Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Skepticism / Science Talk => Topic started by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 07, 2017, 04:47:31 AM

Title: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 07, 2017, 04:47:31 AM
A catch-all thread for climate change.



In Antarctica, an ice shelf half the size of Indiana is about to calve a chunk the size of Delaware.

Larsen C - 48,600 km2
Chunk - 5,000 km2

(click to show/hide)

Quote
British researchers monitoring the crack in the Larsen C ice shelf say that only about 12 miles now connect the chunk of ice to the rest of the continent.

"After a few months of steady, incremental advance since the last event, the rift grew suddenly by a further 18 km [11 miles] during the second half of December 2016," wrote Adrian Luckman in a statement Thursday by the MIDAS Project, which is monitoring changes in the area.

The crack in question has been growing for years and is now a total of roughly 70 miles long. When the fissure reaches the far side of the shelf, an iceberg the size of Delaware will float off, leaving the Larsen C 10 percent smaller.

...

Ice shelves are important because they provide a buffer between the sea and the ice that sits on land, in this case on the Antarctic Peninsula. Without a healthy ice shelf, water from melting glaciers can flow straight to the sea, raising the sea level.

It's normal for the front of an ice shelf to crack and break off, known as calving. But it's unusual for that to happen faster than the ice shelf can refreeze.

Some scientists worry that the missing piece will destabilize the whole ice shelf. A smaller ice shelf, Larsen B, completely splintered in a little over a month in 2002, a process that started with a similar crack. Another ice shelf, Larsen A, had disintegrated a few years before.

"Larsen C may eventually follow the example of its neighbour Larsen B," wrote Luckman.

"If it doesn't go in the next few months, I'll be amazed," he told BBC News.

...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/06/508536211/a-really-big-crack-in-an-antarctic-ice-shelf-just-got-bigger

Relevant photos:
(http://i.imgur.com/ifIQsWT.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/4Aoj4mB.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on January 07, 2017, 01:11:41 PM
That photo of the ice sheet made me nostalgic for my first trip south.  I was working  on the other side of the WAIS divide.  Depending on where the chunk(s) drift, it could be a local economic boost for some.  When a large chunk of the Ross shelf floated close enough to Dunedin,  there was an upsurge in iceberg tourism.

This is very cool news.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on January 07, 2017, 07:16:42 PM
Wish we had a second Earth to run climate change experiments on, instead of this one.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on January 07, 2017, 08:06:55 PM
Wish we had a second Earth to run climate change experiments on, instead of this one.

Venus
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Tassie Dave on January 07, 2017, 11:56:01 PM
Wish we had a second Earth to run climate change experiments on, instead of this one.

Venus

You beat me  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on January 08, 2017, 06:43:48 AM
Venus isn't very much like Earth, other than in size. Barely rotates, barely has a magnetic field, isn't a binary planet, and has about 225 000 times as much CO2 as we do.

So at least we'll never be that, there isn't anywhere near that much carbon or equivalent around to be released. But if all the ice goes, that could be bad enough. With the sea level rise being the least of our concerns.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 14, 2017, 02:06:37 AM
GLOBAL, Annual:
(http://i.imgur.com/wgRzUAw.png)

Note the little line starting 2017.



ARCTIC, January through July:
(http://i.imgur.com/WVTfcVb.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on January 14, 2017, 12:32:17 PM
And of course these are measurements of extent, not volume.  Some one must be measuring this.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: The Latinist on January 14, 2017, 01:31:22 PM
And of course these are measurements of extent, not volume.  Some one must be measuring this.

Nasa had a nice animation recently showing the decline in older, thicker ice over recent decades.  The result is significant reduction in volume.

Of course, it's always good to point out that the melting of such ice does not lead to sea-level rise.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on January 14, 2017, 02:13:01 PM
And of course these are measurements of extent, not volume.  Some one must be measuring this.

Nasa had a nice animation recently showing the decline in older, thicker ice over recent decades.  The result is significant reduction in volume.

Of course, it's always good to point out that the melting of such ice does not lead to sea-level rise.

However, it does reduce the amount of sunlight reflected back into space.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on January 14, 2017, 08:04:54 PM
And destabilizes the polar vortices.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: The Latinist on January 14, 2017, 08:10:30 PM
I'm not sure why people are responding to my post with things loss of arctic sea ice does cause.  I neither said nor implied that it had no effects; merely that it was worth pointing out that it does not have that particular effect.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on January 14, 2017, 11:26:36 PM

Of course, it's always good to point out that the melting of such ice does not lead to sea-level rise.

Not when that sea ice is holding land based, below sea level glacial ice sheets from disappearing into the sea, read Greenland and the WAIS.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: wastrel on January 15, 2017, 01:03:29 AM
I'm not sure why people are responding to my post with things loss of arctic sea ice does cause.  I neither said nor implied that it had no effects; merely that it was worth pointing out that it does not have that particular effect.

Just because you are aware of every possible indication of disappearing sea ice does not mean every single piece of information regarding it is apparent to every other reader of the thread. 

I'm not quite sure why you seem to take offense when people add to your point, but just because people want to further the conversation with pieces of information they know but have not yet been offered, does not mean that the people posting are claiming some deficiency in your knowledge.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 15, 2017, 03:53:24 AM
And of course these are measurements of extent, not volume.  Some one must be measuring this.

(http://i.imgur.com/CyXKbIw.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on January 15, 2017, 09:01:38 AM
I'm not sure why people are responding to my post with things loss of arctic sea ice does cause.  I neither said nor implied that it had no effects; merely that it was worth pointing out that it does not have that particular effect.

Mea culpa
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 21, 2017, 03:30:53 PM
Update on Larsen C: Crack grows 6 miles, could calve in 12 miles. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/20/antarctic-ice-shelf-crack-iceberg/96841060/)

(http://i.imgur.com/udDr0Uo.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on January 21, 2017, 04:28:48 PM
Cracking at the rate of half a kilometer per day
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on January 21, 2017, 04:38:12 PM
Cracks are becoming a problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04p5zl2

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/08/1407498221849_wps_4_British_researchers_livin.jpg
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 08, 2017, 09:33:33 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/q4YCwb4.png)

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 26, 2017, 10:30:56 PM
Warning: Loud due to wind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Xc3LtZRWo

Thawing permafrost releases methane, creating a variety of effects ranging from craters to jacuzzi-like bubbling in lakes.  An uptick in such methane releases in Siberia has been in the news lately (video's from '16, but is from Siberia).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: taimaia on April 03, 2017, 09:56:00 AM
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Is there any response to this sort of argument  ??  If so where can  I find articles that talk about this matter ?  Most of the people against the idea of global warming have been cranks, but this friend is a serious geologist  not just random guy on the internet. Thanks in advance =)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Mr. Beagle on April 03, 2017, 10:06:53 AM
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Is there any response to this sort of argument  ??  If so where can  I find articles that talk about this matter ?  Most of the people against the idea of global warming have been cranks, but this friend is a serious geologist  not just random guy on the internet. Thanks in advance =)

This claim caught my eye:

Quote
For example, in March 2008, a poll of Alberta’s 51,000 geologists...

Can any Canadians here verify that there are 51,000 geologists in Alberta? If we are talking vaguely about people in the fossil fuel industry, then we have a very biased dataset, and most are likely engineers rather than scientists (speaking as an almost engineer, having taken all of the basic courses). The mindset is VERY different, which is a key reason why I escaped.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 08, 2017, 02:44:44 PM
tl;dr:  Ice-melt produces a cold, low salinity/density layer which rests atop the northbound warm, high salinity/density water from the Atlantic.  This cold layer provides significant insulation to sea-ice.  As sea ice retreats, this inversion retreats.  It's a positive-feedback loop which is occurring in a quarter of the deep Arctic and is responsible for at least half of sea ice decline in this quarter. 

Article: Climate change is literally turning the Arctic ocean inside out (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/06/scientists-say-the-unique-arctic-ocean-is-being-transformed-before-our-eyes/?utm_term=.dfcb079b3c0a)
From: Washington Post
Date: April 6, 2017

Quote
There’s something special — and very counterintuitive — about the Arctic Ocean.

Unlike in the Atlantic or Pacific, where the water gets colder as it gets deeper, the Arctic is upside-down. The water gets warmer as it gets deeper. The reason is that warm, salty Atlantic-originating water that flows into the Arctic from the south is more dense, and so it nestles beneath a colder, fresher surface layer that is often capped by floating sea ice. This state of “stratification” makes the Arctic Ocean unique, and it means that waters don’t simply grow colder as you travel farther north — they also become inverted.

But in a paper in Science released Thursday, a team of Arctic scientists say this fundamental trait is now changing across a major part of the Arctic, in conjunction with a changing climate.

“I first went to the Arctic in about 1969, and I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Eddy Carmack, a researcher with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and one of the study’s authors. “Back then we just assumed the Arctic is as it is and it will be that way forevermore. So what we’re seeing in the last decade or so is quite remarkable.”

In a large area that they term the eastern Eurasian basin — north of the Laptev and East Siberian seas, which in turn are north of Siberia — the researchers found that warm Atlantic water is increasingly pushing to the surface and melting floating sea ice. This mixing, they say, has not only contributed to thinner ice and more areas of open water that used to be ice covered, but it also is changing the state of Arctic waters in a process the study terms “Atlantification” — and these characteristics could soon spread across more of the Arctic ocean, changing it fundamentally.

The study was led by Igor Polyakov of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, in collaboration with a team of 15 researchers from the United States, Canada, Russia, Poland, Germany and Norway.

...

Those changes are occurring across about a quarter of the deep Arctic Ocean (the part that lies out beyond the continental shelves that encircle it).

One key feature of the change is that a middle layer of the ocean in the Arctic dubbed the “halocline” — a cold layer below the fresher surface where the water’s saltiness increases rapidly — is thinning and weakening. The halocline had previously served as a cap, preventing mixing between the cold fresh surface waters and warmer, saltier Atlantic waters — in essence preserving the distinct layers in the ocean. But that cap is now growing thinner, the research suggests.

The result is that at least half of the sea ice decline in recent years in this region can be attributed to warm ocean waters climbing up from the depths, rather than to the warming atmosphere.


...

“This whole thing about the ocean’s role in sea ice retreat, it used to be minimal, but as sea ice retreats it’s one of those positive feedback mechanisms,” Carmack said. “And we’re talking a lot of heat in the Atlantic layer, it could melt all the ice in the Arctic if it were to pop up to the surface.”
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 08, 2017, 07:51:10 PM
Article: Japan’s cherry blossoms are emerging increasingly early (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-4)
From: The Economist
Date: April 7, 2017

(http://i.imgur.com/5nn6UYH.png)

Quote
...

[...] Diarists have keenly chronicled the comings and goings of cherry blossoms for centuries—records from Kyoto, the old capital, date back 1,200 years. This precious, ancient data set reveals a disturbing trend: in recent decades, the blossoms have emerged much sooner than they once did.

From its most recent peak in 1829, when full bloom could be expected to come on April 18th, the typical full-flowering date has drifted earlier and earlier. Since 1970, it has usually landed on April 7th. The cause is little mystery. In deciding when to show their shoots, cherry trees rely on temperatures in February and March. Yasuyuki Aono and Keiko Kazui, two Japanese scientists, have demonstrated that the full-blossom date for Kyoto’s cherry trees can predict March temperatures to within 0.1°C. A warmer planet makes for warmer Marches. The usual full-blooming date in Washington, DC, whose cherry-blossom festival is a relative newcomer (it launched in 1927), has also moved up by five days since the first recorded date in 1921.

...

(http://i.imgur.com/LVMqZcT.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: diessoli on April 10, 2017, 03:58:19 AM
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Is there any response to this sort of argument  ??  If so where can  I find articles that talk about this matter ?  Most of the people against the idea of global warming have been cranks, but this friend is a serious geologist  not just random guy on the internet. Thanks in advance =)

Why did I look at this article? It's just so depressing to see people (like the journalist author) swallow these old zombie arguments without regard for the nuances of actual research and even basic logic. Depressing.

However if you just want to respond to the Milankovitch cycle argument, the short version is: yes these are known to drive long term changes in the climate but their effect is too small to explain the recent temperature increases (their 'forcing' is too small).

Contrary to what Mr. Mac Rae writes, climate scientist do take the long view and look at the geologic record (there is a whole field called Paleo-Climatology).

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: geekoid on April 10, 2017, 10:37:43 AM
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Is there any response to this sort of argument  ??  If so where can  I find articles that talk about this matter ?  Most of the people against the idea of global warming have been cranks, but this friend is a serious geologist  not just random guy on the internet. Thanks in advance =)

I would remind him that he is NOT a climatologist.

Then talk about the science of global warming itself. Because of he can't created tests that refute the basic science, then he has to accept climate change if he actually think scientifically.
Please feel free to run this by an actual practicing climatologist.
Something like:

anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.

1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes


Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on April 10, 2017, 03:34:53 PM
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

I love looking at the comments. Someone actually was defending the 51k geologist claim which would be 1% of the Alberta population.

Then there is this...
"Wow. Great article. Especially the part of how millions of years ago the dinosaurs had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and warmer temperatures and yet there was no religious doomsday." Wow, kinda makes ya think, huh?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 11, 2017, 08:40:38 AM
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Is there any response to this sort of argument  ??  If so where can  I find articles that talk about this matter ?  Most of the people against the idea of global warming have been cranks, but this friend is a serious geologist  not just random guy on the internet. Thanks in advance =)

I haven't read the full article yet (I might read it some time over the next few days and give a more detailed response if you want), but the first book I ever read on climate change was written by a Dutch geologist who made a similar argument. In case you're curious, here (https://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html)'s a good primer on what Milankovitch cycles are. Skepticalscience.com is usually reliable and based on the peer reviewed literature. They also have a list of most used climate myths (https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php). For example, here's (https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm) an article that addresses the frequently heard point that we're heading into a new ice age because of Milankovic cycles (so note that this argument tells us to expect cooling, not warming, from those same cycles). Not exactly what you need, but pretty close. Here's (https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm) another post that addresses the idea that the current warming is natural. Many more related tropes in the list of arguments.

Generally speaking, we know that humans are causing the warming for a variety of reasons. The first is basic theory; we know from laboratory experiments that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know for a fact that we are pumping large quantities of it into the atmosphere, therefore something pretty amazing would have to occur for us not to influence the climate. Svante Arrhenius predicted global warming as early as 1896 based on his studies of CO2. Related is palaeodata, which shows that increased concentrations of CO2 in the distant past are associated with warmer temperatures (although I should note here that CO2 was a feedback mechanism as opposed to the primary driver behind such changes, which is why deniers sometimes bring up the "CO2 lags temperature" (https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm) canard - but the point is that the temperature variations can't be explained without including the CO2 feedback). Third, we can take (and have been taking) spectroscopic satellite readings of longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere, and we can see that, over time, there is increased absorption in the parts of the spectrum associated with CO2. In other words, CO2 is "trapping" energy that otherwise would have radiated back out to space. And finally, we have sophisticated models of the climate system that represent the best knowledge we have on the subject. When we use models that only include natural drivers of change (which include Milankovic cycles), we cannot model the temperature changes since the industrial revolution, but we can model temperature variations of earlier periods pretty well. Only when we include human drivers of climate change, can we faithfully reproduce historical temperature trends.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on April 11, 2017, 10:34:19 AM
Doesn't the fingerprint left by the specific isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere indicate that the increase is largely due to "old" carbon i.e. oil, gas, coal?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on April 11, 2017, 12:03:15 PM
I love looking at the comments. Someone actually was defending the 51k geologist claim which would be 1% of the Alberta population.

Then there is this...
"Wow. Great article. Especially the part of how millions of years ago the dinosaurs had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and warmer temperatures and yet there was no religious doomsday." Wow, kinda makes ya think, huh?

I would argue that humans are not adapted to the time of the dinosaurs. The Earth and life will survive but there is a significant chance that humans will not survive the change between environments. Even if we do, we are still talking about monumental death and devastation. Don't worry, the bugs will survive though.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 11, 2017, 01:09:02 PM
Doesn't the fingerprint left by the specific isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere indicate that the increase is largely due to "old" carbon i.e. oil, gas, coal?


Yes, it does. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/)

Also here (https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 11, 2017, 01:15:53 PM
I love looking at the comments. Someone actually was defending the 51k geologist claim which would be 1% of the Alberta population.

Then there is this...
"Wow. Great article. Especially the part of how millions of years ago the dinosaurs had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and warmer temperatures and yet there was no religious doomsday." Wow, kinda makes ya think, huh?

I would argue that humans are not adapted to the time of the dinosaurs. The Earth and life will survive but there is a significant chance that humans will not survive the change between environments. Even if we do, we are still talking about monumental death and devastation. Don't worry, the bugs will survive though.

There's also the faint young sun paradox to consider (the sun is giving off more heat now than it used to), plus the fact that sea levels were several dozens of meters higher than they are today.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on April 11, 2017, 03:12:56 PM
There's also the faint young sun paradox to consider (the sun is giving off more heat now than it used to), plus the fact that sea levels were several dozens of meters higher than they are today.

I still think bugs will survive whatever we do
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on April 11, 2017, 03:54:44 PM
If life is going to survive the aging Sun, it needs a civilization to do it. There might not be another one, if this one fails.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on April 12, 2017, 08:48:54 AM
While it's obviously true that there may not be another civilization on Earth without humans, the time until the end of life here is about a hundred times longer than the time since the rise of mammals and about a thousand times longer than the time since we diverged from the other apes, so I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the prospects for Earth life in general.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on April 12, 2017, 10:38:31 AM
Once the oceans have boiled away, that's it for complex life. Which will probably happen within 1 billion years (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130729-runaway-greenhouse-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/). So that's the upper limit, without moving the planet or moving off of the planet.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 12, 2017, 10:45:20 AM
Once the oceans have boiled away, that's it for complex life. Which will probably happen within 1 billion years (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130729-runaway-greenhouse-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/). So that's the upper limit, without moving the planet or moving off of the planet.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/84/e8/a8/84e8a864ce0b306066c931f4f6ae2b26.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on April 12, 2017, 11:27:20 AM
Once the oceans have boiled away, that's it for complex life. Which will probably happen within 1 billion years (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130729-runaway-greenhouse-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/). So that's the upper limit, without moving the planet or moving off of the planet.
Okay, so adjust my numbers to 200 and 20 instead of 1000 and 100. It's still more than an order of magnitude to work with.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 14, 2017, 12:24:19 PM
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Is there any response to this sort of argument  ??  If so where can  I find articles that talk about this matter ?  Most of the people against the idea of global warming have been cranks, but this friend is a serious geologist  not just random guy on the internet. Thanks in advance =)

So, it took me the entire day, and this may the last time I ever do this, but I went over this denialist wordvomit line by line:

Quote
Climate change: Learning to think like a geologist

Wrong! Any geologist who thinks like this is only a geologist in his own fantasy universe. Kinda like this guy:

Quote
Paul MacRae, June 24, 2008

I think this is the only thing he gets right in the entire article...

Quote
Most geologists aren’t part of Al Gore’s

Who cares about Gore. Stop obsessing about Al Gore. More knowledgeable people have produced massive volumes of work on climate change and you're babbling about a politician.

Quote
“100 per cent consensus” of scientists that humans are the principal cause of global warming and that we have to take drastic steps to deal with it.

Again, who cares? Geologists are not trained to understand the climate system. You wouldn't ask a neurologist about your dental health.

Quote
For example, in March 2008, a poll of Alberta’s 51,000 geologists found that only 26 per cent believe humans are the main cause of global warming. Forty-five per cent believe both humans and nature are causing climate change, and 68 per cent don’t think the debate is “over,” as Gore would like the public to believe.1

Survey here (http://www.apega.ca/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf). Only 2% of those surveyed responded. 160 of those were professional geoscientists. A lot of those are likely to be engineers and geologists working in the oil industry. And even then "71% accepted at least some degree of a human role by selecting either “primarily human” (25.7%) or “both human and natural” as causing global warming" (https://www.skepticalscience.com/consensusforbes.html).

Among geologists, denial of anthropogenic climate change is highest among economic geologists (https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html). Among climate scientists, numerous scientific surveys (with a response rate above 2%) and literature studies have come up with percentages between 97-100 (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm)% consensus (https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm) that humans are warming the climate.

Quote
The position of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is quite clear:

    The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.2

Note that the AAPG was one of the last (if not the last) major scientific bodies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing) to maintain a wishy-washy position on anthropogenic climate change. Gee, I wonder why? Note that this article was written in 2008. Here (https://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf) is the AAPG's stance on it today:
Quote
In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.

Quote
Why do geologists tend to be skeptics? Is it because they are, as Gore and the “consensus” charge, in the pay of the oil industry? Perhaps, but there may be other, more scientific reasons. As Peter Sciaky, a retired geologist, writes:

    A geologist has a much longer perspective. There are several salient points about our earth that the greenhouse theorists overlook (or are not aware of). The first of these is that the planet has never been this cool. There is abundant fossil evidence to support this — from plants of the monocot order (such as palm trees) in the rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossils in sedimentary rocks of the far north. This is hardly the first warming period in the earth’s history. The present global warming is hardly unique. It is arriving pretty much “on schedule.”
   
This is an outright distortion. First of all, the planet went through several "snowball" earth phases of near complete glaciation in the proterozoic. Second, it was about 8oC colder than it is today only about 20,000 years ago, as the graphs later on in this same blog post show. Third, while the implication is that we shouldn't worry about climate change because the climate has changed in the past, this completely ignores the fact that we are adapted to today's climate and shorelines. Cretaceous sea levels were approximately 250+m above current day. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91JB00281/abstract?systemMessage=Pay+Per+View+on+Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+15th+April+from+12%3A00-09%3A00+EDT+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.) Here's projected sea level rise in the context of the last 2500 years:

(http://www.realclimate.org/images//KoppGSL-with-projections-1024x434.jpg)

Considering a substantial portion of the earth's largest cities are on or near the shore, that might be something of a problem.
Major climatic changes, especially rapid ones, are also associated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Sustained_and_significant_global_warming) with several mass extinctions.


Quote
One thing, for sure, is that the environmental community has always spurned any input from geologists (many of whom are employed by the petroleum industry). No environmental conference, such as Kyoto, has ever invited a geologist, a paleontologist, a paleo-climatologist. It would seem beneficial for any scientific investigatory to include such scientific disciplines.

This is just absolute nonsense asserted without basis. Is he suggesting that someone has gone over every environmental conference and has checked the list of attendees to each of them? Preposterous. Kyoto, as it happens, was a conference where policy makers met to sign a treaty on climate change, which had been negotiated on for years (based on expert guidance by a huge variety of geo-  and environmental scientists, in the guise of, among others, the IPCC), so I don't know why you'd even want a paleontologist there.

Quote
Among all my liberal and leftist friends (and I am certainly one of those), I know not a one who does not accept that global warming is an event caused by mankind. I do not know one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon.3 Finally, a retired scientist who emailed me after reading one of my climate columns in the Times Colonist observed: “Most of my geology friends are skeptics — but it has become politically incorrect to voice such views.”

Anecdotal, and irrelevant unless they are experts on climate-related matters. And simply untrue. As pointed out, every major scientific body of international standing now accepts the reality of anthropogenic climate change, including the ones dedicated to geology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Earth_sciences). Consensus rises with greater expertise on matters related more closely to the issue of climate change.

Quote
Current climate conditions are not unusual

Geologists tend to question the anthropogenic theory because their education tells them that current climate conditions are not unusually warm, based on either the past few thousand years, or the past few hundred thousand years, or the past tens of millions of years, or even the past hundreds of millions of years.

Missing the point. The current warming is one of the fastest changes in the geologic record, occurring at 10 times the speed (http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-climate-change-speed-080113.html) of any recorded change in the last 65 million years, which includes the extraordinary PETM temperature spike. Here's the current rise in GHG concentration in the context of the past ice ages:

(http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/images/images_research_sep_09/EPICA_with_current.PNG)

It's at a record high compared to at least the past half a million years (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdf) (with humans having been around for maybe 150,000 of those).

Quote
Figure 1. Temperatures since 1860. Source: R.M. Carter
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/temp-since-1860-carter.jpg)
Temperatures since 1860. Source: R.M. Carter.

It’s possible to look at a graph of the past century and conclude: “Oh, my God, the planet is burning up!” After all, the temperature has been rising, more or less, since the 1850’s, with a dip from the 1940’s to the mid-1970’s. The chart to the right shows temperature and carbon dioxide levels from 1860 to now.4
Bit of an outdated graph. Here's temperature for several of the most important data sets up to 2013:

(https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png)

Carbon dioxide:

(https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_general-chemistry-principles-patterns-and-applications-v1.0/section_09/28f88ff3861c4b6722425b0bf04b639a.jpg)

CO2, temperature, and solar activity (sun spots):

(http://www.rienstraclinic.com/uploads/images/content/health-info/figure_6.jpg)

Quote
But what if we take a longer view?

OK! Longer range temp+CO2:

(http://rampages.us/clairee/wp-content/uploads/sites/8086/2015/11/graph.png)

Quote
That presents quite a different picture. Only 400 years ago, the planet was quite cold, a period known as the Little Ice Age (roughly 1300-1850). Before that, though, during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 1000-1300), the planet was a degree or two Celsius warmer than today, to the point where Greenland was warm enough for settlement by the Vikings. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly a natural occurrences since industrial carbon emissions weren’t yet a factor. Figure 1 is a graph of the last thousand years based on work by climatologist H.H. Lamb.

Temperatures over the last 1,000 years: H.H. Lamb
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/anti-hockey-stick-image.jpg)
Figure 1. Lamb graph of temperature over the past 1,000 years

Lamb's graph is from 1982, plots 50 year averages, and ends in about 1950 (https://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm). Here's the graph with continued trend up until 2007:

(https://skepticalscience.com/pics/Jones2009_Fig7.png)

Needless to say, temperature reconstructions have advanced since 1982.

Quote
Curiously, the temperature graph preferred by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the famous “hockey stick,” smooths out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to create an impression that twentieth-century warming is “the warmest in 1,000 years” (Figure 2). Faced with the flaws in this graph, the IPCC has since dropped it and now claims the climate is the warmest in 400 years, which isn’t that impressive given that we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age.

IPCC hockey stick graph
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hockey-stick.jpg)
Figure 2. IPCC hockey stick graph of the past 1,000 years

Yes, the IPCC preferred to use a state-of-the-art reconstruction instead of a dated one from 1982. Here's what a large number of more recent reconstructions look like after they "dropped" the hockey stick:
(https://angusmac.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/wgi_ar5_fig5-7-500-wide-01.jpg)

It's a hockey team!

Most reconstructions are limited to the northern hemisphere because that is where most of the land mass is, and thus the most coverage; this leaves them somewhat open to internal climate variability. The medieval warm period and little ice age were very likely more pronounced in the northern hemisphere. Also, it's not the little ice age (https://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm), since the drivers that account for that phenomenon (increased volcanism and reduced solar output) cannot account for the current warming (see below).

Quote
Over the past 4,000 years, the planet has also experienced warm and cool periods, again quite naturally. In fact, warm times seem to recur on a cycle of about 1,000-1,500 years, as Figure 3 shows.5 The 20th century’s warming appeared pretty much in line with this millennial cycle.

Warming every 1,000 years
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/warming-in-cycles-carter1.jpg)
Figure 3. Warming every 1,000 years or so. Source: R.M. Carter

Going back 8,000 years or so, we encounter the Holocene Optimum, which was 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than today’s temperatures — naturally.

Misleading graph which leaves out the warmest years of the instrumental record (and projections). Here's the projected warming for low, medium and high climate sensitivity in the context of the past 10000 years, smoothed (so, basically, all of human history):

(https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/bau_future_warming.jpg)

Quote
Let’s expand our view once again, to the past 450,000 years (Figure 4). What do we see? A roller-coaster ride of glacials (cold times) and interglacials (warm times), on a cycle of about 100,000 years.

A glacial cycle every 100,000 years
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/450000-with-green-line.jpg)
Figure 4. A glacial cycle every 100,000 years

Here are the high end IPCC projections in the context of the past 800,000 years (which thus includes all of human prehistory):
EDIT: Better graph from here. (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full) If someone has one for middle-of-the-range projections, let me know.

(http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/2/11/e1501923/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1)

(Note that the instrumental record plus projections would appear to shoot straight up if the scale on the x-axis were the same.) This is the worst case scenario, though, so keep that in mind.

To back this up, compare measured CO2 concentrations:

(http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg)

Nothing to see here, move along!

Quote
By the way, this is the chart, based on ice core readings taken in Antarctica, that Gore uses in his film An Inconvenient Truth. Gore doesn’t try to explain why this roller coaster has occurred,

Who cares what Gore says? He's not a climate scientist. And why would he have to explain past climate change if that was not his focus?

Quote
since if changes in carbon dioxide levels were causing the cycle of glaciations and interglaciations, as Gore implies, then the logical question is what caused the changes in carbon dioxide levels?
Wait... Didn't he basically already admit that we are releasing large quantities of CO2 when he posted the Carter graph? But for the explanation, see below.

Quote
Gore doesn’t say, because to do so would destroy his case, but here’s what science says: temperature changes precede carbon dioxide level changes by several hundred years, and temperature changes are caused by changes in solar intensity called the Milankovitch Cycles, not carbon dioxide. The Milankovitch Cycles, based on the earth’s changing position in relation to the sun, appear to be the ultimate drivers of climate over the past few million years.

Yes, they were, however what this jackass doesn't tell you is that based on non-human drivers of climate change alone, we should actually expect a cooling trend:

(https://i0.wp.com/www.geological-digressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/milankovitch-cycles.jpg?resize=624%2C779)

The Milankovitch cycles are due to changes in the earth's eccentricity and obliquity, shown at the top of the graph above.
During the past glacial/interglacial cycles, CO2 was a feedback mechanism; as ocean temperatures rise, they release more CO2 into the atmosphere. In addition, changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns caused changes in CO2 levels. The extra CO2 then caused more warming to occur, and so on, until a new equilibrium was reached. This is why, in the past, CO2 lagged temperature changes (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm), whereas today it's the other way around. The CO2 feedback is necessary to explain the shifts between glacials and interglacials, as the Milankovitch cycles alone are not strong enough to do so.

Quote
The four previous interglacials were warmer than today’s

Another interesting observation that Gore doesn’t make because it would destroy his case: the four previous interglacials shown on his chart are all warmer than today’s interglacial (the green line in Figure 4 shows how today’s average temperature compares with that of the three previous interglacials).

As shown above, worst case projected warming is well above the temperatures in the last 800,000 years. Also, compare current temperatures with the uncertainty envelope for the past interglacial period(s) in the 800,000 year graph above.

Quote
Also, note that the interglacial peaks are very steep. Before an interglacial becomes a glacial, warming occurs relatively rapidly (if the warming was slow, the curve would be more rounded), and cooling also occurs rapidly.

Again, most rapid warming in 65 million years by an order of magnitude (http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-climate-change-speed-080113.html). Also, where does he think the heat trapped by the CO2 we've released is going?

(To be continued in the next post...)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 14, 2017, 12:28:57 PM
(...continued from the previous post)

Quote
If our planet is near the top of its interglacial cycle,
We aren't, see above.

Quote
then we’d be getting — as part of a natural process — the rapid warming climatologists are so alarmed about.


We wouldn't (http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-climate-change-speed-080113.html).

Quote
And, we can expect rapid cooling when the balance tips (the steep downward slope). To worry about global warming at this stage in our planet’s geological history seems silly from the geologist’s perspective.

To worry about anything may seem silly from a geologist's perspective. From a geologist's perspective, the last 150,000 years are a single stroke of a nail file compared to the length of the geological record being the length of your entire arm.

Quote
As further evidence that we may be near the high point of the climate cycle,

It isn't.

Quote
the planet has not warmed since 1998,

It has (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm), though a lot of the heat went into the oceans:

(https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg)

Also, 1998 was a cherry picked year with an exceptionally strong El Niño (ENSO), which shifts heat from the oceans into the atmosphere. Here's what happens when you remove ENSO, volcanic, and solar influences on climate:

(https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/FR11_All.gif)

Quote
even though carbon dioxide levels have increased steadily. We may well be heading into a new glaciation while spending billions of dollars on reducing carbon emissions on the false premise that the planet is getting too warm.

It's warming because of Milankovitch cycles, but we're heading into an ice age right now! Uhuh. (https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm)

Quote
During the glacials, much of the northern hemisphere (and Antarctica, of course) is covered with ice two and three kilometres thick. Within our roughly two-million-year-old ice age, the glacials last about 80,000 years. The warmer interglacials, which make global civilization possible, last only 10,000-20,000 years. Our interglacial, the Holocene, began about 13,000 years ago, so we’re well past the half-way point in this cycle of warming and looking at a new glacial in the next few centuries or millennia.

About 10,000 (https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm) years, actually. A little early to start worrying about that now if climate scientists are predicting dangerous warming in less than 100 years.

Quote
Warming is, therefore, from the geologist’s point of view, the least of our problems.

But not from the point of view of 2500 of the world's top climate and environmental scientists (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/) who worry about the next few hundred years.

Quote
Temperatures have been falling for 65 million years

Suppose we take an even longer geological view: the last 65 million years. Here we see a temperature graph that looks like a double-diamond ski slope: the planet has been gradually but steadily cooling during this time (see Figure 5).6) Note how the climate has seesawed in the past two million years, and how close the tips of the warming periods are to the point where glaciations return.

Global temperatures falling
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/glacials-and-interglacials.jpg)
Figure 5. Global temperature falling for 70 million years

These graphs are terrible. 65 million years of temperatures:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png)

with CO2 proxies:
(https://www.intechopen.com/source/html/19835/media/Image1.JPG)
and
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-6-1-l.png)

(mind the reversed x axis between these)

Again, most rapid warming in 65 million years by an order of magnitude (http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-climate-change-speed-080113.html).
Also, why stop there? In the Hadean, surface temperatures were around 230°C. See, we've got nothing to worry about!

Quote
The temperature 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were obliterated by a comet, was about 22 degrees Celsius; today, the planet’s average temperature is about 12 degrees Celsius.

We are not dinosaurs, and we are not adapted to cretaceous temperatures. Also, the sun is slowly getting hotter over geologic time, so
Quote
Carbon dioxide levels have also been falling over this time, but much more rapidly than the temperature (which should, in all but the most die-hard “consensus” climatologists’ minds, destroy the idea that carbon dioxide drives temperature).
is bullshit. (https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm) It's like a child's understanding of climate change. Of course, the relationship between CO2 and temperature is not linear as many other factors play a role in driving or influencing climate change (such as changes in solar irradiance, other GHGs, the earth's albedo (including ice cover changes due to glaciation, reconfiguration of the continents, and uplift, cloud cover, desertification, ...), changes in the biosphere, and so on).


Quote
For most of this time on our planet there were no polar ice caps and, yes, the sea levels were many metres higher than today. Humanity can deal with higher sea levels; we’ll have a lot more trouble coping with three-kilometre-high walls of glacial ice.

Yes, let's not worry about meters of sea level rise. Ice is coming in 10,000 years!
As I pointed out elsewhere (http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,48453.msg9489678.html#msg9489678):
Quote
There are certain advantages to living in a coastal area; there's a lot of opportunity for industry and trade, and the climate is generally milder because the ocean is a big heat store. In the U.S. "coastal and ocean activities, such as marine transportation of goods, offshore energy drilling, resource extraction, fish cultivation, recreation, and tourism are integral to the nation's economy, generating 58% of the national gross domestic product (GDP)". Population densities in coastal areas are about three times higher than the global average. In the U.S., approximately 25 million people live in an area vulnerable to coastal flooding. And of course there are more and more people, with more and more money to spend worldwide. So I am not surprised that there would be an increase in coastal development. And I doubt that most wealthy investors are young enough that they are highly concerned about events that will start becoming important decades from now.
In the short run, beach front property (for example) is probably not such a bad investment. People like the beach, and that's unlikely to change any time soon, especially as the climate is getting warmer. In the long run, you might end up with wet feet, but there's plenty of time to sell between now and then.

[...]

I live in the Netherlands, where 2m of sea level rise is a really big deal. We might be able to adapt to one or two meters, because we are relatively rich, but probably not to the next 5 meters that will come from the likely melting of the Greenland ice sheet and parts of Antarctica over the subsequent centuries. The rise in sea level doesn't just stop after a hundred years. At some point, raising your dikes a bit more just doesn't do the trick anymore.
And what about the 200 million people who are predicted to be displaced in Bangladesh, a region of the world that is already overcrowded, with two nuclearized countries that have consistently been on the edge of war for years now? When I was last active in this debate, this was named by top U.S. military officials as one of the biggest threats to long term global stability.
And of course, we've all heard about the "sinking" island nations in the pacific that stand to lose their entire country. Also, keep in mind that the oceans are not flat, and as a result sea level rise can be more dramatic in one place than another.
And it's not just that the sea will encroach on our coasts; rising sea levels can seep into and contaminate freshwater aquifers that contain most of the worlds drinkable water, making them saltier. It'll change soil chemistry.

