The Daily Climate: Is climate change irreversible?

How does/will climate change affect your daily life, and the lives of the children in your family?

Which solutions -- from clean energy to excellent mass transit to green jobs, and others -- will make the most difference in your life? In their lives?

If we continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we will hit a point of no return and change the climate for thousand years, according to yesterday's bombshell report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization:

…the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop…. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ”dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise.

In a certain respect, this report simply makes plain something that climate experts have been saying, but perhaps not loudly emphasizing: Some changes to the climate are irreversible: the oceans are soaking up heat, and will have to let it off eventually. This is the physics of thermal inertia, plain and simple.

The scope of this report (one thousand years!!) does make for dismaying news. But catch a whiff of that if in the quote above. If CO2 concentrations get to 450-600 ppm over the next century, the droughts and sea level rise will be unstoppable.

That if is the response when obstructionists say, 'we can't stop it, so why do anything?'

Right now the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is at 386 ppm, according to NASA. It will be difficult work, politically and physically, to cap and cut CO2 pollution enough to peak at or below 450, get to 350 ppm by 2050, and continue to drop thereafter. Difficult -- but not impossible. If we succeed, some of the worst impacts of global warming -- including widespread drought that will displace millions and disrupt agriculture -- can be averted.

But how to pull this off? Last week's poll from the Pew Center revealed that Americans have a poor on grasp the science of climate change, and care relatively little about doing anything about it.

Reflecting on the enviro-handwringing over these findings, Gristmill's Dave Roberts tips some sacred cows of green advocacy: the answer isn't "raising awareness," or educating the public on the science.

The public is already "aware" of climate change. It's friggin' everywhere. It gets as much as or more publicity than virtually any other sociopolitical problem outside the economic downturn. Pop stars are writing songs about it fer chrissake. Awareness: check.

As for educating the public on the science, guess what? The public's kinda ignorant about science. Have you seen the polls on evolution, or ghosts, or aliens, or telepathy? They're horrifying...

So, if people are already "aware," and a renaissance of widespread scientific literacy is unlikely in the next few years, what direction to take from these polls? You have to start with plausible answers for why so many people refuse to believe in or prioritize climate change.

Start with this question: why don't you ever see polls on public knowledge of the Standard Model in physics or valence bond theory in chemistry? Because frankly, who cares if the public understands those things. They need to understand science insofar as science impinges on their lives and calls on them to make decisions.

When science does impinge, the public responds based on two basic questions, both of which are just as much emotional as rational:

1. Is this a problem that threatens me/my family/my tribe? Is there an imminent threat? Is it an emergency?

2. Do the proposed solutions to the problem threaten me/my family/my tribe? Am I going to get screwed?

It's like ice water down the back to be told by a respected colleague that, effectively, conveying understanding of the science doesn't matter -- but upon reflection, my experience bears it out.

Occasionally respond directly to inaccuracies about climate science posted to the comments on this blog, I labor over my explanations, and provide links to mainstream resources like NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC.

Despite my care, and the authority of my sources, I've apparently changed no minds so far. In fact, a couple contrarians in the comments recently announced that they're going elsewhere, where minds are "more open."

Why doesn't good science matter to contrarians? Because in the end, no matter how it's expressed dismissing the reality of global warming is about ideology. Or political partisanship, if you prefer.

So if better public awareness or improving science education aren't the answers, what are? "Those two answers are what need changing," writes Dave, "and they won't be changed by scientific reports and data. Two things seem called for:

Greens, politicians, and other communicators need to get serious about calling climate change the impending catastrophe it is, with serious, dire consequences for people now living, certainly for their children. That means risking being called "hysterics" by conservatives and their dupes in the media.

The same folks need to get better at showing the public the opportunities and benefits of action. It's about expanding the winner's circle and making damn sure everybody in it, or potentially in it, knows about it.

Video: An interview with the lead author on NOAA's report, Dr. Susan Solomon. Source: ScienceCentral via YouTube