And not only that, but the clues are there, the cracks in apparent reality, our ‘laws’ just don’t work, none of them …our conceptions are all assumptions of completeness where none exists… almost everything we believe could change tomorrow and all we could say is that we were wrong about causality…

But then what does the spirit see in our world …the answer is the whole of time and space , known , no doubt about beginning or end, no unknown future … and that vision of the end of time is given to us, but most will not look, will not believe, even if it came from their own hearts, their own ‘inner perception, their own inspiration…
So one cannot comfort mankind with the truth about what is our essence because of ‘inbuilt’ blindness, it is not just that most will not look, most are not moved to look, belief as-it-were prevents the seeing of the source of ALL knowledge, inspiration… our science refuses to look at its own source … the politics of lies and religion, and tradition thus complete the blindness process, but no-one is to ‘blame’ … we cannot see as individuals because that is how it is , when we shall see is when we shall see, and some that have seen have said so, but it changes not very much as incredibly few will listen and look and see… and that indeed has to be so…
The upshot then is that there is , in a sense that is real, only a virtual crisis … life does not even end at death, only at the time of ceasing all unlovingness [and then not necessarily immediately and indeed the individual may return to virtuality once freed of death, of 'mortality' ... love is the only way out of life, but life says only very little about being ... being is beyond time and space , and it is that which moves us as individuals ... we are that being , ina sense we are its knowing of time and space, but time and space are no threat to being... the evidence for this is ,I believe, clear within us all, we should recognise it as true [hence I say it is 'absolute' ] , but belief of reason based on false evidence defeats our own inspiration of the truth…that is how it must be for most, so most will not see anything in this I write ….

The ambiguous term ‘runaway’ is probably not that helpful, but I think it is relatively uncontroversial that with climate inertia meaning that we have at least another 0.6 degrees of warming in the pipeline, and with the impacts of the already-present 0.8 degree rise vastly greater than what humanity predicted, we are already into a situation in which the consequences of present atmospheric concentrations would pull us beyond any comfortable equilibrium temperature even without any further human input. But this is not to say that urgent human input in the other direction (actively reducing atmospheric concentrations) couldn’t stabilise our climate in a less deadly state. As James Hansen wrote in a 2008 paper in Science (worth checking out too):
“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385ppm to at most 350ppm, but likely less than that.”

And yes, not making one’s happiness or sanity dependent on external success can be a powerful lesson. Perhaps a more pertinent measure is the story you would honestly tell about yourself on your deathbed. If you know you’re living the one you’d want to be telling, then all manner of suffering and disappointment can be borne.

I agree with others, I dread that we are probably past the tipping point and its all down hill from here. Yet I too cling to a small shred of hope. 2010 and 2011 will tell the tale I believe.

Here is hoping we can spread the information needed to save as many as can be.

Your perception that we are already into ‘runaway’, as opposed to being on a path that is increasingly likely to have committed us to ‘runaway’, is new to me.
I’d long assumed that the P feedbacks have yet to offset the [declining] annual C recovery by the planet’s sinks.
Can you point me toward any (lay-intelligible) data on this question ?

Govts’ failure to utilize either the widely endorsed diplomatic framework of C&C, (disclosure: I’m Rural Development Liaison for GCI, as well as hill farmer/forester in Powys)
just like their tedious abstention on the demonstrably seminal geo-engineering option of ‘Reforestation for energy, biochar & biodiversity’,
is very depressing for those who struggle through all the distractions to realize just what is being missed.

Some decades ago I learned that there is a level of commitment in the hardest of tasks that demands that hope of success be set aside – it carries debilitating stresses with it. The fact that the work of generating the re-orientation is worth doing has to be enough motivation to persevere, regardless of the chances of seeing the turn achieved.

This is not an outlook that can usefully be evangelised. Some of those who find hope failing them may perhaps benefit from being introduced to it.

With best wishes,

Lewis

Yes, I use the terms as Wasdell does. My opinion at present is that we are into a ‘runaway’ situation (the amplifying feedbacks are dominating), that the science has not yet shut the door on the possibility of avoiding unstoppable runaway, but that the speed of change necessary socially and politically makes it extremely unlikely that we will ever find out whether we still had a chance.

As described in the post, part of me insists that there may still be a tiny chance left of maintaining a stable climate, and part accepts that unstoppable runaway climate change is now inevitable. I find I tend to look for activities that seem meaningful to both parts.

And yes Tamara, as you say, the endpoint of the runaway process remains unclear. Of course there is no such thing as endlessly amplifying runaway – it will always return to equilibrium eventually as a hotter planet loses more heat to space – but we do not yet know what that equilibrium might look like. The Venus scenario is, well, beyond sobering.

Nonetheless, any such endpoint remains many generations away, and the terrain that I find increasingly interesting is the lives we might lead while (potentially) on the path there.

Peter Ward’s green skies, purple oceans and oxygen levels too low to support humans at all?

Or, the one that truly gives me existential nightmares, Jim Hansen’s caution (Storms of my Grandchildren) that we really are capable of crashing past the last tipping point on the way to the Venus Syndrome?

Not that any of the scenarios are at all nice, or good for our karma, as such, but the last…I just can’t even get my head around it.

You use the term “unstoppable runaway climate change”. I wonder if you make a distinction between “runaway” and “unstoppable” climate change – as per David Wasdell?

My understanding is that **runaway** means that the positive (amplifying) feedback loops create more instability and change than the countering negative (damping) feedbacks, and unchecked, this situation will lead to unstoppable. However, it can be checked with interventions – as you’ve mentioned elsewhere with soil remediation, reforestation, reduction of emissions etc.

On the other hand, **unstoppable** means that there’s no going back, that the feedback mechanisms we can influence (eg CO2 emission levels) will no longer dampen the other feedbacks that have taken on an escalating life of their own (eg methane, water vapour, sea-ice albedo). In complexity terms, I believe David W refers this as moving into a completely new attractor basin of climate behaviour.

Based on your discussion of above, it looks like you’re contemplating the possibility that we’ve gone beyond runaway and into unstoppable.

I think this is a very valuable discussion to have, and I know a lot of people for whom it’s very real. However, I think that discussion needs to be first framed with a clear definition of “runaway” and “unstoppable” and where exactly on that continuum this discussion has its footing.

Cheers. Ben.