Forum / Too Much Too Late

• 
  strannikov

  Apr 01, 04:20pm

  (Nota bene: the following essay was composed by yours truly with assistance from the Gemini LLM serving as fact-supplier for the argument I was assembling. The argument I have assembled is only tentative, suggestive, and indicative, reflecting the real circumstance that "climate realities" are themselves some distance out in front of climate measurements and analyses thereof, which themselves are some distance far out in front of policy responses over the past three decades and more to climate concerns. The essay is thus a provocation and does not attempt to pose any solution, even though it suggests a shocking magnitude of response that conceivably is already necessary and overdue. I must also ask readers to bear with formatting errors.)

  Too Much Too Late

  Indivisible, the outfit sponsoring the nationwide “No Kings” protests, claims that over eight million citizens participated in the 28 March 2026 rallies it helped organize across the U. S. This figure of participation is not seriously under dispute from any credible source.

  For all the thought and planning that went into organizing the protests, however, little to no thought seems to have been given to resulting climate impacts.

  Failure to assess climate impacts among individual citizens of any of the world’s nations and countries, even in an era of “climate sensitivity”, is ridiculously common, even or especially at such a comparatively late date as Spring 2026.

  Commercial cults of celebrity, for instance, remain oddly deaf and blind to legitimate climate concerns in our perilous days and times. To note but two recent and conspicuous instances: Madonna’s Copacabana Rio concert in May 2024 attracted an estimated 1.6 million attendees, while Lady Gaga’s Copacabana Rio concert in May 2025 attracted an estimated 2.5 million attendees. (While these two events had fewer attendees than the most recent “No Kings” rallies, their per-capita emissions were likely higher due to the concentration of international tourism calculated in terms of numbers of flights and passenger miles.)

  The March 2026 “No Kings” protests (hereafter: NK3) more than doubled the participation rates for the two Copacabana Rio concerts just mentioned. NK3 participants chiefly were not flying to protest venues nor were they walking or cycling: many if not most were driving or relying on some other form of automotive transport to and from their protest venues.

  Because this essay is being composed less than a week after NK3, rude and crude back-of-the-envelope calculations will have to suffice for now, but even initial “rough estimates” do not look appetizing.

  Travel to and from protest venues would have accounted for anywhere from 70% to 85% of CO2 emissions. Further assuming a roughly forty-mile round trip (whether in an individual ICE vehicle or by way of public transport), about fifteen kilograms of CO2 per attendee would have been emitted. The NK3 protests and rallies thus would have generated over 120,000 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions.

  One metric tonne equals 2,204.62 pounds. Thus: well over 260 million pounds of CO2 emissions were generated in a single day of NK3 protests. (This figure can legitimately be augmented by adding in CO2 emissions resulting from energy consumption [mainly, electricity] at venue sites, which could easily inflate the 120,000 metric tonne figure by 15,000 metric tonnes to a total of 135,000 metric tonnes—another thirty-three million pounds of CO2 emissions, which means we’re closing in on a range of 295 to 300 million pounds of CO2 emissions for a single day’s protests.)

  A metric tonne of CO2 released for a protest has the same radiative forcing as a metric tonne of CO2 released for a luxury cruise.

  Perhaps possibly maybe Indivisible’s leaders would argue that preserving democratic institutions is a prerequisite for climate action. With other political activists they may share the idea that the American administrative state can or should be dismantled and that therefore any amount of “personal carbon foot-printing” expended in organized and visible protests can be tolerated: mass protests may be seen by protest organizers as a legitimate if not necessary expenditure to protect the legal framework required for future decarbonization. For NK3 participants the carbon emissions costs of being one of over eight million people marching in local venues is “the cost of doing business” (assuming that the protests can actually shift policy enough so that resulting emissions reductions would dwarf the carbon emissions footprints of the rallies themselves). Carbon emissions in the staging of public political protests comprise just one of the “sunk costs” of political protest.

  Political debate could therefore ensue as to whether political protest advocates and participants (just as devotees of commercial cults of celebrity) have any good ideas of just how perilously close our planet’s residents are to activating self-amplifying feedback loops as of April 2026.

