The dominoes of uncontrollable massive releases of carbon dioxide are dangerously close to tipping and could push the planet into a state that threatens human civilisation.
A group of seven leading scientists warn that the globe is nearing nine major tipping points.
These include coral die-offs in the Great Barrier Reef, the extensive loss of Arctic sea ice and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, the thawing of permafrost, and the destruction of boreal forests in high-altitude areas and the Amazon rainforest, they say in a commentary for scientific journal Nature, published on Thursday.
"As soon as one or two climate dominoes are knocked over, they push Earth towards others," says ANU climate expert Will Steffen, one of the authors.
"We fear that it may become impossible to stop the whole row of dominoes from tumbling over, forming a cascade that could threaten the existence of human civilisations."
He says each of these tipping points could trigger massive and uncontrollable releases of carbon into the atmosphere from where it had previously been stored on Earth.
That, in turn, would accelerate the heating and further destabilisation of other ice sheets.
The tipping points were identified two decades ago and it was initially thought they would only be reached if the Earth heated by five degrees.
But the two most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special reports said they could, in fact, happen with warming of between one and two degrees.
We are in the midst of a "Climate Emergency." But what does that mean? Listen to this episode of Mamamia's daily news podcast, The Quicky to find out. Post continues below.
The scientists warn the worst-case scenario is a "hothouse Earth" that would be far less hospitable to humans.
An emergency response of rapid action to reduce emissions is needed to stop this "tipping cascade", they say.
"All nations need to recognise the seriousness of the situation and go well beyond their Paris Agreement pledges to cut emissions," Prof Steffen said.
Top Comments
"The dominoes of uncontrollable massive releases of carbon dioxide.."
Ok, so the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is currently supposedly around 411 parts per million, or around 0.04% of the atmosphere.
To continue, it's estimated that humans contribute around 3% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide. So 97% of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally occurring, and not human made.
But for some bizarre unknown, unstated reason, the tiny proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is human made, (3%), is apparently the exact amount that's required to push the incredibly complex global climate system, from normal operation, into a dangerous, or catastrophic "climate emergency".
And of that 3%, Australia's contribution is a measly 1.6%, but somehow, we're told that we are a high emitter and we need to cut all carbon dioxide emissions to halt the increasing temperatures, and save the planet.
Australia's Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, admitted under questioning that even if Australia halted all carbon emissions today, it would have absolutely zero effect on the global temperatures.
Global warming, climate change, climate emergency, whatever you want to call it is real and it's happening. The idea that it's driven by humans, and can be controlled, particularly by taxing the hell out of the general population, is pure fantasy.
This planet has survived for 4.5 billion years, humans have survived for 100,000, maybe 200,000 years. The planet will be around long after we've gone.
so people of high integrity such as David Attenborough, Admiral Chris Barrie and the insurance council of Australia have been hoodwinked by devious scientists out for financial gain? Follow the money Les et al- it all leads to the fossil fuel industry who have the federal government in their pocket and whose greed blinds them to the survival of their fellow humans
Don't bother. None of these people commenting here have any sort of expertise in the area of climate science and actually have the arrogance to question people who have studied and researched and completed years of work to become experts. They all fall back on propaganda that has been put out there by governments and think tanks beholden to the fossil fuel industry.
Dear Health Worker,
I should clarify that I agree in saying the fossil fuel companies are very wealthy and take us all for granted. They demonstrate an excessive amount of control over our governments, and worse, they are often monopolistic entities trading via illegal uncompetitive cartels. So I agree, in part, with any sort of activism and emergent technology that might help to break these monopolies. As I have mentioned below, I think that a core requirement of a valid scientific theory is that it must yield a testable observable prediction. This reflects the philosophy of Karl Popper. For the reasons below, I believe that the theory of anthropogenic climate change fails this requirement. That is not to say that there is not some degree of truth in the theory. The theory might have some explanatory power. It might explain why we have seen a loss of ice in Greenland (for example). But if the theory fails to yield solid predictions, it leaves it open to a huge risk of exaggeration and money-making that can never be "pinned down". Since the theory cannot be disproven, the theory is not disproven, and therefore our governments are committed to funding it even more. This is the problem. We could go around in infinite circles, forever expanding the amount of money that we allocate to researching this theory. As I have said to people before, I am a climate skeptic, not a climate denier. I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that its emission into the atmosphere will likely cause some degree of anthropogenic warming. But I am sceptical of some of the claims that our existence is in threat because of the CO2 emissions.
Dear Laura,
I understand that you might feel that there is a lot of negative trolling out there and I don't disagree. But in fairness, I have been studying at university for eight years. I am a Masters qualified professional in the geographical sciences. I have majors in atmospheric science, earth and environmental sciences, and philosophy. I have studied geographical sciences for many years. I can assure you that the disciplines of atmospheric science, earth science, and environmental science, are extremely diverse, covering many different individual subject matters, and with many different competing points of view. Whilst we may not always agree on every single issue, we have to understand that truth is not a binary. Some claims are true and some are false. But between truth and falsity we must consider validity and soundness. It is often stated that 97% of all climatologists agree that CO2 emissions result in anthropogenic climate change. But that statement fails to recognise that within that 97% there is a great deal of variability in terms of what these researchers think about the subject matter of climate and our impacts on it. All of the earth sciences, climatology included, need to be respected as rich and diverse fields of academic inquiry, with many different perspectives and viewpoints. In my opinion, it is the diversity of perspectives and the continuous critique that makes scientific research one of the most rewarding and fulfilling things a person can do.
Many thanks.
LBZ.
It's pretty easy to claim qualifications anonymously on the internet.