And sea level rise is not the only danger imposed by meltwater; the inpour of fresh water from the ice shelves (and smaller glaciers, and even the melting of sea ice) will make the Arctic surface water less saline, which will likely weaken the AMOC (which is driven in part by differences between deep ocean and surface salinity, and in part by temperature differences) and disrupt one of earth's major processes of heat redistribution (which is largely responsible for Europe's mild climate), which can have unpredictable effects (a similar disruption of the AMOC is implicated in Dansgaard-Oeschger events, rapid climate swings at the end of the last glacial period - though these are not thought to be likely to repeat themselves).

And that is not even counting the other impacts like more extreme weather events or the 20-30% of species that will be at increased risk of extinction (see the IPCC).

Quote
Finally, let’s look at the very long-range picture: earth over the past 600 million years (Figure 6). Again, we see fluctuations of temperature but, overall, the planet has been much warmer (and with much higher levels of carbon dioxide) than today, and yet life managed to evolve and flourish.

We are not adapted to climates of 600 million years ago.

Quote
CO2 and temperature over 600 million years
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg)
Figure 6. Temperature and CO2 levels over 600 million years

Jezus, where do these people find these graphs? It's like a child's scribblings on your floor after it accidentally got hold of a pencil. Oh hey, maybe that's because (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/):
Quote
The ‘temperature’ record is a hand-drawn schematic derived from the work of Chris Scotese, and the CO2 graph is from a model that uses tectonic and chemical weathering histories to estimate CO2 levels (Berner 1994; Berner and Kothavala, 2001). In neither case is there an abundance of measured data.

[...]

Scotese is an expert in reconstructions of continental positions through time and in creating his ‘temperature reconstruction’ he is basically following an old-fashioned idea (best exemplified by Frakes et al’s 1992 textbook) that the planet has two long-term stable equilibria (‘warm’ or ‘cool’) which it has oscillated between over geologic history. This kind of heuristic reconstruction comes from the qualitative geological record which gives indications of glaciations and hothouses, but is not really adequate for quantitative reconstructions of global mean temperatures. Over the last few decades, much better geochemical proxy compilations with better dating have appeared (for instance, Royer et al (2004)) and the idea that there are only two long-term climate states has long fallen by the wayside.

However, since this graphic has long been a favorite of the climate dismissives, many different versions do the rounds, mostly forwarded by people who have no idea of the provenance of the image or the lack of underlying data, or the updates that have occurred. Indeed, the 2004 version is the most common, having been given a boost by Monckton in 2008 and many others. Most recently, Patrick Moore declared that this was his favorite graph.

Here:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png)

Quote
The planet didn’t experience “oblivion,” as the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, suggested at the Bali conference on climate change in 2007.

Ban Ki-Moon: Not a climate scientist.

Quote
It’s curious that not one of the thousands of so-called climate experts at that conference saw fit to educate Ki-Moon on the geological facts before (or, apparently, after) his speech.

Yeah, I mean, the IPCC only had 2500 people working on a (3x)1500 page report citing 30,000 papers that details a large amount of palaeoclimate work. But I guess none of them proofread the U.N. secretary's speech, so that means it's not happening, although it is but it's not humans, although maybe it is but it's fine because look at how hot the dinosaurs were!

Quote
Geologists are fully aware that our planet is not unusually warm at the moment, it is unusually cold.

I mean, yes, but look at the Ordovician:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png/600px-Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png)

Or, hell, look at this long term temperature graph from a climate denier website:
(https://i0.wp.com/s4.postimg.org/5nwu2ppdp/Temp_CO2_750_Mya.png)

Look at those "snowball earth" dips! It was cold back then, so we don't need to worry about the next ice age.... right?

Quote
They also know that carbon dioxide is not the villain when it comes to warming — for most of earth’s history, temperature and carbon dioxide have shown only the most tenuous relationship, as Figure 6 shows.

Yep, totally tenuous:

(http://i29.tinypic.com/28iyro8.jpg)

That's a spurious correlation, I'm sure. But anyway, as pointed out above, eyeballing a graph is not a proper way to do an attribution study for drivers of climate change. If you correct for other factors, such as the changes in solar irradiation and the changing configuration of the continents, the correlation is actually pretty consistent (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6835/full/411287a0.html).

Quote
The correlation today of rising carbon dioxide levels and rising temperatures that worries climate scientists so much is likely just coincidence.

Well, no. We have laboratory experiments that have been conducted that tell us that CO2 traps radiation. We have physical models that explain this in great detail based on extremely well known physics. We have satellite spectroscopy that shows directly that more radiation is being trapped in those parts of the spectrum associated with CO2 (and other anthropogenic GHG) absorption:

(https://skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif)

 At the same time we have ground based spectroscopy studies (https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm) that show increased longwave radiation coming down from the atmosphere at wavelengths associated with the emission spectra of CO2, because of which the stratosphere is actually cooling (which is inconsistent with solar forcing as per Milankovitch cycles, as the sun would be expected to heat the stratosphere, but consistent with GHG forcing because most of our CO2 is in the troposphere, which lies below the stratosphere, thereby insulating the stratosphere from the longwave radiation being emitted from the earth, because that is increasingly absorbed):

(https://skepticalscience.com/images/Cooling_Stratosphere.gif)

We have models that represent the best knowledge we have of the climate system that can only reproduce the instrumental temperature record (reliably) if CO2 is included as a driver (see below). We have palaeo data that backs all this up in great detail. We know that CO2 is anthropogenic because we can roughly estimate the amount we're expelling, and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, because of isotopic analysis that confirms that the CO2 has the signature found in fossil fuels. We can also track atmospheric oxygen over time to confirm that the CO2 comes from burning something:
(https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_lightbox_display/public/key_figures/climate_data_set/ljo_scripps.png?itok=yiWoqhq1)

Quote
Overall, as Lamb observed,

...in 1982...

Quote
“Seemingly objective statistics may produce a variety of verdicts which are actually arbitrary in that they depend on the choice of observation period.”7 Alarmists like Al Gore have chosen to focus on the past century, and therefore they worry about warming. Geologists take a longer time-frame and know that the planet has been much warmer in the past without “thermageddon,” that we are in an ice age, and that the biggest future problem we face is not warming but cooling.
Yes, and most other climate scientists predicted warming (https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm). I think I know why he picked Lamb here (other than his old graph); he died in 1997, so there is no way for him to now speak out against climate change denial. Although (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/hubert-lamb):
Quote
He was well acquainted with the pioneering works of Svante Arrhenius in Sweden, and G.S. Callendar in England, and wrote in 1997 that, 'it is now widely thought that the undoubted warming of the world climate in the twentieth century is attributable to the increased concentration in the atmosphere of so-called greenhouse gases' 2. However, he always referred back to the instrumental record, and his attitude to greenhouse warming remained guarded.
Also, I have zero doubt that, if one were to ask any random sample of his present day colleagues at the CRU, they would unanimously accept the consensus that CO2 causes climate change. And they would not be kind to the deniers who stole their private emails and harassed many of them and tried to destroy their careers, to the point where Phil Jones admitted contemplating suicide (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7180154/Climategate-Professor-Phil-Jones-considered-suicide-over-email-scandal.html). Of course, that happened in 2009, after this blog was posted.

Quote
Who’s right, the geologists or the computer-based climate scientists?

False dichotomy and false dilemma; the overwhelming majority of all earth scientists accept climate science, and not all climate science is "computer based".

Quote
There is no certainty in science (a fact that “consensus” climate science seems to have forgotten).

There is no absolute certainty in science. Suggesting that there is no consensus, or no differing levels of confidence is idiotic and absurd.

Quote
However, if we think like a geologist rather than a computer climate specialist, we know that today’s climate is well within past natural variability

So, again, 10 times the highest rate in the past 65 million years.

Quote
— for example, previous interglacials and even previous warm cycles within this interglacial were warmer than today.
See above.

Quote
In other words, the record of past climate history makes it very likely that today’s climate change is based on natural, cyclical factors, not human factors,
No it doesn't. (https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm)

Quote
and that what we need to worry about is a planet that is colder, not warmer.

No it isn't. (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm)

(continued in the following post...)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 14, 2017, 12:30:28 PM
(...continued from the previous post)

In general, any comparison to prehistoric temperatures misses the point because we didn't have a civilization back then. Today we have cities and industries that rely on a certain amount of stability in the climate and sea levels. It's not like things used to be when we lived in caves and tents. We can't just pack up our skycrapers and factories and move them a few miles up the hill. That costs huge amounts of money and disrupts people's lives (not to mention plant and animal life).

Quote
Notes

1    Gordon Jaremko, “Causes of climate change varied: poll.” Edmonton Journal, March 6, 2008. ?
2    L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson, “Ad hoc committee on global climate issues: Annual report.” AAPG Bulletin, vol. 84, issue 4 (April 2000), pp. 466-471. Available at http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/4/466. ?
3    Quoted in Alexander Cockburn, “Dissidents against dogma.” Counterpunch, June 9/10, 2007. Available at http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html. ?
4    It’s interesting to note that the rise in temperature from about 1900 to 1940 is just as steep as the rise from the 1970’s to now, with much lower carbon dioxide levels, so presumably that rise was “natural,” but, according to Gore et al., the current, similar rise must be human-made. The chart comes from R.M. Carter’s “The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change.” ?

No, it isn't interesting, it's eyeballing a graph for coincidences and saying "Aha! All of climate science is wrong! I have seen beyond the veil!". Who the fuck cares about Gore? Here are the combined statistics of several climate models that together represent the best understanding we have of the climate system, plotted together with the instrumental temperature record:

(http://www.realclimate.org/images//WGI_AR5_Fig10-1.jpg)

Top: natural plus anthropogenic forcings. Bottom: natural only (with overlay of measured temperatures for several datasets for comparison purposes). As you can see, natural forcing alone can't explain the variation past about 1960. Here are some more smoothed graphs that also include some other indicators of climate change:

(https://wottsupwiththatblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/all_models.jpg)

Only when we include anthropogenic influences can we explain the measurements accurately.


Quote
5    Graph comes from R.M. Carter, “The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change.” For details on the millennial cycle, see S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. ?
6    From Brian S. John, editor, The Winters of the World: Earth Under the Ice Ages. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1973, p. 183. ?
7    H.H. Lamb, Climate, History, and the Modern World. New York: Methuen, 1982, p. 16. ?

Notice how few studies this blog post cites to discredit the IPCC's 30,000 peer reviewed citations? Oh yeah, and the first one is a poll.

Give me a fucking break.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 14, 2017, 12:36:05 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/RBWbHpo.gif)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 14, 2017, 01:01:25 PM
I'm sure I made a mistake or quoted a bad source in there somewhere for deniers to hold on to.

EDIT: Replaced a graph and added some more details on the different lines of evidence that climate change is anthropogenic. If anything is unclear, or if you find something wrong or misleading, please let me know.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 14, 2017, 08:03:49 PM
Hot off the presses, realcimate has set up a model projection/observations comparison page (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/) that could be pretty useful for tracking how well the models are doing.

Quote
Model projections and observations comparison page
Filed under:

    Climate modelling Climate Science Instrumental Record

— gavin @ 11 April 2017

We should have done this ages ago, but better late than never!

We have set up a permanent page to host all of the model projection-observation comparisons that we have monitored over the years. This includes comparisons to early predictions for global mean surface temperature from the 1980’s as well as more complete projections from the CMIP3 and CMIP5. The aim is to maintain this annually, or more often if new datasets or versions become relevant.

We are also happy to get advice on stylistic choices or variations that might make the graphs easier to comprehend or be more accurate – feel free to suggest them in the comments below (since the page itself will be updated over time, it doesn’t have comments associated with it).

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 20, 2017, 07:08:31 PM
Good article on Florida real estate.  I could quote and bold almost the entire thing so it's worth a read. 

Article: The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners)
From: Bloomberg
Date: April 19, 2017

Fun Excerpts:
Quote
On a predictably gorgeous South Florida afternoon, Coral Gables Mayor Jim Cason sat in his office overlooking the white-linen restaurants of this affluent seaside community and wondered when climate change would bring it all to an end. He figured it would involve a boat.

When Cason first started worrying about sea-level rise, he asked his staff to count not just how much coastline the city had (47 miles) or value of the property along that coast ($3.5 billion). He also told them to find out how many boats dock inland from the bridges that span the city’s canals (302). What matters, he guessed, will be the first time a mast fails to clear the bottom of one of those bridges because the water level had risen too far.

“These boats are going to be the canary in the mine,” said Cason, who became mayor in 2011 after retiring from the U.S. foreign service. “When the boats can’t go out, the property values go down.”


Jim Cason, mayor of Coral Gables, in his office. He worries that rising insurance costs, reluctant lenders or skittish foreign buyers could hurt home prices well before sea-level rise gets worse.
 
If property values start to fall, Cason said, banks could stop writing 30-year mortgages for coastal homes, shrinking the pool of able buyers and sending prices lower still. Those properties make up a quarter of the city’s tax base; if that revenue fell, the city would struggle to provide the services that make it such a desirable place to live, causing more sales and another drop in revenue.

And all of that could happen before the rising sea consumes a single home.


As President Donald Trump proposes dismantling federal programs aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, officials and residents in South Florida are grappling with the risk that climate change could drag down housing markets. Relative sea levels in South Florida are roughly four inches higher now than in 1992. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts sea levels will rise as much as three feet in Miami by 2060. By the end of the century, according to projections by Zillow, some 934,000 existing Florida properties, worth more than $400 billion, are at risk of being submerged.

The impact is already being felt in South Florida. Tidal flooding now predictably drenches inland streets, even when the sun is out, thanks to the region’s porous limestone bedrock. Saltwater is creeping into the drinking water supply. The area’s drainage canals rely on gravity; as oceans rise, the water utility has had to install giant pumps to push water out to the ocean.

The effects of climate-driven price drops could ripple across the economy, and eventually force the federal government to decide what is owed to people whose home values are ruined by climate change.

Sean Becketti, the chief economist at Freddie Mac, warned in a report last year of a housing crisis for coastal areas more severe than the Great Recession, one that could spread through banks, insurers and other industries. And, unlike the recession, there’s no hope of a bounce back in property values.

...

“Nobody thinks it’s coming as fast as it is,” said Dan Kipnis, the chairman of Miami Beach’s Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority, who has been trying to find a buyer for his home in Miami Beach for almost a year, and has already lowered his asking price twice.

Some South Florida homeowners, stuck in a twist on the prisoner’s dilemma, are deciding to sell now—not necessarily because they want to move, but because they’re worried their neighbors will sell first.


...

Marla Martin, a spokeswoman for Florida’s association of realtors, said that while “of course climate change is on the radar for our members,” she hadn’t heard of clients selling homes because of sea-level rise.

“I think the scientists are still trying to get a handle on it,” she wrote in an email.

...

Russo says if she knew in 2015 what she knows now, she wouldn’t have purchased the house. People buying in her neighborhood today are probably just as clueless as she once was, she guesses. “I would bet money that the realtors are not telling them.”

Realtors in Florida face no legal requirement to warn potential buyers about those flood risks. Albert Slap, president of Coastal Risk Consulting, which helps homeowners and governments measure their exposure to flooding, said he thinks that will soon change: Just as the public demanded mandatory disclosure of asbestos and lead paint, people will insist on the same disclosure if a house suffers regular floods.

And when that happens, Slap said, many Florida home prices will tumble.

“Anybody in these floody areas, if they disclose to a buyer, the buyer probably won’t buy that property,” said Slap, whose company is doing work for the city of Miami Beach. “That’s going to drive the value down to zero, well before water is up to their front door.”

Slap said the answer isn’t a mass retreat from the coast, at least not yet, but rather a version of battlefield triage: figuring out which homes are worth saving, through elevation or other means, and which can’t be helped.

Stephanie Russo at her home in Key Largo. She said that if she knew how badly the area would flood when she was looking at the house, she wouldn't have bought it.
 
“The next black swan is the failure of housing finance to take climate change into account,” he said. “There will be a large number of homes that will lose substantial value, and will default on mortgages, if nothing is done to help them.”

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 20, 2017, 08:22:28 PM
That might be worth posting on the Lukewarmers thread (http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,48453.0.html), seeing as Pdb88 was asking about economic impacts of climate change there.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: HanEyeAm on April 24, 2017, 11:31:13 PM
Not sure this is the right place for this question, but it is related to global warming. EPA posted some NPS data regarding Yoshino cherry tree peak bloom dates in Washington DC from 1921-2016. Of course, cherry tree peak bloom reflects climate and, in particular, temperature. EPA reported that the peak bloom date has shifted 5 days earlier over that period (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/cherry-blossoms).

I graphed the data showing the linear, quadratic, and loess fit lines (see below). The number on the Y-axis refers to Julian dates (e.g., Jan 1 = 1).

I calculated "change" in peak bloom date using several simple methods:
•   Linear trend: Since 1921, the peak bloom date has shifted 4.91 days earlier.
•   Quadratic trend: since 1921, the peak bloom date has shifted 4.94 days earlier.
•   Loess fit line suggests a non-linear trend, with a slight shift to a later date until the mid-1970s then a sharp change in the trend to earlier days from there. Visual inspection suggests maybe 4 days earlier.
•   Per 5-year average (1921-1925 vs. 2012-2016) = 0.02 days earlier
•   Per 10-year average (1921-1930 vs. 2007-2016) = 1.2 days earlier

I’m curious how you all think the trend in peak bloom dates should be interpreted. In my opinion, analyzing the data as linear, as the EPA did, is convenient, but does not seem to fit the data and certainly maximizes the change in days.

So, in your opinion, has the peak bloom date changed or not? If so, by how much? And what peak bloom date should we expect in 2050?

(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n193/hanshananigan/SGU_cherry.jpg) (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/hanshananigan/media/SGU_cherry.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on April 25, 2017, 12:12:58 AM
Linear not only doesn't maximize the change, as you yourself just stated a larger number for quadratic, but it also fits the trend seen in cherry blossoms in Japan, which was posted a couple pages ago.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: HanEyeAm on April 25, 2017, 07:09:59 AM
Linear not only doesn't maximize the change, as you yourself just stated a larger number for quadratic, but it also fits the trend seen in cherry blossoms in Japan, which was posted a couple pages ago.
To clarify, the linear and quadratic trends were no mt significantly different and both would have been rounded to 5 days.

Also, it is highly unlikely that a quadratic trend would fit prior data if available or predict future dates. But then again how well does the linear? Most graphs shown earlier showed lowess or other non-linear fit lines.

Yes, IIRC, there was a striking shift in the 1970s.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on April 25, 2017, 01:51:56 PM

So, it took me the entire day, and this may the last time I ever do this, but I went over this denialist wordvomit line by line:

Wow. Just wow. Well done!

Quote
Survey here (http://www.apega.ca/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf).

For some reason, the link does not work for me.

Regarding that leveling of temperature from 1940 to 1970, might it be due, at least in part, to WWII?

I love that argument that we don't need to worry because temperatures were as high or even higher at [insert some point far back in the Earth's prehistory]. So true, right. And who needs molecular oxygen? Heck, it would probably have been poisonous to the earliest life on the planet, amirite?

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 25, 2017, 03:32:15 PM

So, it took me the entire day, and this may the last time I ever do this, but I went over this denialist wordvomit line by line:

Wow. Just wow. Well done!

Thanks! }|:o)

Quote
Survey here (http://www.apega.ca/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf).

For some reason, the link does not work for me.

Hmm, I guess they must've taken it down. Unfortunately I couldn't find a copy, but here's (https://www.skepticalscience.com/consensusforbes.html) a skepticalscience article that deals with this and various other such issues. You can find most of those stats there. They use the 2% response figure from a denialist article that explicitly stated that 1,077 of the 51,000 surveyed responded.
I should point out that these kinds of badly controlled surveys have done the rounds before... I did once do my own random sample of about 100 signatures from the infamous Oregon Petition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) (which had only 31,000 signatures!), and found that most of the signatories were bachelors degrees, many of them in fields completely unrelated to climate science (and several having obvious prank names). IIRC I found exactly zero publishing climate scientists (though there were a couple of economist PhDs in there). So it is totally unsurprising to me that the APPEGA one is of similar quality.

Regarding that leveling of temperature from 1940 to 1970, might it be due, at least in part, to WWII?

That's thought (https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm) to be mainly due to sulfate aerosol forcing from post-WWII rapid industrialization and a number of large volcanic eruptions. Sulfate aerosols increase the earth's albedo, thereby reflecting more sunlight back into space, but they are relatively short lived, so once measures were taken to reduce sulfate aerosols in the troposphere (to combat acid rain), the aerosols were reduced and CO2 took over as the dominant anthropogenic forcing. Here's what sulfate emissions looked like over time:

(https://skepticalscience.com/pics/SO2.jpg)

Keep in mind that CO2 concentration keeps increasing throughout this period.

Another reason why they suspect that aerosols are the main culprit is that, while daytime temperatures dropped, nighttime temperatures actually rose during this time (which is what you would expect, since there is no sunlight to reflect at night, but there is plenty of heat radiation that can be absorbed by CO2).

Oh, and the article also mentions an issue with a change in the measurement of sea surface temperatures that may have lead to this hiatus being more pronounced, but I haven't really seen much about that since. But if this graph shows the correction they're referring to (which, in fairness, I'm not 100% sure of), it obviously didn't have a giant impact:

(https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/figure-1.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 03, 2017, 06:21:01 PM
Update on Larsen C: Huge Antarctic ice shelf crack now has second branch (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/05/02/new-crack-forms-antarctic-ice-shelf/101195464/#)

(http://i.imgur.com/ShRIeRO.png)

This is the same ice shelf discussed earlier in the thread.  Only 12 miles remain before an 1,100' thick chunk of ice the area of Rhode Island calves and floats off. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on May 04, 2017, 10:56:40 AM
Isn't winter approaching down there?  Do they think winter will put the calving off for a while?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 04, 2017, 11:11:13 AM
Isn't winter approaching down there?

You actively tried to avoid the word "coming" to escape Game of Thrones memes, didn't you? Well, you're not going to get away that easy!

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDuH97Nt4-YiylH-YVAl4ewlxNb6pV0ZkmswE1nZ5NysrPr3Ei)

(http://i.imgur.com/6rrHWuU.png)

(https://img.memecdn.com/winter-is-coming_o_950997.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on May 04, 2017, 01:55:51 PM
Goddamit!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 15, 2017, 03:55:54 AM
I love the x-axis. 

(http://i.imgur.com/6Drb6HU.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on May 15, 2017, 04:39:34 AM
That is pretty hinky
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 15, 2017, 07:03:20 AM
I love the x-axis. 

(http://i.imgur.com/6Drb6HU.png)

Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: HanEyeAm on May 16, 2017, 06:45:33 AM
I love the x-axis. 

(http://i.imgur.com/6Drb6HU.png)

Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
I like the info it gives... that emissions have stabilized and we aren't seeing a continued exponential growth trend. It just needs a better indicator of the change in scale (and 2010).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 16, 2017, 07:20:45 AM
I love the x-axis. 

(http://i.imgur.com/6Drb6HU.png)

Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
I like the info it gives... that emissions have stabilized and we aren't seeing a continued exponential growth trend. It just needs a better indicator of the change in scale (and 2010).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I think it's at least potentially highly misleading. This flattening would show up as just another anomalous blip in any of the preceding two-decade intervals in that graph. In fact, you can see several such slowdowns and even reductions during the 80s and 90s. The suggestion is that emissions have been stable for a long time and that this is likely to remain so, but that is not actually clear at all if you pay attention to the scale change. Especially given that large parts of the world are still experiencing some degree of economic malaise. Even from this graph, it's climbing right up until 2014. 2016 was only the third (http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/global-carbon-emissions-continue-to-stabilize-us-has-3-drop/) year in which emissions have been stable. I doubt that's enough to establish a meaningful long term trend. And that's just emissions, not actual CO2 concentration, which is still going up.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 16, 2017, 07:39:15 AM
I guess the point of the graph is to show emissions flattening, and that there's hope for them to finally go down. But would most readers think that flattening's enough? Crisis averted?

To me it means that we've maybe stopped making things worse at a greater rate. Leaving us to continue to make things worse at the highest ever rate, and we have as much reason as we ever did to reduce emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 16, 2017, 10:28:53 AM
As is, it's ridiculous to read. 

I measured 65 pixels distance between 1970's 7 and 0 and 1990's 9 and 0.  So, a 20 year increment is 65 pixels, or, 3.25 pixels per year. 

If I amend 2011 to 2010 and continue that scale from 2010 to 2015, we end up with something that looks like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/Fp6MPwB.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on May 16, 2017, 10:53:14 AM
I love the x-axis. 

(http://i.imgur.com/6Drb6HU.png)

Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
I like the info it gives... that emissions have stabilized and we aren't seeing a continued exponential growth trend. It just needs a better indicator of the change in scale (and 2010).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
That isn't the info it gives, that's the info it very misleadingly suggests.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: HanEyeAm on May 16, 2017, 01:23:15 PM
I love the x-axis. 

(http://i.imgur.com/6Drb6HU.png)

Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
I like the info it gives... that emissions have stabilized and we aren't seeing a continued exponential growth trend. It just needs a better indicator of the change in scale (and 2010).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
That isn't the info it gives, that's the info it very misleadingly suggests.
Well, here's a handful of us who were not misled.

But the points of werecow and others are well taken: at a cursory glance it looks like the trend has mostly flattened, so that may overemphasize the state of things when considering other periods of short-term declines/non-growth have occurred in the past.

Aside...I assume these data points are all estimated by some formula estimating historical world population, type of fuel used, amount of fuels used, etc. Complex stuff!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on May 16, 2017, 01:34:42 PM
Well, here's a handful of us who were not misled.
Except, you apparently were misled, because you thought it showed that emissions have stabilized, which it doesn't actually demonstrate.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: albator on May 16, 2017, 02:56:09 PM
Well, here's a handful of us who were not misled.

But the points of werecow and others are well taken: at a cursory glance it looks like the trend has mostly flattened, so that may overemphasize the state of things when considering other periods of short-term declines/non-growth have occurred in the past.

Aside...I assume these data points are all estimated by some formula estimating historical world population, type of fuel used, amount of fuels used, etc. Complex stuff!
On current world emissions, they say there is a max relative error of 10% ( in the IEA report (http://wds.iea.org/wds/pdf/Worldco2_Documentation.pdf)).
Here's what a normal chart looklike.  :)
(https://www.iea.org/media/news/2017/GlobalCarbonEmissions2.png)

Strangly, these numbers (http://www.iea.org/media/statistics/CO2Highlights.xls) differ by something like a 3 gigatons co2 with the dubious chart, maybe they come from a previous report or include other source of emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on May 16, 2017, 05:31:57 PM
The graph seems to correspond to the numbers from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html).

Here's their data from 1870 to 2014 without the bizarre rescaling on the x-axis:
(http://i.imgur.com/7Jk2Dmf.png)

(Cement production and gas flaring are included in the CDIAC data, which probably accounts for the difference from the IEA numbers. Weird that the dubious graph would cite the IEA in that case, though.)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: HanEyeAm on May 16, 2017, 06:15:14 PM


Well, here's a handful of us who were not misled.
Except, you apparently were misled, because you thought it showed that emissions have stabilized, which it doesn't actually demonstrate.

No, I was not misled. Poor choice of words on my part, though (stabilized).

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 31, 2017, 02:31:03 PM
Trump intends to withdraw from Paris Accords.  Rest of the world, not so much.

Article: EU official: EU, China to reaffirm support for climate pact (https://apnews.com/589f5bc3a58543e089416690d2922fc8)
From: AP News
Date: May 31, 2017

Quote
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union and China will reaffirm their commitment to the Paris climate change accord this week regardless of whether the U.S. pulls out of the pact, a senior EU official said Wednesday.

...

President Donald Trump is expected to pull the U.S. from the pact, a White House official said Wednesday, though there could be “caveats in the language” announcing a withdrawal, leaving open the possibility that his decision isn’t final.

...

In a joint statement issued following talks in the Spanish capital between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Spanish counterpart Mariano Rajoy, the two countries said taking action on climatic change was a priority for both nations.

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 01, 2017, 02:51:28 PM
Oh, baby!

(http://i.imgur.com/ODvQhmf.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 01, 2017, 03:07:18 PM
Oh, baby!

(http://i.imgur.com/ODvQhmf.jpg)

Oh come on. Nothing to see there! Have you ever tried eating 13kms of ice cream? That's a lot of ice ice baby.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Andrew Clunn on June 01, 2017, 03:10:36 PM
The Feb 12th May 1st lines seem to point to the same place.  I'm a bit confused there.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 01, 2017, 03:13:37 PM
The Feb 12th May 1st lines seem to point to the same place.  I'm a bit confused there.

If you look at the zoomed inset, there's two cracks going in parallel there.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 01, 2017, 08:59:36 PM
Eight more miles!

Here's a map with better labeling:

(http://i.imgur.com/8aaoU0P.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on July 02, 2017, 01:43:28 PM
I thought somebody should post this

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340223-epa-head-to-launch-initiative-to-challenge-climate-science

EPA head launching initiative to 'critique' climate science

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is leading a formal Trump administration program to “critique” mainstream climate change science.

Pruitt is skeptical of the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity, via greenhouse gases, is far and away the primary cause of climate change. But he’s stated he believes the climate is changing and humans have some role.

The initiative will be a “back-and-forth critique” of climate studies, using scientists recruited by the government to take different positions on the matters, Climatewire reported Friday, citing a senior administration official.

"Climate science like other fields of science is constantly changing," EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in a statement. "A new, fresh, and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing."


Bullshit. . . .To be straight up, a bunch of states needs to take the EPA to task for global warming in federal court.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on July 02, 2017, 01:48:43 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340223-epa-head-to-launch-initiative-to-challenge-climate-science

EPA head launching initiative to 'critique' climate science

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is leading a formal Trump administration program to “critique” mainstream climate change science.

Pruitt is skeptical of the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity, via greenhouse gases, is far and away the primary cause of climate change. But he’s stated he believes the climate is changing and humans have some role.

The initiative will be a “back-and-forth critique” of climate studies, using scientists recruited by the government to take different positions on the matters, Climatewire reported Friday, citing a senior administration official.

"Climate science like other fields of science is constantly changing," EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in a statement. "A new, fresh, and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing."


Same old merchants of doubt. Can't these assholes come up with something more original? Maybe some batshit crazy alternative hypothesis involving bigfoot farts? Something mildly entertaining is all I ask for.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 02, 2017, 01:52:51 PM
So now the EPA is the equivalent of the former Australian Vaccination Network.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on July 02, 2017, 02:13:27 PM
So now the EPA is the equivalent of the former Australian Vaccination Network.

It would be like the Australian Vaccination Network took over the Australian Department of Health.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on July 04, 2017, 02:00:07 AM
Naomi Oreskes.  Great speech at the AAAS.  (Dr Novella, take note)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-scientist-as-sentinel/8624944
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on July 06, 2017, 10:28:12 AM
Oh, baby!

(http://i.imgur.com/ODvQhmf.jpg)

Now if I only knew how big Wales is.  ???
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on July 06, 2017, 12:30:04 PM
About the size of New Jersey.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on July 06, 2017, 12:34:26 PM
Well, as far as I can tell it has not broken off yet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/05/an-iceberg-the-size-of-delaware-is-about-to-break-off-of-antarctica/?utm_term=.42291e5634bf
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on July 06, 2017, 05:42:22 PM
I don't have any clue if this is real. . . .Seems strnage and connot be sure that the images represent what they claim
http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/warnings-of-new-arctic-explosions-at-some-700-plus-sites-in-yamal-due-to-thawing-permafrost/

Warnings of new Arctic explosions at some 700-plus sites in Yamal due to thawing permafrost

Startling details have emerged of last week's methane gas blowout on an Arctic riverbank: a sudden and deafening bang from a large explosion of the ground near a reindeer encampment, fire shooting into the sky and raging for several minutes from the eruption, huge chunks of charred permafrost blown out of the ground, and a deep, eerie crater forming, some 50 metres deep which immediately filled with water.

Reindeer and dogs fled in fright. Sand and grass was blackened by the intense heat of the eruption which was described as 'a flame of fire and then a rising pillar of smoke'.

Scientists rushed to the scene on the Yamal Peninsula to examine the site in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, amid expert warnings that many can be expected as a warming climate leads to thawing permafrost and the release of potent methane gas which has lain frozen under the surface for thousands of years.

The ground is 'swelling' at more than 700 sites on Yamal - known to locals as 'the end of the world' -  have been identified as potential explosion sites, but these are seen as the tip of an iceberg.

Many are hillocks or knolls, some are pingos
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on July 06, 2017, 09:04:31 PM
I don't have any clue if this is real. . . .Seems strnage and connot be sure that the images represent what they claim
http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/warnings-of-new-arctic-explosions-at-some-700-plus-sites-in-yamal-due-to-thawing-permafrost/

Warnings of new Arctic explosions at some 700-plus sites in Yamal due to thawing permafrost

Startling details have emerged of last week's methane gas blowout on an Arctic riverbank: a sudden and deafening bang from a large explosion of the ground near a reindeer encampment, fire shooting into the sky and raging for several minutes from the eruption, huge chunks of charred permafrost blown out of the ground, and a deep, eerie crater forming, some 50 metres deep which immediately filled with water.

Reindeer and dogs fled in fright. Sand and grass was blackened by the intense heat of the eruption which was described as 'a flame of fire and then a rising pillar of smoke'.

Scientists rushed to the scene on the Yamal Peninsula to examine the site in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, amid expert warnings that many can be expected as a warming climate leads to thawing permafrost and the release of potent methane gas which has lain frozen under the surface for thousands of years.

The ground is 'swelling' at more than 700 sites on Yamal - known to locals as 'the end of the world' -  have been identified as potential explosion sites, but these are seen as the tip of an iceberg.

Many are hillocks or knolls, some are pingos


Interesting. Not the first time Yamal has come up (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yamal_controversy).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on July 06, 2017, 09:30:48 PM
I have a message out to a friend who is a geologist to see what his thoughts are
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Mr. Beagle on July 09, 2017, 09:42:00 PM
Quite possibly due to climate change, icebergs and pack ice have been especially prevalent around Newfoundland this year. Some great pictures here and a mention of climate change, but another source I can no longer find suggests that the warm conditions farther north have caused more Greenland pack ice to break off and go farther south.

Mrs. Beagle and I had actually booked a trip to Newfoundland in June, but Air Canada discontinued a flight from Kansas City to Toronto, which made the trip to St. John's a two-day affair in each direction. So they refunded our money.

We missed some fabulous icebergs, but would not have been able to take the ferry to Labrador as we had planned, due to the pack ice in the strait.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/destinations/canada-alaska/94455565/a-gigantic-iceberg-passes-by-a-tiny-town-in-newfoundland-and-labrador

(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/i/n/e/3/f/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1k8idp.png/1499304140915.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 10, 2017, 03:20:00 AM
Huge article from NY Mag (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html).  It's well written.  It's a review of the angles on, "Climate Change: Worse And Sooner Than You Think." 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 10, 2017, 09:13:15 AM
I keep seeing population growth being brought up as problem, without any hint of suggesting that we should try to stop population growth itself.

We could do a lot towards that end, if instead of spending billions on abstinence-only programs, we spent money on sex education and birth control access. And if we otherwise didn't ban supporting organizations that were involved in sex education and reproductive healthcare.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Mr. Beagle on July 10, 2017, 09:17:32 AM
I keep seeing population growth being brought up as problem, without any hint of suggesting that we should try to stop population growth itself.

We could do a lot towards that end, if instead of spending billions on abstinence-only programs, we spent money on sex education and birth control access. And if we otherwise didn't ban supporting organizations that were involved in sex education and reproductive healthcare.
Countries good women's rights and access to birth control see much lower population growth.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on July 10, 2017, 07:28:00 PM
Beginning to be afraid it may eventually involve culling the herd
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 12, 2017, 01:11:06 AM
The Sixth Mass Extinction:
Quote
They found that about 30 percent of all land vertebrates — mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians — are experiencing declines and local population losses. In most parts of the world, mammal populations are losing 70 percent of their members because of habitat loss.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/climate/mass-extinction-animal-species.html
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 12, 2017, 07:20:44 AM
Beginning to be afraid it may eventually involve culling the herd

We've been doing that, but I don't think anything short of nuclear war would be feasible as a way of deliberately killing off a high enough number of humans.

Which could take centuries to recover from. I think prevention is the best approach whatever your morals are otherwise.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 12, 2017, 10:36:18 AM
Larsen C finally calved.

