19/09/2020

NASA-Led Ice Melt Study Makes A Terrifying Prediction About Rising Sea Levels

SlashGearChris Davies

Unchecked greenhouse gas emissions could lead to more than a 15-inch rise in sea levels, scientists have concluded, using NASA data to issue a stark warning about melting ice sheets. The huge rise would lead to dramatic flooding in coastal regions around the world, and create a potentially apocalyptic chain reaction of consequences.

Warming conditions on Earth are already being blamed for existing melting of ice, and rising sea levels. However according to the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project (ISMIP6), led by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, there’s even further melting to be considered.

It saw more than 60 specialists on ice, ocean, and atmospheric research – from three dozen different international institutions from around the world – come together to figure out just what happens if Greenland and Antarctica’s ice sheets melt. The results of the two studies, published in journal The Cryosphere, make for ominous reading.

By the year 2100, they concluded, and if greenhouse emissions are curtailed from their current levels, the combined ice sheet melt could lead to more than 15-inches of global sea level increase. Meltwater from those ice sheets is believed to account for around a third of total global sea level rise. Earlier studies have suggested that, even if we make changes now, sea levels will rise by around a quarter-inch by 2100.



“One of the biggest uncertainties when it comes to how much sea level will rise in the future is how much the ice sheets will contribute,” Sophie Nowicki, now at the University at Buffalo, and formerly at NASA Goddard, and project leader of the study, said today. “And how much the ice sheets contribute is really dependent on what the climate will do.”

The challenge is that there’s a double impact causing ice sheets at the north and south poles to shrink, and in the process release huge amounts of water. On the one hand, air temperatures are increasing, which melts surface level ice. At the same time, ocean temperatures are also increasing, causing glaciers to shrink and retreat. A study in August predicted that unexpectedly precarious ice shelves in the Antarctic could be prone to shearing away, in the process dramatically ramping up the pace at which the ice melts.

This latest study examined two possibilities. On the positive side, the team modeled a lower emissions scenario, where carbon emissions were dramatically curtailed. That still saw global sea levels increase by approximately 1.3 inches.



The other model took a more pessimistic view, where emissions increased with little in the way of attempts to check their output. There, they concluded, melting ice sheets could add around 3.5 inches to the already rising oceans.

Lending further complexity is the fact that the changes and melt-rates aren’t consistent across all areas. Some regions are more sensitive to warmer oceans and differences in currents: the Amundsen Sea sector in West Antarctica, and Wilkes Land in East Antarctica, for example, are cited as being the most vulnerable to changes in the simulations.

“With these new results, we can focus our efforts in the correct direction and know what needs to be worked on to continue improving the projections,” Hélène Seroussi, an ice scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, and lead on the Antarctic ice sheet modeling, explains.

Links

Noam Chomsky: The World Is At The Most Dangerous Moment In Human History

New Statesman - George Eaton

The US professor warns that the climate crisis, the threat of nuclear war and rising authoritarianism mean the risk of human extinction has never been greater. 

Noam Chomsky pictured in Brazil in 2018. HEULER ANDREY/AFP via Getty Images

Noam Chomsky has warned that the world is at the most dangerous moment in human history owing to the climate crisis, the threat of nuclear war and rising authoritarianism. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman, the 91-year-old US linguist and activist said that the current perils exceed those of the 1930s. 

“There’s been nothing like it in human history,” Chomsky said. “I’m old enough to remember, very vividly, the threat that Nazism could take over much of Eurasia, that was not an idle concern. US military planners did anticipate that the war would end with a US-dominated region and a German-dominated region... But even that, horrible enough, was not like the end of organised human life on Earth, which is what we’re facing.”

Chomsky was interviewed in advance of the first summit of the Progressive International (18-20 September), a new organisation founded by Bernie Sanders, the former US presidential candidate, and Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, to counter right-wing authoritarianism. In an echo of the movement’s slogan “internationalism or extinction”, Chomsky warned: “We’re at an astonishing confluence of very severe crises. The extent of them was illustrated by the last setting of the famous Doomsday Clock. It’s been set every year since the atom bombing, the minute hand has moved forward and back. But last January, they abandoned minutes and moved to seconds to midnight, which means termination. And that was before the scale of the pandemic.”

This shift, Chomsky said, reflected “the growing threat of nuclear war, which is probably more severe than it was during the Cold War. The growing threat of environmental catastrophe, and the third thing that they’ve been picking up for the last few years is the sharp deterioration of democracy, which sounds at first as if it doesn’t belong but it actually does, because the only hope for dealing with the two existential crises, which do threaten extinction, is to deal with them through a vibrant democracy with engaged, informed citizens who are participating in developing programmes to deal with these crises.”

Chomsky added that “[Donald] Trump has accomplished something quite impressive: he’s succeeded in increasing the threat of each of the three dangers. On nuclear weapons, he’s moved to continue, and essentially bring to an end, the dismantling of the arms control regime, which has offered some protection against terminal disaster. He’s greatly increased the development of new, dangerous, more threatening weapons, which means others do so too, which is increasing the threat to all of us. 