  On Tuesday, 31 March 2026, new satellite data confirmed that the Gulf Stream’s path has shifted north by approximately 50 kilometers. Modeling suggests this is a late-stage indicator of a weakening Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
  
  The three-year period ending in 2025 formally and officially breached the 1.5°C threshold set in the Paris Agreement: while three-years’ worth of data is only a slice of a 20-year average, the empirical reality is that we have already entered an “overshoot” era.

  Methane releases from Siberian and Canadian sub-arctic permafrost zones and regions are now estimated to be accelerating at nearly double the rate projected as recently as 2020.

  As of 1 March 2026, Arctic sea ice extent was the second-lowest in the satellite record. We are closer than ever to approaching the threshold where the “Blue Ocean Event” (an ice-free Arctic summer) becomes a mathematical certainty, permanently removing the planet’s primary heat reflector.

  Although many political activists and protesters may well understand the peril, they behave as if they believe that without functioning, responsive governments to manage coming asymmetries, self-amplifying feedback loops will be activated that result in total societal unraveling. They may not be ignoring the CO2 emissions of their rallies at all but are instead accepting that some expenditure of kinetic energy is required to move a stalled political engine before the climate system renders all policy moot.

  This could well be exactly the wrong approach to take in our present circumstances.

  If the past three decades of sclerotic political response tells us anything at all in Spring 2026, obviously, we cannot rely on nation-states and their top-down bureaucracies to enforce limits to CO2 emissions: the economies they help to manage were built to promote consumption, and simply buying into regular consumption habits in order to hope to effect “systemic change” does nothing to avert the climate crisis already facing us.

  Again: A metric tonne of CO2 released for a protest has the same radiative forcing as a metric tonne of CO2 released for a luxury cruise. Self-amplifying feedback loops do not care about “intent” behind CO2 emissions: one metric tonne of CO2 is equal to one metric tonne of CO2.

  Arguments that we must “buy into” existing consumption habits (traveling to rallies, using digital infrastructure, maintaining global logistics) to effect political change assumes that global climate has a linear response to policy. —but our climate sciences and scientists cannot construct working climate models with the “linear” assumptions that afflict not only policymakers but, sadly and apparently, contrarian political activists themselves.

  The massive volume of CO2 emissions from c. 1850 to today represents a physical reality that top-down bureaucracies are ill-equipped to manage, especially when any “systemic change” being sought relies on the very consumption patterns that only add to this weight.

  If political activists in 2026 are not in fact shy about engaging in political debate, they may have to or want to contend with the view that the only responsible approach going forward is to encourage as little automotive transportation as possible, across all circumstances (work and leisure, travel and transport, et cetera). Each nation’s population of individual citizens is now chiefly responsible for CO2 emissions--not governments or financial bureaucracies which have already long demonstrated incapacity, inability, and unwillingness.

  It is already too late to wait for governments and civil bureaucracies to “legislate the survival” that governments and bureaucracies exist to preclude (since their duties are to promote and/or preserve GDP and economic growth).

  Governments do not drive cars—people do.

  Political, financial, economic, and social systems promote consumption because the populations they serve remain willing to participate in those systems. Only if or when the residents of the planet’s wealthiest nations begin to adopt a radical stasis—minimizing all non-essential automotive and aerial transport—will the “top-down” structures face any likelihood of collapse. Such collapse would be a byproduct of the only thing the climate actually responds to: the cessation of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

  If contrarian political activists have a care for climate realities going forward, they can begin to promote a twenty-percent rule for citizens: reduce your automative and travel transits by at least eighty percent each year going forward. Instead of driving your ICE vehicle 12,000 miles annually, plan to cut back to no more than 2,400 miles annually.

  Otherwise, by the time any government is “forced” to act by a protesting population, the very act of protesting will only have added millions of more pounds of carbon to the atmospheric load, potentially triggering the feedback loops (like an AMOC collapse or further and accelerating permafrost melt) that would make any subsequent legislation irrelevant.

  New habits, arguably, are already required of us all.