Quote
Approximately the size of Delaware, almost 2,200 square miles, Larsen C is the third gigantic ice shelf to collapse from this section of Antarctica since 1995. On average, the Larsen C iceberg will be 625 feet thick across its immense expanse, but up to 695 feet of its ice may be hidden below the water’s surface. Break out the sleds, because that’s big enough to cover all 50 states in 4.6 inches of ice.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/antarcticas-larsen-c-ice-shelf-finally-breaks-releases-giant-iceberg/

(http://i.imgur.com/ZFNCCGM.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on July 12, 2017, 01:10:19 PM
Huge article from NY Mag (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html).  It's well written.  It's a review of the angles on, "Climate Change: Worse And Sooner Than You Think."
Michael Mann wrote a response (https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1470539096335621) that urges a bit less doomsaying.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 12, 2017, 02:27:12 PM
Massive iceberg breaks off Antarctica ice shelf - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iceberg-antarctica-20170712-story.html)

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-5966616d/turbine/la-1499881834-hot8hrefox-snap-image/600/600x338)

Iceberg, dead ahead!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 12, 2017, 04:01:23 PM
Additional media:

Footage of rift from light aircraft: Twitter (https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/885072176906477568)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEjFxOcXUAAFGo6.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEjFx55WAAIE4iR.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on July 12, 2017, 08:39:59 PM
I don't have any clue if this is real. . . .Seems strnage and connot be sure that the images represent what they claim
http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/warnings-of-new-arctic-explosions-at-some-700-plus-sites-in-yamal-due-to-thawing-permafrost/

Warnings of new Arctic explosions at some 700-plus sites in Yamal due to thawing permafrost

Startling details have emerged of last week's methane gas blowout on an Arctic riverbank: a sudden and deafening bang from a large explosion of the ground near a reindeer encampment, fire shooting into the sky and raging for several minutes from the eruption, huge chunks of charred permafrost blown out of the ground, and a deep, eerie crater forming, some 50 metres deep which immediately filled with water.

Reindeer and dogs fled in fright. Sand and grass was blackened by the intense heat of the eruption which was described as 'a flame of fire and then a rising pillar of smoke'.

Scientists rushed to the scene on the Yamal Peninsula to examine the site in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, amid expert warnings that many can be expected as a warming climate leads to thawing permafrost and the release of potent methane gas which has lain frozen under the surface for thousands of years.

The ground is 'swelling' at more than 700 sites on Yamal - known to locals as 'the end of the world' -  have been identified as potential explosion sites, but these are seen as the tip of an iceberg.

Many are hillocks or knolls, some are pingos


Interesting. Not the first time Yamal has come up (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yamal_controversy).

I spoke to my geologist friend and he thinks it is plausible.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 16, 2017, 12:32:35 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/zlssJMb.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 16, 2017, 02:38:37 PM
I'm wondering what the market is like for domestic CO2 scrubbers.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on July 16, 2017, 03:17:24 PM
I'm wondering what the market is like for domestic CO2 scrubbers.


Here they are, deep rooting pasture and happy grazers.  Tasty as well, mind you.

(http://i.imgur.com/M31Lma8.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on July 16, 2017, 10:29:27 PM
Yes, I'm sure a sustainable level of grazing cattle will definitely be enough to sequester a few hundred billion tons of carbon.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 17, 2017, 12:25:26 AM
I was thinking for home use.

In 100 years the CO2 levels might be permanently above 1000 ppm, meaning that there will no longer be any fresh air anywhere. And indoor air quality will be that much more difficult to maintain.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on July 17, 2017, 01:16:13 AM
Yes, I'm sure a sustainable level of grazing cattle will definitely be enough to sequester a few hundred billion tons of carbon.

Most of the carbon in the atmosphere has come from soil use change from grazing millions (billions?) of free living ruminants world wide to arable agriculture.  The only way to sequester enough atmospheric carbon to make a positive difference is through grazing.  It isn't my idea, btw, and it isn't enough to just stop emitting CO2.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: SkeptiQueer on July 17, 2017, 01:29:34 AM
Yes, I'm sure a sustainable level of grazing cattle will definitely be enough to sequester a few hundred billion tons of carbon.

Most of the carbon in the atmosphere has come from soil use change from grazing millions (billions?) of free living ruminants world wide to arable agriculture.  The only way to sequester enough atmospheric carbon to make a positive difference is through grazing.  It isn't my idea, btw, and it isn't enough to just stop emitting CO2.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on July 17, 2017, 08:08:39 AM
Yeah, that "most" is definitely an extraordinary claim.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on July 17, 2017, 03:32:59 PM
Yes, I'm sure a sustainable level of grazing cattle will definitely be enough to sequester a few hundred billion tons of carbon.

Most of the carbon in the atmosphere has come from soil use change from grazing millions (billions?) of free living ruminants world wide to arable agriculture.  The only way to sequester enough atmospheric carbon to make a positive difference is through grazing.  It isn't my idea, btw, and it isn't enough to just stop emitting CO2.
[CITATION NEEDED]



Quote
Scientists say that more carbon resides in soil than in the atmosphere and all plant life combined; there are 2,500 billion tons of carbon in soil, compared with 800 billion tons in the atmosphere and 560 billion tons in plant and animal life. And compared to many proposed geoengineering fixes, storing carbon in soil is simple: It’s a matter of returning carbon where it belongs.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/soil-carbon-‘a-saviour’-in-locking-up-carbon/8460928

(sorry, you'll need to copy  and paste the second link) 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 17, 2017, 03:36:59 PM
Damn, that's more sequestration than I thought.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: SkeptiQueer on July 17, 2017, 03:49:12 PM


Yes, I'm sure a sustainable level of grazing cattle will definitely be enough to sequester a few hundred billion tons of carbon.

Most of the carbon in the atmosphere has come from soil use change from grazing millions (billions?) of free living ruminants world wide to arable agriculture.  The only way to sequester enough atmospheric carbon to make a positive difference is through grazing.  It isn't my idea, btw, and it isn't enough to just stop emitting CO2.
[CITATION NEEDED]



Quote
Scientists say that more carbon resides in soil than in the atmosphere and all plant life combined; there are 2,500 billion tons of carbon in soil, compared with 800 billion tons in the atmosphere and 560 billion tons in plant and animal life. And compared to many proposed geoengineering fixes, storing carbon in soil is simple: It’s a matter of returning carbon where it belongs.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/soil-carbon-‘a-saviour’-in-locking-up-carbon/8460928

(sorry, you'll need to copy  and paste the second link)

Ah, so not switching from agriculture to grazing beef, but using managed grazing techniques amid prairie restoration effrts and specifically targeted soil sequestration. That's a bit different, especially since the introduction of cows to America was part of what stripped the prairie to begin with.

Summarizing that as cows sequestering enough carbon is akin to claiming someone has developed a car that runs on algae and then linking to a story about algae-derived biofuels.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 23, 2017, 04:00:57 PM
Quote
New @UCSUSA report shows flooding in Miami & other FL cities will soon "inundate" land to point of uninhabitability http://cnn.it/2uS5z8o
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEjLIqvWAAAqwuP.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on August 13, 2017, 09:34:49 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


These are the highlights (From another forum):

    EPA employees don't even have regular access to the director's floor, and when they do it's with an escort and they're usually disallowed from having a phone or taking notes.
    Pruitt apparently feels the need to have a constant armed guard. This tells me that he's fully aware that his actions are damaging enough that people could be driven to violence against him.
    He is going to extreme lengths to conceal his actions. He does not make his schedule available, he evades questions from Congress, and he has directed employees to alter regulations without making records of said alterations.
    As part of his plans to remove a water pollution rule instituted under Obama, he has ordered the EPA to produce an analysis concluding that there was no economic benefit from the rule. The original analysis concluded that the reduced water pollution would have an economic benefit hundreds of millions of dollars greater than the costs of complying with the regulation.
    He is known to have lied to Congress during his confirmation hearing regarding his use of a private email address in his position as Oklahoma's attorney general. There's been no investigation. Just saying.
    He has successfully managed to make another of Trump's EPA appointees resign in disgust.

This is what evil looks like.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: moj on September 09, 2017, 02:46:58 PM
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

Quote
It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.
But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post...

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on September 09, 2017, 03:34:27 PM
And it's not a problem that there are dissenters in science. Ideally we should keep challenging and confirming things as we go, and explore all paths.

But politics need to be based on the established science, i.e. the best knowledge to date.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on September 10, 2017, 12:12:24 PM
And it's not a problem that there are dissenters in science. Ideally we should keep challenging and confirming things as we go, and explore all paths.

But politics need to be based on the established science, i.e. the best knowledge to date.

Dissent and denial are two different things.

Dissent is good when it's backed by solid science and reasonable hypotheses.

Denial is not good, especially when it's shaped by unscientific biases, lack of good information and political, economic or social agendas.

There is very little dissent on climate change and a lot of denial.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: wastrel on September 19, 2017, 07:18:48 PM
So much for the climate change ‘hoax’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/09/19/so-much-for-the-climate-change-hoax/?utm_term=.49934ab972a4&tid=sm_tw)

Quote from: Washington Post Op-ed
New research out Monday seems at first glance to give climate doubters new ammunition in their war against climate science. In fact, it undercuts one of their essential criticisms.

The peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience released a surprising new paper finding that the world may have a little more room than previously thought to cut greenhouse gas emissions. A group of European scientists — foreigners, no less! — recalculated the Earth’s “carbon budget,” which is the amount of carbon dioxide humans can add to the atmosphere before risking dangerous temperature thresholds. They found that humanity’s remaining emissions allowance may be significantly larger than previous calculations. That means that the world may have a better chance of keeping warming to relatively benign levels if governments act with ambition now — or that they may have more time to dawdle before the problem gets bad.

The paper unsettled climate circles. Expert critics suggested to Post reporter Chris Mooney that the paper failed to account for atmospheric aerosols and other factors that can confound warming estimates. Scientists will not suddenly adopt the rosier assessment. That will take much more scrutiny, debate and research.

...

President Trump is only one of the powerful Americans who have called climate change a “hoax.” Depending on whom you hear, the notion that emitting massive amounts of heat-trapping gases has influenced the measured warming of the planet was cooked up by the Chinese to harm U.S. industry, liberal statists eager to eliminate air conditioning, credulous scientists seeking grant money or a mix of the above. More reasonable-sounding doubters are less outrageous but still argue that mainstream experts are failing to conduct their work with necessary modesty and care. That scientists’ research always seemed, year after year, to indicate that the problem is more dire than previously thought served only to confirm suspicions.

So much for that. The organs of the expert climate consensus do not suppress findings that buck previous conclusions. They merely ask that criticisms meet basic standards and survive the same review that all other serious papers must endure. That radical dissenting literature is not published in reputable journals says more about the intellectual rigor of extreme climate doubters than it does about the honesty of those who conduct and publish legitimate scientific research.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on September 19, 2017, 09:01:25 PM
So much for the climate change ‘hoax’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/09/19/so-much-for-the-climate-change-hoax/?utm_term=.49934ab972a4&tid=sm_tw)

Quote from: Washington Post Op-ed
New research out Monday seems at first glance to give climate doubters new ammunition in their war against climate science. In fact, it undercuts one of their essential criticisms.

The peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience released a surprising new paper finding that the world may have a little more room than previously thought to cut greenhouse gas emissions. A group of European scientists — foreigners, no less! — recalculated the Earth’s “carbon budget,” which is the amount of carbon dioxide humans can add to the atmosphere before risking dangerous temperature thresholds. They found that humanity’s remaining emissions allowance may be significantly larger than previous calculations. That means that the world may have a better chance of keeping warming to relatively benign levels if governments act with ambition now — or that they may have more time to dawdle before the problem gets bad.

The paper unsettled climate circles. Expert critics suggested to Post reporter Chris Mooney that the paper failed to account for atmospheric aerosols and other factors that can confound warming estimates. Scientists will not suddenly adopt the rosier assessment. That will take much more scrutiny, debate and research.

It seems to me that the bottom line here is that this is one outlier modeling study using "a simple climate–carbon-cycle model" set against a backdrop of several decades of work all suggesting a less rosy outcome based on multiple different lines of evidence, plus the study itself says that "limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation".
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 21, 2017, 02:09:04 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxOFw40WEAEcf1F.jpg)

From: Twitter (https://twitter.com/lenaertsjan/status/798128755248164864)
Date: Nov 14, 2016

Quote
Jan Lenaerts‏
@lenaertsjan

Ice sheet mass loss from #GRACE: #Greenland exceeds projections, #Antarctica in between mid and upper RCP8.5 scenario (data: @NASASeaLevel)

From last year but RIP Greenland. 

Edit:

Greenland looks cool under all that ice:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNuKz8sVAAEA13u.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on December 21, 2017, 03:39:12 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxOFw40WEAEcf1F.jpg)

From: Twitter (https://twitter.com/lenaertsjan/status/798128755248164864)
Date: Nov 14, 2016

Quote
Jan Lenaerts‏
@lenaertsjan

Ice sheet mass loss from #GRACE: #Greenland exceeds projections, #Antarctica in between mid and upper RCP8.5 scenario (data: @NASASeaLevel)

From last year but RIP Greenland. 

Edit:

Greenland looks cool under all that ice:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNuKz8sVAAEA13u.jpg)

If these are the RCP8.5 scenarios as reported in the AR5, those estimates leave out some very important factors like ice sheet dynamics that are unlikely to slow down the melting process, so it's not surprising that the mass loss would substantially exceed those projections.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on December 24, 2017, 05:36:14 AM
I was thinking for home use.

In 100 years the CO2 levels might be permanently above 1000 ppm, meaning that there will no longer be any fresh air anywhere. And indoor air quality will be that much more difficult to maintain.


1000 ppm is .1 %

The normal (healthy) level of CO2 in your lungs is 6.5%

1000ppm CO2  is considered normal and healthy for indoor occupied areas

There is zero danger from 1000ppm of CO2
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on December 24, 2017, 07:00:57 AM
That's comparing two very different values, which need to be very different, due to how the body uses CO2 to regulate its respiratory system. It's why breathing out helps you hold your breath for longer. Lowering the CO2 levels is more important than maintaining high oxygen.

The body doesn't have much in terms of a filter to get rid of CO2 that you breathe in or produce. It has to be able to wash it out by taking in air with a much lower amount of it.

1000 ppm is the slightly arbitrary threshold for fresh air. You can survive much higher amounts of CO2, but the higher it goes, the sooner you'll notice that the air is bad. Especially if you engage in strenuous activity, like exercise. And it does affect problem solving skills (https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/).

If the air outside is always 1000 ppm, then it's going to be significantly higher in any confined space (containing living humans), and it will no longer be possible to get fresh air without actively scrubbing CO2. Or genetic engineering/cybernetics.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on December 24, 2017, 08:06:03 AM
And it does affect problem solving skills (https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/).

From reading this study I'm not too worried about this yet. This was a short term, small (24 person) study with a limited time frame, and we know that the human body can adapt to substantial changes in the composition of air over time (e.g.: think of the adjustment to a low-oxygen environment for people living in mountainous regions). They speculate that there would be no such desensitization because they exposed people for a slightly longer time period than similar studies, but they're still only talking about a two day-long exposure at the most (they varied the CO2 levels between 500-1400 ppm from day to day over a period of 3 consecutive days (Tuesday-Thursday) for two consecutive weeks), and it takes several weeks to adjust to changes in air due to altitude. I would be very surprised if our bodies were completely incapable of adjusting to concentrations of 1000 ppm CO2 over a period of weeks.

Also, I might be reading this wrong, but they say (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10037/):
Quote
Cognitive scores were 20% higher on the Green+ days than on the moderate CO2 day when CO2 levels were higher (p-value < 0.0001), and 5% higher on the moderate CO2 day than on the Green day when outdoor air ventilation was reduced (p-value = 0.12).

So it reads to me like if you reduce outdoor air ventilation, the positive effect of "green" CO2 levels (around 750 ppm) is compensated for by something else in the additional outdoor air ventilation when keeping CO2 at "moderate" levels (a little over 900 ppm)? Not sure what to make of that.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on December 24, 2017, 01:03:59 PM
If the air outside is always 1000 ppm, then it's going to be significantly higher in any confined space (containing living humans), and it will no longer be possible to get fresh air without actively scrubbing CO2. Or genetic engineering/cybernetics.
Of course that level of CO2 can result in worse air quality, but a dozen house plants (especially with full spectrum light) will reduce the CO2 level in an enclosed building by 500 ppm, and if the plants are in soil the bacteria in the pot also removes most of the 900 other pollutants found in indoor air.   If for some reason CO2 levels do reach dangerous levels, solutions are easy and inexpensive.

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-air-hidden-indoor.html
http://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Algae-Home-CO2-Scrubber-Part-1/

Fear mongering over something rarely helps, and advanced human civilization finds solutions and even economic opportunities for situations.   Nature also has this amazing ability to balance our idiotic pollution, or we would all be long ago expired and extinct.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on December 24, 2017, 03:45:52 PM
Nature also has this amazing ability to balance our idiotic pollution, or we would all be long ago expired and extinct.

I'm more concerned about the suffering and quality of life for individuals than I am with the survival of the species.

Hopefully I'm wrong about the direct effect of CO2 levels on humans. That is more of a minor side issue in all this, though.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on December 24, 2017, 04:11:48 PM
Hopefully I'm wrong about the direct effect of CO2 levels on humans. That is more of a minor side issue in all this, though.
No, health issues from air pollution is a major problem with modern power generation.  It's actually a real problem.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on December 24, 2017, 08:25:09 PM
CO2 levels are also a real problem, even if perhaps not because of direct air quality effects
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on December 24, 2017, 09:18:02 PM
Hopefully I'm wrong about the direct effect of CO2 levels on humans. That is more of a minor side issue in all this, though.
No, health issues from air pollution is a major problem with modern power generation.  It's actually a real problem.

Yes, but soot, various toxic and carcinogenic organic compounds, and sulfate particles are a much bigger problem than the CO2 health wise afaik.

CO2 levels are also a real problem, even if perhaps not because of direct air quality effects

In any case, both problems can be solved with various renewable forms of energy. It's pretty much a no brainer.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: The Latinist on December 24, 2017, 11:18:29 PM
I’ve never heard that CO2 was any health risk except at toxic levels—about two orders of magnitude higher than current levels.  Below that level, our lungs are perfectly capable of keeping the CO2 out.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 25, 2017, 12:36:28 AM
Edit: Wrong thread.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on December 25, 2017, 02:09:06 PM
I’ve never heard that CO2 was any health risk except at toxic levels—about two orders of magnitude higher than current levels.  Below that level, our lungs are perfectly capable of keeping the CO2 out.

Yes. Long before we notice any toxic effects of high CO2 in the air we breath, we'd notice lethal effects of global warming.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on December 25, 2017, 06:05:04 PM
In fairness, the study cited above by 2397 does not say anything about actual health risks, it just talks about influence of CO2 on performance during cognitively demanding tasks (which is not all that implausible given the way our respiratory system works).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on December 26, 2017, 05:45:17 AM
Yes, it's more of a comfort and productivity thing. Unless it happens to be the case that we can measure the air as getting bad via the CO2 going up, because other factors get worse at a similar rate.

Maybe the humidity will be a bigger a problem.

Humidity will make some parts of the world unlivable in 50 years (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9knaz3/humidity-will-make-some-parts-of-the-world-unlivable-in-50-years)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 01, 2018, 12:39:14 PM
From Twitter (https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/947475641624129536):

Quote
For the first time in the satellite record, it is unlikely #Arctic sea ice extent will break 12 million km^2 before the start of the new year.

2016 was the previous record low for the date. [JAXA data at https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/ ]

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSYbEGUX4AASqq7.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 01, 2018, 12:50:49 PM
From Twitter (https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/947475641624129536):

Quote
For the first time in the satellite record, it is unlikely #Arctic sea ice extent will break 12 million km^2 before the start of the new year.

2016 was the previous record low for the date. [JAXA data at https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/ ]

Yesterday's measurement is 11.9.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 10, 2018, 11:28:30 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTEs7A6VoAEg51U.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTEuisEV4AANIKL.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 10, 2018, 07:38:41 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTEs7A6VoAEg51U.jpg)

Well that's clearly an upward trend from 13-14 to 14-15 km2. #globalwarminghoax
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 10, 2018, 08:47:36 PM
So, on average it increased every year???
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on January 17, 2018, 09:23:54 AM
What the extent? Doesn't the chart just show January from year to year? Wouldn't you expect it to increase during January?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on January 18, 2018, 12:50:34 PM
Yes, the point is not the increase, it's the fact that 2017 is more than 2 sigma below average, and 2018 is lower still.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 18, 2018, 03:27:59 PM
Which is dire.  Meltwater from arctic ice drives the ocean currents which warm northern Europe.  The Arctic's 'deicing' is a big deal for Europe.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on January 22, 2018, 01:14:27 PM
Yes, the point is not the increase, it's the fact that 2017 is more than 2 sigma below average, and 2018 is lower still.

OK...I was thrown by Soldier of FORTRAN's reply about it increasing.

Which is dire.  Meltwater from arctic ice drives the ocean currents which warm northern Europe.  The Arctic's 'deicing' is a big deal for Europe.

And the albedo feedback.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 22, 2018, 05:04:58 PM
Meltwater from arctic ice drives the ocean currents which warm northern Europe. 

Not exactly; the meltwater is not what drives the currents, the density differential is. More saline, cooler water is more dense than less saline / warmer water. Warm, salty water flows in from the tropics via wind driven surface currents like the Gulf Stream. During this process the water cools down and, in doing so, becomes more dense and thus sinks at the poles to flow back down into the ocean basin, thereby driving the "conveyor belt". An important part of this is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC. The increase in meltwater from the polar sea (and land) ice may actually cause a slowdown of the AMOC because it lowers the salinity (and therefore the density) of the surface waters, thereby slowing down the rate at which the water sinks (note that less saline water freezes at a higher temperature than water with a higher salinity, which is why the meltwater is fresher than the ocean water from which it forms).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on February 20, 2018, 03:22:29 PM
So my denialist dad just sent me this article that proves beyond a doubt that climate change is a grand conspiracy hoax perpetrated by all climate scientists.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/

A very similar post from 2017 was debunked by snopes here:

https://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

If anyone comes across a debunking of this Feb 2018 one, please share it.  It is scary that my Google results are pages and pages of web sites posting the Delingpole article as news, and no sites yet debunking it.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on February 20, 2018, 03:43:48 PM
So my denialist dad just sent me this article that proves beyond a doubt that climate change is a grand conspiracy hoax perpetrated by all climate scientists.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/

A very similar post from 2017 was debunked by snopes here:

https://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

If anyone comes across a debunking of this Feb 2018 one, please share it.  It is scary that my Google results are pages and pages of web sites posting the Delingpole article as news, and no sites yet debunking it.

That usually indicates that someone has spent some money on one of the "reputation" services that manipulates google search results and puts up a zillion related pages, to protect from exactly that.

And if that's the case, it also indicates that the Global Warming Hoaxers have a lot of money to throw around because those services aren't cheap.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on February 20, 2018, 06:33:47 PM
So my denialist dad just sent me this article that proves beyond a doubt that climate change is a grand conspiracy hoax perpetrated by all climate scientists.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/

If anyone comes across a debunking of this Feb 2018 one, please share it.  It is scary that my Google results are pages and pages of web sites posting the Delingpole article as news, and no sites yet debunking it.

If history is any indication, that will come and come quick. Has Delingpole ever been right about anything AGW related?

He references an article by Paul Homewood which does an admirable job of data mining and basically asks why the data for NY Central Lakes Div 10 was adjusted. The conclusion is clear: conspiracy! There can be no other explanation that he can think of so there is no other explanation. I expect you can probably find anomalies like this all over the place. There might be valid reasons for them or there might be errors. Or it may all be a big conspiracy. That last conclusion might hold more weight than it does (that is, none) if Homewood showed systemic adjustments all over the place.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 05, 2018, 01:40:09 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXf3wxTVQAAUpHM.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on March 05, 2018, 10:15:30 AM
Yes, but according to Delingpole and Homewood, the NOAA is lying to us about that, too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/24/delingpole-noaa-caught-lying-arctic-sea-ice/

As you can clearly see, the Arctic ice is fine.  Just fine.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 05, 2018, 11:10:56 AM
Eventually it'll be "Ice, in the summer? That's ridiculous. The first person to reach the North Pole dove right in, we all know that".
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on March 05, 2018, 06:02:16 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXf3wxTVQAAUpHM.jpg)

That is scary
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on March 05, 2018, 10:19:43 PM
NZ's hottest summer ever.  NIWA says so.

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/351872/nz-s-summer-the-hottest-on-record-niwa
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on March 08, 2018, 10:22:06 AM
Is this real?  Is this "Scopes" but for climate change?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article203842084.html
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 06, 2018, 05:23:07 PM
Oil industry knew what's up.

Article: Shell foresaw climate dangers in 1988 and understood Big Oil’s big role (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/05/documents-show-shell-foresaw-climate-change-three-decades-ago-and-knew-how-big-its-own-contribution-was/)
From: Washington Post
Date: 2018 APR 05

Quote
A Dutch journalist has uncovered Royal Dutch Shell documents as old as 1988 that showed the oil company understood the gravity of climate change, the company’s large contribution to it and how hard it would be to stop it.

The 1988 report titled “The Greenhouse Effect” calculated that the Shell group alone was contributing 4 percent of global carbon-dioxide emissions through its oil, natural gas and coal products. “By the time global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation,” the report warned.

The report, written by members of Shell’s Greenhouse Effect Working Group [...] believed that the effects would become detectable late in the 20th or early 21st century.

It was based on a 1986 study, although the document reveals that Shell had commissioned “greenhouse effect” reports as early as 1981.

Shell’s working group knew three decades ago that climate change was real and formidable, warning that it would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences.

The working group also warned that rising sea levels could impair offshore installations, coastal facilities, harbors, refineries and depots.

...

The 1988 report estimated that in 1981, 44 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions came from oil, 38 percent from coal and 17 percent from natural gas.

...

The document in question: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html#document/p4/a415539

Bonus highlight:
Quote
Mathematical models of the earth's climate indicate that if this warming occurs then it could create significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather. These changes could be larger than any that have occurred over the last 12,000 years. Such relatively fast and dramatic changes would impact on the human environment, future living standards and food supplies and could have major social, economic and political consequences."
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on April 06, 2018, 08:00:23 PM
While in general conspiracies tend to be fake, organizations hiding data seems to be pretty common.
We have the oil companies, tobacco companies, the catholic church, etc.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 06, 2018, 09:53:05 PM
I remember a co-worker of my mother's insisting Iraq did 9/11 because she wasn't a conspiracy theorist.

I've never been comfortable with how much protection, "conspiracy theory," provides.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 06, 2018, 10:33:55 PM
Oil industry knew what's up.
[...]

TBH this is not a surprise to anyone who has been reading up on this debate for a while. I mean, it was just a matter of them employing scientists who kept up with the literature, really. But it's always nice to have one's biases confirmed.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 09, 2018, 01:24:47 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaHorjjUQAECKSg.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on April 09, 2018, 01:13:20 PM
What is the source?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on April 09, 2018, 01:36:30 PM
Also how many years does it show? I'm curious but I don't really feel like counting the lines.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 09, 2018, 03:14:32 PM
What is the source?

It says it's from the NSIDC (https://nsidc.org/).

Also how many years does it show? I'm curious but I don't really feel like counting the lines.

The sea ice extent index data go back to 1978 (http://nsidc.org/data/G02135). I assume it's from there, but my bionic vision can only distinguish 32, maybe 33 lines, so probably fake news.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on April 09, 2018, 05:04:41 PM
While in general conspiracies tend to be fake, organizations hiding data seems to be pretty common.
That certainly showed up in the  hack of the CRU emails.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 09, 2018, 06:33:36 PM
While in general conspiracies tend to be fake, organizations hiding data seems to be pretty common.
That certainly showed up in the  hack of the CRU emails.

Oh look, it's the beast that won't die.

It didn't, actually. What those emails showed was that the CRU were being systematically harassed by climate change deniers submitting frivolous FOIA requests, and they reacted poorly to that harassment and in doing so broke FOI rules. With a staff of at most 5 FTE they received 60 such requests over a 4 day period, and the Independent Climate Change Email Review (http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf) later found that there was evidence of an organized campaign because some of the requests contained templates that the submitter forgot to fill in like one asking for information "involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]". However, while there was reference to deleting emails (which is legal), there was no evidence that any actual data had been deleted, and most of what was being asked for was already available online - though some of the requests were for data that was not owned by the CRU, for intermediate results that could be reproduced by applying methodologies described in the literature to publicly available datasets, or for the programs that generated those results (which should also be reproducible from the literature). There is also no evidence of tampering and, more to the point, the most important results of the CRU have all been independently reproduced multiple times, among others by climate change skeptics like Richard Muller's arrogantly named BEST study and Christie and Spencer's UAH satellite data, at least once they, yaknow, fixed the numerous errors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made) in their analysis that caused a decade long controversy about discrepancies between the different temperature records (although there might be more (https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1)). Compare that to the Shell documents and the earlier ones that we have from Exxon. It's apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on April 10, 2018, 05:13:01 PM
It didn't, actually.
Yes, it did, and it is impossible not to read it in the emails. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 10, 2018, 05:51:43 PM
It didn't, actually.
Yes, it did, and it is impossible not to read it in the emails.

I've read many of those emails (the ones that were presented as the most damning, and I did a little digging myself), and I also read the reports of the official investigations when they came out. If you want to live in a fantasy world of scientific conspiracies, that's your problem. The fact is, the results have been independently replicated, and while the CRU was not always cooperative with the FOI requests, the results of the investigations did not find evidence that any data was actually deleted or altered. This does not remotely resemble what we know about the anti-scientific practices of companies like Shell and Exxon and the ideological think tanks they fund. A variety of books have been written on that subject, e.g. Merchants Of Doubt.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on April 10, 2018, 06:42:42 PM
The fact is, the results have been independently replicated
You seem to be writing about something else.  I can easily see in the emails the efforts to avoid sharing the actual data.  Information. That is what I wrote about.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 10, 2018, 07:23:08 PM
The fact is, the results have been independently replicated
You seem to be writing about something else.  I can easily see in the emails the efforts to avoid sharing the actual data.  Information. That is what I wrote about.

Other than intermediate results and programs, most of the data that could be released was already publicly available. You can read about the contentious cases in the report I linked to earlier. Yeah they had a siege mentality and did not like sharing their results and code with people they knew had an anti-science agenda, because they actually were under siege, and had been for years; the people issuing the requests had been systematically harassing some of them for a long time and had repeatedly tried to ruin their careers. As pointed out above, the investigation actually shows that they were hammering them with frivolous requests on purpose.

You can taste the frustration of the researchers in the emails as well. I actually had a very brief email back and forth with Ben Santer about this at the time where, in spite of his reluctance to say too much over email (who could blame him), his frustration was palpable, and he actually offered to call me on the phone to explain his side of the story, even though I am a nobody. That call never happened (and anyway, his lawyer would probably have advised against it since he didn't know me and I could've easily been someone working with people like McIntyre), but you can get a taste of that frustration in this interesting talk by him as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTsc3jV1Otw

(The entire talk is worth watching as an exercise in climate science and countering climate change misinformation, but the Q&A section is directly relevant because Stephen Schneider and Santer go into the FOIA issue in some depth.)

Phil Jones apparently almost killed himself over the harassment he suffered. Michael Mann also wrote down some of his experiences in his book (I get a sense of real anger from him in his interviews, which unfortunately is not the best look for anyone).

So yes, they were not as forthcoming with the data as maybe they should have been, but frankly I think the FOIA was not designed to accommodate organized, politically motivated, science denialist astroturf movements, backed by industry funding, harassing a small research group and spreading misinformation with the information they release while simultaneously blocking them from doing further research by burying them in paper work.

But I've been told I tend to drone on, so let me get to the point: tl;dr: To bring this up as a response to a paper that details how an industry is actively engaged in anti-science is imho making a rather disingenuous comparison.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on April 12, 2018, 03:23:56 PM
So yes, they were not as forthcoming with the data as maybe they should have been,
  That's a kind and blind view of what is in the emails.

This ancient blog post from the time still is easy enough to understand.

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/12/the-significance-of-climategate

But lets say "reasons" are a valid excuse for withholding data and hiding information.  It doesn't change the basic point, that organizations and individuals either refuse to release information, or hide it from others.  That's actually not a bias, it's a realistic view of how the human world turns.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: diessoli on April 12, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
The fact is, the results have been independently replicated
You seem to be writing about something else.  I can easily see in the emails the efforts to avoid sharing the actual data.  Information. That is what I wrote about.

What 'data' and 'information' are we talking about here? Can you be more specific? The blog-post you reference also just vaguely talks about 'data' and that some 'data' has been 'destroyed' without really making clear what data they are talking about.
When it comes to constructing the global mean temperature timeseries (like the CRU does) there is quite a lot of information from various sources that goes into calculating that time series.

D.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: diessoli on April 12, 2018, 04:23:06 PM

But lets say "reasons" are a valid excuse for withholding data and hiding information.  It doesn't change the basic point, that organizations and individuals either refuse to release information, or hide it from others.  That's actually not a bias, it's a realistic view of how the human world turns.

There are indeed valid reason why organisations like CRU cannot release certain information to the public or as part of FOI request.
E.g. often the temperature observations that are used to calculate global temps are provided by national weather-services (because they are the ones that have an observation network on the ground).
These weather services may permit CRU to use their data for scientific research, but not to distribute it any further. That is particularly true for privatized weather services who see this kind of data as a valuable asset that they don't want to release publicly.
The CRU are not at fault here they are just sticking to their contracts.

D.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 12, 2018, 07:41:40 PM
So yes, they were not as forthcoming with the data as maybe they should have been,
  That's a kind and blind view of what is in the emails.

This ancient blog post from the time still is easy enough to understand.

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/12/the-significance-of-climategate

That blog post shows that the author has no idea what he's talking about when they wrote:

Quote
When pressed to share their basic data with other scientists, who might in true scientific method see if they could reproduce the conclusions, they refused.

McIntyre and his army of FOIA trolls are decidedly not climate scientists. They are pseudoscientists who have made a career out of publishing misinformation about climate science on blogs and on one or two occassions have managed to publish deeply flawed work that should never make it past peer review. See the Santer video above for an example of the latter.

They also have no real interest in reproducing the work done by the CRU. For one thing, they have never published a replication in any scientific journal, even when they had all the data necessary to do so. What they do is take the data they can get, cherry pick what they like, apply inappropriate methods to it in inappropriate ways, and then blog about their data dredging adventures. It is then left to scientifically minded bloggers to wade through that mess and point out the many mistakes they make. This is also illustrated by their insistence on getting intermediate results and the programs used to generate them. If you want to reproduce work done by other scientists, you don't use their code. You follow the description they have given in in the literature of the procedures they followed to reproduce the whole thing from the raw data up step by step. You cannot have independent replication by just throwing the same data at the same computer program because you'll never catch bugs that way. The whole thing is a fishing expedition.

Also:

Quote
And the Siberian tree rings turned out to have been cherry-picked (they weren’t cherry trees, though) to fit a premature conclusion

This is straight up bullshit (https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/) that has been exposed many times over. Briffa reproduced his "hockey stick" with all the data included, and his conclusions remained solid. By contrast, when McIntyre did his own "reproduction" of Briffa's results, he just chucked in a completely unrelated dataset to get the results he wanted. It also turns out that he had the data he was demanding, which Briffa didn't own and therefore couldn't have given him in the first place, all along.

If you want I could dissect the blog post further, but that'll take me a lot of time (it's late), and I think you get the point, so I'll leave it there.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 15, 2018, 07:35:47 PM
Article: A North American Climate Boundary Has Shifted 140 Miles East Due to Global Warming (https://e360.yale.edu/digest/a-north-american-climate-boundary-has-shifted-140-miles-east-due-to-global-warming)
From: Yale Environment
Date: 2018 April 11

Quote
In the late 1800s, geologist and explorer John Wesley Powell first described a clear boundary running longitudinally through North America along the 100th meridian west that visibly separated the humid eastern part of the continent from the more arid western plains. Now, 140 years later, scientists have confirmed that such a sharp climatic boundary exists and that it is slowly shifting east due to climate change — a change that scientists say could have significant implications on farming in the region.

The new research, published in a pair of studies in the journal Earth Interactions late last month, found the divide is created by three factors: the Rocky Mountains stopping moisture from the Pacific Ocean reaching farther inland, Atlantic winter storms bringing moisture to the eastern half of the U.S., and moisture from the Gulf of Mexico moving north and curving eastward during the summer months. The only other clear, straight divide between humid and arid areas on the globe is the one separating the Sahara Desert from the rest of Africa, climate scientist Richard Seager of Columbia University, lead author of the new papers, said in a statement.

...

(https://i.imgur.com/oR2dJJE.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 16, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8mGRCxW.png)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on April 17, 2018, 02:44:54 PM
Huge.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on April 19, 2018, 04:53:20 AM
From 1980 to now, there is an approximately 20% increase in atmospheric carbon.
That does appear to be pretty significant.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 05, 2018, 12:18:20 AM
Article: Hottest April Day Ever Was Probably Monday in Pakistan: a Record 122.4°F (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/world/asia/pakistan-heat-record.html)
From: NY Times
Date: 2018 MAY 4

Quote
[...] 122.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

The reading came from Nawabshah, a city of 1.1 million people in southern Pakistan, and meteorologists say it is the highest temperature ever reliably recorded, anywhere in the world, in the month of April.

The World Meteorological Organization keeps global temperature records, but not by month, which means Monday in Nawabshah cannot be officially confirmed as the hottest April day. But experts on extreme temperatures say it probably is.

Christopher C. Burt, the author of “Extreme Weather: A Guide and Record Book” and a contributor to Weather Underground, said that 122.4 degrees, or 50.2 degrees Celsius, appeared to be the hottest reliably measured April temperature “in modern records for any location on Earth.” Only one reading might challenge it: 123.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 51 degrees Celsius, recorded in Santa Rosa, Mexico, in April 2011. But Mr. Burt said that measurement was “questionable because the site was a regional observation site and not of first order.”

