rockies, and the Great Lakes, as well as Quebec.

If the next 11 years match the past 7 years (or exceed), we would be looking at an extra month of winter, or more, for much of the Midwest. Parts of Quebec are now -1.5C on a yearly basis vs. 1980-2010 norms -- Climate Re-Analyzer says that re-glaciation starts in earnest at -2C and becomes very widespread by -3C.

Will we reach -3C (annual vs. 1980-2010 baseline) across wide regions of Quebec come 2030? I don't think so. Will parts of Quebec reach -3C? I think this is possible. And -2C? This is likely.

I consider the possibility of ^^^ to be a major wildcard in the evolving climate, as it is completely un-modeled, although its potential has been discussed by the likes of Hansen et al in words not quite so explicit, and at timeframes substantially farther in the future.

It is interesting to consider that in terms of a WARMING climate without glaciers, a 1-2C rise is a big deal, but not a climate-breaker. But in a region that is only marginally above freezing for part of the year, a 1-2C DROP in temperatures can result in rapid glaciation, and that has much more wide-reaching localized / regional effects across spring, summer, and autumn, than a globalized 1-2C rise in temps (IMO).

[Sam]

I am not sure how much more time it will take. The changes we have seen since 2012 have been fairly astonishing over very wide areas. But the biggest shift besides less ice in the Arctic has been the worsening & prolonging of winter over the triangle between Hudson Bay, the Rockies, and the Great Lakes, as well as Quebec.

If the next 11 years match the past 7 years (or exceed), we would be looking at an extra month of winter, or more, for much of the Midwest. Parts of Quebec are now -1.5C on a yearly basis vs. 1980-2010 norms -- Climate Re-Analyzer says that re-glaciation starts in earnest at -2C and becomes very widespread by -3C.

Will we reach -3C (annual vs. 1980-2010 baseline) across wide regions of Quebec come 2030? I don't think so. Will parts of Quebec reach -3C? I think this is possible. And -2C? This is likely.

I consider the possibility of ^^^ to be a major wildcard in the evolving climate, as it is completely un-modeled, although its potential has been discussed by the likes of Hansen et al in words not quite so explicit, and at timeframes substantially farther in the future.

It is interesting to consider that in terms of a WARMING climate without glaciers, a 1-2C rise is a big deal, but not a climate-breaker. But in a region that is only marginally above freezing for part of the year, a 1-2C DROP in temperatures can result in rapid glaciation, and that has much more wide-reaching localized / regional effects across spring, summer, and autumn, than a globalized 1-2C rise in temps (IMO).

Glaciation - NOT.

The loss of the arctic ice cover will lead to rapid warming as the blue ocean event and gas release events kick in. Over the short term (extremely short in geological terms), the collapse of the deep oceanic current in the north Atlantic is likely to lead to longer colder winters in northern Europe, and drought and heating in southern Europe.

Similarly, in north America, the loss of the arctic ice cover causes a shift to Greenland being the cold pole. This in turn shifts the northern circulation to more of a Greenland centric focus. In the very near term this has meant arctic cold being shunted down across eastern Canada and the eastern seaboard of the United States.  This gives the immensely false impression to those who live there (especially politicians) that global warming isn't all that important.

This will not lead to glaciation. It will lead to a short period where the temperatures are at first somewhat colder (in the winters especially), followed by a period with progressively rising temperatures as the ice cover in the arctic fails over the next many decades. That then will be followed by a wholly different atmospheric setup with only Greenland having perennial ice. What exactly that will look like and how it will behave is anyones guess. The models may help, but we seem to be very close to the thermodynamic edge for the driving forces needed to support the three cell atmospheric circulation system. Is Greenland enough by itself to keep the three cell system spinning?

The models do not seem to deal all that well with that.

By the later part of this century, we will all know the answer to those questions - perhaps much sooner.  And that is just a blink in geologic timescales; no where near long enough to support glaciation.

Sam

[bbr2314]

I am not sure how much more time it will take. The changes we have seen since 2012 have been fairly astonishing over very wide areas. But the biggest shift besides less ice in the Arctic has been the worsening & prolonging of winter over the triangle between Hudson Bay, the Rockies, and the Great Lakes, as well as Quebec.