“On environmental catastrophe, he’s escalated his effort to maximise the use of fossil fuels and to terminate the regulations that somewhat mitigate the effect of the coming disaster if we proceed on our present course.”

“On the deterioration of democracy, it’s become a joke. The executive branch of [the US] government has been completely purged of any dissident voice. Now it’s left with a group of sycophants.”

Chomsky described Trump as the figurehead of a new “reactionary international” consisting of Brazil, India, the UK, Egypt, Israel and Hungary. “In the western hemisphere the leading candidate is [Jair] Bolsonaro’s Brazil, kind of a small-time clone of President Trump. In the Middle East it will be based on the family dictatorships, the most reactionary states in the world. [Abdel al-]Sisi’s Egypt is the worst dictatorship that Egypt has ever had. Israel has moved so far to the right that you need a telescope to see it, it’s about the only country in the world where young people are even more reactionary than adults.”

He added: “[Narendra] Modi is destroying Indian secular democracy, severely repressing the Muslim population, he’s just vastly extended the terrible Indian occupation of Kashmir. In Europe, the leading candidate is [Viktor] Orbán in Hungary, who is creating a proto-fascist state. There are other figures, like [Matteo] Salvini in Italy, who gets his kicks out of watching refugees drown in the Mediterranean.”

Of the UK, he said: “[Nigel] Farage will come along and be a proper candidate if Boris Johnson doesn’t serve the purpose, which he may.” He added that the UK government’s threat to “violate international law and make a total break with the European Union” would “turn a fading Britain into even more of a vassal of the United States then it’s already become”. 

Chomsky described the Progressive International, whose council also includes former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, novelist Arundhati Roy and former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa, as “a loose coalition of people committed to a world of justice, peace, democratic participation, of changing social and economic institutions, so that they are not geared for private profit for the few but for the needs and concerns of the general population.”

Having lived through 22 US presidential elections, Chomsky warned that Trump’s threat to refuse to leave office if defeated by Democratic candidate Joe Biden was unprecedented. 

“He’s already announced repeatedly that if he doesn’t like the outcome of the election he won’t leave. And this is taken very seriously by two high-level military officers, ex-military leaders, who’ve just sent a letter to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, reviewing for him his constitutional duties if the president refuses to leave office and gathers around him the paramilitary forces that he’s been using to terrorise people in Portland.

“The military has a duty in that case, the 82nd Airborne Division, to remove him by force. There’s a transition integrity project, high-level people from the Republicans and the Democrats; they’ve been running war games asking what would happen if Trump refuses to leave office – every one of them leads to civil war, every scenario that they can think of except a Trump victory leads to civil war. This is not a joke – nothing like this has happened in the history of parliamentary democracy. 

“It was bad enough when your guy, Boris Johnson, prorogued parliament, which led to a furore. The Supreme Court intervened but it was too late. The [US] Supreme Court isn’t going to intervene here, not after the right-wing appointments that Trump has managed, so we’re at a moment that has never happened.”

Chomsky urged US leftists to vote for Biden in this November’s presidential election and to press him to pursue a progressive agenda. 

“What the left should do is what it always should do: it should recognise that real politics is constant activism, in one form or another. Every couple of years something comes along called an election, you should take off a few minutes to decide if it’s worth voting against somebody, rarely for somebody. In the course of, say, Corbyn in England, I would have voted for him but most of the time the question is ‘who do you vote against?’ 

“This time the answer to that question is just overwhelmingly obvious: the Trump Republicans are just so utterly outrageous, way off the spectrum, that there’s simply no question about voting against them. So you take off a few minutes, go to the voting booth, push a lever, vote against Trump, which in a two-party system means you have to push the vote for the other candidate. But then the next thing you do is to challenge them, keep the pressure on to move them towards progressive programmes.”

Asked whether he still identified as an anarchist, Chomsky replied: “We have to ask what we mean by ‘anarchist’. In my view everybody, if they stop to think about it, is an anarchist, except the people who are pathological. The core principle of anarchism, from its origins, has been that authority and domination and hegemony have a burden of proof to bear, they have to prove that they’re legitimate. Sometimes they are, sometimes you can give an argument. If you can’t, they should be dismantled.

“How should they be dismantled? Well, you have to work on that, you can’t do it by snapping your fingers. Organisations are developing elements of the future society within the present one. But I think that ideal is virtually universal within our moral system, except for really pathological elements.”

Links

How Rich, Western Nations Drive Climate Crisis

New AgeSarah Lazare

New analysis finds the global north is responsible for 92 per cent of all excess global carbon dioxide emissions while the global south bears the brunt of the devastation, writes Sarah Lazare

Firefighters battle a brush fire along Japatul Road during the Valley Fire in Jamul, California on September 6. — Agence France-Presse/Getty Images/Sandy Huffaker

SUMMARY

As of 2015 percentage of excess global COemissions:
  • USA: 40%.
  • The European Union (EU-28): 29%.
  • G8 nations (the USA, EU-28, Russia, Japan, and Canada): 85%. 
  • UN Framework Convention on Climate Change nations (most industrialised countries): 90%.
  • The Global North (USA, Canada, Europe, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Japan): 92%. 
  • The Global South: 8%.
THE climate disaster fuelling unprecedented fires across the western United States, threatening to swallow the Marshall Islands into the ocean, and unleashing perennial hunger crises on South Sudan is a global catastrophe.

But the global responsibility is not born equally. An analysis published in the September issue of The Lancet: Planetary Health shines new light on the outsized role of the United States, European Union and the global north in creating a climate crisis that, while felt everywhere, is disproportionately harming the global south.

As of 2015, the United States bore responsibility for 40 per cent of ‘excess global carbon dioxide emissions’, finds the analysis, authored by Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist, author and a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

The Group of Eight (the United States, the European Union, Russia, Japan and Canada) is responsible for 85 per cent of such emissions. And the global north (defined as the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Japan) is responsible for 92 per cent.

In contrast, the global south — which is by far bearing the brunt of climate droughts, floods, famines, storms, sea level rise and deaths — is responsible for just 8 per cent of excess global carbon dioxide emissions.

While other researchers have calculated countries’ current annual emissions, as well as cumulative historic ones, Hickel tells In These Times ‘none of this tells us how much nations have contributed to emissions in excess of the safe level.’ His methodology starts from ‘the position that the atmosphere is a common resource and that all people should have equal access to it within the safe planetary boundary (defined as 350 parts per million atmospheric concentration of CO2)’, he says.

Hickel calculated the ‘national fair shares of a safe global carbon budget.’ Then he subtracted these fair shares from the historical emissions of countries — ‘territorial emissions from 1850 to 1969, and consumption-based emissions from 1970 to 2015.’ This calculation was then used to determine ‘the extent to which each country has overshot or undershot its fair share’, states the analysis.

‘In other words’, says Hickel, ‘this method allows us to answer the question: “Who got us into this mess?”’

The analysis is meant to not only measure national responsibility for global emissions, but to identify those countries that are colonising the atmosphere. ‘The results show that the countries of the global north have “stolen” a big chunk of the atmospheric fair-shares of poorer countries, and on top of that are responsible for the vast majority of excess emissions’, Hickel explains. ‘In other words’, he adds, ‘they have effectively colonised the global atmospheric commons for the sake of their own industrial growth, and for the sake of maintaining their own high levels of energy consumption.’

The study finds that, in contrast to global north countries, ‘most countries in the global south were within their boundary fair shares, including India and China.’ This is despite the fact that China, with more than four times the population of the United States, is presently the top overall emitter of greenhouse gases, although the United States is the top emitter per capita.

According to the analysis, ‘When it comes to climate change, however, what matters is stocks of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not annual flows; so responsibility must be measured in terms of each country’s contribution to cumulative historical emissions.’ Yet, the study notes, ‘given that China’s annual emissions are roughly 9 billion tonnes per year, it will soon overshoot its fair share.’

The fact that the United States and global north bear disproportionate responsibility for driving the climate crisis does not let China off the hook for cutting emissions, says Hickel. ‘If China does not reduce emissions, and fast, then we are all doomed’, he underscores. And indeed, climate activists have argued that in order to curb the climate crisis, the United States and China must overcome their confrontational footing and cooperate to dramatically cut emissions.

However, Hickel makes the moral argument that ‘clearly the countries that have contributed the most to excess emissions must cut emissions fastest, with the United States and Europe leading the way. They have a responsibility to get to zero as soon as is physically possible — in a matter of years, not decades. This can be feasibly achieved, and we should all demand it.’

Other studies and analyses have pointed to the disproportionate responsibility of the global north, and wealthy countries, for driving the climate crisis. A study released by Oxfam International in 2015 found that the poorest half of the world’s population — roughly 3.5 billion people — are to blame for just 10% of ‘total global emissions attributed to individual consumption’, yet they ‘live overwhelmingly in the countries most vulnerable to climate change.’ In contrast, the richest 10 per cent of people in the world are responsible for roughly 50 per cent of global emissions.

A 2015 paper published in Scientific Reports identifies ‘free rider’ and ‘forced rider’ countries. It explains, ‘“Free rider” countries contribute disproportionately to global [greenhouse gas] emissions with only limited vulnerability to the effects of the resulting climate change, while “forced rider” countries are most vulnerable to climate change but have contributed little to its genesis.’

Yet, even as acute effects of the climate crisis are being felt in the United States, the Republican Party continues to embrace climate denial, and the leadership of the Democratic Party shows reluctance to curb the fossil fuel production driving the crisis — and hostility to radical solutions like the Green New Deal.

The United States has contributed only $1 billion to the UN’s Green Climate Fund, meant to help ‘developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change’ (former president Barack Obama pledged $3 billion, but president Trump later reneged on $2 billion of it).

Whatever horrific price U.S. residents in the direct path of harmful fires are forced to pay for politicians’ inaction, the costs to the global south will be greater in scale. ‘We know that the global south suffers more than 90 per cent of the costs of climate breakdown, and 98 per cent of the deaths associated with climate breakdown, due to fires, floods, droughts, famine, disease, displacement and so on’, says Hickel. ‘So, just like under colonialism, the North is benefiting at the expense of the South.’
Links