...

oh dang
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: UnicornPoop on May 05, 2018, 07:17:31 PM
Efforts to turn science into legislative or regulatory action were largely successful when it came to the Ozone hole and tobacco.  Not so much today with global warming.  If the internet and twitter and facebook and today's social networking had been around back then, would they have been as successful?  Our knowledge basically came from the news networks of the day...ABC, CBS, NBS, PBS, and maybe CNN.  But today it's different.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 07, 2018, 09:15:45 PM
Article: Arctic winter warms up to a low summer ice season (https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/05/arctic-winter-warms-up-to-a-low-summer-ice-season/)
From: NSIDC
Date: 2018 MAY 03

Quote
...

As averaged over the Arctic Ocean domain (Figure 4d), the multiyear ice cover has declined from 61 percent in 1984 to 34 percent in 2018. In addition, only 2 percent of the ice age cover is categorized as five-plus years, the least amount recorded during the winter period.

...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dcn_in5UwAIB8Bu.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on May 09, 2018, 09:22:35 AM
Efforts to turn science into legislative or regulatory action were largely successful when it came to the Ozone hole and tobacco.  Not so much today with global warming.  If the internet and twitter and facebook and today's social networking had been around back then, would they have been as successful?  Our knowledge basically came from the news networks of the day...ABC, CBS, NBS, PBS, and maybe CNN.  But today it's different.

Don't forget the "failing" New York Times.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 14, 2018, 10:45:40 AM
Quote
Changes in decadal surface air temperature anomalies (departure from the 1951-1980 average)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdH2SmOUwAElNIt.jpg)
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/995847852029952000
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 14, 2018, 12:54:33 PM
So, some of the penguins might survive.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Friendly Angel on May 17, 2018, 02:34:46 PM
Republican... Alabama...  :-[

Quote
A Republican lawmaker on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee said Thursday that rocks from the White Cliffs of Dover and the California coastline, as well as silt from rivers tumbling into the ocean, are contributing to high sea levels globally.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) made the comment during a hearing on technology and the changing climate, which largely turned into a Q&A on the basics of climate research.

"Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said at the hearing.

EUREKA!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on May 17, 2018, 02:49:21 PM
Glaciers don't lie, NIWA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqIHmO_dWLQ
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 28, 2018, 12:04:29 PM
Article: Meet America's new climate normal: towns that flood when it isn't raining (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/28/rising-elizabeth-rush-extract-towns-flooding)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2018 JUN 28

Quote
...

“We get flooded with just about every high tide,” the woman tells me. “And if the moon is big it’s worse.”

All along the east coast, from Portland, Maine, to Key West, “sunny day flooding” is increasingly frequent. Many places in the Sunshine State are so low lying that high tide – when coupled with something as innocuous as a full moon – can cause the streets to brim with water. Sometimes the tide simply rises above the seawalls and starts to spill into the roadways; in other cases it enters the neighborhood through the storm-water infrastructure belowground. The very pipes designed to reduce flooding by ushering rain out instead give salt water a chance to work its way in.

...

Article: Flooding Hot Spots: Why Seas Are Rising Faster on the U.S. East Coast (https://e360.yale.edu/features/flooding-hot-spots-why-seas-are-rising-faster-on-the-u.s.-east-coast)
From: Yale Environment 360
Date: 2018 APR 24

Quote
...

[...] One study published last year shows that from 2011 to 2015, sea level rose up to 5 inches — an inch per year — in some locales from North Carolina to Florida. [...]

...

“These coastal areas are more vulnerable than they realize to short-term rapid acceleration of sea level rise,” says Andrea Dutton, a University of Florida geologist who studies the history of sea level fluctuations. “If they’re hanging their hat on sea level rise projections looking at the potential over decades, they need to refocus and think about the potential for short-term variability in that rate.”

Around the world, sea levels are not rising equally like water in a bathtub. The oceans are more akin to a rubber kiddie pool where the water sloshes around unevenly, often considerably higher on one side than another.

...

(https://i.imgur.com/Hgo7lNF.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 28, 2018, 12:53:22 PM
Quite a few climate deniers believe that climate change has yet to produce a single effect so I have a particular interest in that kind of news.

Take Limbaugh for example.  His radio show has ~14m weekly listeners. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs) He's generally trusted by his audience. 

My commute lined up with his show for a few weeks so I started listening.  At one point, he had this rant that must've gone for 10 to 15 minutes straight. It was just him claiming that climate change has yet to produce an effect, it's purely hypothetical, none of the predicted effects have ever been observed, it's just made up, they made it up and there's no corresponding reality, etc. 

Meanwhile in the real world...

Article: Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html)
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2017 JAN 28

Article: A North American Climate Boundary Has Shifted 140 Miles East Due to Global Warming (https://e360.yale.edu/digest/a-north-american-climate-boundary-has-shifted-140-miles-east-due-to-global-warming)
From: Yale Environment 360
Date: 2018 April 11

Article: Since 2016, Half of All Coral in the Great Barrier Reef Has Died (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/since-2016-half-the-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-perished/558302/?single_page=true)
Frmo: The Atlantic
Date: 2018 APR 18
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on June 28, 2018, 03:09:19 PM
My dad just sent me this today as more evidence that climate change is fake:

https://www.iceagenow.info/arctic-ocean-almost-totally-ice-covered-map/

LOL!  The graph in the picture this guy used clearly shows the ice cover is decreasing each year.  I would have thought it was a joke, but my dad seriously considers this evidence.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 28, 2018, 03:19:51 PM
He should watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA

It's about area vs volume.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 09, 2018, 04:25:40 PM
Article: Heat waves bother you? Under Trump climate policies, add another 12°F (https://thinkprogress.org/heat-waves-bother-you-under-trump-climate-policies-add-another-add-12f-fd4ef3ec514e/)
From: ThinkProgress
Date: 2018 JUL 09

Quote
...

Typical five-day heat waves in the U.S. will be 12°F warmer by mid-century alone, according to the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA), which the White House itself reviewed and approved last November.

...

For instance, America (and much of the world) will start seeing monster “humid heat waves” — where the heat index hits a fatal 131°F — every other year by century’s end.

...

For instance, the average temperature over the country is projected to rise about 9°F by late in the century (2071-2100) in the high emissions scenario where the Paris climate agreement fails and climate action stalls. But the temperature of the warmest five-day period during a once-in-a-decade heat wave is projected to rise some 12°F just by mid-century (2036–2065) in that case.

The NCA scientists explain that to achieve the low-emissions scenario, not only does every nation — including ours — have to meet its Paris climate pledge. But we all also have to keep ratcheting down the targets “with continually increasing ambition” until global emissions of carbon pollution are near zero by century’s end.

...

(https://i.imgur.com/YSUi6QF.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 29, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
Hot Weather Spells Trouble For Nuclear Power Plants (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632988813/hot-weather-spells-trouble-for-nuclear-power-plants)

Quote
Nuclear power plants in Europe have been forced to cut back electricity production because of warmer-than-usual seawater.

Plants in Finland, Sweden and Germany have been affected by a heat wave that has broken records in Scandinavia and the British Isles and exacerbated deadly wildfires along the Mediterranean.

Air temperatures have stubbornly lingered above 90 degrees in many parts of Sweden, Finland and Germany, and water temperatures are abnormally high — 75 degrees or higher in the usually temperate Baltic Sea.

That's bad news for nuclear power plants, which rely on seawater to cool reactors.

Meanwhile, in Norway hydropower plants are shutting or slowing down because they're running out of water.

https://reuters.com/article/norway-power-hydro/norways-usually-cheap-energy-as-costly-as-germanys-in-q3-regulator-idUKL8N1U11M0

Quote
To add to the lack of rainfall, Norway’s wind power production fell sharply, it added, while consumption in the Nordic countries increased simultaneously.

What's the maximum operating temperature for solar cells?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: The Latinist on July 29, 2018, 12:39:50 PM
I don’t know about maximum operating temperatures, but my sister tells me that the efficiency of her panels drops when temperatures are in the 80’s.  Her installers told her the best producing days are ones in the low-mid 70’s, even if there is more sunshine on hotter days.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on July 29, 2018, 01:01:43 PM
There are nuclear reactors in more equatorial areas.
Maybe they can backfit the reactors with additional cooling?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on August 02, 2018, 12:07:05 PM
The more I read, the more I think that immediate radical action is warranted.  Don't know what, but something.

Article: Deadly heat waves could hit South Asia this century (http://news.mit.edu/2017/deadly-heat-waves-could-hit-south-asia-century-0802)
From: MIT News
Date: 2018 AUG 2

Quote
In South Asia, a region of deep poverty where one-fifth of the world’s people live, new research suggests that by the end of this century climate change could lead to summer heat waves with levels of heat and humidity that exceed what humans can survive without protection.

There is still time to avert such severe warming if measures are implemented now to reduce the most dire consequences of global warming. However, under business-as-usual scenarios, without significant reductions in carbon emissions, the study shows these deadly heat waves could begin within as little as a few decades to strike regions of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, including the fertile Indus and Ganges river basins that produce much of the region’s food supply.

...

[...] the areas likely to be hardest hit in northern India, Bangladesh, and southern Pakistan are home to 1.5 billion people. These areas are also among the poorest in the region, with much of the population dependent on subsistence farming that requires long hours of hard labor out in the open and unprotected from the sun.

“That makes them very vulnerable to these climatic changes, assuming no mitigation,” says Eltahir, who spoke with MIT News from Singapore, where he is carrying out follow-up research on potential climate effects in that area. [...]

...

In today’s climate, about 2 percent of the Indian population sometimes gets exposed to extremes of 32-degree wet-bulb temperatures. According to this study, by 2100 that will increase to about 70 percent of the population, and about 2 percent of the people will sometimes be exposed to the survivability limit of 35 degrees. And because the region is important agriculturally, it’s not just those directly affected by the heat who will suffer, Eltahir says: “With the disruption to the agricultural production, it doesn’t need to be the heat wave itself that kills people. Production will go down, so potentially everyone will suffer.”

...

Article: Unsurvivable heatwaves could strike heart of China by end of century (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/chinas-most-populous-area-could-be-uninhabitable-by-end-of-century)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2018 JUL 31

Quote
The deadliest place on the planet for extreme future heatwaves will be the north China plain, one of the most densely populated regions in the world and the most important food-producing area in the huge nation.

New scientific research shows that humid heatwaves that kill even healthy people within hours will strike the area repeatedly towards the end of the century thanks to climate change, unless there are heavy cuts in carbon emissions.

“This spot is going to be the hottest spot for deadly heatwaves in the future,” said Prof Elfatih Eltahir, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, who led the new study. The projections for China’s northern plain are particularly worrying because many of the region’s 400 million people are farmers and have little alternative to working outside.

...

(https://i.imgur.com/OAD2Jc2.png)

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on August 02, 2018, 02:37:20 PM
I suppose at least populations are close to stabilizing (http://www.geocurrents.info/population-geography/total-fertility-rates-by-country-1950-and-2015) in most East and South Asia, and hopefully there's time for circumstances to change for laborers so they won't be quite as exposed as they are now. Curious about the rest of the world, looked up this 2017 article/study:

By 2100, almost half of people on the planet will be at risk of heat-related illness or death - even if emissions fall. (https://www.dw.com/en/deadly-heat-waves-set-to-surge-due-to-climate-change/a-39326267)

(https://i.imgur.com/KuvfBpC.jpg)

Not looking good for the rainforests.

The more I read, the more I think that immediate radical action is warranted.  Don't know what, but something.

I'm worried we're going to destroy nature's capacity to reabsorb the carbon, for the time being, and will need some kind of artificial means of sequestration that we can scale up endlessly with fusion.

With Rising Global Temperatures and Soil Respiration, Carbon Stored in Earth’s Soil is Entering Atmosphere at a Faster Rate (http://rrb-news.com/news/with-rising-global-temperatures-and-soil-respiration-carbon-stored-in-earths-soil-is-entering-atmosphere-at-a-faster-rate-18080201)

Quote
The carbon stored in the Earth’s soil is now entering the atmosphere at a faster rate due to rising temperatures and an increase in the activity of microbes beneath the soil, a new study carried out by the researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has concluded.

Today, global warming is one of the most contentious and intensely debated topics on Earth. However, climate scientists agree that out planet is warming because of increasing volumes of greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, and a variety of other human activities. The impact of global warming includes rising sea levels, melting of the polar ice caps, increased occurrence of storms and a variety of severe weather events. Scientists believe that Earth’s average temperature, over the past 100 years, has increased between 0.4 and 0.8 degree C. If this trend continues, the average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degree C by the year 2100.

That's quite a range.

Quote
According to scientists, dead leaves and fallen trees comprise a common source of carbon on Earth. The carbon present in decaying leaves and trees makes its way into the soil, where it is consumed by the microbes and is converted into carbon dioxide (CO2), which is eventually released into the Earth’s atmosphere.  The PNNL study, which was based on the data gathered from a variety of ecosystems on Earth, found that with rising global temperatures, this process is speeding up, and is now much faster compared to the absorption of CO2 by plants through photosynthesis. The study concluded that the rate of transferring of carbon from soil to the atmosphere due to microbial activity has increased 1.2 percent over a period of 25 years, from 1990 through 2014.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on August 06, 2018, 05:29:24 PM
Article: Domino-effect of climate events could push Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/06/domino-effect-of-climate-events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2018 AUG 6

Quote
A domino-like cascade of melting ice, warming seas, shifting currents and dying forests could tilt the Earth into a “hothouse” state beyond which human efforts to reduce emissions will be increasingly futile, a group of leading climate scientists has warned.

This grim prospect is sketched out in a journal paper that considers the combined consequences of 10 climate change processes, including the release of methane trapped in Siberian permafrost and the impact of melting ice in Greenland on the Antarctic.

The authors of the essay, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stress their analysis is not conclusive, but warn the Paris commitment to keep warming at 2C above pre-industrial levels may not be enough to “park” the planet’s climate at a stable temperature.

They warn that the hothouse trajectory “would almost certainly flood deltaic environments, increase the risk of damage from coastal storms, and eliminate coral reefs (and all of the benefits that they provide for societies) by the end of this century or earlier.”

...

Their new paper asks whether the planet’s temperature can stabilise at 2C or whether it will gravitate towards a more extreme state. The authors attempt to assess whether warming can be halted or whether it will tip towards a “hothouse” world that is 4C warmer than pre-industrial times and far less supportive of human life.

...

“We note that the Earth has never in its history had a quasi-stable state that is around 2C warmer than the preindustrial and suggest that there is substantial risk that the system, itself, will ‘want’ to continue warming because of all of these other processes – even if we stop emissions,” she said. “This implies not only reducing emissions but much more.”

Previous studies have shown that weakening carbon sinks will add 0.25C, forest dieback will add 0.11C, permafrost thaw will add 0.9C and increased bacterial respiration will add 0.02C. The authors of the new paper also look at the loss of methane hydrates from the ocean floor and the reduction of snow and ice cover at the poles.

...

As an example, the authors say the loss of Greenland ice could disrupt the Gulf Stream ocean current, which would raise sea levels and accumulate heat in the Southern Ocean, which would in turn accelerate ice loss from the east Antarctic. Concerns about this possibility were heightened earlier this year by reports that the Gulf Stream was at its weakest level in 1,600 years.

...

(https://i.imgur.com/TQutMSH.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on August 06, 2018, 08:38:22 PM
Sometimes I think we are just screwed
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on August 07, 2018, 05:25:50 AM
Sometimes I think we are just screwed

I knew that forty years ago. The Erlichs, Lovelock and Wilson were correct.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on August 08, 2018, 11:55:47 AM
A few months ago, everyone was up in arms that Trump was taking a bunch of climate data offline and scientists were furiously trying to copy it before he could finish.  Does anyone know the latest on that situation?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on August 10, 2018, 03:41:57 PM
I wish it would snow for real...  but I really feel for my farming mates across the ditch with their real and ongoing drought.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on August 14, 2018, 11:37:09 PM
Article: The next five years will be ‘anomalously warm,’ scientists predict (https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/08/14/next-five-years-will-be-anomalously-warm-scientists-predict/?noredirect=on)
From: Washington Post
Date: 2018 AUG 17

Quote
The past four years have been the four warmest ever recorded — and now, according to a new scientific forecast, the next five will also probably be “anomalously warm,” even beyond what the steady increase in global warming would produce on its own.

...

One key determinant of a year’s temperature is what scientists sometimes call the climate’s “internal variability,” as opposed to the contribution of human-released greenhouse gases. The new forecast for 2018 through 2022 arises from projecting how this internal or natural variability will play out.

During the global warming “hiatus” during the 2000s, for instance, these internal factors, such as oscillations in Earth’s oceans, helped keep the planet somewhat cooler than it might otherwise have been and blunted the pace of warming — launching a long-running scientific debate and 1,000 political talking points.

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on August 15, 2018, 04:53:27 PM
Have they ever featured Eunice Foote on Forgotten Superheroes? It seems she was the first to identify CO2 as a GHG.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on August 18, 2018, 11:10:14 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/EkLaBiz.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on August 18, 2018, 11:17:48 AM
That's what you get for not accounting for 350% population growth (emissions have grown a little more beyond that, too).

Unless 1 counts as a few.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on August 18, 2018, 10:27:25 PM
That's what you get for not accounting for 350% population growth (emissions have grown a little more beyond that, too).

Unless 1 counts as a few.

Well, and also, feedback effects.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on August 19, 2018, 03:22:02 PM
"But Jesus". .  or is it "But Capitalism?"
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on August 22, 2018, 06:20:08 PM
Great review of worst-case outcomes (w/audio version).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9RlqNKmP-A

Article: The Uninhabitable Earth (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html)
From: New York Magazine
Date: 2017 JUL 10

Quote
It is, I promise, worse than you think. [...]

...

[...] Unless you are a teenager, you probably read in your high-school textbooks that these extinctions were the result of asteroids. In fact, all but the one that killed the dinosaurs were caused by climate change produced by greenhouse gas. The most notorious was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead.  [...]

...

[...] Even if we meet the Paris goals of two degrees warming, cities like Karachi and Kolkata will become close to uninhabitable, annually encountering deadly heat waves like those that crippled them in 2015. At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer. At six, according to an assessment focused only on effects within the U.S. from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, summer labor of any kind would become impossible in the lower Mississippi Valley, and everybody in the country east of the Rockies would be under more heat stress than anyone, anywhere, in the world today.  [...]

...

Our lungs need oxygen, but that is only a fraction of what we breathe. The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.

...

[...] Malaria, for instance, thrives in hotter regions not just because the mosquitoes that carry it do, too, but because for every degree increase in temperature, the parasite reproduces ten times faster. Which is one reason that the World Bank estimates that by 2050, 5.2 billion people will be reckoning with it.

...

[...] Every degree Celsius of warming costs, on average, 1.2 percent of GDP (an enormous number, considering we count growth in the low single digits as “strong”). This is the sterling work in the field, and their median projection is for a 23 percent loss in per capita earning globally by the end of this century (resulting from changes in agriculture, crime, storms, energy, mortality, and labor).
Tracing the shape of the probability curve is even scarier: There is a 12 percent chance that climate change will reduce global output by more than 50 percent by 2100 [...]

...

Tons of content, all freaky. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on August 22, 2018, 06:42:27 PM
Great review of worst-case outcomes (w/audio version).


This is a great post, except the first line.

These are not "worst-case." They are very realistic and most likely outcomes.

Worst case is far worse. (The planet becomes inhospitable for life)

 Scientists have been far too conservative in their predictions for Global Warming.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on August 23, 2018, 07:16:33 AM
Great review of worst-case outcomes (w/audio version).


This is a great post, except the first line.

These are not "worst-case." They are very realistic and most likely outcomes.

Worst case is far worse. (The planet becomes inhospitable for life)

 Scientists have been far too conservative in their predictions for Global Warming.

And you're basing this on... what, exactly? By your own words, it can't be the science. What secret knowledge do you possess that leading climate scientists and the IPCC are lacking?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on August 23, 2018, 07:27:52 AM
Quote
Our lungs need oxygen, but that is only a fraction of what we breathe. The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.

And that's listed as a minor point within the article, although it's expanded on by more problems with the air we'll breathe. Either way I'm probably picking up on that more because I don't currently have any way of dealing with it, and I don't know how even poor people in rich countries are supposed to deal with it. I can plausibly deal with diseases and parasites, get treatment, poisons. I can burn matter for heat, or use an electrical black box to conduct heat into or out of the house. Hopefully the droughts and wildfires don't kill the electricity supply.

I don't think I know anyone who has a house big enough that they could fill with plants and supply a family with a low CO2 atmosphere. Edit: I left out water because I think of that as another municipal thing, but there will have to be extra water storage somewhere to be able to maintain that through droughts.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on August 23, 2018, 11:50:24 AM
Great review of worst-case outcomes (w/audio version).


This is a great post, except the first line.

These are not "worst-case." They are very realistic and most likely outcomes.

Worst case is far worse. (The planet becomes inhospitable for life)

 Scientists have been far too conservative in their predictions for Global Warming.

And you're basing this on... what, exactly? By your own words, it can't be the science. What secret knowledge do you possess that leading climate scientists and the IPCC are lacking?

Well, first, on their own words. Several have mentioned in the press that in this field they are extra cautious in their estimates.

Second, neither the article nor the claim to be "worst case scenario."

Third, my point is not that the leading climate scientists and/or IPCC are lacking knowledge. The point is that in this political climate where a missed prediction could have serious implications in terms of research funding and public acceptance of the problem, predictions made are being overly cautious. Perhaps for good reason.

Nearly any climate scientist will tell you it's probably worse than they're saying.



Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on August 23, 2018, 12:47:04 PM
Don't ask them too many times.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on August 23, 2018, 01:13:33 PM
Nearly any climate scientist will tell you it's probably worse than they're saying.

Not in my experience, and I've had email conversations with a number of them. Some will say that, but most just point out that even the moderate IPCC scenarios are plenty bad enough. I've had more than one climate scientist lament the fact that implausible doomsday scenarios are used as cannon fodder and straw men by the climate change deniers to ridicule the entire field as if they are representative of what serious climate scientists are thinking.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on August 23, 2018, 02:47:35 PM
Nearly any climate scientist will tell you it's probably worse than they're saying.

Not in my experience, and I've had email conversations with a number of them. Some will say that, but most just point out that even the moderate IPCC scenarios are plenty bad enough. I've had more than one climate scientist lament the fact that implausible doomsday scenarios are used as cannon fodder and straw men by the climate change deniers to ridicule the entire field as if they are representative of what serious climate scientists are thinking.

I don't disagree with that. It's actually my point. They avoid the worst case or even the most likely scenarios and report the data as conservatively as possible because the doomsday scenarios are ridiculed.

But while the doomsday scenarios sound like wild-eyed extreme worst case, they can be as likely if not more likely than the too conservative estimates they report.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on August 24, 2018, 02:02:34 PM
Nearly any climate scientist will tell you it's probably worse than they're saying.

Not in my experience, and I've had email conversations with a number of them. Some will say that, but most just point out that even the moderate IPCC scenarios are plenty bad enough. I've had more than one climate scientist lament the fact that implausible doomsday scenarios are used as cannon fodder and straw men by the climate change deniers to ridicule the entire field as if they are representative of what serious climate scientists are thinking.

I don't disagree with that. It's actually my point. They avoid the worst case or even the most likely scenarios and report the data as conservatively as possible because the doomsday scenarios are ridiculed.

No, they bring up the low end range because it is bad enough, and they want to keep the conversation focused on reaching a climate state that is not a potential disaster. Focusing on a 5+ degree warming by 2100 scenario is both an arbitrary (and somewhat unlikely) outcome given the data we have, and counterproductive because it focuses on the wrong number when we want to talk about setting limits on climate change.

But in any case, you've now moved the goalposts to "it's as bad as the science says". Let me quote the post that I was arguing against:
These are not "worst-case." They are very realistic and most likely outcomes.

Worst case is far worse. (The planet becomes inhospitable for life)

 Scientists have been far too conservative in their predictions for Global Warming.

You were arguing that things are worse than the science says, not that things are as bad as the IPCC says. The 'inhospitable for life'-type doomsday scenarios are avoided because they are basically complete pseudoscience at this point.

But while the doomsday scenarios sound like wild-eyed extreme worst case, they can be as likely if not more likely than the too conservative estimates they report.

No, they can't. You can keep asserting this, but even by your own assertion, the data simply does not support this.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on August 24, 2018, 02:41:41 PM
Nearly any climate scientist will tell you it's probably worse than they're saying.

Not in my experience, and I've had email conversations with a number of them. Some will say that, but most just point out that even the moderate IPCC scenarios are plenty bad enough. I've had more than one climate scientist lament the fact that implausible doomsday scenarios are used as cannon fodder and straw men by the climate change deniers to ridicule the entire field as if they are representative of what serious climate scientists are thinking.

I don't disagree with that. It's actually my point. They avoid the worst case or even the most likely scenarios and report the data as conservatively as possible because the doomsday scenarios are ridiculed.
Quote
No, they bring up the low end range because it is bad enough, and they want to keep the conversation focused on reaching a climate state that is not a potential disaster.

OK, this language seems like exactly what I'm talking about. Wanting to keep a conversation focused is a non-scientific motivation for reporting results.


Quote
Focusing on a 5+ degree warming by 2100 scenario is both an arbitrary (and somewhat unlikely) outcome given the data we have, and counterproductive because it focuses on the wrong number when we want to talk about setting limits on climate change.

If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.


Quote
But in any case, you've now moved the goalposts to "it's as bad as the science says". Let me quote the post that I was arguing against:
These are not "worst-case." They are very realistic and most likely outcomes.

Worst case is far worse. (The planet becomes inhospitable for life)

 Scientists have been far too conservative in their predictions for Global Warming.

You were arguing that things are worse than the science says, not that things are as bad as the IPCC says. The 'inhospitable for life'-type doomsday scenarios are avoided because they are basically complete pseudoscience at this point.

No goalposts have been moved in this argument. I argue that predictions made of the severity of global warming are overly conservative, and unbiased predictions based solely on evidence and data analysis would result in more dire and more accurate predictions.

I also argue that this has been going on for years and we are seeing now that previous predictions have indeed been overly conservative.

Quote
But while the doomsday scenarios sound like wild-eyed extreme worst case, they can be as likely if not more likely than the too conservative estimates they report.

No, they can't. You can keep asserting this, but even by your own assertion, the data simply does not support this.


(Also, this conversation began with me disagreeing with the comment that the specific page and video linked to were "worst case scenarios." in both those cases, they were not intended as worst case, but were their predictions.

I maintain that even these dire predictions are overly conservative and things will get worse faster than they predict. That's the part you're disagreeing with, right?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on August 24, 2018, 02:54:06 PM
If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.

I didn't say it was the "best" prediction, it is just near the high end of the IPCC scenarios. And they obviously do report on it. However there is no "best" prediction, or even any "prediction" at all. There is only a range of (more and less plausible) scenarios, because the outcome depends on what actions we take to reduce or counteract emissions. However there is almost no support at all for a "the planet will become uninhabitable to life" scenario because it requires either massive feedbacks or tipping point scenarios (for which we have no evidence or plausible mechanism at all) or gargantuan future emissions (well outside the range of what is considered plausible by the experts in this field).

I maintain that even these dire predictions are overly conservative and things will get worse faster than they predict. That's the part you're disagreeing with, right?

I am saying that that position is not supported by the evidence by your own phrasing.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on August 24, 2018, 04:55:30 PM
If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.

I didn't say it was the "best" prediction, it is just near the high end of the IPCC scenarios. And they obviously do report on it. However there is no "best" prediction, or even any "prediction" at all. There is only a range of (more and less plausible) scenarios, because the outcome depends on what actions we take to reduce or counteract emissions. However there is almost no support at all for a "the planet will become uninhabitable to life" scenario because it requires either massive feedbacks or tipping point scenarios (for which we have no evidence or plausible mechanism at all) or gargantuan future emissions (well outside the range of what is considered plausible by the experts in this field).

No argument there. That is the worst case scenario.

Quote

I maintain that even these dire predictions are overly conservative and things will get worse faster than they predict. That's the part you're disagreeing with, right?

I am saying that that position is not supported by the evidence by your own phrasing.

I don't get what you mean with what's in bold, unless you're reading things into what I'm saying.

What, specifically, have I said that doesn't support that?

 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on August 25, 2018, 09:00:20 AM
If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.

I didn't say it was the "best" prediction, it is just near the high end of the IPCC scenarios. And they obviously do report on it. However there is no "best" prediction, or even any "prediction" at all. There is only a range of (more and less plausible) scenarios, because the outcome depends on what actions we take to reduce or counteract emissions. However there is almost no support at all for a "the planet will become uninhabitable to life" scenario because it requires either massive feedbacks or tipping point scenarios (for which we have no evidence or plausible mechanism at all) or gargantuan future emissions (well outside the range of what is considered plausible by the experts in this field).

No argument there. That is the worst case scenario.

It may be the worst case scenario as reported by laymen. However atm it is not backed up by any real empirical evidence or plausible mechanism. In order for a "worst case" scenario to be meaningful in any way, it should be based on some vaguely plausible arguments or empirical evidence. I can come up with a non-science based even worse case, like "global warming is going to cause the universe to collapse in on itself", but that is obviously meaningless since it's not based on anything factual.

Quote
I am saying that that position is not supported by the evidence by your own phrasing.

I don't get what you mean with what's in bold, unless you're reading things into what I'm saying.

What, specifically, have I said that doesn't support that?

You said multiple times that climate science scenarios are overly conservative. Obviously, you can't be basing that on climate science, since you're saying they're not reporting on the real worst case scenarios as you see them. So by your own words your worst case scenarios can't be based on climate science. Otherwise climate science would clearly not be overly conservative, since they would be describing these worst case scenarios.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on August 26, 2018, 12:39:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paf2pJtaXYE
Title: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on August 26, 2018, 01:17:22 PM
If that's what the best prediction is based on the data, then that's what they should report. If the best prediction based on analysis of the data is higher or lower that's what they should report. My argument is that they are reporting more conservatively than they would otherwise because it's such a controversial and political topic, and while you are arguing that's not the case your arguments are actually supporting that claim.

I didn't say it was the "best" prediction, it is just near the high end of the IPCC scenarios. And they obviously do report on it. However there is no "best" prediction, or even any "prediction" at all. There is only a range of (more and less plausible) scenarios, because the outcome depends on what actions we take to reduce or counteract emissions. However there is almost no support at all for a "the planet will become uninhabitable to life" scenario because it requires either massive feedbacks or tipping point scenarios (for which we have no evidence or plausible mechanism at all) or gargantuan future emissions (well outside the range of what is considered plausible by the experts in this field).

No argument there. That is the worst case scenario.

It may be the worst case scenario as reported by laymen. However atm it is not backed up by any real empirical evidence or plausible mechanism. In order for a "worst case" scenario to be meaningful in any way, it should be based on some vaguely plausible arguments or empirical evidence. I can come up with a non-science based even worse case, like "global warming is going to cause the universe to collapse in on itself", but that is obviously meaningless since it's not based on anything factual.

Quote
I am saying that that position is not supported by the evidence by your own phrasing.

I don't get what you mean with what's in bold, unless you're reading things into what I'm saying.

What, specifically, have I said that doesn't support that?

You said multiple times that climate science scenarios are overly conservative. Obviously, you can't be basing that on climate science, since you're saying they're not reporting on the real worst case scenarios as you see them. So by your own words your worst case scenarios can't be based on climate science. Otherwise climate science would clearly not be overly conservative, since they would be describing these worst case scenarios.

No. The whole worst case scenario aspect was only brought up in relation to those two links. They were not intended to be worst case scenario predictions.

My point is simply that due to factors other than science, when predictions are made they are more conservative than they would be if based only on science and data. Some of your arguments support this claim.

Also this has been happening for years and as time passes this claim is proving true.

Many markers for global warming have consistently gone significantly beyond what was predicted.

 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on August 26, 2018, 05:28:52 PM
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on September 03, 2018, 02:08:22 PM
Neat infographic:
(https://i.imgur.com/DLiEDQW.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on September 04, 2018, 05:39:03 AM
I note that the left to release doesn't include arable food production.  (or what part of the 1010gt is due to arable)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on September 04, 2018, 07:45:18 AM
So if we stopped or neutralized all other emissions, but the number of trees were reduced by ~335 billion/11%, we'd go over budget?

I wonder what the rate of expected tree loss to drought and fires is, along the lines of how fast Greenland melts given an average temperature.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on September 05, 2018, 01:56:07 PM
So if we stopped or neutralized all other emissions, but the number of trees were reduced by ~335 billion/11%, we'd go over budget?

I wonder what the rate of expected tree loss to drought and fires is, along the lines of how fast Greenland melts given an average temperature.

I reckon that feedback loop would be hard to calculate.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on September 18, 2018, 11:09:16 PM
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on September 19, 2018, 12:56:05 AM
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.

There is evidence of runaway greenhouse during the Permian–Triassic, I believe.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on September 19, 2018, 11:08:50 AM
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.

There is evidence of runaway greenhouse during the Permian–Triassic, I believe.

Over at least 100 millenia, not a few centuries.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on September 22, 2018, 12:08:08 AM
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.

There is evidence of runaway greenhouse during the Permian–Triassic, I believe.

Over at least 100 millenia, not a few centuries.

I am under the impression that conditions very rapidly became what would be extremely hostile for most life although took a long time to kill almost everything.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on September 24, 2018, 10:49:27 AM
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.

There is evidence of runaway greenhouse during the Permian–Triassic, I believe.

Over at least 100 millenia, not a few centuries.

I am under the impression that conditions very rapidly became what would be extremely hostile for most life although took a long time to kill almost everything.

Indeed. Shit's gonna get bad fast during this extinction event too.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on September 28, 2018, 10:13:12 AM
"Fossil Fuels: Because we're already dead," has started making rounds.

https://twitter.com/SimonMaloy/status/1045666950851043328
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on September 28, 2018, 11:37:31 AM
Assuming we do nothing, we're screwed, so we might as well do less than nothing.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on September 28, 2018, 01:51:05 PM
As solar and wind take over large parts of energy generation.
Electric cars are also becoming closer and closer to reality for your average owner.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on September 30, 2018, 12:29:37 AM
I guess my point isn't getting through, but I don't see much of a point in repeating myself ad infinitum.
I got it, and I agree with you.  There is zero evidence for any runaway feedback on the planet, no matter what level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has never been any evidence of a runaway climate system.

There is evidence of runaway greenhouse during the Permian–Triassic, I believe.

Over at least 100 millenia, not a few centuries.

I am under the impression that conditions very rapidly became what would be extremely hostile for most life although took a long time to kill almost everything.

Well that's rather controversial, seeing as we don't actually know what caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction. Runaway climate change is a likely factor but it's not the only candidate, and it's not a straightforward task to extrapolate from the circumstances of that era to this one.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 08, 2018, 12:56:56 AM
https://twitter.com/CoralMDavenport/status/1049102746207444992
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on October 08, 2018, 03:21:59 AM
https://twitter.com/CoralMDavenport/status/1049102746207444992

I think this is the definition of Game Over.

Good job, everyone, we killed a planet! Capitalism!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: bachfiend on October 08, 2018, 04:16:00 AM
https://twitter.com/CoralMDavenport/status/1049102746207444992

I think this is the definition of Game Over.

Good job, everyone, we killed a planet! Capitalism!

The unelected coal-loving prime minister of Australia Scott Morrison has promised to carefully read the latest IPCC report before ignoring it, since he reckons Australia is on track to reach its promise of a 26% reduction in CO2 emissions on 2005 levels by 2030, despite emissions increasing since the coal-ition was elected in 2013.  He fudges by noting that the per capita emissions are decreasing because the population is increasing (I wonder if he includes the refugees the government torments in the number of the population?  Torment that impressed even Donald Trump).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 08, 2018, 06:49:49 PM
https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/1049170313294925824
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on October 09, 2018, 03:56:40 AM
https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/1049170313294925824

This can't be posted often enough

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FBfXln4NCQAAN5z2.jpg&f=1)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 09, 2018, 03:45:32 PM
Next pane:

"And the minority of the opulent's opulence continued uninterrupted to the end"

No matter the cost
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on October 09, 2018, 04:07:49 PM
https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/1049170313294925824

This can't be posted often enough

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FBfXln4NCQAAN5z2.jpg&f=1)

Is that really fair though? I mean, we are probably all shareholders, either directly or indirectly. I am, and you probably are too.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on October 09, 2018, 05:15:18 PM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 09, 2018, 06:10:52 PM
Is that really fair though? I mean, we are probably all shareholders, either directly or indirectly. I am, and you probably are too.

I don't think, "there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism," is the point here.  It's our inability to change course due, in large part, to outsized elite-influence.

edit: If you take it as a critique of capitalism, well, capitalism is like a 'paperclip maximizer' targeting profits.  We're literally going to destroy the world on purpose because we've decided to let markets substantially run society.  But now we can't back away from that folly because the center of power has already moved out into the private sector so we're back to talking about the rich and powerful.

