No warming impact and emissions are inevitable

b) Can’t be existential---the worst-case models assume impossible emissions levels with no mitigation or adaptation

c) Timeframe---impacts are slow which allows time to adapt and manage the consequence

d) Renewables worse---fast transition locks in natural gas as a bridge fuel which makes zero emissions impossible OR causes energy shortages because storage tech isn’t ready---that’s Curry.

Judith Curry 19, President of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), Professor Emerita of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of Chicago, 2/9/19, “Statement to the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States House of Representatives,” https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/curry-testimony-house-natural-resources.pdf

The urgency (?) of CO2 emissions reductions

In the decades since the 1992 UNFCCC Treaty, global CO2 emissions have continued to increase, especially in developing countries. In 2010, the world’s governments agreed that emissions need to be reduced so that global temperature increases are limited to below 2 degrees Celsius.17 The target of 2oC (and increasingly 1.5oC)18 remains the focal point of international climate agreements and negotiations.

The original rationale for the 2oC target is the idea that ‘tipping points’ − abrupt or nonlinear transition to a different climate state − become likely to occur once this threshold has been crossed, with consequences that are largely uncontrollable and beyond our management. The IPCC AR5 considered a number of potential tipping points, including ice sheet collapse, collapse of the Atlantic overturning circulation, and permafrost carbon release. Every single catastrophic scenario considered by the IPCC AR5 (WGII, Table 12.4) has a rating of very unlikely or exceptionally unlikely and/or has low confidence. The only tipping point that the IPCC considers likely in the 21st century is disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice (which is fairly reversible, since sea ice freezes every winter).

In the absence of tipping points on the timescale of the 21st century, the 2oC limit iss more usefully considered by analogy to a highway speed limit:19 driving at 10 mph under the speed limit is not automatically safe, and exceeding the limit by 10 mph is not automatically dangerous, although the faster one travels the greater the danger from an accident. Analogously, the 2oC (or 1.5oC) limit should not be taken literally as a real danger threshold. An analogy for considering the urgency of emissions reductions is your 401K account: if you begin making contributions early, it will be easier to meet your retirement goals.

Nevertheless, the 2oC and 1.5oC limits are used to motivate the urgency of action to reduce CO2 emissions. At a recent UN Climate Summit, (former) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that: “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.”20 Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity found by Lewis and Curry21 and other recent studies is that human caused warming is not expected to exceed the 2oC ‘danger’ level in the 21st century. Further, there is growing evidence that the RCP8.5 scenario for future greenhouse gas concentrations, which drives the largest amount of warming in climate model simulations, is impossibly high, requiring a combination of numerous borderline impossible socioeconomic scenarios.22 A slower rate of warming means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably and with a minimum of unintended consequences. It also allows for the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.

Is it possible that something truly dangerous and unforeseen could happen to Earth’s climate during the 21st century? Yes it is possible, but natural climate variability (including geologic processes) may be a more likely source of possible undesirable change than manmade warming. In any event, attempting to avoid such a dangerous and unforeseen climate by reducing fossil fuel emissions will be futile if natural climate and geologic processes are dominant factors. Geologic processes are an important factor in the potential instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet that could contribute to substantial sea level rise in the 21st century.23

Under the Paris Agreement, individual countries have submitted to the UNFCCC their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Under the Obama Administration, the U.S. NDC had a goal of reducing emissions by 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Apart from considerations of feasibility and cost, it has been estimated24 using the EPA MAGICC model that this commitment will prevent 0.03oC in warming by 2100. When combined with current commitments from other nations, only a small fraction of the projected future warming will be ameliorated by these commitments. If climate models are indeed running too hot,25 then the amount of warming prevented would be even smaller. Even if emissions immediately went to zero and the projections of climate models are to be believed, the impact on the climate would not be noticeable until the 2nd half of the 21st century. Most of the expected benefits to the climate from the UNFCCC emissions reductions policy will be realized in the 22nd century and beyond.

Attempting to use carbon dioxide as a control knob to regulate climate on decadal to century timescales is arguably futile. The UNFCCC emissions reductions policies have brought us to a point between a rock and a hard place, whereby the emissions reduction policy with its extensive costs and questions of feasibility are inadequate for making a meaningful dent in slowing down the expected warming in the 21st century. And the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events (whether caused by manmade climate change or natural variability) remain largely unaddressed.

This is not to say that a transition away from burning fossil fuels doesn’t make sense over the course of the 21st century. People prefer ‘clean’ over ‘dirty’ energy – provided that all other things are equal, such as reliability, security, and economy. However, assuming that current wind and solar technologies are adequate for providing the required amount and density of electric power for an advanced economy is misguided.26

The recent record-breaking cold outbreak in the Midwest is a stark reminder of the challenges of providing a reliable power supply in the face of extreme weather events, where an inadequate power supply not only harms the economy, but jeopardizes lives and public safety. Last week, central Minnesota experienced a natural gas ‘brownout,’ as Xcel Energy advised customers to turn thermostats down to 60 degrees and avoid using hot water.27 Why? Because the wind wasn’t blowing during an exceptionally cold period. Utilities pair natural gas plants with wind farms, where the gas plants can be ramped up and down quickly when the wind isn’t blowing. With bitter cold temperatures and no wind, there wasn’t enough natural gas.