  -END-

• 
  strannikov

  Apr 08, 01:18pm

  Background Data and Analysis
  (Collaboration with ChatGPT, 3–7 April 2026)

  (Since I wrote the essay above with help from the Gemini LLM for fact-checking, I decided to rely on ChatGPT to assemble the following summary of current climate science consensus and the state of the climate as viewed by climatologists, et al. ChatGPT imposed a welcome rigor to the expressions in the summary, since as a non-scientist and not working as a science journalist, I remain apt to overstate some points without appreciating the limits and the finesse that the subject truly deserves. Any other errors in the following presumably are my own, though I still don't know how to exercise control over formatting errors.)

  Assessment of Climate System State

  1. Greenhouse Gas Forcing
  Mauna Loa Observatory and global GHG monitoring show continuing rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and other long-lived greenhouse gases. Declining ocean carbon uptake (~10% below model expectations) implies more CO₂ remains in the atmosphere, increasing radiative forcing.
  Confidence: Very high
  Emissions trajectories are consistent with intermediate-to-high forcing scenarios, though not uniquely aligned with the highest-end pathways. There is emerging but uncertain evidence of weakening natural carbon sinks.
  Implication: The primary driver of energy accumulation continues unabated: technogenic radiative forcing is increasing, committing the system to continued warming and, absent substantial mitigation, potential acceleration.

  2. Aerosol Forcing (Declining Masking Effect)
  Maritime sulfur emissions (IMO 2020 sulfur cap) and land-based air quality controls have reduced reflective aerosols and decreased their net cooling influence.
  Confidence: High (direction), Medium (magnitude)
  Implication: Reduced aerosol masking likely contributes to near-term warming rate increases, though precise attribution remains uncertain.

  3. Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST)
  Post-2015 data show no evidence of stabilization, with year-on-year anomalies continuing upward. Global temperatures continue to rise, with recent records at or near historical highs.
  Confidence: Very high
  Detection of long-term acceleration in GMST remains low-to-medium confidence due to variability.
  Implication: The system shows continued warming without stabilization, but acceleration is not yet robustly established. Nevertheless, short-term accelerations in GMST align with continued GHG emissions growth, aerosol declines, and ocean-atmosphere feedbacks. Warming trends are consistent with a system in sustained radiative disequilibrium, even if statistical acceleration over decades is not yet fully confirmed.

  4. Cryosphere (Ice Sheets and Glaciers)
  Ice sheets and glaciers are losing mass globally. Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets continue unabated mass loss, now measurable every month of the year for Greenland. Mountain glaciers worldwide are retreating, contributing to accelerating sea-level rise.
  Confidence: Very high
  Evidence for nonlinear or accelerating dynamics is medium confidence and regionally variable.
  Implication: Ongoing ice loss contributes to sea-level rise and may introduce long-term feedbacks, with uncertain timing and magnitude. Ice-sheet response is non-linear, providing both evidence of warming persistence and reinforcing feedbacks via albedo reduction and freshwater input into oceans.

  5. Sea Level, Coastal Processes, and Hydrologic Intrusion

  5a. Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL)
  Global mean sea level is rising and the rate of GMSL is accelerating, unequivocally. Recent studies (Nerem et al. 2018, Hamlington et al. 2024, Adams/JPL 2024) indicate accelerating sea-level rise driven by ice-mass loss and ocean thermal expansion. Acceleration of GMSL reflects energy accumulation in the climate system.
  Confidence: Very high
  Implication: Provides a robust, integrated signal of long-term energy accumulation. Sea-level rise acts as a lagging but integrated indicator of ongoing system disequilibrium.

  5b. Relative Sea-Level Rise (RSLR) and Coastal Subsidence
  Local sea-level change is strongly influenced by vertical land motion.
  Confidence: High
  In many regions (e.g., deltas, sedimentary coasts), subsidence significantly amplifies effective sea-level rise.
  Implication: Some coastal areas experience relative sea-level rise rates substantially exceeding the global mean, often by a factor of two or more.

  5c. Saltwater Intrusion into Aquifers
  Rising sea levels and groundwater extraction contribute to inland migration of saline water.
  Confidence: High (observed), Medium (future extent)
  Implication: Degradation of freshwater resources. Potentially irreversible aquifer salinization on human timescales.