(It turns out capitalism was the Great Filter all along)

edit 2:
Climate Change is a challenge. We've chosen to fail.  As for why, please refer to this informational diagram:

(https://i.imgur.com/kfcVmBn.gif)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on October 10, 2018, 07:36:30 AM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on October 10, 2018, 08:11:48 AM
Big business wins again. Germany, along with the East-Central European autocracies where Germany produces its cars to make sure to pay as little as possible sabotaged the change of CO2 standards for cars and vans in the EU, making sure that the committed reduction stays well below what is actually needed to save the FUCKING PLANET.

Quote
Negotiations between EU institutions on a new bill that will set CO2 standards for cars and vans until 2030 will begin on Wednesday afternoon (10 October) after EU environment ministers achieved a common position late on Tuesday evening.

The compromise deal was reached at a Council of the EU meeting in Luxembourg that began in the morning and wrapped up only shortly before midnight.

Austrian environment minister Elisabeth Kostinger, who chaired the ministerial meeting, said that the deal was supported by 20 of the EU's 28 member states.

Four were against, while four abstained, she said – although a source from one of the member states said there was no formal vote. The distribution of member states was rather an estimate made by Kostinger, the source added.

At a press conference, Kostinger said the council wanted cars to emit 35 percent less CO2 by 2030 compared to 2020 - as opposed to the original proposal of 30 percent from the European Commission.

The council maintained the commission proposal of 30 percent less CO2 emissions by 2030 for vans.

Those targets are considerably lower than what the European Parliament proposed last week - MEPs said that the 2030 target for both cars and vans should be 40 percent reduction.

Link (https://euobserver.com/environment/143070)

As a reminder, we need a 45% reduction of CO2 emmissions in 12 years, and a 100% reduction in 32 years.

Them shareholders must be jumping for joy and the CEOs may even get that meagre bonus that will allow them to buy next year's gilder private jet in time for the holidays.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: heyalison on October 10, 2018, 08:40:31 AM
(It turns out capitalism was the Great Filter all along)

This is something I've thought for some time now. I don't see humans as being able to pull out of this, as evidenced by the global political slide rightward and the violent refusal to let go of profit-seeking as our species' primary motivation. It leads people to idealize exploiting capitalists like Musk and Bezos, and indulges in the magical thinking that technology will race in at the last minute and save us all. We lack the structures or the even the ability to engage in large-group changes, and there are too many cynical, greedy men manipulating the fears of the mob to undermine any attempt to fix that.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on October 11, 2018, 08:15:57 AM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?
The West, even if you count everyone rather than just a simple majority, are still a small minority overall. And even then I doubt it.

(Plus for a lot of people even with investments, the amount they have invested is small enough that if wages go down but the market goes up, they lose money.)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on October 15, 2018, 04:52:26 PM
Me:  Climate change is real.
Dad: Nope.  Climategate proved that all climate scientists that measure the data faked it.
Me: If you think that, then is there any data that could ever prove to you it is real?
Dad:  Satellite data.
Me: <shows him satellite data>
Dad:  That was on the internet, so it is fake.
Me: <sighs>
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on October 17, 2018, 10:54:06 PM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?

Can't speak for the majority, but I certainly don't.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on October 18, 2018, 11:56:21 AM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?

Can't speak for the majority, but I certainly don't.

No 401k, IRA or Pension? 

You better hope Democratic candidates start winning, because your life will one day depend on your Social Security checks if you don't start one of those soon.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on October 18, 2018, 02:57:33 PM
I just had an epiphany on how to turn around climate change.

I believe that the political right in America is one of the fundamental drivers of climate change, and I believe that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (radio/tv personalities) have a very strong influence on the minds of the political right.

If just one of them, Hannity or Rush, could be convinced to do a deep dive on the science behind climate change, and they went on their show and presented the scientific truth, the political right would do a 180 right then and there.

Right now Hannity and Rush are the behind-the-scenes villains causing the problem, but one of them could become literally the savior of mankind by publically switching their stance.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on October 18, 2018, 03:21:28 PM
And then you wake up from the dream.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on October 18, 2018, 03:34:20 PM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?

Can't speak for the majority, but I certainly don't.

No 401k, IRA or Pension? 

You better hope Democratic candidates start winning, because your life will one day depend on your Social Security checks if you don't start one of those soon.
Just because you're privileged enough to be able to put some away for later doesn't mean most people are.

Quote
  In fact, the vast majority of Americans have under $1,000 saved and half of all Americans have nothing at all put away for retirement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/heres-how-many-americans-have-nothing-at-all-saved-for-retirement.html
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on October 18, 2018, 05:06:32 PM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?

Can't speak for the majority, but I certainly don't.

No 401k, IRA or Pension? 

You better hope Democratic candidates start winning, because your life will one day depend on your Social Security checks if you don't start one of those soon.
Just because you're privileged enough to be able to put some away for later doesn't mean most people are.

Quote
  In fact, the vast majority of Americans have under $1,000 saved and half of all Americans have nothing at all put away for retirement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/heres-how-many-americans-have-nothing-at-all-saved-for-retirement.html

Then we better all start hoping that democratic candidates start winning, otherwise we're all fucked.  (Since when does working hard, and watching every penny equate with privilege?)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on October 18, 2018, 05:10:41 PM
Since when does working hard, and watching every penny equate with privilege?
Because watching every penny doesn't magically grant you more pennies to save up. Do you seriously not get that millions of people can't afford to build savings?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 18, 2018, 05:32:04 PM
This conversation reminds of that line about, "If your tips for saving money start with assuming I spend $5 on lattes every day then I already have less money than you think I do."
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on October 18, 2018, 05:54:02 PM
Since when does working hard, and watching every penny equate with privilege?
Because watching every penny doesn't magically grant you more pennies to save up. Do you seriously not get that millions of people can't afford to build savings?

Do you seriously not get that saving money is not a sign of privilege?

And, yes I do get that there are millions who can't afford to build savings. (I also think many of those millions make more and spend more than me and my family.)

Are you disagreeing with my point that they would be better served by electing Democratic leaders rather than Republicans, who are publicly stating they want to cut Social Security and Medicare?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on October 18, 2018, 08:00:18 PM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?

Can't speak for the majority, but I certainly don't.

No 401k, IRA or Pension? 

You better hope Democratic candidates start winning, because your life will one day depend on your Social Security checks if you don't start one of those soon.

I don't know what 401k or IRA is, and there's no such thing as Social Security checks and I have no Democratic candidates in my electorate. I have the mandatory Australian Government superannuation, if that's what you mean by a mutual investment fund. I'm pretty sure it's not, but you might know better how the Australian finance market works than I do.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 18, 2018, 08:13:28 PM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?

Can't speak for the majority, but I certainly don't.

No 401k, IRA or Pension? 

You better hope Democratic candidates start winning, because your life will one day depend on your Social Security checks if you don't start one of those soon.

I don't know what 401k or IRA is, and there's no such thing as Social Security checks and I have no Democratic candidates in my electorate. I have the mandatory Australian Government superannuation, if that's what you mean by a mutual investment fund. I'm pretty sure it's not, but you might know better how the Australian finance market works than I do.

Tax-deferred retirement savings. 401(k) is American shorthand for "retirement fund" but typically is a pre-tax investment. IRA is an investment retirement account.  Mutual funds are an investment that is diversified. When you put in a dollar, that dollar buys a share in the fund, which in turn owns shares or other companies, bonds, and other investment vehicles.

I don't know how Democratic candidates winning would help you though, maybe Carbshark knows something about the DNC's plan for Australia that I don't.  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on October 18, 2018, 08:32:58 PM
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?

Can't speak for the majority, but I certainly don't.

No 401k, IRA or Pension? 

You better hope Democratic candidates start winning, because your life will one day depend on your Social Security checks if you don't start one of those soon.

I don't know what 401k or IRA is, and there's no such thing as Social Security checks and I have no Democratic candidates in my electorate. I have the mandatory Australian Government superannuation, if that's what you mean by a mutual investment fund. I'm pretty sure it's not, but you might know better how the Australian finance market works than I do.

My American bias is showing.

Your government superannuation program is probably similar to Social Security. Employees and employers both contribute from every paycheck. The checks start coming somewhere between age 62 and 65, or later.

401k is an investment fund set up by employers, where you take a small percentage of your earnings before taxes and invest in mutual funds. In many cases employers will match your contributions up to a certain point. An IRA is an Individual Retirement Account, similar to a 401k, but you open the account your self and put untaxed money in it so save for retirement. (Both get taxed when you withdraw, unless you rollover to a Roth IRA).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on October 18, 2018, 08:37:14 PM
I was pretty sure all the regular posters knew where I was from by this time. Guess not. But I'm glad to have had the opportunity to remind you that America is not the whole world, and that the internet is global.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on October 18, 2018, 09:59:05 PM
I was pretty sure all the regular posters knew where I was from by this time. Guess not. But I'm glad to have had the opportunity to remind you that America is not the whole world, and that the internet is global.

I confess I often don't look at who wrote what I am responding to, and often just think everyone on the internet is an American.

I should try to do better.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on October 18, 2018, 10:05:26 PM
Since when does working hard, and watching every penny equate with privilege?
Because watching every penny doesn't magically grant you more pennies to save up. Do you seriously not get that millions of people can't afford to build savings?

Do you seriously not get that saving money is not a sign of privilege?
No, I don't get that, because it absolutely is a sign of privilege.

You can't save up something you don't have enough of to begin with.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on October 18, 2018, 11:04:14 PM
Since when does working hard, and watching every penny equate with privilege?
Because watching every penny doesn't magically grant you more pennies to save up. Do you seriously not get that millions of people can't afford to build savings?

Do you seriously not get that saving money is not a sign of privilege?
No, I don't get that, because it absolutely is a sign of privilege.

You can't save up something you don't have enough of to begin with.

What do you think privilege is?

privilege: A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

If you think working hard, not spending money so you can save is a sign of that you are mistaken.

(If you want to keep this discussion up, may I suggest another thread, this has nothing to do with climate)

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on October 18, 2018, 11:12:17 PM
(If you want to keep this discussion up, may I suggest another thread, this has nothing to do with climate)

Looking forward to it, since I think I might have a few things to say...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on October 19, 2018, 12:34:52 AM
I'll go ahead and skip that thread if it's going to be CarbShark continuing to refuse to understand what social privilege is.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on October 19, 2018, 03:31:48 PM
(If you want to keep this discussion up, may I suggest another thread, this has nothing to do with climate)

Looking forward to it, since I think I might have a few things to say...

If you start it they will come.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on October 22, 2018, 03:51:54 PM
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1052212588631785472

Too optimistic? I don't know. But worth thinking about, perhaps.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on October 22, 2018, 04:14:20 PM
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1052212588631785472

Too optimistic? I don't know. But worth thinking about, perhaps.

Pinker's solution is something that, to my knowledge has never been built, and no-one is even allowed to build it yet. His brand of mindlessness is one of those things that will lead us to the water wars.

A nuclear power plant takes 5 years just to build. We have 11 years to cut emission by 45%, and still have a global catastrophe. We have no time to start the regulatory proceedings for incrementally better technology that may be picked up by someone, somewhere.

Meanwhile, we have 100 corporations that are responsible for 71% of emissions, that gives a better solution. I am sure that their CEOs and Boards overlap with the list of parasites who lord over most of the planet's wealth. Two birds with one stone, I say.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2018, 04:38:44 PM
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1052212588631785472

Too optimistic? I don't know. But worth thinking about, perhaps.

Pinker's solution is something that, to my knowledge has never been built, and no-one is even allowed to build it yet. His brand of mindlessness is one of those things that will lead us to the water wars.

A nuclear power plant takes 5 years just to build. We have 11 years to cut emission by 45%, and still have a global catastrophe. We have no time to start the regulatory proceedings for incrementally better technology that may be picked up by someone, somewhere.

Meanwhile, we have 100 corporations that are responsible for 71% of emissions, that gives a better solution. I am sure that their CEOs and Boards overlap with the list of parasites who lord over most of the planet's wealth. Two birds with one stone, I say.

The Australian coal-ition government (which has just lost its one seat majority in parliament on the weekend in a byelection in a previously very safe electorate to a conservative independent candidate.  Most of the candidates, including the successful independent, were campaigning on the inadequacies of the government’s climate policies.  Or rather their lack of any).

The coal-ition government insists that coal will play a very important part in the economy for decades to come, and still supports the building of the world’s largest coal mine in Queensland.

Nuclear power still gets a mention from time to time, but renewables are available now, and are eminently scalable.  And all you need to do to manage fluctuations in supply/demand is to add progressively storage, such as large scale batteries.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on October 25, 2018, 11:55:36 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqTMK0gU0AAe3n7.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on October 25, 2018, 01:27:47 PM

The Australian coal-ition government (which has just lost its one seat majority in parliament on the weekend in a byelection in a previously very safe electorate to a conservative independent candidate.  Most of the candidates, including the successful independent, were campaigning on the inadequacies of the government’s climate policies.  Or rather their lack of any).



At least SA seems to be progressive in regards to renewables.  Some Kiwis need to get over their aversion to wind farms, IMHO. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 31, 2018, 03:29:31 PM
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1057694524053602305
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Harry Black on October 31, 2018, 04:04:31 PM
Im not sure anything matters now that Brazil intend to destroy the Amazon.
Surely this is the number one threat to humanity? Fuck Iran getting nukes.

If Bolsonaro goes ahead with his promises then I actually cant imagine the scale of the damage.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on October 31, 2018, 04:05:53 PM
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1057694524053602305

See! The models are wrong! derp derp
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on October 31, 2018, 04:32:11 PM
Seems inevitable that we're underestimating the heating, with the demands for overwhelming evidence, and the conservative estimates being the ones with the most weight behind them.

On top of people having been very optimistic about what cuts we'll be able to make in emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 31, 2018, 06:57:10 PM
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1052519858036989952

Quote
Democrats are unlikely to pursue major climate change legislation if they win the House majority, despite a growing body of evidence suggesting time is running out to address the issue.

Democrats are unlikely to pursue major climate change legislation if they win the House majority, despite a growing body of evidence suggesting time is running out to address the issue.

This represents a shift in strategy from when House Democrats last controlled the chamber. In 2009, they passed cap-and-trade legislation, which subsequently died in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The game plan for next year, House Democrats say, is more incremental steps and hearings.

With President Trump in the White House and Republicans favored to keep the Senate next year, climate legislation would face stiff headwinds, and pushing it could spark backlash from the right — both now and after the Nov. 6 midterm elections.

Considering those “constraints,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Democrats should “focus on the practical and the opportunistic” to make short-term progress while fighting for bolder measures — “the aspirational goals” — over the longer term.

“It’s going to be, I think, more of an opportunistic strategy, where, in various pieces of legislation, across the board, we’re going to insert measures that address climate change,” said Connolly, a leader in the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition.

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on November 01, 2018, 05:05:19 PM
You do need to read the article carefully because they are not giving up on climate change just not doing what Republicans did with Obamacare. .  .No empty gestures.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on November 01, 2018, 05:33:42 PM
"More incremental steps and hearing," is giving up.

The public can be rallied by leadership.  We need anyone, everyone, who can provide this to provide this.  The Democrats are choosing not to. 

We need people raising the alarm, getting people worked up, doomsaying about the GOP's agenda, etc. and it will all be true.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on November 02, 2018, 07:43:04 PM
Talk from 2010 which sounds all the more prescient today in 2018:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY

Halfway through now and yikes!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on November 03, 2018, 04:36:18 PM
Quote
UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That. (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html)

(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/11/11-climate-change-flood.w700.h467.jpg)

Just two years ago, amid global fanfare, the Paris climate accords were signed — initiating what seemed, for a brief moment, like the beginning of a planet-saving movement. But almost immediately, the international goal it established of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius began to seem, to many of the world’s most vulnerable, dramatically inadequate; the Marshall Islands’ representative gave it a blunter name, calling two degrees of warming “genocide.”

The alarming new report you may have read about this week from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which examines just how much better 1.5 degrees of warming would be than 2 — echoes the charge. “Amplifies” may be the better term. Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, the report declares, should the world warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will do as soon as 2040, if current trends continue. Nearly all coral reefs would die out, wildfires and heat waves would sweep across the planet annually, and the interplay between drought and flooding and temperature would mean that the world’s food supply would become dramatically less secure. Avoiding that scale of suffering, the report says, requires such a thorough transformation of the world’s economy, agriculture, and culture that “there is no documented historical precedent.” The New York Times declared that the report showed a “strong risk” of climate crisis in the coming decades; in Grist, Eric Holthaus wrote that “civilization is at stake.”

If you are alarmed by those sentences, you should be — they are horrifying. But it is, actually, worse than that — considerably worse. That is because the new report’s worst-case scenario is, actually, a best case. In fact, it is a beyond-best-case scenario. What has been called a genocidal level of warming is already our inevitable future. The question is how much worse than that it will get.

I read this yesterday evening, and truth be told my friends, it has re-occurred to my thoughts during today. There isn't even a semblance of a half-assed effort to do something. The train is heading off the cliff, and I am a passenger.

Should I even bother recycling anymore? It won't make any difference in the end.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on November 03, 2018, 04:48:32 PM
I want to see someone work up some numbers against recycling because recycling screws over future generations who'll need to scavenge our dumps for raw materials.

Also:
https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/1058649150835908608
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on November 03, 2018, 05:18:06 PM
Reducing consumption is better than recycling in any case.

Ban advertising, save the world make another slight improvement.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on November 04, 2018, 08:40:14 AM
Here is an interesting article stating what will happen to the planet if temperature rises, degree for degree: A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms (http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm)

Check out these quotes from the article:

Quote
Chance of avoiding one degree of global warming: zero.

Quote
Chance of avoiding two degrees of global warming: 93%, but only if emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced by 60% over the next 10 years.

Quote
Chance of avoiding three degrees of global warming: poor if the rise reaches two degrees and triggers carbon-cycle feedbacks from soils and plants.

Quote
Chance of avoiding four degrees of global warming: poor if the rise reaches three degrees and triggers a runaway thaw of permafrost.

Quote
Chance of avoiding five degrees of global warming: negligible if the rise reaches four degrees and releases trapped methane from the sea bed.

And finally, the endgame, at 6 degrees:

Quote
With all the remaining forests burning, and the corpses of people, livestock and wildlife piling up in every continent, the six-degree world would be a harsh penalty indeed for the mundane crime of burning fossil energy.

This suggests to me that the chance to do something really is now or never. If temperatures can be kept below 2 degrees increase, which in itself would require a massive global effort, then we can avoid the worst-case scenarios. After 2 degrees, different feedback loops will kick in, triggering other feedback loops, and the system will be self-reinforcing and spinning out of control.

So it's now or never. And with Trump at the helmet for at least two and a half more years, and possibly four additional years, as well as Bolsonaro in Brazil, it doesn't look too good. Add to that an impotent EU, and cynical and indifferent China, Russia, and Gulf countries.

As bad as it is, it seems like our only real hope is eccentric entrepreneurs like Elon Musk. Because our governments, or a least the governments that matter, are unlikely to do anything of significance.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on November 04, 2018, 04:12:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4PisLH8J2g

I'm usually not a fan of Noam Chomsky, but in this case I think he hits the nail on the head.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on November 05, 2018, 12:53:05 PM
Sorry for posting so much in this thread, but I think it is fair to say that I have been seriously red-pilled during the past few days, and I have to get things off my chest. Of course I have long known that global warming is a serious problem, but I have overall been pretty optimistic that we will solve it. Just recently I have learned how bad it actually is, and that it looks more and more like we are going to fail.

We have the technological ability to overcome it, but not the political will. The US, despite seeing massive hurricanes that at least partially probably are due to global warming, elected a climate change denier for president. Over here last summer, we had a very strong heatwave and massive forest fires, that at least partially are probably attributable to global warming. Climate change denial isn't a big problem here, the problem is recognized across the political spectrum, yet in our recent election in September, climate change barely surfaced. We as a civilization, as a species, are knowingly marching to our undoing. That's remarkable.

However, even Noam Chomsky seems pretty optimistic that we will fix it, so maybe all hope should not be lost?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on November 06, 2018, 03:23:01 AM
There's this to stoke your pessimistic proclivities:

https://un-denial.com/2018/10/30/by-peter-watts-the-adorable-optimism-of-the-ipcc/?fbclid=IwAR3lOHH5Ni6cWXyiwEy1QEFN0zp0-BkM4-Dobt2flCBq2CKYvL6R0AxepX4
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on November 11, 2018, 10:03:48 PM
Interesting talks.  A good survey of data points (with photos) from just a few years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAtCQ7REXAc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMN3dTvrwY
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on November 22, 2018, 11:24:33 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065400254151954432

Wow, is that how that works?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on November 22, 2018, 11:57:17 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065400254151954432

Wow, is that how that works?

Going from a guy you could have a beer with (except for the alcoholism), to a guy you could talk about the weather with (until a squirrel or sexy blood relative appears).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on November 24, 2018, 12:04:43 AM
https://twitter.com/NOAA/status/1066045012604002305
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on November 25, 2018, 02:12:38 PM
How did it not get canned?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on November 25, 2018, 06:36:26 PM
How did it not get canned?

Gross incompetence? Plus it was scheduled to be released next  year but for some reason was released when ready.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Mr. Beagle on November 26, 2018, 09:50:58 AM
How did it not get canned?

Gross incompetence? Plus it was scheduled to be released next  year but for some reason was released when ready.

On Thanksgiving weekend.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on November 30, 2018, 01:28:14 PM
I like these graphs.

https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/1068113206525202433
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on December 01, 2018, 12:59:17 PM
There's this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04d42rc/episodes/downloads
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on December 06, 2018, 05:50:33 AM
Carbon Dioxide Emissions See Largest Jump in 7 Years: Global Carbon Project (https://ktla.com/2018/12/05/carbon-dioxide-emissions-experiencing-largest-jump-in-years-global-carbon-project/)

Quote
World carbon dioxide emissions are estimated to have risen 2.7 percent from 2017 to 2018, according to three studies released Wednesday from the Global Carbon Project (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/) , an international scientific collaboration of academics, governments and industry that tracks greenhouse gas emissions. The calculations, announced during negotiations (http://cop24.gov.pl/) to put the 2015 Paris climate accord into effect, puts some of the landmark agreement’s goals nearly out of reach, scientists said.

“This is terrible news,” said Andrew Jones, co-director of Climate Interactive, which models greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures but was not part of the research. “Every year that we delay serious climate action, the Paris goals become more difficult to meet.”

The studies concluded that this year the world would spew 40.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide, up from 39.8 billion tons last year. The margin of error is about one percentage point on either side.

Picked up the graphs from this French language article (https://global-climat.com/2018/12/06/forte-croissance-des-emissions-mondiales-de-co2-en-2018/). 37.1 metric, 40.9 short ton.

(https://i.imgur.com/rafge2q.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/okIF6xm.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/zVDFYWL.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/q0KhrVf.png)

Quote
The U.S., which had been steadily decreasing its carbon pollution, showed a significant rise in emissions — up 2.5 percent — for the first time since 2013. China, the globe’s biggest carbon emitter, saw its largest increase since 2011: 4.6 percent.

Study lead author Corinne Le Quere, a climate change researcher at the University of East Anglia in England, said the increase is a surprising “reality check” after a few years of smaller emission increases. But she also doesn’t think the world will return to the even larger increases seen from 2003 to 2008. She believes unusual factors are at play this year.

For the U.S., it was a combination of a hot summer and cold winter that required more electricity use for heating and cooling. For China, it was an economic stimulus that pushed coal-powered manufacturing, Le Quere said.

Not that reassuring, if we can expect more extreme weather either end as the climate changes. And for China it looks like the few years of not increasing emissions were the unusual ones.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 06, 2018, 10:23:29 AM
Desert Hellworld, here we come!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 06, 2018, 01:27:05 PM
Article: Greenland's ice sheet melt has 'gone into overdrive' and is now 'off the charts' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/05/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-unprecedented-rate-off-charts/2216223002/)
From: USA Today
Date: 2018 DEC 5

Quote
...

"Melting of the Greenland ice sheet has gone into overdrive," said Luke Trusel, a glaciologist at Rowan University and lead author of the study. "Greenland melt is adding to sea level more than any time during the last three and a half centuries, if not thousands of years," he said.

Ice loss from Greenland is the single largest contributor to global sea-level rise
, which is predicted to lead to inundation of low-lying islands and coastal cities around the world over the next several decades and centuries.

At the moment, conservative estimates of global sea level rise predict an additional half a meter or more by the end of the century, according to German news agency Deutsche Welle (DW). Alun Hubbard, a professor of glaciology at Aberystwyth University in Wales, told DW that even an increase of half a meter is "a terrible disaster for humanity – especially coastal regions of the planet."

...

Specifically, the melt rate over the past two decades was 33 percent higher than the 20th-century average, and 50 percent higher than in the pre-industrial era before the mid-1800s.

...

How long before the real estate crisis of collapsing coastal property values?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on December 06, 2018, 06:15:44 PM
How long before the real estate crisis of collapsing coastal property values?

I would really like to hear what people think about this.  It has got to be coming very soon, I would think.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on December 07, 2018, 10:01:33 PM
How long before the real estate crisis of collapsing coastal property values?

I would really like to hear what people think about this.  It has got to be coming very soon, I would think.

It's already happening in NZ.  Properties too much at risk are uninsurable and unsaleable.  Boom.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 10, 2018, 10:44:57 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/GGbeWaK.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stands2reason on December 10, 2018, 11:10:54 AM
I heard about the boom in industrial hemp on NPR. Apparently, it can be used as a building material. Imagine displacing existing building materials with a carbon negative alternative. It is carbon negative since it functions as long term sequestration.

I wonder how many billions of tons of hemp we would need to grow to take a significant amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, and how many houses or apartment buildings you could build with it.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 10, 2018, 12:51:28 PM
Yeah, it's interesting.  Hemp's a cheap industrial feedstock with a variety of applications.  There's a lot it can help go green.

Article: Hemp legalization included in new farm bill could 'open the floodgates' on nascent industry (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/07/final-farm-bill-with-hemp-legalization-could-be-voted-on-next-week.html)
From: CNBC
Date: 2018 DEC 7

Quote
The bill would legalize hemp cultivation and could be a catalyst for explosive growth in a nascent industry that some forecast could top $20 billion by 2022.
Quote
Industrial hemp is used to make everything from apparel, foods and pharmaceuticals to personal care products, car dashboards and building materials.

edit:

On the subject of sequestration:
Article: Growing our way out of climate change by building with hemp and wood fibre (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/25/hemp-wood-fibre-construction-climate-change)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2014 SEP 25
Quote
Making one tonne of steel emits 1.46 tonnes of CO2 and 198kg of CO2 is emitted make one tonne of reinforced concrete. One square metre of timber framed, hemp-lime wall (weighing 120kg), after allowing for the energy cost of transporting and assembling the materials actually stores 35.5kg of CO2.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stands2reason on December 10, 2018, 01:10:17 PM
Tonne means metric ton or 1000kg, yes?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on December 10, 2018, 01:12:54 PM
Presumably, since they're also using kg.

Just don't go cutting down forests to grow hemp.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stands2reason on December 10, 2018, 01:16:54 PM
Presumably, since they're also using kg.

Just don't go cutting down forests to grow hemp.

Like I said (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50724.msg9587131/topicseen.html#msg9587131), we should be building greenhouses in the desert. That would give us more than enough arable land.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 10, 2018, 01:41:01 PM
Article: Hemp, and Lots of It, Could Be One Climate Solution (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-hill/hemp-and-lots-of-it-could_b_328275.html)
From: Huffington Post
Date: 2010 MAR 18
Quote
Herer’s mixing of cannabis hemp with industrial hemp is a little unfortunate, for according to Hemp Global Solutions, hemp could be a good short term climate tool, because the crop is rapid-growing for carbon dioxide uptake, less vulnerable to climate variations than agro-forestry, and might be a good cash crop for farmers. HGS calculates each ton of hemp grown represents 1.63 tons of CO2 absorption.

Ratio of C to CO2 is (12.0107/44.01) is 0.2729084299.

1.63 tons of CO2 → 3,260 lbs of CO2 --(multiply by ratio)--> ~889.6815 lbs of C sequestered per ton of hemp

According to their figure, one ton of hemp removes 889 lbs and ~10 oz of Carbon from the atmosphere.

Iirc, sequestering 500 gigatonnes of Carbon from the atmosphere puts us at pre-industrial.

500 gigatonnes → 1,100,000,000,000,000 lbs --(divide by 889.6815)--> 1.2648309e12 -> 1,264,830,900,000 tons of hemp per 500 gigatonnes of carbon sequestered

So, you'd need to grow 1,264,830,900,000 tons of Hemp to solve Climate Change.

According to google, hemp's mass is 0.86 g/cm3.

So...
int tons_of_hemp = 1264830900000;
int ton_to_lb = 2000;
int lb_to_kg = (1/2.2);
int kg_to_g = 1000;
int density = 0.86;
int cm_to_km = (1/100,000);

(((1264830900000*2000*(1/2.2)*1000)/.86)^(1/3))/100000 = 11.017km.

To solve climate change, we need a 11.017km cube of hemp. 

(11.07^3)/(1.07^3) = 1107.37

We'd need 1,107.37 of these 1.07km reference-cubes:
(https://i.imgur.com/BIIASQc.jpg)

That is just a great deal of hemp.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stands2reason on December 10, 2018, 04:28:54 PM
That should be enough raw material for a space elevator. And then if we have extra, we'll export it to the moon.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on December 10, 2018, 04:38:50 PM
That's also a great deal of extraneous math and unnecessary conversions...

5e11 tonnes of Carbon, times 44/12
= about 1.83e12 tonnes of CO2, divided by 1.63 (because that's just a ratio, and will always hold so long as you're measuring CO2 and hemp in the same units)
= about 1.12e12 tonnes of hemp, divided by 0.86 (which is conveniently also the density in tonnes/m^2)
= 1.3e12 m^3 = 1300 km^3

For comparison, the world harvested about 3.5 billion cubic meters of wood annually 10 years ago [page 8] (https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/mis/presentations/PepkeGlobalWoodMkts050510.pdf), so we'd need a volume of hemp equivalent to 370 years worth of that unsustainable level of wood harvesting. (Given the increase shown in the 40-odd years of that graph, and the population change over previous centuries, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if 1300 cubic kilometers is more than all the wood that humans have ever cut down.)

The image is more immediately impressive, but I think that wood statistic really drives home just how much we're not going to solve the problem with hemp products.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 10, 2018, 06:13:54 PM
I think that wood statistic really drives home just how much we're not going to solve the problem with hemp products.

The original proposal of compacting all human biomass into a single, large cube may be more realistic. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on December 10, 2018, 06:33:17 PM
The "if Genghis Khan was Superman" approach.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stands2reason on December 10, 2018, 09:31:52 PM
I think that wood statistic really drives home just how much we're not going to solve the problem with hemp products.

The original proposal of compacting all human biomass into a single, large cube may be more realistic.

Based on some mental math, the amount of carbon in the human population is about 1e-3 of the total amount of carbon emitted based on your 500G number.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on December 10, 2018, 09:34:53 PM
And the amount of hemp that would get 500GT is about a thousand times more than the people-cube, so that checks out.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 11, 2018, 12:51:24 AM
Article: Pliocene and Eocene provide best analogs for near-future climates (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/12/05/1809600115)
From: PNAS
Date: 2018 DEC 10
Quote
ABSTRACT

As the world warms due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the Earth system moves toward climate states without societal precedent, challenging adaptation. Past Earth system states offer possible model systems for the warming world of the coming decades. These include the climate states of the Early Eocene (ca. 50 Ma), the Mid-Pliocene (3.3–3.0 Ma), the Last Interglacial (129–116 ka), the Mid-Holocene (6 ka), preindustrial (ca. 1850 CE), and the 20th century. Here, we quantitatively assess the similarity of future projected climate states to these six geohistorical benchmarks using simulations from the Hadley Centre Coupled Model Version 3 (HadCM3), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Model E2-R (GISS), and the Community Climate System Model, Versions 3 and 4 (CCSM) Earth system models. Under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) emission scenario, by 2030 CE, future climates most closely resemble Mid-Pliocene climates, and by 2150 CE, they most closely resemble Eocene climates. Under RCP4.5, climate stabilizes at Pliocene-like conditions by 2040 CE. Pliocene-like and Eocene-like climates emerge first in continental interiors and then expand outward. Geologically novel climates are uncommon in RCP4.5 (<1%) but reach 8.7% of the globe under RCP8.5, characterized by high temperatures and precipitation. Hence, RCP4.5 is roughly equivalent to stabilizing at Pliocene-like climates, while unmitigated emission trajectories, such as RCP8.5, are similar to reversing millions of years of long-term cooling on the scale of a few human generations. Both the emergence of geologically novel climates and the rapid reversion to Eocene-like climates may be outside the range of evolutionary adaptive capacity.

(https://i.imgur.com/oRb5eUq.png)

jeeeeese

edit: And, "geologically novel climate," is a lovely phrase.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 12, 2018, 06:02:54 PM
https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1072735279658688512
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 17, 2018, 05:50:01 PM
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1074712274902896640
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on December 18, 2018, 06:22:22 PM
Quote
In 1999, the NBC/WSJ poll showed that just 15 percent of Republicans believed that climate change had been established as a serious problem requiring an immediate response. Today that proportion remains unchanged at 15 percent, while the share of Democrats and independents who expressed urgent concern has risen sharply.

So how long can you remain with a party that does nothing if you want an immediate response?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 01, 2019, 01:10:25 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/cdhTDvY.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 03, 2019, 11:27:25 AM
This slightly extended version seems somehow increasingly appropriate:

(http://i.imgur.com/vhhK6uh.gif)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 04, 2019, 10:42:04 PM
This is a little off topic, but this talk struck a chord with me and the environmental aspects seem relevant to this thread. It's a lecture on the collapse of late bronze age Mediterranean civilizations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 07, 2019, 10:33:52 AM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries. Surely that will only get worse. In particular Australia, which is mostly desert. Already the people there are clustered mostly around the south-eastern coast, I assume because of the hostile climate of the rest of that continent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIy0t5P0CUQ
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on January 07, 2019, 07:41:10 PM
I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries. Surely that will only get worse. In particular Australia, which is mostly desert. Already the people there are clustered mostly around the south-eastern coast, I assume because of the hostile climate of the rest of that continent.
It's mostly due to the accessibility of water. Because Australia is such a large, old continent, there's not a lot of water inland. Lack of water tends to be a self-reinforcing cycle. Less standing water, less evaporation, less rain, repeat. There's plenty of water in the tropics and most of the coasts are pretty good, but water is by far the biggest barrier to habitation in central Australia.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: bachfiend on January 07, 2019, 08:30:49 PM
I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries. Surely that will only get worse. In particular Australia, which is mostly desert. Already the people there are clustered mostly around the south-eastern coast, I assume because of the hostile climate of the rest of that continent.
It's mostly due to the accessibility of water. Because Australia is such a large, old continent, there's not a lot of water inland. Lack of water tends to be a self-reinforcing cycle. Less standing water, less evaporation, less rain, repeat. There's plenty of water in the tropics and most of the coasts are pretty good, but water is by far the biggest barrier to habitation in central Australia.

It’s not so much lack of water but irregularity of water (rainfall).  For example, there’s Goyder’s line in South Australia, which runs roughly parallel to the coast, north of which annual rainfall is less than 250 mm, too little to support agriculture, but sufficient for grazing, which was the government recommendation.  And then in 1865, there were very good rains, and farmers rushed northwards to establish new farms.  And then the rainfall returned to normal.

It’s expected that Goyder’s line will move south with global warming, putting some South Australian farms out of business.

One point to note - the map shows than each country has an equal uniform risk due to global warming.  Some regions within countries will be at greater risk.  And some regions may gain.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on January 07, 2019, 08:54:15 PM
I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries. Surely that will only get worse. In particular Australia, which is mostly desert. Already the people there are clustered mostly around the south-eastern coast, I assume because of the hostile climate of the rest of that continent.
It's mostly due to the accessibility of water. Because Australia is such a large, old continent, there's not a lot of water inland. Lack of water tends to be a self-reinforcing cycle. Less standing water, less evaporation, less rain, repeat. There's plenty of water in the tropics and most of the coasts are pretty good, but water is by far the biggest barrier to habitation in central Australia.

It’s not so much lack of water but irregularity of water (rainfall).  For example, there’s Goyder’s line in South Australia, which runs roughly parallel to the coast, north of which annual rainfall is less than 250 mm, too little to support agriculture, but sufficient for grazing, which was the government recommendation.  And then in 1865, there were very good rains, and farmers rushed northwards to establish new farms.  And then the rainfall returned to normal.

It’s expected that Goyder’s line will move south with global warming, putting some South Australian farms out of business.

One point to note - the map shows than each country has an equal uniform risk due to global warming.  Some regions within countries will be at greater risk.  And some regions may gain.

Indeed. There's a band in between sea level rise and desertification that people will still be able to inhabit.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 08, 2019, 04:36:44 PM
I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries. Surely that will only get worse. In particular Australia, which is mostly desert. Already the people there are clustered mostly around the south-eastern coast, I assume because of the hostile climate of the rest of that continent.
It's mostly due to the accessibility of water. Because Australia is such a large, old continent, there's not a lot of water inland. Lack of water tends to be a self-reinforcing cycle. Less standing water, less evaporation, less rain, repeat. There's plenty of water in the tropics and most of the coasts are pretty good, but water is by far the biggest barrier to habitation in central Australia.