If the next 11 years match the past 7 years (or exceed), we would be looking at an extra month of winter, or more, for much of the Midwest. Parts of Quebec are now -1.5C on a yearly basis vs. 1980-2010 norms -- Climate Re-Analyzer says that re-glaciation starts in earnest at -2C and becomes very widespread by -3C.

Will we reach -3C (annual vs. 1980-2010 baseline) across wide regions of Quebec come 2030? I don't think so. Will parts of Quebec reach -3C? I think this is possible. And -2C? This is likely.

I consider the possibility of ^^^ to be a major wildcard in the evolving climate, as it is completely un-modeled, although its potential has been discussed by the likes of Hansen et al in words not quite so explicit, and at timeframes substantially farther in the future.

It is interesting to consider that in terms of a WARMING climate without glaciers, a 1-2C rise is a big deal, but not a climate-breaker. But in a region that is only marginally above freezing for part of the year, a 1-2C DROP in temperatures can result in rapid glaciation, and that has much more wide-reaching localized / regional effects across spring, summer, and autumn, than a globalized 1-2C rise in temps (IMO).

Glaciation - NOT.

The loss of the arctic ice cover will lead to rapid warming as the blue ocean event and gas release events kick in. Over the short term (extremely short in geological terms), the collapse of the deep oceanic current in the north Atlantic is likely to lead to longer colder winters in northern Europe, and drought and heating in southern Europe.

Similarly, in north America, the loss of the arctic ice cover causes a shift to Greenland being the cold pole. This in turn shifts the northern circulation to more of a Greenland centric focus. In the very near term this has meant arctic cold being shunted down across eastern Canada and the eastern seaboard of the United States.  This gives the immensely false impression to those who live there (especially politicians) that global warming isn't all that important.

This will not lead to glaciation. It will lead to a short period where the temperatures are at first somewhat colder (in the winters especially), followed by a period with progressively rising temperatures as the ice cover in the arctic fails over the next many decades. That then will be followed by a wholly different atmospheric setup with only Greenland having perennial ice. What exactly that will look like and how it will behave is anyones guess. The models may help, but we seem to be very close to the thermodynamic edge for the driving forces needed to support the three cell atmospheric circulation system. Is Greenland enough by itself to keep the three cell system spinning?

The models do not seem to deal all that well with that.

By the later part of this century, we will all know the answer to those questions - perhaps much sooner.  And that is just a blink in geologic timescales; no where near long enough to support glaciation.

Sam

Your statements are ignorant of what has been happening on the ground since 2012. You are, however, free to your opinion, even if you are completely ignoring the impact of freshwater hosing on the NATL, and the studies produced by Hansen et al which show what is already unfolding, happening in the future.

PS: what's a post without data backing it up? Here you go -- ANNUAL change over last 365 days compared to 2012, as well as vs. 1980-2010.

[El Cid]

if my eyes are not wrong then the past 12 months (on your 2nd chart) have been only marginally (0,5-1 C) colder than the 1980-2010 average around the Hudson while it has been significantly warmer everywhere else. The US was generally warmer, even the whole of Canada is unchanged vs the climatological average, so I think that Sam is closer to the truth based on the data

[bbr2314]

if my eyes are not wrong then the past 12 months (on your 2nd chart) have been only marginally (0,5-1 C) colder than the 1980-2010 average around the Hudson while it has been significantly warmer everywhere else. The US was generally warmer, even the whole of Canada is unchanged vs the climatological average, so I think that Sam is closer to the truth based on the data

My post was literally about that specific area. I said nothing else otherwise re: predominating heat. The two can co-exist.

I.E., in BOLD,

"But the biggest shift besides less ice in the Arctic has been the worsening & prolonging of winter over the triangle between Hudson Bay, the Rockies, and the Great Lakes, as well as Quebec. "

The region of Quebec that is averaging up to -1.5C annually is also the coldest part of Quebec, which is why this small change makes a huge difference to sensible weather.

"Modern" 0C:



By -2C, glaciation re-commences in the highest elevations, specifically in the areas that are darkest blue in my previous map.



Now, is Climate Reanalyzer's ECM model perfect? Probably not. But it is the best indicator we have of what sensible impacts an extension of our current drop in temps will have on that region. Besides re-glaciation, it also probably includes massive forest fires before that point, as vegetation will begin to die en-masse (at least if CCR is correct, given the impending transition from alpine forests back to tundra that may be imminent across much of the region).

By -3C, the changes become MUCH more expansive.