  5d. Marshes, Wetlands, and Coastal Buffer Systems
  Coastal ecosystems respond dynamically to sea-level rise but are increasingly stressed.
  Confidence: High
  Rapid relative sea-level rise and reduced sediment supply can exceed adaptive capacity.
  Implication: Loss of wetlands and marshes
  Reduction of natural storm buffers, increased inland exposure to flooding.

  5e. Nonlinear and Threshold Behavior
  Sea-level-related impacts are often threshold-driven rather than gradual.
  Confidence: High (conceptual and observational basis)
  Implication: Small increments in sea level can trigger abrupt local consequences, including:
  sudden loss of potable groundwater, rapid wetland collapse, and sharp increases in flood frequency.
  Integrated Sea-Level Implication
  Sea-level rise is best understood as a global, steadily accelerating driver that produces highly variable, locally amplified, and often nonlinear impacts through interaction with subsidence, hydrology, and coastal geomorphology.

  6. Ocean Heat Content (OHC) and Carbon Uptake
  Ocean heat content continues to increase. Oceans continue to absorb ~90% of cxcess heat, with rising heat content. Simultaneously, emerging but uncertain evidence of regional and episodic weakening suggests carbon uptake efficiency may be declining.
  Confidence: Very high
  (Evidence for declining carbon uptake efficiency: low-to-medium confidence.)
  Implication: Continued heat accumulation confirms persistent system imbalance. Persistent energy accumulation combined with reduced carbon buffering amplifies the potential for further warming.

  7. Earth’s Radiation Budget and Energy Imbalance (EEI)
  Observations indicate a sustained positive energy imbalance. CERES data (~2000–2026) show an energy imbalance has likely increased over the last ~25 years. Short-term variability (ENSO, volcanic, aerosol effects) complicates detection of sustained acceleration, but the trend in forcing and heat accumulation is clear.
  Confidence: High to very high
  Implication: The Earth system remains out of radiative equilibrium, ensuring continued warming, continued loss of ice mass, continued sea level rise. As long as EEI remains positive, continued system change is inevitable.

  8. Ocean Circulation Signals (AMOC and Related Systems)
  There is evidence suggesting potential weakening of large-scale ocean circulation.
  Confidence: Medium (trend), Low (recent short-term shifts)
  Implication: Indications of circulation sensitivity exist, but there is no high-confidence evidence of imminent tipping. Early indications of circulation system stress hint at nonlinearity and the emergence of tipping-element behavior, which could amplify regional and global climate responses.

  Synthesis

  Very high confidence that the Earth system is accumulating energy and warming
  High confidence that sea-level rise is accelerating and increasingly shaped by local amplifiers
  High confidence that coastal impacts are already being intensified by subsidence, saltwater intrusion,
  and wetland loss.
  Medium confidence that feedbacks (cryosphere, aerosols, carbon cycle) are influencing the rate and regional expression of change.
  Low-to-medium confidence in claims of system-wide acceleration or imminent large-scale tipping

  Bottom-Line Characterization

  —The Earth’s climate system is unequivocally in a state of persistent warming and sustained positive energy imbalance. Multiple independent observations—including rising ocean heat content, accelerating global mean sea level, ongoing cryosphere mass loss, and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations—demonstrate that the system remains far from radiative equilibrium.
  —While long-term acceleration in global mean surface temperature is not yet robustly established due to internal variability, several components of the system—notably ice-sheet mass loss—exhibit acceleration in some regions. Declining aerosol cooling and possible weakening of natural carbon sinks may be contributing to recent warming trends, though their magnitudes remain uncertain.
  —Sea-level rise stands out as a particularly robust and integrative signal, already producing amplified and nonlinear impacts at regional scales through interactions with subsidence, hydrology, and coastal ecosystem dynamics.
  —Emerging signals of stress in large-scale ocean circulation and other potential tipping elements warrant close monitoring, but there is currently low confidence in imminent abrupt global transitions.
  —A substantial fraction of future warming and sea-level rise is already committed due to past and present forcing, even in the absence of further emissions increases. Taken together, the evidence indicates a climate system under sustained and increasing stress, with continued warming and long-term change effectively locked in under present forcing conditions.

• You must log in to reply to this thread.