Perhaps I misunderstand something, but shouldn't that be a point to make Australia even less hospitable in a significantly warmer world? At the map above, it is top-rated. And I get it that being a wealthy, stable democracy really helps. But still. It has a very hot climate, and what's more, the ozone layer is thinner there than in the northern hemisphere, if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: bachfiend on January 08, 2019, 07:12:44 PM
I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries. Surely that will only get worse. In particular Australia, which is mostly desert. Already the people there are clustered mostly around the south-eastern coast, I assume because of the hostile climate of the rest of that continent.
It's mostly due to the accessibility of water. Because Australia is such a large, old continent, there's not a lot of water inland. Lack of water tends to be a self-reinforcing cycle. Less standing water, less evaporation, less rain, repeat. There's plenty of water in the tropics and most of the coasts are pretty good, but water is by far the biggest barrier to habitation in central Australia.

Perhaps I misunderstand something, but shouldn't that be a point to make Australia even less hospitable in a significantly warmer world? At the map above, it is top-rated. And I get it that being a wealthy, stable democracy really helps. But still. It has a very hot climate, and what's more, the ozone layer is thinner there than in the northern hemisphere, if I'm not mistaken.

The ozone layer is irrelevant in regard to future global warming.  And the Antarctic hole in the ozone layer is decreasing in size.

Most of Australia’s population lives in a narrow band around the southern coast, and ocean moderates climate to some extent.

I suppose one of the thoughts is that we’ll be able to sell minerals and fossil fuels to be able to buy food when global warming wrecks agriculture.

I’m not so optimistic.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 10, 2019, 01:14:05 PM
Yeah, I suppose the coastal areas will remain inhabitable for humans. But even there it's still pretty warm even today.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on January 10, 2019, 01:52:15 PM
Except they'll be slightly different coastal areas.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Tassie Dave on January 10, 2019, 01:57:45 PM
Yeah, I suppose the coastal areas will remain inhabitable for humans. But even there it's still pretty warm even today.

The south east is fairly mild. You do get hot days, but not as bad as the rest of the country.

Even in summer, it rains where I am 3 to 4 days a week and rarely gets above 30 (86F). 3 times so far this summer and I'd expect probably another 5 days for the rest of summer.

Above 100F (38C) is even rarer. My area has only experienced that once ever (39C in 2013)

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 10, 2019, 02:13:20 PM
'Australia Chat' reminds me of this big ole' article about the world's shifting geography:

Article: Redrawing the Map: How the World’s Climate Zones Are Shifting (https://e360.yale.edu/features/redrawing-the-map-how-the-worlds-climate-zones-are-shifting)
From: Yale
Date: 2018 OCT 23

Quote
...

THE WHEAT BELT IS PUSHING POLEWARD AT UP TO 160 MILES PER DECADE

Australia, renowned for its interior deserts and coastal beaches, is also one of the planet’s largest wheat exporters — just after Canada, Russia, and the U.S. But the arable land at the nation’s southern edge is shrinking, and its potential for growing wheat declining.

In the 1860s, surveyor George Goyder drew a line to show where the edge of Australia’s arable land ended. More than a century later, Goyder’s line is still considered an important feature in determining the country’s “cropping belt.” But climate change is making that land drier, effectively pushing the line further south.

Any given patch of land has a “theoretical potential” for the amount of wheat it can support, given its soil, the climate, and other factors. Reductions in rainfall and warmer temperatures have already reduced the theoretical potential of southern Australia by 27 percent since 1990. So far, farmers have managed to adapt to the changing conditions and squeeze the same amount of wheat out of their lands. By tweaking things such as their seeds and harvesting practices, they have gone from harvesting 38 percent of their theoretical maximum in 1990 to 55 percent in 2015. But that can only go on so long — farmers can typically only reach about 80 percent of any given parcel of land’s maximum potential. Once they hit that limit, Australian farmers probably won’t be able to counteract the effects of the changing climate any longer. Zvi Hochman, of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), says he expects to see actual yields start to drop around 2040. Places like the farming community of Orroroo, currently right on top of Goyder’s line, will be “significantly impacted,” writes Julia Piantadosi of the University of South Australia in Adelaide — they won’t be able to keep farming the way they are doing today.

...

(https://i.imgur.com/LBoVSS2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/qHX9FYz.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 10, 2019, 03:30:53 PM
Sea-level rise ruining Miami-Dade's septic tanks.

Article: A $3 billion problem: Miami-Dade’s septic tanks are already failing due to sea rise (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article224132115.html)
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2019 JAN 10

Quote
Miami-Dade has tens of thousands of septic tanks, and a new report reveals most are already malfunctioning — the smelly and unhealthy evidence of which often ends up in people’s yards and homes. It’s a billion-dollar problem that climate change is making worse.

As sea level rise encroaches on South Florida, the Miami-Dade County study shows that thousands more residents may be at risk — and soon. By 2040, 64 percent of county septic tanks (more than 67,000) could have issues every year, affecting not only the people who rely on them for sewage treatment, but the region’s water supply and the health of anyone who wades through floodwaters.

...

In total, there are about 108,000 properties within the county that still use septic, about 105,000 of which are residential. The vast majority (more than 65,000) of the septic systems are in unincorporated Miami-Dade.

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 10, 2019, 03:35:42 PM
Yeah, I suppose the coastal areas will remain inhabitable for humans. But even there it's still pretty warm even today.

The south east is fairly mild. You do get hot days, but not as bad as the rest of the country.

Even in summer, it rains where I am 3 to 4 days a week and rarely gets above 30 (86F). 3 times so far this summer and I'd expect probably another 5 days for the rest of summer.

Above 100F (38C) is even rarer. My area has only experienced that once ever (39C in 2013)

This doesn't sound very different from Sweden, even though your summer season is probably longer than ours. I expected Australia to be significantly warmer compared to around here.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on January 10, 2019, 08:55:09 PM
Yeah, I suppose the coastal areas will remain inhabitable for humans. But even there it's still pretty warm even today.

The south east is fairly mild. You do get hot days, but not as bad as the rest of the country.

Even in summer, it rains where I am 3 to 4 days a week and rarely gets above 30 (86F). 3 times so far this summer and I'd expect probably another 5 days for the rest of summer.

Above 100F (38C) is even rarer. My area has only experienced that once ever (39C in 2013)

This doesn't sound very different from Sweden, even though your summer season is probably longer than ours. I expected Australia to be significantly warmer compared to around here.

Remember that Dave is talking about a small area of the coast. Inland it gets MUCH warmer.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: bachfiend on January 10, 2019, 10:31:16 PM
Yeah, I suppose the coastal areas will remain inhabitable for humans. But even there it's still pretty warm even today.

The south east is fairly mild. You do get hot days, but not as bad as the rest of the country.

Even in summer, it rains where I am 3 to 4 days a week and rarely gets above 30 (86F). 3 times so far this summer and I'd expect probably another 5 days for the rest of summer.

Above 100F (38C) is even rarer. My area has only experienced that once ever (39C in 2013)

This doesn't sound very different from Sweden, even though your summer season is probably longer than ours. I expected Australia to be significantly warmer compared to around here.

Remember that Dave is talking about a small area of the coast. Inland it gets MUCH warmer.

And it also gets much colder inland too.  Oceans do moderate climate.  In the inland deserts, it can be very cold at night.

With global warming, I expect the maxima will increase.   As will the minima.  Back in the ‘80s, I remember that in winter in Perth it would sometimes be minus 3 degrees Celsius in the predawn morning.  But that never happens nowadays.  It’s very rare to get even close to 0 degrees.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 10, 2019, 10:31:43 PM
https://twitter.com/YaleE360/status/1083564404145152000
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Tassie Dave on January 11, 2019, 12:58:53 AM
Remember that Dave is talking about a small area of the coast. Inland it gets MUCH warmer.

That is why we only have 25 million people in the same area as the contiguous USA (the bit between Canada and Mexico) which has 325 million.

The vast majority of our country is uninhabitable and much of the rest is uncomfortable. Only Antarctica is a more extreme continent.

85% of us live within 50 kilometres of the coast.. We have "islands" of habitable zones. Those areas will get smaller and more densely populated as the country gets warmer.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: DamoET on January 11, 2019, 01:42:10 AM
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Is there any response to this sort of argument  ??  If so where can  I find articles that talk about this matter ?  Most of the people against the idea of global warming have been cranks, but this friend is a serious geologist  not just random guy on the internet. Thanks in advance =)

I would remind him that he is NOT a climatologist.

Then talk about the science of global warming itself. Because of he can't created tests that refute the basic science, then he has to accept climate change if he actually think scientifically.
Please feel free to run this by an actual practicing climatologist.
Something like:

anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.

1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes


Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

  Correct #4, CO2 and other green house gases are opaque to infra red (like glass is) and act as "Green house", the higher the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the less IR can escape the planet's surface.


Damien
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 12, 2019, 12:55:50 PM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 14, 2019, 12:15:46 PM
https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1084843015762599936
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 14, 2019, 12:20:29 PM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.

I don't know. But I could speculate. Maybe that the Netherlands is already dealing with pushing back the sea as it is, it is a wealthy country and a politically stable democracy help a lot?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 15, 2019, 08:38:18 AM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.

I don't know. But I could speculate. Maybe that the Netherlands is already dealing with pushing back the sea as it is, it is a wealthy country and a politically stable democracy help a lot?
True. Still, there is probably a limit to how high we can raise our dikes and dunes. And leaving aside the increased danger of floods, we are one of the biggest exporters of agricultural products in the world, and saltwater intrusion is going to be a big issue for us. They're already talking about genetic engineering to make plants more salt tolerant.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 17, 2019, 01:22:48 PM
Article: The three-degree world: the cities that will be drowned by global warming (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2017 NOV 3

Quote
Scientists at the non-profit organisation Climate Central estimate that 275 million people worldwide live in areas that will eventually be flooded at 3C of global warming.

Lot of great infographics in this one.


Article: Insect collapse: ‘We are destroying our life support systems’ (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-collapse-we-are-destroying-our-life-support-systems)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2019 Jan 15

Quote
...

His return to the Luquillo rainforest in Puerto Rico after 35 years was to reveal an appalling discovery. The insect population that once provided plentiful food for birds throughout the mountainous national park had collapsed. On the ground, 98% had gone. Up in the leafy canopy, 80% had vanished. The most likely culprit by far is global warming.

...

The Puerto Rico work is one of just a handful of studies assessing this vital issue, but those that do exist are deeply worrying. Flying insect numbers in Germany’s natural reserves have plunged 75% in just 25 years. The virtual disappearance of birds in an Australian eucalyptus forest was blamed on a lack of insects caused by drought and heat. Lister and his colleague Andrés García also found that insect numbers in a dry forest in Mexico had fallen 80% since the 1980s.

“We are essentially destroying the very life support systems that allow us to sustain our existence on the planet, along with all the other life on the planet,” Lister said. “It is just horrifying to watch us decimate the natural world like this.”

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 17, 2019, 01:37:27 PM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.

I don't know. But I could speculate. Maybe that the Netherlands is already dealing with pushing back the sea as it is, it is a wealthy country and a politically stable democracy help a lot?
True. Still, there is probably a limit to how high we can raise our dikes and dunes. And leaving aside the increased danger of floods, we are one of the biggest exporters of agricultural products in the world, and saltwater intrusion is going to be a big issue for us. They're already talking about genetic engineering to make plants more salt tolerant.

I think you have a point. That map of estimates is probably not flawless. Personally I think the prospect of being dependent on walls against the sea is not very comforting.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 19, 2019, 10:28:55 AM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.

I don't know. But I could speculate. Maybe that the Netherlands is already dealing with pushing back the sea as it is, it is a wealthy country and a politically stable democracy help a lot?
True. Still, there is probably a limit to how high we can raise our dikes and dunes. And leaving aside the increased danger of floods, we are one of the biggest exporters of agricultural products in the world, and saltwater intrusion is going to be a big issue for us. They're already talking about genetic engineering to make plants more salt tolerant.

I think you have a point. That map of estimates is probably not flawless. Personally I think the prospect of being dependent on walls against the sea is not very comforting.
Well, in fairness, we've been doing that for quite a while and it has mostly worked out for us so far. I just wonder how far we can push that. Can we raise dikes 2m? 5? 10? What's the limit, if any?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 19, 2019, 10:50:02 AM
Article: The three-degree world: the cities that will be drowned by global warming (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2017 NOV 3

Quote
Scientists at the non-profit organisation Climate Central estimate that 275 million people worldwide live in areas that will eventually be flooded at 3C of global warming.

Lot of great infographics in this one.

There's one that says "The Hague 2.5 million". I assume that that includes neighboring cities like Leiden (where I live) or maybe the Rotterdam-The Hague metropolitan area (2.7 million), because The Hague itself has only about half a million inhabitants.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 20, 2019, 01:25:05 PM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.

I don't know. But I could speculate. Maybe that the Netherlands is already dealing with pushing back the sea as it is, it is a wealthy country and a politically stable democracy help a lot?
True. Still, there is probably a limit to how high we can raise our dikes and dunes. And leaving aside the increased danger of floods, we are one of the biggest exporters of agricultural products in the world, and saltwater intrusion is going to be a big issue for us. They're already talking about genetic engineering to make plants more salt tolerant.

I think you have a point. That map of estimates is probably not flawless. Personally I think the prospect of being dependent on walls against the sea is not very comforting.
Well, in fairness, we've been doing that for quite a while and it has mostly worked out for us so far. I just wonder how far we can push that. Can we raise dikes 2m? 5? 10? What's the limit, if any?

Sure, but what if there is a failure somewhere? Just my bias, and I understand that the Dutch have little choice in the matter. I'd just not like the idea of depending on fending off a huge natural force like that. But globally, this is probably going to happen more often, especially around large cities that are commercially important, or parts of the cities at least. Manhattan is going to be protected at all costs, and I doubt that the Japanese will simply allow Osaka to be swallowed by the sea.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 20, 2019, 01:56:12 PM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.

I don't know. But I could speculate. Maybe that the Netherlands is already dealing with pushing back the sea as it is, it is a wealthy country and a politically stable democracy help a lot?
True. Still, there is probably a limit to how high we can raise our dikes and dunes. And leaving aside the increased danger of floods, we are one of the biggest exporters of agricultural products in the world, and saltwater intrusion is going to be a big issue for us. They're already talking about genetic engineering to make plants more salt tolerant.

I think you have a point. That map of estimates is probably not flawless. Personally I think the prospect of being dependent on walls against the sea is not very comforting.
Well, in fairness, we've been doing that for quite a while and it has mostly worked out for us so far. I just wonder how far we can push that. Can we raise dikes 2m? 5? 10? What's the limit, if any?

Sure, but what if there is a failure somewhere? Just my bias, and I understand that the Dutch have little choice in the matter. I'd just not like the idea of depending on fending off a huge natural force like that. But globally, this is probably going to happen more often, especially around large cities that are commercially important, or parts of the cities at least. Manhattan is going to be protected at all costs, and I doubt that the Japanese will simply allow Osaka to be swallowed by the sea.

Well some people live on an active volcano. Some live on a major faultline. Some live in extremely hostile climates. And we live underwater. What can I say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: brilligtove on January 21, 2019, 06:35:17 AM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.

I don't know. But I could speculate. Maybe that the Netherlands is already dealing with pushing back the sea as it is, it is a wealthy country and a politically stable democracy help a lot?
True. Still, there is probably a limit to how high we can raise our dikes and dunes. And leaving aside the increased danger of floods, we are one of the biggest exporters of agricultural products in the world, and saltwater intrusion is going to be a big issue for us. They're already talking about genetic engineering to make plants more salt tolerant.

I think you have a point. That map of estimates is probably not flawless. Personally I think the prospect of being dependent on walls against the sea is not very comforting.
Well, in fairness, we've been doing that for quite a while and it has mostly worked out for us so far. I just wonder how far we can push that. Can we raise dikes 2m? 5? 10? What's the limit, if any?

Sure, but what if there is a failure somewhere? Just my bias, and I understand that the Dutch have little choice in the matter. I'd just not like the idea of depending on fending off a huge natural force like that. But globally, this is probably going to happen more often, especially around large cities that are commercially important, or parts of the cities at least. Manhattan is going to be protected at all costs, and I doubt that the Japanese will simply allow Osaka to be swallowed by the sea.

Well some people live on an active volcano. Some live on a major faultline. Some live in extremely hostile climates. And we live underwater. What can I say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We could not find Atlantis, so we created it. ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 22, 2019, 04:21:34 PM
In case you are wondering where you should be in terms of climate change, here (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/best-countries-escape-climate-change-map-2018-1) is a map:

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

I'm surprised at the good scores of Australia, Spain, and Portugal. Sure they are politically stable developed first-world countries, but they are already very warm countries.

I wonder what their criteria were. I realize that my country (The Netherlands) is well off economically and we're unlikely to experience the most deadly weather extremes that some other countries will, but the fact that sea level rise is a big issue for us had me thinking we would be at least in the yellow.

I don't know. But I could speculate. Maybe that the Netherlands is already dealing with pushing back the sea as it is, it is a wealthy country and a politically stable democracy help a lot?
True. Still, there is probably a limit to how high we can raise our dikes and dunes. And leaving aside the increased danger of floods, we are one of the biggest exporters of agricultural products in the world, and saltwater intrusion is going to be a big issue for us. They're already talking about genetic engineering to make plants more salt tolerant.

I think you have a point. That map of estimates is probably not flawless. Personally I think the prospect of being dependent on walls against the sea is not very comforting.
Well, in fairness, we've been doing that for quite a while and it has mostly worked out for us so far. I just wonder how far we can push that. Can we raise dikes 2m? 5? 10? What's the limit, if any?

Sure, but what if there is a failure somewhere? Just my bias, and I understand that the Dutch have little choice in the matter. I'd just not like the idea of depending on fending off a huge natural force like that. But globally, this is probably going to happen more often, especially around large cities that are commercially important, or parts of the cities at least. Manhattan is going to be protected at all costs, and I doubt that the Japanese will simply allow Osaka to be swallowed by the sea.

Well some people live on an active volcano. Some live on a major faultline. Some live in extremely hostile climates. And we live underwater. What can I say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fair enough.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on January 22, 2019, 06:58:00 PM
Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/22/record-private-jet-flights-davos-leaders-climate-talk)

Quote
Experts predict up to 1,500 individual private flights in and out of airfields serving Swiss ski resort for World Economic Forum

David Attenborough might have urged world leaders at Davos to take urgent action on climate change (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/21/david-attenborough-tells-davos-the-garden-of-eden-is-no-more), but it appears no one was listening. As he spoke, experts predicted up to 1,500 individual private jets will fly to and from airfields serving the Swiss ski resort this week.

Political and business leaders and lobbyists are opting for bigger, more expensive aircrafts, according to analysis by the Air Charter Service, which found the number of private jet flights grew by 11% last year.

“There appears to be a trend towards larger aircraft, with expensive heavy jets the aircraft of choice, with Gulfstream GVs and Global Expresses both being used more than 100 times each last year,” said Andy Christie, private jets director at the ACS.

This is partly due to the long distances travelled, he said, “but also possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one another”. Last year, more than 1,300 aircraft flights were recorded at the conference, the highest number since ACS began recording private jet activity in 2013.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 23, 2019, 01:22:35 PM
Quote
Americans’ climate change concerns surge to record levels, poll shows (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/22/climate-change-concern-americans-poll)

Total of 72% polled now say global warming is personally important to them, Yale said, as 73% accept it is happening

Americans’ concerns about climate change have surged to record levels, new polling shows, following a year marked by devastating storms, wildfires and increasingly dire warnings from scientists.

A total of 72% of polled Americans now say global warming is personally important to them, according to the Yale program on climate change communication. This is the highest level of concern since Yale starting polling the question in 2008.

Overall, 73% of Americans accept that global warming is happening, outnumbering those who don’t by five to one. This acceptance has strengthened in recent years, rising by 10% since March 2015. The proportion that grasps that humans are the primary cause of warming is smaller, with 62% understanding this to be the case.

Some positive news! If enough people are concerned, then that would, I assume, put pressure on politicians to act. Trump is obviously not going to do so, but if they vote in a sensible president in 2020, then we might start seeing things.

It feels like this should have been the case 20 years ago or something, but better late than never. The more disaster we can avert, the better.

To clarify, I don't think the US has all of the blame. The entire world has largely ignored the problem.

This shouldn't be a problem. The US, China, Russia, etc, might have very different views of what the world should be like. But all of them, and all of us, have an interest in that the world is still around and habitable outside of the northernmost and southernmost regions. It should be easy to make common cause on this, due to sheer self-preservation.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 23, 2019, 02:01:26 PM
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/1087508256023560192
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on January 23, 2019, 05:56:35 PM
Still going to take some thousands of years to melt all of Greenland at that rate, but I wonder how much faster it could get. Especially once the Arctic Ocean goes ice free in summer.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on January 24, 2019, 04:33:45 PM
Still going to take some thousands of years to melt all of Greenland at that rate, but I wonder how much faster it could get. Especially once the Arctic Ocean goes ice free in summer.

Well, we do have rapid sea level rise in the paleo record, like Meltwater Pulses 1A-D and 2:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and_Meltwater_Pulses_%28MWP%29.jpg/440px-Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and_Meltwater_Pulses_%28MWP%29.jpg)

According to wikipedia, during 1A, global sea level rose between 16 and 25 meters in about 400-500 years, and 28 meters in about 500 years for 1B. The source of the water may have been either the Antarctic ice sheet or the Laurentide ice sheet. Of course, there was a lot more land ice to begin with back then, particularly in the north, so I doubt that that translates to today directly.

EDIT: More info here (https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_10/).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 01, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
Quote
All countries need to do more to prevent the planet overheating – but do not give in to climate change pessimism just yet (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/climate-change-donald-trump-paris-agreement-a8654456.html)

A new UN report says global emissions of greenhouse gases need to be cut by 55 per cent by 2030 to stop average temperatures rising by 1.5C

And, although the Paris targets are hard to achieve in little more than a decade before 2030, they are undoubtedly achievable. The clarity and simplicity of the targets mean that it is becoming easier to mobilise global public opinion and the governments of large industrialised nations behind them.

This article is pretty optimistic about our abilities to limit global warming.

On the podcast, Steve seems pretty optimistic as well, whereas Cara is more pessimistic. At least this is my impression. An in-depth discussion of reasons for optimism vs pessimism on this subject would be very interesting.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 05, 2019, 03:05:30 PM
Quote
Eating meat has ‘dire’ consequences for the planet, says report (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/)

To feed a growing global population and curtail climate change, scientists say we need to radically change our food systems.

THERE'S AN ENTIRE industry built around dieting. Most of its products are intended to help people lose weight, gain muscle, or live longer.

But as the global human population steadily climbs, scientists are scrambling to devise a diet plan that can feed 10 billion people by 2050.

A new report, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, claims to do just that. It recommends a largely plant-based diet, with small, occasional allowances for meat, dairy, and sugar. The report was compiled by a group of 30 scientists from around the world who study nutrition or food policy. For three years, they deliberated with the intent of creating recommendations that could be adopted by governments to meet the challenge of feeding a growing world population.

So many good ideas around that could make a major difference, yet so little is widely put to use. :(
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on February 06, 2019, 12:07:04 AM
Quote
Eating meat has ‘dire’ consequences for the planet, says report (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/)

To feed a growing global population and curtail climate change, scientists say we need to radically change our food systems.

THERE'S AN ENTIRE industry built around dieting. Most of its products are intended to help people lose weight, gain muscle, or live longer.

But as the global human population steadily climbs, scientists are scrambling to devise a diet plan that can feed 10 billion people by 2050.

A new report, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, claims to do just that. It recommends a largely plant-based diet, with small, occasional allowances for meat, dairy, and sugar. The report was compiled by a group of 30 scientists from around the world who study nutrition or food policy. For three years, they deliberated with the intent of creating recommendations that could be adopted by governments to meet the challenge of feeding a growing world population.


Vegan doctors, mind you.  Not a well thought out policy.  There are quite a few publications by people with similar credentials rubbishing that Lancet report.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 09, 2019, 09:56:35 AM
Ran across this dumb oldish meme by accident and decided to look for a response:

(https://cleantechnica.com/files/2016/05/lithium_tar_sands_meme.jpg)

The response: (https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/12/lithium-mining-vs-oil-sands-meme-thorough-response/)

Quote
That top image is, in fact, a mine. It’s a copper mine. This particular mine is BHP’s Escondida Mine, one of the 10 largest in the world.

Before this continues, to repeat … that’s a copper mine. In 2015, we used about 19 million tons of copper. Getting that copper out took digging big holes in the ground, just like the one in that first picture. It also involved using millions of pounds of blasting agent, carrying rock to crushers, spraying that crushed rock with millions of gallons of sulfuric acid, then letting the resulting toxic sludge sit around in leach fields to extract the copper.

[...]

On the other hand, the world produces about 650,000 tons of lithium each year. Lithium exists mostly in the form of concentrated salts. Almost all that lithium—greater than 95 percent of it—is produced through a process of pumping underground brine to the surface and allowing it to evaporate in big pans. It’s separated from the brine using electrolysis.

There’s nothing you would think of as mining. No blasting. No trucks driving around carrying loads of crushed rock. No sprays of sulfuric acid.

The primary sources of lithium are from the Atacama Desert in Chile, and the Uyuni salt flat in Bolivia. These are two of the deadest places on Earth. It’s not exactly that nothing lives there, but …

“In 2003, a team of researchers published a report in the journal Science in which they duplicated the tests used by the Viking 1 and Viking 2 Mars landers to detect life, and were unable to detect any signs in Atacama Desert soil in the region of Yungay.”

Not all of the Salar de Atacama (the big Atacama salt flat) is this dead. There are some pools there with very salt-resistant shrimp, and weirdly enough, flamingos come to this desolate, otherwise empty place. So you know what they did? They made the area where the flamingos go a national reserve. It’s both desolate and lovely. They don’t extract lithium there.

...

And getting oil out of the tar sands? That’s not done with a neat little well. There are two primary ways of extracting oil from tar sands. One is to force steam into the sands through a series of horizontal wells. Then another series of wells is drilled to extract the oil freed by the steam. And all it takes is about 1,500 cubic feet of natural gas to make the steam that drives out a single barrel of oil.

But that steam extraction? It accounts for a small fraction of the oil extracted from the Athabasca tar sands. Most of it comes from a process that looks like this:

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/248740/large/dreamstime_m_42945980.jpg?1462577336)

And like this:

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/248758/large/GettyImages-92360003.jpg?1462578690)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on February 09, 2019, 12:27:45 PM
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lithium-mine-oil-sands/

Oil sands Canada (https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+sands+site+canada&rlz=1C1EKKP_enUS774US774&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR1ePDla_gAhUQGt8KHYwtBaoQ_AUIDygC&biw=1366&bih=626)


Lithium mine (https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1EKKP_enUS774US774&biw=1366&bih=626&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ygxfXJaKCLGMggfH-pbQDQ&q=lithium+mine&oq=lithium+mine&gs_l=img.3..0j0i67l2j0l7.57735.60355..61482...0.0..0.101.1070.11j1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.rOMhLeWcKcQ)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Tassie Dave on February 09, 2019, 02:46:36 PM
Some of those numbers for Escondida are ridiculously over exaggerated.

Most copper ore in the world (even at Escondida) is not treated with Sulphuric acid. Most is treated in flotation cells, as it is a much more efficient, and a cheaper way to get the copper out.

At Escondida the 19 million tonnes of Copper (for 2015) may be right, but only 1.3 million tonnes of that Copper used Sulphuric acid (still bad for the environment)
It should be noted that Sulphuric Acid is a by-product from Copper Smelting. So it using a waste product, and it is used in a contained system.
https://copperalliance.org.uk/knowledge-base/education/education-resources/copper-mining-extraction-oxide-ores/

In my 30 years of Copper Mining here in Australia, we have never use any acid in our treatment plants. Only limestone, Xanthates and Frother agents.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 09, 2019, 03:15:33 PM
Some of those numbers for Escondida are ridiculously over exaggerated.

Most copper ore in the world (even at Escondida) is not treated with Sulphuric acid. Most is treated in flotation cells, as it is a much more efficient, and a cheaper way to get the copper out.

At Escondida the 19 million tonnes of Copper (for 2015) may be right, but only 1.3 million tonnes of that Copper used Sulphuric acid (still bad for the environment)
It should be noted that Sulphuric Acid is a by-product from Copper Smelting. So it using a waste product, and it is used in a contained system.
https://copperalliance.org.uk/knowledge-base/education/education-resources/copper-mining-extraction-oxide-ores/

In my 30 years of Copper Mining here in Australia, we have never use any acid in our treatment plants. Only limestone, Xanthates and Frother agents.

I like the extra info from an insider, but I don't think they quoted exact figures other than the one you say may be correct so I'm not sure what you're disputing about what they wrote (for example, you say 1.3 million tonnes used sulphuric acid, but I have no idea how many gallons one would use per tonne, so their quoted vague figure of "millions of gallons" may well be correct as far as I can tell; likewise for the blasting agent). Anyway, the point was not to bash copper mines; it was that the original meme chose a highly misleading comparison, to the point where, not only did they cherry pick the tar sand facility they used, but it didn't even show an actual lithium mine.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on February 10, 2019, 02:00:46 PM
Article: How many harvests are left in your soil? (https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/opinion/blog/letter-from-the-editor/many-harvests-left-soil/)
From: Farmer's Weekly
Date: 2017 SEPT 8

Quote
Speaking at a World Soil Day event in 2016, Maria-Helena Semedo, deputy director-general of natural resources at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, said that if current soil degradation rates were not reversed, all the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years.

This means that there may only be 60 or so harvests left to reap from the world’s soil. She says some of the main causes of soil destruction include chemical-heavy farming techniques, deforestation, which increases erosion, and global warming.

Estimates published by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, suggest that the world is losing roughly 20ha of topsoil every minute, mostly due to intensive farming.

In a recent interview with UK newspaper, The Independent, Prof Raj Patel, research professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said that industrial agriculture was bringing about the mass extinction of life on Earth.

...

Article: Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature?CMP=twt_gu)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2019 FEB 10

Quote
The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”, according to the first global scientific review.

More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century.

...

The analysis, published in the journal Biological Conservation, says intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors.

...

The new analysis selected the 73 best studies done to date to assess the insect decline. Butterflies and moths are among the worst hit. For example, the number of widespread butterfly species fell by 58% on farmed land in England between 2000 and 2009. The UK has suffered the biggest recorded insect falls overall, though that is probably a result of being more intensely studied than most places.

...

“The main cause of the decline is agricultural intensification,” Sánchez-Bayo said. “That means the elimination of all trees and shrubs that normally surround the fields, so there are plain, bare fields that are treated with synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.” He said the demise of insects appears to have started at the dawn of the 20th century, accelerated during the 1950s and 1960s and reached “alarming proportions” over the last two decades.

He thinks new classes of insecticides introduced in the last 20 years, including neonicotinoids and fipronil, have been particularly damaging as they are used routinely and persist in the environment: “They sterilise the soil, killing all the grubs.” This has effects even in nature reserves nearby; the 75% insect losses recorded in Germany were in protected areas.


...

I don't know about you lot but I'm feeling pessimistic.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Pba_target on February 10, 2019, 02:28:40 PM
Interested to see how Steve and the team review their views on organic farming. Sure, it might have a worse co2 footprint, but biodiversity-wise? I'm not sure what comparison a vegetarian organic diet warrants with a full fat industrial farming one, but I'd wager they're close in CO2?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 10, 2019, 03:51:13 PM
Article: How many harvests are left in your soil? (https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/opinion/blog/letter-from-the-editor/many-harvests-left-soil/)
From: Farmer's Weekly
Date: 2017 SEPT 8

Quote
Speaking at a World Soil Day event in 2016, Maria-Helena Semedo, deputy director-general of natural resources at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, said that if current soil degradation rates were not reversed, all the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years.

This means that there may only be 60 or so harvests left to reap from the world’s soil. She says some of the main causes of soil destruction include chemical-heavy farming techniques, deforestation, which increases erosion, and global warming.

Estimates published by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, suggest that the world is losing roughly 20ha of topsoil every minute, mostly due to intensive farming.

In a recent interview with UK newspaper, The Independent, Prof Raj Patel, research professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said that industrial agriculture was bringing about the mass extinction of life on Earth.

...

Article: Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature?CMP=twt_gu)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2019 FEB 10

Quote
The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”, according to the first global scientific review.

More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century.

...

The analysis, published in the journal Biological Conservation, says intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors.

...

The new analysis selected the 73 best studies done to date to assess the insect decline. Butterflies and moths are among the worst hit. For example, the number of widespread butterfly species fell by 58% on farmed land in England between 2000 and 2009. The UK has suffered the biggest recorded insect falls overall, though that is probably a result of being more intensely studied than most places.

...

“The main cause of the decline is agricultural intensification,” Sánchez-Bayo said. “That means the elimination of all trees and shrubs that normally surround the fields, so there are plain, bare fields that are treated with synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.” He said the demise of insects appears to have started at the dawn of the 20th century, accelerated during the 1950s and 1960s and reached “alarming proportions” over the last two decades.

He thinks new classes of insecticides introduced in the last 20 years, including neonicotinoids and fipronil, have been particularly damaging as they are used routinely and persist in the environment: “They sterilise the soil, killing all the grubs.” This has effects even in nature reserves nearby; the 75% insect losses recorded in Germany were in protected areas.


...

I don't know about you lot but I'm feeling pessimistic.

I don't want to be pessimistic, but I am.

The effects are bad already, and will become even worse. Yet if there was a serious, global effort to deal with the problem, I would be more optimistic. But there isn't.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 10, 2019, 04:09:13 PM
Quote
No plastic bottles, utensils or cups? That’s what some lawmakers are proposing (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/09/hawaii-lawmakers-chewing-ban-plastic-utensils-bottles-food-containers/)

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - Plastic bags are out. Plastic straws are on their way out.

Now Hawaii lawmakers want to take things a big step further.

They’re considering an outright ban on all sorts of single-use plastics common in the food and beverage industry, from plastic bottles to plastic utensils to plastic containers.

Senate Bill 522 has already passed through two committees and is on its way to two more.

Supporters say it’s an ambitious and broad measure that would position Hawaii as a leader in the nation ― and ensure that Hawaii’s oceans have a fighting chance as the global plastic pollution problem worsens.

Good on you, Hawaii!

(Credit where it's due: I found this on the SGU Facebook page.)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 11, 2019, 08:22:07 AM
Article: Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature?CMP=twt_gu)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2019 FEB 10

Quote
The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”, according to the first global scientific review.

More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century.

...

The analysis, published in the journal Biological Conservation, says intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors.

...

The new analysis selected the 73 best studies done to date to assess the insect decline. Butterflies and moths are among the worst hit. For example, the number of widespread butterfly species fell by 58% on farmed land in England between 2000 and 2009. The UK has suffered the biggest recorded insect falls overall, though that is probably a result of being more intensely studied than most places.

...

“The main cause of the decline is agricultural intensification,” Sánchez-Bayo said. “That means the elimination of all trees and shrubs that normally surround the fields, so there are plain, bare fields that are treated with synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.” He said the demise of insects appears to have started at the dawn of the 20th century, accelerated during the 1950s and 1960s and reached “alarming proportions” over the last two decades.

He thinks new classes of insecticides introduced in the last 20 years, including neonicotinoids and fipronil, have been particularly damaging as they are used routinely and persist in the environment: “They sterilise the soil, killing all the grubs.” This has effects even in nature reserves nearby; the 75% insect losses recorded in Germany were in protected areas.


...

I don't know about you lot but I'm feeling pessimistic.

Well it ain't good, given that over half (56%) of all extant species are insects (https://watermark.silverchair.com/ae51-0014.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAjwwggI4BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggIpMIICJQIBADCCAh4GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMoxt9t08_dV_RtcIaAgEQgIIB78Xj_Yp-jF-YL9PDD-cWVtLkdE9W1ia9xTw_ygiQDxmE2LNDi2y6WJV7clbjcDAKtGmAZNzyjJgx5UD0XJVITiQlF4B5TmIjTQ_4RplqL6FiUg27_eCQ363ukzTFxdZ7QyoZukeMkNrMZ_WM1MZ6HsuzGHi2PpEN2m38iAFpYO3c8mnEpL1gPbtRuz1NPEG2KdGes6iihZmAB-QHoD27LzurxtMca20X8dC6sWz4Jl1AEl-dtsKIfQpeW3_Upb-pgAj5tMYAojZ6AXV0DgJbdSsxct-Qf9k5hxa9PiDESIk0kkiZ_8rCV3Az4NmI0ZVVBIwMlNmDaPPwYqQDHfVfblxduwQQA9x22zxho21xxThxw8ZHyEd98LVuJB-a-C8zJVVZnSLif2CZWk8SNfbJE1NK81-g_SLLuruJ41ILnz_2XN6Baas36V2Dpgkz9OwNBMlNhBDTiqis5H0_MdIrU88ALgVdeGPvctkbE9ubBQhlKjRq4FO-FRu2x8uTU8dkYyScV3b102O87LTy6e_4qnMSJi3wrtRhCTdDMCcMC8-jB7AXXHrqx65fAHIE74_JpNeHC8St0pRcUfrMwPB05EbsHJqejWEHNtPGazS4H76YNgnyqX435CK8VTfrvRj51Ors7tSDNWBWZclfimCEaQ). The only mass extinction of insects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event) we know of is affectionately nicknamed "the great dying", so probably best not to reproduce that scenario with too much fidelity.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Sawyer on February 11, 2019, 09:05:39 AM
This may seem like it's coming out of left field, but fuck Freeman Dyson so hard.