A transition to an electric power system driven solely by wind and solar would require a massive amount of energy storage. While energy storage technologies are advancing, massive deployment of cost-effective energy storage technologies is well beyond current capabilities.28 An unintended consequence of rapid deployment of wind and solar energy farms may be that natural gas power plants become increasingly entrenched in the power supply system.

Apart from energy policy, there are a number of land use practices related to croplands, grazing lands, forests and wetlands that could increase the natural sequestration of carbon and have ancillary economic and ecosystem benefits.29 These co-benefits include improved biodiversity, soil quality, agricultural productivity and wildfire behavior modification.

In evaluating the urgency of CO2 emissions reductions, we need to be realistic about what reducing emissions will actually accomplish. Drastic reductions of emissions in the U.S. will not reduce global CO2 concentrations if emissions in the developing world, particularly China and India, continue to increase. If we believe the climate model simulations, we would not expect to see any changes in extreme weather/climate events until late in the 21st century. The greatest impacts will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond, in terms of reducing sea level rise and ocean acidification.

Resilience, anti-fragility and thrivability

Given that emissions reductions policies are very costly, politically contentious and are not expected to change the climate in a meaningful way in the 21st century, adaptation strategies are receiving increasing attention in formulating responses to climate change.

The extreme damages from recent hurricanes plus the recent billion dollar disasters from floods, droughts and wildfires, emphasize that the U.S. is highly vulnerable to current weather and climate disasters. Even worse disasters were encountered in the U.S. during the 1930’s and 1950’s. Possible scenarios of incremental worsening of weather and climate extremes over the course of the 21st century don’t change the fundamental storyline that many regions of the U.S. are not well adapted to the current weather and climate variability, let alone the range that has been experienced over the past two centuries.

As a practical matter, adaptation has been driven by local crises associated with extreme weather and climate events, emphasizing the role of ‘surprises’ in shaping responses. Advocates of adaptation to climate change are not arguing for simply responding to events and changes after they occur; they are arguing for anticipatory adaptation. However, in adapting to climate change, we need to acknowledge that we cannot know how the climate will evolve in the 21st century, we are certain to be surprised and we will make mistakes along the way.

‘Resilience’ is the ability to ‘bounce back’ in the face of unexpected events. Resilience carries a connotation of returning to the original state as quickly as possible. The difference in impact and recovery from Hurricane Sandy striking New York City in 2012 versus the impact of Tropical Cyclone Nargis striking Myanmar in 200830 reflects very different vulnerabilities and capacities for bouncing back.

To increase our resilience to extreme weather and climate events, we can ‘bounce forward’ to reduce future vulnerability by evolving our infrastructures, institutions and practices. Nicholas Taleb’s concept of antifragility31 focuses on learning from adversity, and developing approaches that enable us to thrive from high levels of volatility, particularly unexpected extreme events. Anti-fragility goes beyond ‘bouncing back’ to becoming even better as a result of encountering and overcoming challenges. Anti-fragile systems are dynamic rather than static, thriving and growing in new directions rather than simply maintaining the status quo.

Strategies to increase antifragility include: economic development, reducing the downside from volatility, developing a range of options, tinkering with small experiments, and developing and testing transformative ideas. Antifragility is consistent with decentralized models of policy innovation that create flexibility and redundance in the face of volatility. This ‘innovation dividend’ is analogous to biodiversity in the natural world, enhancing resilience in the face of future shocks.32

Similar to anti-fragility, the concept of ‘thrivability’ has been articulated by Jean Russell:33 “It isn’t enough to repair the damage our progress has brought. It is also not enough to manage our risks and be more shock-resistant. Now is not only the time to course correct and be more resilient. It is a time to imagine what we can generate for the world. Not only can we work to minimize our footprint but we can also create positive handprints. It is time to strive for a world that thrives.”

A focus on policies that support resilience, anti-fragility and thrivability avoids the hubris of thinking we can predict the future climate. The relevant questions then become:

• How can we best promote the development of transformative ideas and technologies?

• How much resilience can we afford?

The threats from climate change (whether natural or human caused) are fundamentally regional, associated not only with regional changes to the weather/climate, but with local vulnerabilities and cultural values and perceptions. In the least developed countries, energy poverty and survivability is of overwhelming concern, where there are severe challenges to meeting basic needs and their idea of clean energy is something other than burning dung inside their dwelling for cooking and heating. In many less developed countries, particularly in South Asia, an overwhelming concern is vulnerability to extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes that can set back the local economies for a generation. In the developed world, countries are relatively less vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather events and have the luxury of experimenting with new ideas: entrepreneurs not only want to make money, but also to strive for greatness and transform the infrastructure for society.

Extreme weather/climate events such as landfalling major hurricanes, floods, extreme heat waves and droughts become catastrophes through a combination of large populations, large and exposed infrastructure in vulnerable locations, and human modification of natural systems that can provide a natural safety barrier (e.g. deforestation, draining wetlands). Addressing current adaptive deficits and planning for climate compatible development will increase societal resilience to future extreme events that may possibly be more frequent or severe in the future.

Ways forward

Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a future threat from manmade climate change. Based upon our current assessment of the science, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation. However, the perception of manmade climate change as a near-term apocalypse and alignment with range of other social objectives has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider.