Science Snippets: 2030 Is Still Too Soon

Draft script:

I recently mentioned the likelihood of human extinction by 2030, and sooner if we lose ice floating on the Arctic Ocean. We have been remarkably fortunate in not losing Arctic ice, contrary to the predictions of renowned scholars. Assuming we do not experience an ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few years, what are the odds we make it beyond 2030?

Earth is in the midst of abrupt, irreversible climate change, as indicated by the scientifically conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s 8 October 2018 report, Global Warming of 1.5 degrees, concluded that Earth is in the midst of the most rapid change in planetary history, citing the peer-reviewed literature in reaching this conclusion: “These global-level rates of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biosphere forces that have altered the Earth System trajectory in the past …; even abrupt geophysical events do not approach current rates of human-driven change.” The situation has not improved since 8 October 2018, when the IPCC concluded that the ongoing rate of change underlain by anthropogenic climate change is by far the fastest in planetary history.

The IPCC admitted to the irreversibility of climate change due to an overheated ocean in its 24 September 2019, Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Thus, the IPCC has correctly and finally concluded that climate change is abrupt and also irreversible. The situation has not improved since 24 September 2019.

How scientifically conservative is the IPCC? Even the conservative and renowned peer-reviewed journal BioScience includes a paper in its March 2019 issue titled, Statistical Language Backs Conservatism in Climate-Change Assessments. This paper by Herrando-Pérez and colleagues includes the following information: “We found that the tone of the IPCC’s probabilistic language is remarkably conservative …, and emanates from the IPCC recommendations themselves, complexity of climate research, and exposure to politically motivated debates. Leveraging communication of uncertainty with overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change should be one element of a wider reform, whereby the creation of an IPCC outreach working group could enhance the transmission of climate science to the panel’s audiences.”

Contrary to the conclusion from Herrando-Pérez and colleagues, I cannot imagine the IPCC is interested in transmitting climate science to the panel’s audiences. After all, as Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer wrote in an essay titled, How the IPCC Got Started on the Environmental Defense Fund website on 1 November 2007, the United States government during the Ronald Reagan administration “saw the creation of the IPCC as a way to prevent the activism stimulated by my colleagues and me from controlling the policy agenda.” In other words, the IPCC was designed to fail with respect to significant societal changes that would produce positive results.

Earth is in the midst of abrupt, irreversible climate change. The situation is far worse than suggested by this conclusion.

Civilization is a heat engine, regardless how it is powered, according to five peer-reviewed papers by professor Tim Garrett. In other words, so-called “green energy” based on photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines offers no way out of the ongoing climate emergency. I concluded that the monetary system is driving us to extinction in the early 2000s. I opted out of the monetary system—that is, I stopped accepting paychecks—and I lived off-grid for more than a decade in an attempt to demonstrate leadership with respect to one’s carbon footprint. I returned to a relatively conventional way of life when I learned about Garrett’s work and the aerosol masking effect.

Reducing industrial activity is the fastest path to human extinction, and therefore the extinction of all life on Earth. Reducing industrial activity causes aerosols to fall out of the atmosphere in about five days, according to Professor James E. Hansen in many presentations, interviews, and papers.

Earth is in the midst of abrupt, irreversible climate change. Reducing industrial activity is the fastest path to extinction of all life on Earth, contrary to what you hear from the idiots at Dumb Green Resistance. The situation is far worse than that.

Earth is in the midst of a Mass Extinction Event, as reported by E.O. Wilson, “the father of biodiversity,” in his 1992 book, The Diversity of Life. Specifically, he wrote on page 32 of the original edition: “Humanity has initiated the sixth great extinction spasm, rushing to eternity a large fraction of our fellow species in a single generation.”

With respect to the ongoing Mass Extinction Event, professor Gerardo Ceballos said to the BBC on 20 June 2015: “If it is allowed to continue, life will take many millions of years to recover and our species itself would likely disappear early on.” Ceballos’ comment came upon the release of a paper for which he was the lead author in the renowned, peer-reviewed Science Advances. The peer-reviewed paper was published on 19 June 2015.

Subsequent research indicates that, instead of taking millions of years to recover, the living planet will never recover. As Strona and Bradshaw reported in Scientific Reports on 13 November 2018 with a peer-reviewed, open-access paper titled Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change, the ongoing rate of environmental change is likely to cause the extinction of all life on Earth. However, this paper indicates that “a rogue, seemingly desert Earth wandering across the Universe could still have some tiny chance of blooming again under some lucky — and unlikely — circumstances.”

I’d rather not depend upon lucky and unlikely circumstances for our continued survival. However, this is a classic case of damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If we retain Industrial Civilization, then we drive ourselves to extinction in the near term. After all, the ongoing rate of environmental change underlies the ongoing Mass Extinction Event, which almost certainly will drive to extinction all life on Earth. If we slow or stop Industrial Civilization, then we drive ourselves and all other species to extinction even faster as a result of loss of aerosol masking and also the implosion of nuclear facilities.

I have repeatedly mentioned the likelihood of nuclear facilities imploding, thus leading to ionizing radiation stripping away stratospheric ozone. This will super-heat the planet, as subtly indicated in the 2021 film Finch. The subsequent rate of environmental change will drive to extinction all life on Earth.

I am criticized daily for concluding that our species will be extinct by 2030. Bear in mind that a peer-reviewed, open-access paper in the renowned Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published on 10 December 2018 concluded that “climates like those of the Pliocene will prevail as soon as 2030 CE and persist under climate stabilization scenarios.” In using the IPCC’s conservative Representative Concentration Pathways, this paper ignores dozens of self-reinforcing feedback loops and the aerosol masking effect. The mid-Pliocene was at least 2 C warmer than today. This stunningly rapid rate of environmental change ensures our near-term extinction.

This conclusion is bleak. Let’s take another tack.

A paper in the 8 April 2020 issue of Nature projects that the collapse of ocean ecosystems will begin during the decade of the 2020s. The paper uses the IPCC’s Representative Concentration Pathways, thereby ignoring dozens of self-reinforcing feedback loops and the aerosol masking effect: “We project that future disruption of ecological assemblages as a result of climate change will be abrupt, because within any given ecological assemblage the exposure of most species to climate conditions beyond their realized niche limits occurs almost simultaneously. Under a high-emissions scenario … such abrupt exposure events begin before 2030 in tropical oceans and spread to tropical forests and higher latitudes by 2050. If global warming is kept below 2 °C, less than 2% of assemblages globally are projected to undergo abrupt exposure events of more than 20% of their constituent species …” As you know, governments of the world concluded in October 2023 that we sailed by the 2 C Rubicon.

I have incorrectly predicted our extinction in the past. Relying on peer-reviewed publications and—occasionally—the scholars who created these publications has led me astray. Could I be wrong again? I’m no fan of hope, but I certainly hope so.

I began this video with a question: “Assuming we do not experience an ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few years, what are the odds we make it beyond 2030?”

My answer: essentially zero. Even if the Arctic Ocean remains covered in ice for the next few decades, the future is bleak for Homo sapiens. I encourage you to live accordingly.