I just got done finishing a book of essayist by famous scientists.  While it had a few gems, the editor had the audacity to put in a Dyson essay towards the end where he castigates climate scientists for focusing too much on the "climatic" effects of CO2 emissions and not enough on the "biological".  He puts forward some really basic biology about plant respiration and CO2 capacity, as if climate scientists have somehow been ignoring their middle-school science classes.  To be clear it's a foregone conclusion to him that all of these biological effects are good.  If there was anything of value whatsoever in the essay, it was as a snapshot of Nobel syndrome* and stubborn physicists trying to downplay the real expertise that exists in other disciplines.


*Yes I realize he never won one.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 11, 2019, 09:31:28 AM
This may seem like it's coming out of left field, but fuck Freeman Dyson so hard.

I just got done finishing a book of essayist by famous scientists.  While it had a few gems, the editor had the audacity to put in a Dyson essay towards the end where he castigates climate scientists for focusing too much on the "climatic" effects of CO2 emissions and not enough on the "biological".  He puts forward some really basic biology about plant respiration and CO2 capacity, as if climate scientists have somehow been ignoring their middle-school science classes.  To be clear it's a foregone conclusion to him that all of these biological effects are good.  If there was anything of value whatsoever in the essay, it was as a snapshot of Nobel syndrome* and stubborn physicists trying to downplay the real expertise that exists in other disciplines.


*Yes I realize he never won one.

Yeah, unfortunately Dyson has been a pretty consistent disappointment when it comes to climate science.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on February 11, 2019, 01:03:29 PM
https://twitter.com/Jamie_Woodward_/status/1094688028130504704
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on February 12, 2019, 01:07:29 AM
This may seem like it's coming out of left field, but fuck Freeman Dyson so hard.

I just got done finishing a book of essayist by famous scientists.  While it had a few gems, the editor had the audacity to put in a Dyson essay towards the end where he castigates climate scientists for focusing too much on the "climatic" effects of CO2 emissions and not enough on the "biological".  He puts forward some really basic biology about plant respiration and CO2 capacity, as if climate scientists have somehow been ignoring their middle-school science classes.  To be clear it's a foregone conclusion to him that all of these biological effects are good.  If there was anything of value whatsoever in the essay, it was as a snapshot of Nobel syndrome* and stubborn physicists trying to downplay the real expertise that exists in other disciplines.


*Yes I realize he never won one.

Did he write about soil sequestration in his essay?  I think I heard his name mentioned in this regard.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 12, 2019, 10:36:51 AM
The polar bear picture is somehow simultaneously sad, rage inducing, disgusting and gorgeous at the same time.

This may seem like it's coming out of left field, but fuck Freeman Dyson so hard.

I just got done finishing a book of essayist by famous scientists.  While it had a few gems, the editor had the audacity to put in a Dyson essay towards the end where he castigates climate scientists for focusing too much on the "climatic" effects of CO2 emissions and not enough on the "biological".  He puts forward some really basic biology about plant respiration and CO2 capacity, as if climate scientists have somehow been ignoring their middle-school science classes.  To be clear it's a foregone conclusion to him that all of these biological effects are good.  If there was anything of value whatsoever in the essay, it was as a snapshot of Nobel syndrome* and stubborn physicists trying to downplay the real expertise that exists in other disciplines.


*Yes I realize he never won one.

Did he write about soil sequestration in his essay?  I think I heard his name mentioned in this regard.

He's of the "we should solve all this in the future and not worry about it now" variety*, and sequestration comes up as a deus ex machina type solution for all our problems. For example, he has suggested that trees will be genetically engineered for soil carbon sequestration (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/671/237823):
Quote
Dyson has long argued, most recently in The New York Review of Books, that genetically engineered trees might, as well as producing biofuel, combat climate change. He notes that about 8 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is temporarily converted into vegetation each year by photosynthesis. Capturing some of this with trees designed and harvested for the purpose could, he suggests, reduce the amount of that gas in the air rather quickly, and so ameliorate greenhouse warming.

Ecologists are apt to see enormous problems with Dyson's notion—for example, the loss of agricultural land that would presumably result from creating vast plantations of such trees; the energetic costs of planting, harvesting, and producing fertilizer for the trees; the amount of water needed for irrigation; and the large-scale disruption of existing ecosystems. It is also unclear how much potential for improving carbon fixation rates there may really be. Not least of all, the idea seems sociologically naive. Some 12 percent of the annual net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is the result of deforestation. If we can't prevent existing forests from being destroyed, how can we persuade people to plant forests of genetically modified trees?
(they go on to say something to the effect of "we should research this as one option among many".)
And as realclimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/) notes:

Quote
The seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 shows that the lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the air before it is exchanged with another in the land biosphere is about 12 years. Therefore if the trees could simply be persuaded to drop diamonds instead of leaves, repairing the damage to the atmosphere could be fast, I suppose. The problem here, unrecognized by Dyson, is that the business-as-usual he’s defending would release almost as much carbon to the air by the end of the century as the entire reservoir of carbon stored on land, in living things and in soils combined. The land carbon reservoir would have to double in size in order keep up with us. This is too visionary for me to bet the farm on.

Apparently he has also claimed that (http://www.conservamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Freeman-Dyson-Debunked.pdf):
Quote
the CO2 in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and topsoil, which are as large or larger.  It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean,  as the climate models  do, and ignore  the other reservoirs.
I'll also quote the response:
Quote
Some highlights from the myriad studies totally debunking this claim:

  • Soils store three times as much carbon as plants and the atmosphere... Consequently, the Kyoto Protocol permits the signatory countries to count soils and forests against greenhouse gas emissions as so-called carbon sinks. [University of Zurich]
  • The response of soil microbial communities to changes in temperature increases the potential for more carbon dioxide to be released from the world's soils as global temperatures rise, scientists have revealed. [University of Exeter]
  • Increased plant growth caused by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide is associated with higher rates of carbon dioxide release from soil. If rising carbon dioxide enhances soil carbon storage at all, the effect will be small. Soil carbon may not be as stable as previously thought, and soil microbes exert more direct control on carbon buildup than global climate models represent. [U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science
  • An increase in human-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could initiate a chain reaction between plants and microorganisms that would unsettle one of the largest carbon reservoirs on the planet - soil. Researchers developed the first computer model to show at a global scale the complex interaction between carbon, plants and soil. [Princeton University]
  • New research has found that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause soil microbes to produce more carbon dioxide, accelerating climate change. This research challenges our previous understanding about how carbon accumulates in soil. [Northern Arizona University]
  • Scientists from UC Irvine and the National Center for Atmospheric Research have developed a new computer model to measure global warming's effect on soil worldwide that accounts for how bacteria and fungi in soil control carbon. [University of California Irvine & National Center for Atmospheric Research]
  • The planet's soil releases about 60 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year, which is far more than that released by burning fossil fuels. Short-term warming studies have documented that rising temperatures increase the rate of soil respiration. As a result, scientists have worried that global warming would accelerate the decomposition of carbon in the soil, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and accelerating global warming. [Carnegie Institution]
  • Vast stores of carbon in U.S. forest soils could be released by rising global temperatures, according to a study by UC Irvine and other researchers in a recent online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [University of California – Irvine]
(there's also a lengthy response in there to his statement that "the biological  effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops  and to natural vegetation. The biological  effects are better known and probably more  important than  the climatic effects" that you may find relevant.)

* He's also a "lukewarmer" who doesn't trust climate models and feels free to criticize them on specific points, but does not appear to understand how they actually work, claims that he accepts that climate change is probably man made but then keeps harping on debunked natural causes, and makes claims like "climate change may be a good thing for people living at high latitudes" (paraphrasing; see the slideshow debunking his "concerns" above).

EDIT: A bit more here (http://planet3.org/2013/03/17/alan-savory-freeman-dyson-and-soil-sequestration/), though it is written by a non-expert and strikes me as a bit naive given that he comes up with radically different number from the above based on admitted guess work. But it does point out that apparently Dyson has two publications on soil sequestration from the late 70s.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 12, 2019, 02:50:43 PM
Based on Rai's comment in the other thread that 100 companies are responsible for the 70% of emissions, I googled and found this:

Quote
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change)

A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change

Investors should move out of fossil fuels, says Michael Brune, executive director of US environmental organisation the Sierra Club. “Not only is it morally risky, it’s economically risky. The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and is doing so at an accelerated pace. Those left holding investments in fossil fuel companies will find their investments becoming more and more risky over time.”

There is a “growing wave of companies that are acting in the opposite manner to the companies in this report,” says Brune. Nearly 100 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google and Ikea have committed to 100% renewable power under the RE100 initiative. Volvo recently announced that all its cars would be electric or hybrid from 2019.

And oil and gas companies are also embarking on green investments. Shell set up a renewables arm in 2015 with a $1.7bn investment attached and a spokesperson for Chevron says it’s “committed to managing its [greenhouse gas] emissions” and is investing in two of the world’s largest carbon dioxide injection projects to capture and store carbon. A BP spokesperson says its “determined to be part of the solution” for climate change and is “investing in renewables and low-carbon innovation.” And ExxonMobil, which has faced heavy criticism for its environmental record, has been exploring carbon capture and storage.

But for many the sums involved and pace of change are nowhere near enough. A research paper published last year by Paul Stevens, an academic at think tank Chatham House, said international oil companies were no longer fit for purpose and warned these multinationals that they faced a “nasty, brutish and short” end within the next 10 years if they did not completely change their business models.

Perhaps I am naive, but I find this a glimmer of optimism. The snake has a pretty small head, so to speak. A lot of big companies are moving in a greener direction, and even the head of the snake seems to be pressured into making some half-assed changes.

What is your assessment?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 12, 2019, 08:40:23 PM
Depends... If those companies include energy and especially fossil fuel companies I don't see them switching to 100% renewables any time soon.

EDIT: And of course

Quote
ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron are identified as among the highest emitting investor-owned companies since 1988. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 28 years as they were between 1988 and 2017, says the report, global average temperatures would be on course to rise by 4C by the end of the century. This is likely to have catastrophic consequences including substantial species extinction and global food scarcity risks.

EDIT 2: From the PDF (https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240), the top 20:

Quote
China (Coal) 9,622 119,312 128,933 14.3
Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) 4,263 36,298 40,561 4.5
Gazprom OAO 4,652 30,569 35,221 3.9
National Iranian Oil Co 2,468 18,037 20,505 2.3
ExxonMobil Corp 1,833 15,952 17,785 2.0
Coal India 892 15,950 16,842 1.9
Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) 2,055 14,749 16,804 1.9
Russia (Coal) 1,216 15,524 16,740 1.9
Royal Dutch Shell PLC 1,212 13,805 15,017 1.7
China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) 1,479 12,564 14,042 1.6
BP PLC 1,072 12,719 13,791 1.5
Chevron Corp 1,215 10,608 11,823 1.3
Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) 1,108 9,971 11,079 1.2
Abu Dhabi National Oil Co 1,135 9,635 10,769 1.2
Poland Coal 884 9,596 10,480 1.2
Peabody Energy Corp 266 10,098 10,364 1.2
Sonatrach SPA 1,490 7,507 8,997 1.0
Kuwait Petroleum Corp 767 8,194 8,961 1.0
Total SA 778 7,762 8,541 0.9
BHP Billiton Ltd 588 7,595 8,183 0.9

Kind of what you'd expect, but I see little hope of changing these companies' policies without some major changes to our economic policies and energy infrastructure.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on February 13, 2019, 04:42:28 AM
Kind of what you'd expect, but I see little hope of changing these companies' policies without some major changes to our economic policies and energy infrastructure.

My point from the other thread stands. We need to bring it all down, or these greedy bastards will bring us all down for profit.

Many of these companies have been aware of climate change for decades and they have been actively and very effectively lobbying to destroy the planet for financial gain.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 13, 2019, 08:38:30 AM
You won't hear me disagreeing with that. I'm just wondering how. And questioning Quetz's glimmer of optimism, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on February 13, 2019, 09:26:09 AM
I partially agree, but if we achieve the political power to overthrow them, then we'll have the power to do lots of things that we should be doing and aren't.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 13, 2019, 09:44:12 AM
I partially agree, but if we achieve the political power to overthrow them, then we'll have the power to do lots of things that we should be doing and aren't.

And even if we have the political will it's going to take a lot of technological progress and massive investment. Most of the companies in that top 100 are energy and/or FF companies, and they're enormous. Note that #1 is literally "China". That's actually not one company, but all Chinese coal companies together (they did the same thing for Russia). That's half of the world's coal production, according to the PDF, and 14.3% of global cumulative emissions since 1988.
Together these 100 companies make up a huge part of our global energy infrastructure, which is something we can't do without. Overhauling that globally in the maybe two decades we have seems very hard to imagine.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on February 13, 2019, 10:04:12 AM
The most awkward thing is that the end of the world is certain, but it is far enough away that we can't just quit our jobs and enjoy it while we can.

That being said, everyone stopping working to just hang out and enjoy life would be a good solution to the question of "how to destroy late capitalism and save the planet"

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 13, 2019, 10:34:53 AM
the end of the world is certain

I'm not optimistic about the future, but I find this hyperbolic.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on February 13, 2019, 11:53:21 AM
the end of the world is certain

I'm not optimistic about the future, but I find this hyperbolic.
That's putting it mildly.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 13, 2019, 02:11:22 PM
You won't hear me disagreeing with that. I'm just wondering how. And questioning Quetz's glimmer of optimism, unfortunately.

There are (baby-)steps being taken around the world. For example:

Quote
Volvo Cars to go all electric from 2019 (https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6732728)

Volvo is to put an electric motor in every new model it produces from 2019 as it seeks to lead legacy carmakers' shift to electric propulsion.

The company announced the decision, which it described as "historic", in a press release on Wednesday morning.

"It's a crucially important decision for Volvo going into a more carbon-free mobility, but also I think it's a great move to strengthn our brand," Chief Executive Håkan Samuelsson told Swedish Radio.

He said the company was responding to customer demand.

"They are asking and requiring all-electric cars in a greater extent. And If we are going to come down further in CO2 levels, we have to go electric."

The Chinese-owned company will continue to make combustion-engine Volvos but only from models put on the market before 2019.

I think the baseline is that we are going to have different measures of mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. We should try to minimize the last one. What will the end-result be? I don't know.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 13, 2019, 03:36:32 PM
That's good but as you said they are baby steps. It isn't going to do anything to stop major growing economies like China (https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/01/23/coal-is-not-dead-china-proves-it/) and India (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-move-beyond-fossil-fuels) from using coal as a major source of energy for the foreseeable future. Just look at this sad little graph from that India article:

(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20180804_FBC029.png)

Note that this problem has been recognized since before the start of that graph. Are we really optimistic about making that small sliver of renewables into all electricity production (including future industry and population growth) within the next decade or so?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on February 13, 2019, 04:12:33 PM
Personally, I think Desert Hellworld is over-determined.  Civilization'll reequilibrate at a much shittier level.  The transition will be absolute hell.  Going forward, hopefully, we'll have the wherewithal for global environmental remediation.

If someone could come up with good poll options, a poll of SGU forum-goer expectations regarding climate change would be interesting.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 13, 2019, 04:32:53 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/aynABv6.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 14, 2019, 05:26:26 PM
Quote
If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change? (http://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882)

Despite significant advances in renewable energy sources, total demand for energy accelerates and carbon dioxide emissions increase. As a professor of climate and space sciences, I teach my students they need to plan for a world 4℃ warmer. A 2011 report from the International Energy Agency states that if we don’t get off our current path, then we’re looking at an Earth 6℃ warmer. Even now after the Paris Agreement, the trajectory is essentially the same. It’s hard to say we’re on a new path until we see a peak and then a downturn in carbon emissions. With the approximately 1℃ of warming we’ve already seen, the observed changes are already disturbing.

So how do we do that, as individuals? Location-wise, I'm already in one of the best spots of the planet. But apart from that, how should one be prepared?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on February 14, 2019, 06:45:09 PM
Change the law to ensure the rich people can't hide from the rest of society, and to make sure we can make use of all available resources.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 15, 2019, 01:28:17 PM
Change the law to ensure the rich people can't hide from the rest of society, and to make sure we can make use of all available resources.

That's not something I as an individual can do.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 15, 2019, 03:34:50 PM
Quote
As climate crisis sets in, Norway taps into new oil (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology-industry-and-energy/2019/01/climate-crisis-sets-norway-taps-new-oil)

More fields are coming into production and peak oil is expected in year 2023. Arctic waters are priority No 1, the country’s Petroleum Directorate says.

...

The Norwegian oil and gas production is now about to significantly increase, Nyland said. After 15 years of falling production, the output is bouncing back and a new peak oil is expected in 2023. The volumes of oil and gas will that year be almost on the level of 2004, the Directorate’s new shelf report shows.

«The activity level on the Norwegian Shelf is high. Production forecasts for the next few years are promising and lay a foundation for substantial revenues, both for the companies and the Norwegian society,» Nyland said.

«The high level of exploration activity proves that the Norwegian Shelf is attractive. That is good news!» the Director General underlined in Thursday’s press conference.

So in light of recent events and recent scientific findings, the Norwegian state thinks this is an appropriate course of action to take. For real?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on February 16, 2019, 12:06:59 AM
Yeah, we're going to need some kind of international carbon tax to slow this down.

No one wants to unilaterally cut production, and they can always argue it won't make that much of a difference vs. other sources and countries, that it's better than coal, etc. There needs to be a specific and proportional cost to polluting, to redirect investments.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: mh on February 16, 2019, 10:43:54 AM
You guys see this bullshit right in your home state?

https://ncse.com/news/2019/01/bill-targeting-climate-change-education-connecticut-0018845
Title: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on February 16, 2019, 11:04:23 AM
You guys see this bullshit right in your home state?

https://ncse.com/news/2019/01/bill-targeting-climate-change-education-connecticut-0018845

With huge Democratic majorities in both houses and a Democratic Governor that bill is going nowhere.

There are other states where it might pass, but not Connecticut


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 16, 2019, 12:13:26 PM
You guys see this bullshit right in your home state?

https://ncse.com/news/2019/01/bill-targeting-climate-change-education-connecticut-0018845

I wouldn't count on Steve and the rogues reading this specific thread.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 16, 2019, 01:00:08 PM
Yeah, we're going to need some kind of international carbon tax to slow this down.

No one wants to unilaterally cut production, and they can always argue it won't make that much of a difference vs. other sources and countries, that it's better than coal, etc. There needs to be a specific and proportional cost to polluting, to redirect investments.

But every little counts. And Norway is already rich. There is no need for them to do this.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 16, 2019, 01:59:33 PM
Yeah, we're going to need some kind of international carbon tax to slow this down.

No one wants to unilaterally cut production, and they can always argue it won't make that much of a difference vs. other sources and countries, that it's better than coal, etc. There needs to be a specific and proportional cost to polluting, to redirect investments.

It would be nice to see a carbon tax the money of which is used to provide a subsidy on clean energy (and maybe funding of climate change mitigation related research).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 16, 2019, 02:54:28 PM
An article by the government, so it might possibly be considered a self-promotional article by said government. But take it for what it is, still interesting, and a somewhat different narrative compared to what might be the prevailing one here. Examine it critically, as we should always do with everything.

Quote
Sweden has shown that climate action and economic growth are absolutely linked (https://www.government.se/opinion-pieces/2017/06/sweden-has-shown-that-climate-action-and-economic-growth-are-absolutely-linked/)

...

It was long a common perception that climate efforts led to increased costs and that the aim of companies' climate efforts was to live up to requirements and avoid risks. In recent years, this perception has changed – companies have realised that ambitious climate efforts present opportunities. The Haga Initiative is a network of companies that wants to show that the business sector is part of the solution in the climate transition. Each of the fifteen heads of the companies that make up the Haga Initiative can describe how both customers and employees are more loyal to companies that take responsibility for the climate, and how climate efforts lead to technological development, innovations and new products that in turn result in new and better business opportunities. The Initiative's vision is actually working out so well that these companies have already achieved the previous climate objective of a 40 per cent reduction in emissions, and have now raised the bar – they intend to be fossil-free by 2030.

Swedish experience shows that predictability and effective policy levers play an important role in companies' transition potential. Despite having the world's highest carbon tax for more than 20 years and an unusually strict climate policy, seen in an international perspective, Swedish companies are at the forefront and have retained and reinforced their international competitiveness. At national level we now see that since 1990, emissions in Sweden have decreased by 25 per cent while GDP has increased by 69 per cent. Just as in many other parts of the world, we see that the link between the curves for carbon emissions and increased GDP has been broken. A shining example is the development in the renewable energy industry, where we can see how a significant fall in price can be linked to a dramatic increase in employment and growth.

These Swedish climate success stories are not surprising to those following the research. More than ten years ago, prominent economist Nicholas Stern stated that the costs of not taking action against climate change will be much higher than if the world takes decisive action now. Based on Mr Stern's realisation that it will be more expensive to take action later, the New Climate Economy research commission stated in a report that it is less expensive to take action now, since many climate measures also lead to major benefits to society. Just recently the OECD published a report concluding that the G20-countries thorugh acting on climate change can increase growth by 1% by 2021 and 2.8% by 2050. At company level, Harvard Professor Robert G. Eccles has shown that companies with a focus on sustainability perform better and have a higher market value than other companies.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 16, 2019, 07:13:14 PM
Some parts from this very interesting interview with climate scientist Michael E. Mann: ‘The most villainous act in the history of human civilisation.’ Michael E Mann speaks out (https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/the-most-villainous-act-in-the-history-of-human-civilisation-tyler-prize-winner-michael-e-mann-speaks-out)

Quote
But we have been seeing these things – every year, hotter and hotter – for a while now. You think it’s really just about people experiencing it on the ground?

I think there are a few things going on. First of all, the unprecedented weather. It is no longer this distant, almost theoretical construct. It is something very real that people are feeling.

And I think the public is getting it. They are expecting more from their policymakers. They are demanding, increasingly, that politicians focus on this issue. Look at the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has made climate change a featured part of her political identity. Her message is really connecting with younger folks. Politicians are actually seeing that you can win by campaigning on climate change.

Quote
There’s a race between two tipping points. The tipping point of the public consciousness, which we want to see, and the tipping point in the climate system that we don’t want to see and that we’re coming perilously close to. For example, the melting of major ice sheets and the global sea-level rise that would entail.

It’s a race between our ability to mobilise the public and policymakers to action and the increasingly devastating impacts of climate change we will see the further we go down this road of fossil fuel burning. That’s really the challenge, to turn this ship around as quickly as possible.

Quote
And a little bit overwhelming. You’ve been talking about this for a while. What is it like for you to give this dire warning all the time?

If I didn’t think there was hope, it would be very difficult. But I do think there is hope. I am cautiously optimistic that we are seeing some change now. Not enough to avert some pretty bad climate impacts, but we’re seeing enough to convince me that we’re getting onto the path we need to get on.

There are no physical obstacles to averting catastrophic warming of the planet. The only obstacles at this point are political ones. And those are surmountable.

Quote
The science that we are doing is a threat to the world’s most powerful and wealthiest special interests. The most powerful and wealthiest special interest that has ever existed: the fossil fuel industry.

They have used their immense resources to create fake scandals and to fund a global disinformation campaign aimed at vilifying the scientists, discrediting the science, and misleading the public and policymakers. Arguably, it is the most villainous act in the history of human civilisation, because it is about the short-term interests of a small number of plutocrats over the long-term welfare of this planet and the people who live on it.

So, once again, to be in a position to be fighting on the right side of a battle between good and evil – which frankly it is – is a privilege.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 17, 2019, 03:50:52 PM
Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le0n4mCRkzY

This is an overview of Svante Arrhenius' 1896 article analyzing the climatic relevance of atmospheric carbon dioxide for average global ground temperatures. His research constitutes pioneering work in modelling Earth's climate by incorporating the greenhouse effect and accordingly points out fundamental mechanisms that contribute to climate changes.

Svante Arrhenius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius) lived 1859 to 1927. If the world had taken heed back then, we would have saved ourselves so many problems.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 17, 2019, 05:38:28 PM
Svante Arrhenius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius) lived 1859 to 1927. If the world had taken heed back then, we would have saved ourselves so many problems.

Be careful what you wish for. He thought doubling CO2 would be a good thing, and this has unfortunately been a (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00431672.2017.1248744?journalCode=vwws20) talking (http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/20/father-of-global-warming-thought-that-exposing-children-to-electricity-would-make-them-smart/) point (https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/413742614777573376) of the anti-gw crowd. Probably didn't help that he lived around where you do. }|:op
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 18, 2019, 02:07:26 PM
Svante Arrhenius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius) lived 1859 to 1927. If the world had taken heed back then, we would have saved ourselves so many problems.

Be careful what you wish for. He thought doubling CO2 would be a good thing, and this has unfortunately been a (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00431672.2017.1248744?journalCode=vwws20) talking (http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/20/father-of-global-warming-thought-that-exposing-children-to-electricity-would-make-them-smart/) point (https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/413742614777573376) of the anti-gw crowd. Probably didn't help that he lived around where you do. }|:op

Oops! :-[
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 20, 2019, 12:28:08 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzwLjPJVYAEP72O.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 21, 2019, 01:47:12 PM
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1098274510439047168
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on February 21, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
How do you guys deal with Anti-AGW people who can't understand they're conspiracy nuts?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on February 21, 2019, 03:10:44 PM
How do you guys deal with Anti-AGW people who can't understand they're conspiracy nuts?

It has certainly happened. In general, they don't seem to understand scientific conensus, and engage in personal attacks against climate scientists.

IMO, many hardcore denialists can't be persuaded to change their mind. Better to focus on the general public.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on February 21, 2019, 04:04:22 PM
How do you guys deal with Anti-AGW people who can't understand they're conspiracy nuts?

It has certainly happened. In general, they don't seem to understand scientific conensus, and engage in personal attacks against climate scientists.

IMO, many hardcore denialists can't be persuaded to change their mind. Better to focus on the general public.
Yeah, I respond to their posts, not their person.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 23, 2019, 03:04:01 PM
How do you guys deal with Anti-AGW people who can't understand they're conspiracy nuts?

I try to engage them in a discussion about what they think the shortcomings of the science are and I point out that there is openly available data that documents the denialism industry (though I'll avoid that word because it's antagonizing). I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt at first, rather than assume there is no way to reason with them. And then I keep giving them the benefit of the doubt until my eyes start melting and my brain starts hemorrhaging. And then I kind of explode and call them names like a child (but they started it).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on February 24, 2019, 04:35:40 PM
Article: White House to set up panel to counter climate change consensus, officials say (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-to-select-federal-scientists-to-reassess-government-climate-findings-sources-say/2019/02/24/49cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?noredirect=on)
From: Washington Post
Date: 2019 FEB 24

Quote
The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

OH COME ON
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 24, 2019, 08:05:36 PM
Article: White House to set up panel to counter climate change consensus, officials say (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-to-select-federal-scientists-to-reassess-government-climate-findings-sources-say/2019/02/24/49cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?noredirect=on)
From: Washington Post
Date: 2019 FEB 24

Quote
The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

OH COME ON

And here I thought we'd finally left the Bush years behind us.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on February 25, 2019, 01:39:43 PM
Article: Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1)
From: Nature
Date: 2019 FEB 25

Quote
Stratocumulus clouds cover 20% of the low-latitude oceans and are especially prevalent in the subtropics. They cool the Earth by shading large portions of its surface from sunlight. However, as their dynamical scales are too small to be resolvable in global climate models, predictions of their response to greenhouse warming have remained uncertain. Here we report how stratocumulus decks respond to greenhouse warming in large-eddy simulations that explicitly resolve cloud dynamics in a representative subtropical region. In the simulations, stratocumulus decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200 ppm. In addition to the warming from rising CO2 levels, this instability triggers a surface warming of about 8 K globally and 10 K in the subtropics. Once the stratocumulus decks have broken up, they only re-form once CO2 concentrations drop substantially below the level at which the instability first occurred [...]

New modeling suggests 1,200 PPM will trigger additional 8C warming, mechanism won't reverse till CO2's back to pre-industrial.

edit: Fun chart

(https://i.imgur.com/y6HcGaq.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on February 25, 2019, 09:59:48 PM
https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1100124557141192704
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on February 27, 2019, 02:26:45 PM
And so it goes...


Pro-Trump Billionaires Continue To Bankroll Climate Denial | HuffPost (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mercers-trump-climate-denial_n_5c76b643e4b0031d9564572e)
Quote
The GOP megadonor family that gave more than $15 million to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign maintained its position as a key funder of climate change denial in 2017, dishing out nearly $5 million to nonprofits and think tanks that peddle misinformation about the global crisis, according to their latest tax records.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on February 28, 2019, 09:15:27 AM
Article: Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1)
From: Nature
Date: 2019 FEB 25

Quote
Stratocumulus clouds cover 20% of the low-latitude oceans and are especially prevalent in the subtropics. They cool the Earth by shading large portions of its surface from sunlight. However, as their dynamical scales are too small to be resolvable in global climate models, predictions of their response to greenhouse warming have remained uncertain. Here we report how stratocumulus decks respond to greenhouse warming in large-eddy simulations that explicitly resolve cloud dynamics in a representative subtropical region. In the simulations, stratocumulus decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200 ppm. In addition to the warming from rising CO2 levels, this instability triggers a surface warming of about 8 K globally and 10 K in the subtropics. Once the stratocumulus decks have broken up, they only re-form once CO2 concentrations drop substantially below the level at which the instability first occurred [...]

New modeling suggests 1,200 PPM will trigger additional 8C warming, mechanism won't reverse till CO2's back to pre-industrial.

edit: Fun chart

(https://i.imgur.com/y6HcGaq.png)

Curious what Richard Lindzen has to say about that. Strong negative cloud feedback (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis) has always been his thing. Although 1200ppm is still a long way off.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on February 28, 2019, 09:58:22 AM
There are so many nice little things we can do to reduce our impact, but it seems it's all pointless without a multi trillion dollar sequestration project.

Which at this point can only be trees (or something else but in combination with a lot of trees), ideally also numbering in the trillions, until we develop a sequestration technology that can be scaled up globally.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on February 28, 2019, 01:19:03 PM
I wouldn't say pointless.  Even a little slow down is better than nothing.  A lot of people think that if we can't fix it fully, why bother with any changes.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on February 28, 2019, 03:09:32 PM
Yeah, I don't mean pointless in terms of "why not pollute as much as possible, then?", because we can always expedite the collapse. At least doing it slower gives us more time with a breathable atmosphere, and time to develop what will ultimately be necessary.

But polluting a little less, polluting a lot less, it doesn't make a difference in the long term if we can't get to a point where we're reducing the CO2 levels, before we reach a singularity of cascading effects that will be impossible to counteract.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on February 28, 2019, 03:34:36 PM
Article: The Ocean Is Running Out of Breath, Scientists Warn (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ocean-is-running-out-of-breath-scientists-warn/)
From: Scientific American
Date: 2019 FEB 25

Quote
...

[...] Oxygen levels in some tropical regions have dropped by a startling 40 percent in the last 50 years, some recent studies reveal. Levels have dropped more subtly elsewhere, with an average loss of 2 percent globally.

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 04, 2019, 12:41:09 AM
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1101940267245076484

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 04, 2019, 01:30:01 AM
That should be "liquid of unknown origin deposits salt into North Carolina soil".

https://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-passed-laws-against-science-sea-level-rise-2018-9

Quote
In 2012, lawmakers in North Carolina banned the use of scientific predictions of accelerated sea level rise in coastal policy-making.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on March 04, 2019, 08:14:33 AM
That should be "liquid of unknown origin deposits salt into North Carolina soil".

https://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-passed-laws-against-science-sea-level-rise-2018-9

Quote
In 2012, lawmakers in North Carolina banned the use of scientific predictions of accelerated sea level rise in coastal policy-making.

Well, you know, there is such a thing as TMI.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 04, 2019, 03:02:22 PM
I found an interesting article: Kan CO2-sugen på Island rädda planeten? (https://www.svd.se/kan-co2-sugen-pa-island-radda-planeten)

It's in Swedish, so most of you can't read it. It's about the development of direct air capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture) technology currently being made in Iceland. Hopefully it can be part of the solution. It's expensive, but of course less expensive than the effects of further climate change.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on March 05, 2019, 11:51:22 AM
If you don't speak Swedish:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswvwg
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 05, 2019, 03:29:36 PM
Nice interview about climate change.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1102929346342371330
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 05, 2019, 04:12:00 PM
If you don't speak Swedish:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswvwg

My opinion is, yes, let's pay for these machines. As stated, that cost is much lower than the cost of the consequences of climate change. At least the government here spends tax money on lots of questionable things, but I would absolutely be prepared to pay higher taxes for these.

We need these machines worldwide on a massive scale. The US, China, Russia, etc. Whatever the geopolitical orientation one might have, everyone has an interest in the world being inhabitable.

The machines give us increased time to ditch fossile fuels and go completely green. If they require a permanently higher tax in order to run, then let's put that tax on the fossile fuel companies. That would provide them with the incentive to become cleaner.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 05, 2019, 04:17:43 PM
Nice interview about climate change.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1102929346342371330

You beat me to it:

The Uninhabitable Earth with David Wallace-Wells   
1:03:03   3/5/19   


http://podcastfeeds.nbcnews.com/drone/api/query/audio/podcast/1.0/why-is-this-happening.xml
 (http://podcastfeeds.nbcnews.com/drone/api/query/audio/podcast/1.0/why-is-this-happening.xml)

Quote
Is it too late for us? Scientists have spent decades sounding the alarm on the devastating effects of climate change. And for decades, society decided to do pretty much nothing about it. In fact, over the past 30 years, we’ve done more damage to the climate than in all of human history! Now, there’s a real chance we may have waited too long to avoid widespread tragedy and suffering. In his book “The Uninhabitable Earth”, David Wallace-Wells depicts a catastrophic future far worse than we ever imagined...and far sooner than we thought. It is undoubtedly a brutal truth to face, as you will hear in this episode, but if there’s any hope to avert the worst case scenarios, we have to start now.
WITHpod@gmail.com
Tweet using #WITHpod

nbcnews.com/whyisthishappening
 (http://nbcnews.com/whyisthishappening)
RELATED READING:

The Uninhabitable Earth (https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780525576709?aff=penguinrandom) by David Wallace-Wells

IPCC Report (https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/)


In a few posts I have mentioned that I believe that Climate Scientists and other experts in the field are underestimating the effect of global warming for political reasons. They are being overly conservative. If they reported the implications of their findings without concern about how it will be perceived by the public, the media and politicians, it would be much more alarming.

I think this interview with David Wallace-Wells supports that.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 05, 2019, 05:00:22 PM
They may have been overly optimistic, and things are going to be worse than the earlier predictions because it was assumed that we would've at least done something about it. Instead we're polluting 65.6% more (https://phys.org/news/2018-12-carbon-emissions-billion-tonnes-high.html) than the 1990 value (https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/chart-global-co2-emissions-rose-60-between-1990-and-2013) we needed to go significantly below.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121210151654/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html

Quote
Under regime designs for low and medium concentration stabilization levels (i.e. 450 and 550 ppm CO2-eq, category A and B; see Chapter 3, Table 3.10) GHG emissions from developed countries would need to be reduced substantially during this century. For low and medium stabilization levels, developed countries as a group would need to reduce their emissions to below 1990 levels in 2020 (on the order of –10% to 40% below 1990 levels for most of the considered regimes) and to still lower levels by 2050 (40% to 95% below 1990 levels), even if developing countries make substantial reductions. The reduction percentages for individual countries vary between different regime designs and parameter settings and may be outside of this range. For high stabilization levels, reductions would have to occur, but at a later date (see Box 13.7).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 13, 2019, 10:17:22 PM
Article: Sharp rise in Arctic temperatures now inevitable – UN (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/13/arctic-temperature-rises-must-be-urgently-tackled-warns-un)
From: The Guardian
date: 2019 MAR 13

Quote
Sharp and potentially devastating temperature rises of 3C to 5C in the Arctic are now inevitable even if the world succeeds in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement, research has found.

Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN.

Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate “tipping point” as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect.

...

Personally, I'm looking forward to poorly understood, panic-driven geoengineering programs.  Should be a hell of a thing to watch.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 15, 2019, 02:19:38 PM
Steve is optimistic (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/climate-change-and-the-role-of-uncertainty/):

Quote from: Steven Novella
What is often frustrating is that we actually have the technology right now to do what we need to do. All we really need is the political will. Build more nuclear plants, expand renewable energy, update the grid and add more storage, create incentives for greater efficiency and electric vehicles, and don’t let industry externalize the costs of pollution.

