11 square miles covered with moss since 1986 just doesn’t sound all that dramatic to me, but apparently for Antarctica this is a big deal and not a good sign. Apparently it has been happening for awhile in (originally sarcastically named?) Greenland, and it is not as big of a surprise there, but it is still not a good sign.
Jeff Masters at Yale Climate Connections has an article with a massive list of articles, books and tools on climate risks in various geographic areas of the U.S. You could really spend a lot of time drilling down through all these sources, even to research just one location. He does make the point, however, that moving away from extended family and other social ties can be bad for a person/family’s resilience in general, so you should consider that tradeoff before deciding whether to move.
Most frightening and/or depressing story: Some self-labeled “conservatives” in the United States want to do away with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Education, and possibly even the Federal Reserve. All these are needed to have a competent, stable government and society and to be prepared to respond and recover from the shocks that are coming, so I would call this nihilist and not “conservative” at all. How is it conservative to want to destroy the institutions that have underpinned the success of our nation thus far? On the other hand, they also want to double down on the unimaginative pro-big-business, pro-war consensus of the two major parties over the last 50 years or so, which has also gotten us to where we are today. And it looks like the amateurs and psychopaths have the upper hand at the moment in terms of our November election. This is certainly not “morning in America”.
Most hopeful story: Computer-controlled cars are slowly but surely attaining widespread commercial rollout. I don’t care what the cynics say – this will save land, money and lives. And combined with renewable and/or nuclear energy, it could play a big role in turning the corner on the climate crisis.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: I had a misconception that if the world reduces greenhouse gases today, the benefits will not kick in for decades. Happily, scientists’ understanding of this has been updated and I will update my own understanding along with that. The key is the ocean’s ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere relatively quickly. (I am not sure this is good for the ocean itself, but it is somewhat hopeful for temperatures here on land.) And it is not all or nothing – any emissions reductions will help, so the failure to act in the past is not an excuse to continue to fail to act.
I’ve repeated a couple times that if emissions were stabilized today, the climate would continue warming for decades. I am not a complete idiot, because this was the scientific understanding at one time, but it is time for me to update my understanding. Michael Mann explains:
The conventional wisdom was once that warming would continue on for decades even if we stopped emitting carbon into the atmosphere due to the sluggishness of the oceans, which continue to warm up even after CO2 stops increasing. This is known as committed warming. But committed warming is only half of the story, an artifact of simplistic early climate modeling experiments in which CO2 levels are kept fixed after the hypothetical cessation of emissions.
Later, more comprehensive simulations with interactive ocean carbon cycle dynamics revealed that CO2 levels actually drop after emissions cease as the oceans continue to draw carbon down from the atmosphere. That decrease in the greenhouse effect cancels out the committed warming, and the result is an essentially flat line. In other words, global temperatures stabilize quickly once net carbon emissions drop to zero.
aps.org
So today’s temperatures are the result of emissions over the past decades, but today’s rate of increase in temperature is about the current rate of emissions or at least very recent emissions. This article doesn’t explain, but I think it makes sense, that global temperatures would start to drop at some point as the oceans continued to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. (I’m ignoring ocean acidification for the moment – perhaps this would never be reversed?) This would be encouraging if there were any serious commitment among the world’s governments and institutions to stop emissions in the near future. Nonetheless, Mann points out that the damage already done is not a logical excuse to stop doing further damage. Any action will reduce the severity of future impacts, even if the floor for those impacts has already been baked in.
The last IPCC release covered conditions as of about 2019. There is an effort now to update estimates of key indicators annually in between IPCC reports, called the Indicators of Global Climate Change 2023: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence. I could easily spend a whole day reading and trying to understand the details of this one paper. I’ll pull out just one indicator, which is the “remaining carbon budget”. This metric looks not at annual emissions but at the cumulative amount of carbon emitted since 1850 and how much can still be emitted to keep average global warming under 1.5 degrees C. The results are almost laughable. The IPCC put the remaining budget at 500 Gt (billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide from the start of 2020. This update puts the remaining budget as of the start of 2024 at 200 Gt. Annual emissions are in the 50-55 Gt range, so using very rough layman’s math we have 4 years remaining. There are many reasons this is complicated and uncertain, including periodic adjustment of the target itself, emissions of gases other than carbon dioxide, and aerosols to name a few. But nonetheless, we are a few years away and it is clear the world would be on track to miss this target even if it were making a coordinated effort to prevent this, which it is clearly not. This is not a reason to throw up our hands of course. Any effort to limit the damage, no matter how small or how late, may help lessen or delay the catastrophe we are currently headed for.
Continuing to tackle this thing with the section called “the general welfare”. I’m just reading the summary since the thing is so long. Various authors want to:
Warning: This post is not 100% family friendly and profanity free. 2023 was just not that kind of year!
I’ll start with a personal note. After 24+ years of engineering consulting practice, I have decided to leave the world of full-time professional employment and go back to school for a bit. This is some combination of mid-life crisis and post-Covid working parent burnout. I spent a lot of time thinking about it, ran all the financial numbers, and decided I can swing it for a year or so without major implications for my eventual retirement 15-ish years down the line. So, gentle reader, you too can do this sort of thing if you want to. Just be patient, plan, prepare, do the math, and be rational about it.
Stories I picked as “most frightening or depressing”:
Stories I picked as “most hopeful”:
Stories I picked as “most interesting, not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps a mixture of both”:
Climate Change. Well really, I’m likely to just say things now I have said many times before. The climate change shit is really starting to hit the fan. Our largely coastal civilization and the food supply that sustains it is at risk. The shit we can obviously see hitting the fan right now is the result of emissions years if not decades ago, and we have continued to not only emit too much but to emit too much at an increasing rate since those emissions, and we continue to not only emit too much but to emit at an increasing rate today. This means that even if we stop emitting too much right now and going forward, the crisis will continue to get worse for some time before it eventually gets better. And we are not doing that, we are continuing to not only emit too much but we are doing it at an increasing rate. We are already seeing the beginnings of massive population movements fueling a downward spiral of nationalist and outright racist geopolitics, which makes it even harder to come together and address our critical planetary carrying capacity issue in a rational manner. We are not only seeing “the return of great power competition”, we are insanely patting ourselves on the back for aiding and abetting this, and piling nuclear proliferation on top of it. Is a soft landing possible in this situation? I am not going to tell you I think it is, or even if it is possible that our species and cowards that pass for our leadership have any hope of making it happen. I think about the best we can hope for is some kind of serious but manageable collapse or crisis that brings us to our senses and allows some real leaders to emerge. To throw out one idea, maybe we could come to a new era of arms reduction for the major nuclear powers, and halts to proliferation for all the emerging nuclear powers, in exchange for civilian nuclear power for everyone who wants it, all under a strict international control and inspection regime. This would begin to address two existential risks (nuclear war and climate change) at once. Or maybe, just maybe, we are on the verge of a massive acceleration of technological progress that could make problems easier to solve. Maybe, but new technology also comes with new risks, and we shouldn’t put all our eggs in this basket. Besides, the singularity is nearing but it still feels a decade or so away to me.
UFOs. Aside from all of that, maybe the weirdest single thing going on in the world right now is the UFOs. There seems to be no real controversy about them – they are out there. They are flying around and if not defying the laws of physics as we know them, defying any technology that is able to accommodate the laws of physics as we know them. And what this logically leads to is that somebody (or some intelligent entity) knows something about the laws of physics that the rest of us do not know. Einstein explained how gravity behaves, but he wasn’t able to fully explain what gravity is or certainly how or why it came to be the way it is. Einstein’s predictions have since been proven through incontrovertible evidence, and the predictions of quantum theory have also been incontrovertibly proven, but the two theories are still at odds and in need of unification despite the efforts of the most brilliant minds today. But…are the most brilliant minds today operating in the open, or are they behind closed doors at private defense contractors and subject to censorship on national security grounds? If there has been a major discovery, would it see the light of day or would it be suppressed? I have no information here, I am just saying this is a narrative that would fit the evidence, and I don’t see other plausible narratives that fit the evidence. Why would aliens be playing with relatively easily discoverable toys in our atmosphere, while in the meantime we have discovered no radio signal evidence, no evidence of their existence in our telescopes? Those things would be very hard if not impossible to cover up, so I think we would know. The Fermi Paradox persists.
Artificial Intelligence. I tend to think the AI hype is ahead of the reality. Nonetheless, the reality is coming. It will probably seize control without our noticing after the hype has passed. Is it possible we could look back in a decade and identify 2023 as the year it woke up? There were a couple queer (in the original dictionary sense – I just couldn’t think of a better word) stories in 2023. One was a Google engineer getting fired after publicly declaring his belief that a Google AI had become conscious. The other was the “ethics board” of a major corporation firing its CEO in relation to a rumored artificial general intelligence breakthrough. Only time will tell what really happened in these cases (if it is ever made public), but one thing we can say is that technological progress does not usually go backwards.
Synthetic Biology. It’s pretty clear we are now in an age of synthetic biology breakthroughs that was hyped over the last few decades, and the media and publics of the world are predictably yawning and ignoring. But we are hearing about vaccines and cures on the horizon for diseases that have long plagued us, genetically engineered organs, synthetic meat, engineered viruses to fight antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and anti-aging pills among other things. And then there is the specter of lab accidents and biological weapons, which might be the single most scary thing in the world today out of all the terrifying things I have mentioned in this post.
2024 U.S. Presidential Election. Ugh, I’m still not ready to think about it, but it is going to happen whether I am ready to think about it or not. I’ll get around to thinking and writing about it soon, I’m sure.
Happy 2024!
There is nothing extremely surprising here, but here are a few things their commentators mention:
The “Megathreats” according to Nouriel Roubini are that “economic, monetary, and financial threats are rising and interacting in dangerous ways with various other social, political, geopolitical, environmental, health, and technological developments.”
This is a long article with a lot in it, but one thing I always like to puzzle over is how real-world phenomena translate to money and financial markets. One advantage of understanding this would be to find numbers provided by financial markets that translate back to the real world, and in an ideal case maybe these could even serve as early warnings when things are really about to go seriously wrong. Anyway, this article doesn’t have all the answers, only clues, but here are a few:
Taken together, what all this suggests to me is an analysis of government budgets, financial markets, and some demographic/migration data to see where various governments’ priorities lie relative to what their priorities probably should be to successfully address long-term challenges, and their likely ability to bounce back from various types and magnitudes of shock. You could probably develop some kind of risk index at the national and global levels based on this. And then what would you do with it? If you were a rational government, you could choose policies that reduce it. Maybe you turn everything over to the AIs and ask them to figure it out.
Most frightening and/or depressing story: An economic model that underlies a lot of climate policy may be too conservative. I don’t think this matters much because the world is doing too little, too late even according to the conservative model. Meanwhile, the ice shelves holding back Greenland are in worse shape than previously thought.
Most hopeful story: Small modular nuclear reactors have been permitted for the first time in the United States, although it looks like the specific project that was permitted will not go through. Meanwhile construction of new nuclear weapons is accelerating (sorry, not hopeful, but I couldn’t help pointing out the contrast…)
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: India somehow manages to maintain diplomatic relations with Palestine (which they recognize as a state along with 138 other UN members), Israel, and Iran at the same time.