All of this is going to happen anyway. These are the technologies of the future. We might as well try to get ahead of the curve and become leaders rather than followers. Our economy will actually benefit from taking this path, and it is extremely cost effective to mitigate climate change rather than pay for the consequences. Really, it’s just political stubbornness at this point, and an industry that does not want to adapt.

The cancer is already advanced, but is not yet terminal. Now is the time to act.

I don't know if I should be optimistic or pessimistic.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 15, 2019, 03:01:23 PM
I pretty much agree with this:
Quote
What is often frustrating is that we actually have the technology right now to do what we need to do. All we really need is the political will.

We're currently the civilizational equivalent of a splurge, so, forfeiting the benefits of living over-budget aside...  If we manage a hairpin turn then we can continue progressing fairly unimpeded.  Civilization's inputs and outputs will just be a little more responsible is all. *

But that doesn't comport to the realpolitik of our age so I'm pessimistic.

The developing world and some of the developed is already on-track for significant pain.  Can't be avoided.

But if we're still fucking it up super hard in the 2030s, that's when I'll be talking like this guy because we'll be buffaloed planet-wide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1cMnM-UJ5U



edit: * I just realized how consumerist a thing this is to say.  Why aren't I already including, "becoming sustainable," in my baseline perception of what progress looks like? 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 15, 2019, 04:24:55 PM
It's definitely solvable. It's not about engineering challenges, it's not about lack of knowledge or having enough skilled workers. It's about humans with power who deliberately prevent action on climate change, and who manage to deceive hundreds of millions of people into supporting them.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 15, 2019, 04:42:55 PM
It's definitely solvable. It's not about engineering challenges, it's not about lack of knowledge or having enough skilled workers. It's about humans with power who deliberately prevent action on climate change, and who manage to deceive hundreds of millions of people into supporting them.

It's getting to the point where it will be a major engineering challenge, etc. Once we get past a tipping point (significantly reduced ice cover in the arctic and antarctic, for example) we're cooked. (literally)

Acting fast enough to prevent that, even with a broad consensus on the issue among political an economic leaders, would still be a significant challenge.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 15, 2019, 05:17:30 PM
It's about humans with power who deliberately prevent action on climate change, and who manage to deceive hundreds of millions of people into supporting them.

Yeah, I tend to interpret that this way:

Avoiding the worst is mutually exclusive with the status quo.

Our 'capitalist-industrialist' M.O. banks on externalities and unsustainability to such a degree as to burn away its environmental preconditions.  We're seeing this via greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change.  We're seeing this via intensive agriculture leading to global insect loss and topsoil depletion.  We're suffusing the environment with plastic and that'll probably reach a critical mass, do something.  (I also saw an article recently about thiamine deficiency in wildlife, worldwide.  What's going on there?)

If we tighten up the system, that'd mean eliminating an enormous amount of wealth.  And that's not going to happen without some Deus Ex Machine fantasy coming to life. *

* FILEFOOTAGE:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 17, 2019, 03:20:29 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17aE91SBMoY
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on March 17, 2019, 12:56:06 PM
More of David Wallace Wells

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fighting-climate-action-uninhabitable-earth-author-david-wallace-wells-podcast-ncna979551
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 17, 2019, 03:33:55 PM
Quote
Here's Carl Sagan's original essay on the dangers of climate change (https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135)

Ballantine has issued a shiny new edition of Sagan's book Cosmos, with a foreword from Cosmos reboot host Neil deGrasse Tyson. We've got an excerpt, which reveals how deeply Sagan was concerned about climate change in 1980 when the book was originally published.

...

Our lovely blue planet, the Earth, is the only home we know. Venus is too hot. Mars is too cold. But the Earth is just right, a heaven for humans. After all, we evolved here. But our congenial climate may be unstable. We are perturbing our poor planet in serious and contradictory ways. Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the planetary Hell of Venus or the global ice age of Mars? The simple answer is that nobody knows. The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown.

He was worried about it back in 1980? I wonder what he would have thought about our current state of affairs, had he still been alive today.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on March 18, 2019, 01:28:21 PM
Quote
Here's Carl Sagan's original essay on the dangers of climate change (https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135)

Ballantine has issued a shiny new edition of Sagan's book Cosmos, with a foreword from Cosmos reboot host Neil deGrasse Tyson. We've got an excerpt, which reveals how deeply Sagan was concerned about climate change in 1980 when the book was originally published.

...

Our lovely blue planet, the Earth, is the only home we know. Venus is too hot. Mars is too cold. But the Earth is just right, a heaven for humans. After all, we evolved here. But our congenial climate may be unstable. We are perturbing our poor planet in serious and contradictory ways. Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the planetary Hell of Venus or the global ice age of Mars? The simple answer is that nobody knows. The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown.

He was worried about it back in 1980? I wonder what he would have thought about our current state of affairs, had he still been alive today.

He would be standing next to David Attenborough.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 19, 2019, 01:11:49 PM
Article: Climate change: Water shortages in England 'within 25 years' (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47620228)
From: BBC
Date: 2019 MAR 19

Quote
The impact of climate change, combined with population growth, means the country is facing an "existential threat", Sir James Bevan told the Waterwise Conference in London.

He wants to see wasting water become "as socially unacceptable as blowing smoke in the face of a baby".

"We all need to use less water and use it more efficiently," he said.


Sir James Bevan was appointed chief executive of the Environment Agency - the public body responsible for protecting the environment and wildlife in England - in 2015 after a career as a diplomat.

He told his audience that, in around 20 to 25 years, England would reach the "jaws of death - the point at which, unless we take action to change things, we will not have enough water to supply our needs".

...

That's some stern rhetoric. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 19, 2019, 04:10:01 PM
Of course the way to deal with it is to make it out like everyone's equally to blame for wasting water, taking attention away from water-intensive industries and rich families who spend a thousand times the resources of others. No mention of fracking, which both uses a lot of water and could lead to the contamination of more.

Fixing water leakage probably dwarfs most of the other points made in that article. More than 50 liters per day per person in England and Wales.

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2017/12/water-leakage-from-uk-pipes-rises-to-over-three-billion-litres-a-day/

Not watering lawns is at least a good point. If there's not enough precipitation for it to grow on its own, it's not worth spending resources on it. But are low pressure showers really that much of a help? Or maybe I'm assuming the opposite implication, and what's meant is that you should make sure there's enough pressure so that you don't have to spend much longer in the shower.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on March 19, 2019, 04:35:52 PM
I'm all for conserving drinking water, but I've been wondering for a while now why we don't put more effort into fixing the existing problems with desalinization. I mean, they're talking about water shortages here in NL too, since last summer was so dry, and half the country is below or at sea level and there are tons of streams and rivers and fresh water lakes all over the place. And Britain is an island ffs. It's not like these places are in the middle of the desert. Neither of them are known for their dry climate (there seems to be a small competition over who has the worst weather). And they're not poor. I know it's more energetically intensive and therefore more expensive, but... what horrifying aspect of this technology am I missing?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 19, 2019, 05:31:10 PM
what horrifying aspect of this technology am I missing?

Good question.  My understanding is that the challenge is always cost (energy and financial), sometimes also ecological impact from the high salinity output.  Maybe cost & impact constrains scalability?

Gonna have to take a look for desalination-related conference talks later. 

I'd like to know more about:
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 19, 2019, 05:45:12 PM
what horrifying aspect of this technology am I missing?

Good question.  My understanding is that the challenge is always cost (energy and financial), sometimes also ecological impact from the high salinity output.  Maybe cost & impact constrains scalability?

Gonna have to take a look for desalination-related conference talks later. 

I'd like to know more about:
  • State of R&D
  • Scalability
  • Cost, especially wrt economies of scale

Back in the 70s the mast plan for California included multiple nuclear reactors along the shore and during the off peak hours they were going to desalinate ocean water and pump it to various reservoirs for drinking water and irrigation.  IIRC, with the state of technology at the time a single reactor dedicated to that task could produce enough water for Los Angeles.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 19, 2019, 05:55:52 PM
Couple desal items I just came across

Article: Israel Proves the Desalination Era Is Here (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/)
From: Scientific American
Date:

Quote
Israel now gets 55 percent of its domestic water from desalination, and that has helped to turn one of the world’s driest countries into the unlikeliest of water giants.

Driven by necessity, Israel is learning to squeeze more out of a drop of water than any country on Earth, and much of that learning is happening at the Zuckerberg Institute, where researchers have pioneered new techniques in drip irrigation, water treatment and desalination. They have developed resilient well systems for African villages and biological digesters than can halve the water usage of most homes.

...

Enter desalination. The Ashkelon plant, in 2005, provided 127 million cubic meters (166 million cubic yards) of water. Hadera, in 2009, put out another 140 million cubic meters (183 million cubic yards). And now Sorek, 150 million cubic meters (196 million cubic yards) [...]

...

Inside Sorek, 50,000 membranes enclosed in vertical white cylinders, each 4 feet high and 16 inches wide, are whirring like jet engines. The whole thing feels like a throbbing spaceship about to blast off. The cylinders contain sheets of plastic membranes wrapped around a central pipe, and the membranes are stippled with pores less than a hundredth the diameter of a human hair. Water shoots into the cylinders at a pressure of 70 atmospheres and is pushed through the membranes, while the remaining brine is returned to the sea.

Desalination used to be an expensive energy hog, but the kind of advanced technologies being employed at Sorek have been a game changer. Water produced by desalination costs just a third of what it did in the 1990s. Sorek can produce a thousand liters of drinking water for 58 cents. Israeli households pay about US$30 a month for their water — similar to households in most U.S. cities, and far less than Las Vegas (US$47) or Los Angeles (US$58).

The International Desalination Association claims that 300 million people get water from desalination, and that number is quickly rising. IDE, the Israeli company that built Ashkelon, Hadera and Sorek, recently finished the Carlsbad desalination plant in Southern California, a close cousin of its Israel plants, and it has many more in the works. Worldwide, the equivalent of six additional Sorek plants are coming online every year. The desalination era is here.

...

Even more ambitious is the US$900 million Red Sea–Dead Sea Canal, a joint venture between Israel and Jordan to build a large desalination plant on the Red Sea, where they share a border, and divide the water among Israelis, Jordanians and the Palestinians. The brine discharge from the plant will be piped 100 miles north through Jordan to replenish the Dead Sea, which has been dropping a meter per year since the two countries began diverting the only river that feeds it in the 1960s. By 2020, these old foes will be drinking from the same tap.

...


Article: Desalination Problems Begin to Rise to the Surface in Israel (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-desalination-problems-begin-to-rise-to-the-surface-in-israel-1.5494726)
From: Haaretz
Date: 2017 FEB 06

Quote
...

[...] the new installations have also brought new problems, such as the accumulative effect of large quantities of salt being dumped back into the sea as a by-product of the desalination process.

...

This year, the country’s fifth desalination plant goes online in Ashdod. Along with the four older plants, some 582 million cubic meters of water will be produced annually – meeting about two-thirds of Israel’s domestic needs. It will not be the last plant, though, with the Israel Water Authority planning to establish another in Western Galilee and another four large facilities along the coast by 2025. Zoning plans for these coastal projects have already been approved.

...

Alongside the advantages, desalination plants have also had a significant impact on the environment and, indirectly, on consumer health.

Although they supply high quality water, it is devoid of some key minerals found in normal water, like magnesium. Magnesium shortages can raise the risk of heart disease, with some experts pointing to a significant shortage of this important mineral in the water.

“Initial results of Israeli studies point to an elevated mortality risk of myocardial infarction in areas where there is wide use of desalinated water,” said public health expert Prof. Yona Amitai, speaking recently at a Bar-Ilan University conference on regulating water supply.

Amitai urged that “more studies be done to examine the possibility of adding magnesium to the water.”

As well as being bad for people, magnesium deficiency can also hurt agricultural products. Researchers at the agricultural administration have already found a significant drop in the supply of this mineral in orchards where desalinated water is used. However, they said the problem can be overcome by adding fertilizer containing magnesium to the water.

...

Neat! 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: The Latinist on March 19, 2019, 05:59:24 PM
Well, one of the problems will be that, while water for most large coastal cities could easily be provided in this way, it would not do much to preserve irrigation in the vast middle of a continent.
Title: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 19, 2019, 06:11:14 PM
Well, one of the problems will be that, while water for most large coastal cities could easily be provided in this way, it would not do much to preserve irrigation in the vast middle of a continent.

That’s not a problem with it, just a limitation. Doesn’t solve everything but would help


If it could be scaled up to irrigate crops in the Central Valley and other areas that could free up California’s share of Colorado River water which would allow for more water for agriculture in the West.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: The Latinist on March 19, 2019, 06:24:36 PM
It is certainly a problem if it is seen as an alternative to conservation.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 19, 2019, 06:52:23 PM
It is certainly a problem if it is seen as an alternative to conservation.

OK, but that's a problem with how it's seen, not what it is.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: The Latinist on March 19, 2019, 07:21:13 PM
Dude, stop obsessing over one word. You’re annoyingly as fuck.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 19, 2019, 07:43:48 PM
Dude, stop obsessing over one word. You’re annoyingly as fuck.

OK, dude, let me put it this way. 

You just jumped into a discussion about potential solutions to water shortages caused by growing populations and global warming, with an totally imaginary issue which makes absolutely no sense.

They are continuing to conserve water in Israel and other other areas where desalination is being used. There are desalination plants operating now in Southern California and no one is worried that's going to lead to people not conserving water.

So your only contribution to the discussion is a pointless made up issue that no none is worried about and that is annoying.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 19, 2019, 07:57:59 PM
Uh, I think you guys are talking past each other

Lat appeared to be responding to this oversight regarding scalability constraints:
Maybe cost & impact constrains scalability?

You appear to be responding to this as an a presumed artifact of 'Black & White' thinking.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 19, 2019, 08:19:13 PM
Uh, I think you guys are talking past each other

Lat appeared to be responding to this oversight regarding scalability constraints:
Maybe cost & impact constrains scalability?

You appear to be responding to this as an artifact of 'Black & White' thinking.

Even if your generous interpretation of Lat's comment is accurate, it's still a non sequitur.

Basically desert regions (Southern California; Israel (and other parts of the mideast) are investing heavily in desalination, on a scale that would provide water for people and limited agriculture.

To look at these developments and complain is that the problem is people might stop conserving water is frankly absurd. I pointed that out (as I do) and Lat lashed out at me (as he does).

And no, I don't see the non-sequitur Lat raised as an example of black and white thinking.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 20, 2019, 10:06:23 AM
It is certainly a problem if it is seen as an alternative to conservation.

Yeah, I'd say that the main downside to desalination would be becoming reliant on it. If instead of optimizing water usage and being able to rely on local water sources, usage keeps growing and growing, you're going to be much worse off if the infrastructure is damaged (and/or someone decides they need the remote supplies more than you do).

Abundance is great as long as you can keep it abundant, rather than consider it a challenge.
Title: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 20, 2019, 10:52:08 AM
Yeah, I'd say that the main downside to desalination would be becoming reliant on it.

How would that be a problem? It’s supply is endless.

Quote
If instead of optimizing water usage and being able to rely on local water sources, usage keeps growing and growing, you're going to be much worse off if the infrastructure is damaged (and/or someone decides they need the remote supplies more than you do).

Well, here in Southern California the Pacific Ocean is a local source and desalination could reduce our reliance on non local sources.

Most of our water right now is imported from hundreds of miles away.

As for conservation, with current technology it’s more expensive than the already high prices we pay, and that alone encourages conservation. Further the new technology in the article only brings the price down to the already high price paid in Israel.

Quote
Abundance is great as long as you can keep it abundant, rather than consider it a challenge.

Not sure exactly what that means.

If you’re suggesting it could lead to reliance on an unreliable source, that’s a remote issue. This is not an exotic technology reliant on rare materials etc. it does use a lot of energy, but at the same time the areas where the technology is being developed are the same areas that are developing renewable energy.

There is no downside to a reliable and controlled abundance of fresh water to supply populations living in a desert.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: brilligtove on March 20, 2019, 02:01:05 PM
There is no downside to a reliable and controlled abundance of fresh water to supply populations living in a desert.

Almost no downside. You still have to deal with the super salty water that's left over. (I suspect it could be dealt with by pumping the saline far out to sea and dispersing it across a relativel large area so it isn't outright toxic.) I don't think that's a reason to not move forward with desalination. It's just a pollution cost that shouldn't be externalized.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 20, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
There is no downside to a reliable and controlled abundance of fresh water to supply populations living in a desert.

Almost no downside. You still have to deal with the super salty water that's left over. (I suspect it could be dealt with by pumping the saline far out to sea and dispersing it across a relativel large area so it isn't outright toxic.) I don't think that's a reason to not move forward with desalination. It's just a pollution cost that shouldn't be externalized.

That is correct. (In the case of Israel some of the plants will pump it to the dead seas in hopes of replenishing it)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 21, 2019, 04:34:51 AM
Not sure exactly what that means.

If you’re suggesting it could lead to reliance on an unreliable source, that’s a remote issue. This is not an exotic technology reliant on rare materials etc. it does use a lot of energy, but at the same time the areas where the technology is being developed are the same areas that are developing renewable energy.

There is no downside to a reliable and controlled abundance of fresh water to supply populations living in a desert.

I'm not saying there's a downside to the technology (although I'm also not saying there won't be unexpected consequences), but there is a downside to unchecked growth.

Norman Borlaug possibly saved a billion lives, but there there are about 4 billion more people now, and we're polluting significantly more per capita than we did in 1970. We're making great technological and scientific advances, and it's not nearly enough to mitigate our growth in numbers and consumption.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 21, 2019, 12:24:34 PM
This review is worth reading: The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells review – our terrifying future (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/27/the-uninhabitable-earth-review-david-wallace-wells)

Quote
The book is extremely effective in shaking the reader out of that complacency. Some things I did not want to learn, but learned anyway: every return flight from London to New York costs the Arctic three square metres of ice; for every half degree of warming, societies see between a 10 and 20% increase in the likelihood of armed conflict; global plastic production is expected to triple by 2050, by which point there will be more plastic than fish in the planet’s oceans.

...

There is a widespread inclination to think of climate change as a form of compound payback for two centuries of industrial capitalism. But among Wallace-Wells’s most bracing revelations is how recent the bulk of the destruction has been, how sickeningly fast its results. Most of the real damage, in fact, has taken place in the time since the reality of climate change became known.

...

There’s also a temptation, when thinking about climate change, to focus on denialism as the villain of the piece. The bigger problem, Wallace-Wells points out, is the much vaster number of people (and governments) who acknowledge the true scale of the problem, and still act as if it’s not happening. Outright climate denialism as a political force, he argues, is essentially a US phenomenon – which is to say, essentially, a phenomenon of the Republican party – and the US is responsible for only 15% of the world’s emissions. “To believe the fault for global warming lies exclusively with the Republican party or its fossil-fuel backers is a form of American narcissism.”

...

It’s not without its hopeful notes: in a sense, none of this would even be worth talking about if there were nothing we could do about it. As Wallace-Wells points out, we already have all the tools we need to avoid the worst of what is to come: “a carbon tax and the political apparatus to aggressively phase out dirty energy; a new approach to agricultural practices and a shift away from beef and dairy in the global diet; and public investment in green energy and carbon capture”. The fact that the route out of this hell is straightforward does not mean, of course, that it won’t be incredibly arduous, or that we should be confident of making it.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on March 21, 2019, 02:27:28 PM
I'll repost this interview with David Wallace:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fighting-climate-action-uninhabitable-earth-author-david-wallace-wells-podcast-ncna979551

Well worth the time listening.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on March 21, 2019, 05:24:53 PM
Quote
The book is extremely effective in shaking the reader out of that complacency. Some things I did not want to learn, but learned anyway: every return flight from London to New York costs the Arctic three square metres of ice;

Wait, what does that mean? The ice shelf is not equally thick throughout its extent. Is it an average square meter? How much is that?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on March 22, 2019, 06:16:53 AM
At what point can we charge the CEOs and board members for crimes against humanity? Making the planet inhabitable for personal gain is literally a crime against the whole of humanity.

Quote
The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

Increasingly they are using social media to successfully push their agenda to weaken and oppose any meaningful legislation to tackle global warming.

In the run-up to the US midterm elections last year $2m was spent on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads by global oil giants and their industry bodies, promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according to the report published on Friday by InfluenceMap.

Separately, BP donated $13m to a campaign, also supported by Chevron, that successfully stopped a carbon tax in Washington state – $1m of which was spent on social media ads, the research shows.

Link (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 22, 2019, 01:28:10 PM
At what point can we charge the CEOs and board members for crimes against humanity? Making the planet inhabitable for personal gain is literally a crime against the whole of humanity.

Quote
The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

Increasingly they are using social media to successfully push their agenda to weaken and oppose any meaningful legislation to tackle global warming.

In the run-up to the US midterm elections last year $2m was spent on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads by global oil giants and their industry bodies, promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according to the report published on Friday by InfluenceMap.

Separately, BP donated $13m to a campaign, also supported by Chevron, that successfully stopped a carbon tax in Washington state – $1m of which was spent on social media ads, the research shows.

Link (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report)

All three of those companies are investing heavily into research and development of alternative fuel sources.

Not sure if that's enough to let their CEOs off the hook. But if they are able to develop sustainable and workable alternative sources, a carbon tax could make them more profitable.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 22, 2019, 02:20:21 PM
Quote
The book is extremely effective in shaking the reader out of that complacency. Some things I did not want to learn, but learned anyway: every return flight from London to New York costs the Arctic three square metres of ice;

Wait, what does that mean? The ice shelf is not equally thick throughout its extent. Is it an average square meter? How much is that?

Hmm, good question. I don't know.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 22, 2019, 02:56:25 PM
All three of those companies are investing heavily into research and development of alternative fuel sources.

Not sure if that's enough to let their CEOs off the hook. But if they are able to develop sustainable and workable alternative sources, a carbon tax could make them more profitable.

You don't get to lobby against action on climate change and not be considered hostile. If they want to show that they care, then they should lobby in favor of a carbon tax and other direct measures against emissions. Or lobby for getting money out of politics, so that we don't have to care what they're saying and only what they're doing.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on March 22, 2019, 04:00:00 PM
All three of those companies are investing heavily into research and development of alternative fuel sources.

Not sure if that's enough to let their CEOs off the hook. But if they are able to develop sustainable and workable alternative sources, a carbon tax could make them more profitable.

You don't get to lobby against action on climate change and not be considered hostile. If they want to show that they care, then they should lobby in favor of a carbon tax and other direct measures against emissions. Or lobby for getting money out of politics, so that we don't have to care what they're saying and only what they're doing.

Not everyone agrees that a carbon tax is a good strategy for combatting global warming.

(I happen to think it's the absolutely best strategy we have available right now.)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on March 25, 2019, 09:57:10 AM
These companies have been lying to the public since the 80s and are actively worsening the situation to the point where we're now facing the largest man-made "natural" disaster in human history, all to line their own pockets. And we know from leaked internal documents that they know damn well that the science is not on their side. The people responsible are dangerous sociopaths who should be in jail for life, but I doubt they will ever receive more than a slap on the wrist.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 26, 2019, 12:47:35 AM
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1108405364708528129
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on March 26, 2019, 01:34:09 AM
Maybe that's how long it is before everwhere's fucked.

So ultra-rich people can continue to remain unaffected until they're dead or cyborgs.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 26, 2019, 01:40:57 AM
So ultra-rich people can continue to remain unaffected until they're dead or cyborgs.

Yes, sir!  As a primate, I love self-sorting into dominance hierarchies mediated by power

Those at the top are entitled to imperil billions

Even if just to chase the dream of a 1,000' solid gold yacht (or equivalent)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on March 26, 2019, 08:30:18 AM
Small comfort but at least he acknowledges it's a threat. At this point, all we can do is hope the election goes blue, but I have a sinking feeling that Trump will be re-elected.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on March 26, 2019, 11:51:49 AM
Maybe. It makes me think of that Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.


Except rewritten for Climate Change:

It isn't happening
And if it is, it isn't that bad.
And if it is, it isn't our fault.
And if it is, it is 50 to 75 years out.
...


Instead of anything that looks like progress, maybe we just get another line.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 28, 2019, 04:11:58 PM
Maybe. It makes me think of that Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.


Except rewritten for Climate Change:

It isn't happening
And if it is, it isn't that bad.
And if it is, it isn't our fault.
And if it is, it is 50 to 75 years out.
...


Instead of anything that looks like progress, maybe we just get another line.

There has been progress in that the issue has become more important in the public consciousness. It should have happened decades ago, and it is sad that it only happened once the effects of it, predicted by scientists, really started to become apparent. But better late than never, I guess.

Imagine if we had a skeptical, scientifically literate, critically thinking population worldwide. Action would have been taken decades ago, and we would not be in the current crisis, at least not nearly this badly.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 02, 2019, 11:43:46 AM
Mainstream meat-substitutes on the rise.

Article: Burger King’s new Whopper is 0% beef. That’s a big deal. (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/1/18290762/burger-king-impossible-whopper-plant-based-meat)
From: Vox
Date: 2019 APR 01

Quote
...

Starting April 1, Burger King is selling a new kind of Whopper that it claims is identical in taste to its traditional beef patty, with just one difference: It contains zero beef.

No, that’s not an April Fools’ joke (though some people, including in the Vox newsroom, wondered if it might be).

The new beefless burger is a partnership with the startup company Impossible Foods, which will supply patties made with heme, a protein cultivated from soybean roots that mimics the texture of meat — convincingly, by the sounds of it.

“People on my team who know the Whopper inside and out, they try it and they struggle to differentiate which one is which,” Fernando Machado, Burger King’s chief marketing officer, told the New York Times.

This is a huge deal for those who want to see meat alternatives replace actual meat because of concerns over animal cruelty or climate change. If this scales up, it could help save hundreds of thousands of animals from suffering on factory farms, and it could fight global warming by reducing the number of methane-producing cattle. It could also combat other problems like antibiotic resistance.

Burger King is giving the Impossible Burger a trial run in 59 restaurants in the St. Louis area, and if that goes well, the fast-food chain will make the product available in all its 7,200 branches across the US, according to Machado. That could signal the start of a noticeable drop in meat consumption nationwide if other chains follow Burger King’s lead. Which they are reasonably likely to do.

White Castle has already begun selling a slider version of the patty produced by Impossible Foods. And in January, Carl’s Jr. restaurants started offering a veggie burger made by another plant-based meat company, Beyond Meat.

...

Positive implications on several issues, climate change included.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 02, 2019, 12:37:26 PM
This is great news! I hope they put this substitute globally. If I'm not mistaken, Burger King has been lagging behind McDonald's when it comes to offering vegetarian or vegan options.

It sounds a lot like oumph! (https://oumph.uk/), which is very meaty in texture. Such substitutes could be an important feature of our future.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on April 02, 2019, 03:10:54 PM
Mainstream meat-substitutes on the rise.

Article: Burger King’s new Whopper is 0% beef. That’s a big deal. (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/1/18290762/burger-king-impossible-whopper-plant-based-meat)
From: Vox
Date: 2019 APR 01

Quote
...

Starting April 1, Burger King is selling a new kind of Whopper that it claims is identical in taste to its traditional beef patty, with just one difference: It contains zero beef.

No, that’s not an April Fools’ joke (though some people, including in the Vox newsroom, wondered if it might be).

The new beefless burger is a partnership with the startup company Impossible Foods, which will supply patties made with heme, a protein cultivated from soybean roots that mimics the texture of meat — convincingly, by the sounds of it.

“People on my team who know the Whopper inside and out, they try it and they struggle to differentiate which one is which,” Fernando Machado, Burger King’s chief marketing officer, told the New York Times.

This is a huge deal for those who want to see meat alternatives replace actual meat because of concerns over animal cruelty or climate change. If this scales up, it could help save hundreds of thousands of animals from suffering on factory farms, and it could fight global warming by reducing the number of methane-producing cattle. It could also combat other problems like antibiotic resistance.

Burger King is giving the Impossible Burger a trial run in 59 restaurants in the St. Louis area, and if that goes well, the fast-food chain will make the product available in all its 7,200 branches across the US, according to Machado. That could signal the start of a noticeable drop in meat consumption nationwide if other chains follow Burger King’s lead. Which they are reasonably likely to do.

White Castle has already begun selling a slider version of the patty produced by Impossible Foods. And in January, Carl’s Jr. restaurants started offering a veggie burger made by another plant-based meat company, Beyond Meat.

...

Positive implications on several issues, climate change included.

Or a diet fad with exaggerated claims not supported but good science


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: brilligtove on April 02, 2019, 07:19:39 PM
I just heard that Canada is warming at double the global rate, with disproportionate effects in the West and far North.

So yay, I guess?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 02, 2019, 10:58:22 PM
Polar amplification?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 03, 2019, 12:05:52 PM
I just heard that Canada is warming at double the global rate, with disproportionate effects in the West and far North.

So yay, I guess?

It's the same in Sweden.

In a way, I guess that if the Earth warms a total of 2 C, maybe it's better (or less bad) if the northern-most parts get the most of it? That would mean less warming near the equator, and northern Europe and northern North America don't run the risk of becoming uninhabitable for humans.

We also have another factor that will help mitigate rising sea levels somewhat: Post-glacial rebound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Shibboleth on April 03, 2019, 01:20:38 PM
Sorry if this was already posted.

Quote
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47638586

A technology that removes carbon dioxide from the air has received significant backing from major fossil fuel companies.


I hope this works because I don't see governments and people in the next few years making any significant changes to their oil consumption behavior.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 03, 2019, 01:33:43 PM
And just in general, we need as many carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) options as we can get.  There's an absurd amount of carbon dioxide to remove.  Every CCS system's liable to hit scalability constraints.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 03, 2019, 02:13:42 PM
Sorry if this was already posted.

Quote
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47638586

A technology that removes carbon dioxide from the air has received significant backing from major fossil fuel companies.


I hope this works because I don't see governments and people in the next few years making any significant changes to their oil consumption behavior.

Previously it was posted about a similar technology, then from Iceland.

We need all of that stuff that we can get. That combined with a move to green technology.

That this technology is making headway gives me hope.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on April 03, 2019, 05:00:40 PM
Still sounds quite pitiful. Is anyone yet talking about the realism of removing billions rather than millions of tons of CO2? That's what we need, around 30 billion tons in emissions reduction every year. Unless we wait too long to start reducing emissions (another year at this point?), and then we need even more reduction/sequestration.

3 trillion USD per year to save the world (read: human civilization) is more worth it than not doing it. But if we were willing to spend that much, we would've achieved a lot more already.

Quote
So how does this system work?

CO2 is a powerful warming gas but there's not a lot of it in the atmosphere - for every million particles of air, there are 410 of CO2.

While the CO2 is helping to drive temperatures up around the world, the comparatively low concentrations make it difficult to design efficient machines to remove the gas.

Carbon Engineering's process is all about sucking in air and exposing it to a chemical solution that concentrates the CO2. Further refinements mean the gas can be purified into a form that can be stored or utilised as a liquid fuel.

Using it as a fuel needs to be ruled out, or we need to ignore this tech if there's another option that is only about permanent storage. The article makes it sound like permanent storage isn't even part of what they do, and to do that would increase the cost, while an energy company might want to burn it instead.

We're already cheating the numbers with biofuels, by pretending that they're neutral when they lead to destruction and increased emissions through deforestation and land use. Until we've already achieved the net emissions we need, carbon neutrality (read: not actually carbon neutral when you look beyond the most narrow calculations) is not good enough.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 03, 2019, 09:51:32 PM
I just heard that Canada is warming at double the global rate, with disproportionate effects in the West and far North.

So yay, I guess?

It's the same in Sweden.

In a way, I guess that if the Earth warms a total of 2 C, maybe it's better (or less bad) if the northern-most parts get the most of it? That would mean less warming near the equator, and northern Europe and northern North America don't run the risk of becoming uninhabitable for humans.

We also have another factor that will help mitigate rising sea levels somewhat: Post-glacial rebound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound)

I mean, I guess that's kind of good for the equatorial regions as long as they're not near a coastline, but it also means more and faster ice melt, and more heat absorption by the ocean, and perhaps in the future a shift in the thermohaline circulation. Which would not be a good thing. And keep in mind that the climate models take this into account, and the 1.5oC is a global average, so it doesn't make the scenarios any better.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 04, 2019, 02:30:05 PM
I just heard that Canada is warming at double the global rate, with disproportionate effects in the West and far North.

So yay, I guess?

It's the same in Sweden.

In a way, I guess that if the Earth warms a total of 2 C, maybe it's better (or less bad) if the northern-most parts get the most of it? That would mean less warming near the equator, and northern Europe and northern North America don't run the risk of becoming uninhabitable for humans.

We also have another factor that will help mitigate rising sea levels somewhat: Post-glacial rebound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound)

I mean, I guess that's kind of good for the equatorial regions as long as they're not near a coastline, but it also means more and faster ice melt, and more heat absorption by the ocean, and perhaps in the future a shift in the thermohaline circulation. Which would not be a good thing. And keep in mind that the climate models take this into account, and the 1.5oC is a global average, so it doesn't make the scenarios any better.

Oh you are right, I didn't think about that.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on April 04, 2019, 03:18:44 PM
So the jet stream and ocean currents, which combine to create stable climates in the northern hemisphere, have been relatively stable for millennia. But so has average temperatures and ocean temperatures.

Now that temperatures are rising there his no telling how drastic the effect will be on those systems (or it it will have any effect).

In addition to global warming we could soon see drastic climate change in large parts of the globe.  Northern Europe could re-enter an ice age.

Northern africa could become a rain forrest.

The American plains could be the next Siberia. Or the new Sahara.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Tassie Dave on April 04, 2019, 03:23:10 PM
So the jet stream and ocean currents, which combine to create stable climates in the northern hemisphere, have been relatively stable for millennia. But so has average temperatures and ocean temperatures.

Now that temperatures are rising there his no telling how drastic the effect will be on those systems (or it it will have any effect).

In addition to global warming we could soon see drastic climate change in large parts of the globe.  Northern Europe could re-enter an ice age.

Northern africa could become a rain forrest.

The American plains could be the next Siberia. Or the new Sahara.

Most of Australia could be inhabitable. Oh wait it already is  ;)

More of Australia could be inhabitable.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 04, 2019, 03:36:08 PM
So the jet stream and ocean currents, which combine to create stable climates in the northern hemisphere, have been relatively stable for millennia. But so has average temperatures and ocean temperatures.

Now that temperatures are rising there his no telling how drastic the effect will be on those systems (or it it will have any effect).

In addition to global warming we could soon see drastic climate change in large parts of the globe.  Northern Europe could re-enter an ice age.

Northern africa could become a rain forrest.

The American plains could be the next Siberia. Or the new Sahara.

Most of Australia could be inhabitable. Oh wait it already is  ;)

More of Australia could be inhabitable.

Australia is projected to make it ok.

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on April 04, 2019, 05:49:27 PM
Australia is projected to make it ok.

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

So that's mostly a wealth map.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on April 04, 2019, 06:17:52 PM
Australia is projected to make it ok.

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

So that's mostly a wealth map.

I'd liked to know what's that's based on, especially since it is sourced from a Solar Energy company.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 05, 2019, 02:26:27 PM
Australia is projected to make it ok.

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

So that's mostly a wealth map.

It makes sense, since wealthy countries are more likely to be able to make the necessary payments needed to adapt to global warming, and mitigate the worst consequences.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on April 05, 2019, 03:00:23 PM
Not sure why we are green.  Maybe that our food production should remain stable.  We lose a lot of infrastructure with sea level rise, though.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Tassie Dave on April 05, 2019, 03:43:37 PM
Australia is projected to make it ok.

(https://nordic.businessinsider.com/contentassets/44ad7689566747f28514454c6de08e56/5a5660aca75e2062138b495e.png?preset=article-image)

So that's mostly a wealth map.

It makes sense, since wealthy countries are more likely to be able to make the necessary payments needed to adapt to global warming, and mitigate the worst consequences.

Most Australians already live in the temperate zone and we have a, relatively, small population (25 Million). Even with a loss of habitable area, which is small already, we should be ok in the short term (several centuries)

We will just all have to install solar for our AC and stay inside during the worst of the heat. Which is what happens now.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 05, 2019, 04:46:27 PM
I don't really trust that map very much. As I pointed out before, the Netherlands is rated among the least at risk, when we are a densely populated country with a large agricultural sector, 60% of which is already at risk of flooding (only about 50% of the land exceeds one meter above sea level), and which is crisscrossed by sizeable rivers. We are going to face significant risks of flooding and soil problems due to saltwater intrusion (and, ironically, if last year is any indication, droughts during summer). It's not just a simple matter of throwing some extra sand on the dunes or propping up a few dikes here and there. We can probably deal with 1 or 2m of sea level rise (although that will already be costly), but that's just what's projected for the next 80 years.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on April 08, 2019, 12:19:46 PM
This review is worth reading: The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells review – our terrifying future (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/27/the-uninhabitable-earth-review-david-wallace-wells)
Quote
The margins of my review copy of the book are scrawled with expressions of terror and despair, declining in articulacy as the pages proceed, until it’s all just cartoon sad faces and swear words.

 :D
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 09, 2019, 04:02:10 PM
Quote
Berlin: Barack Obama hails protests by youths against climate change, says 'the sooner you start, the better' (https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/berlin-barack-obama-hails-protests-by-youths-against-climate-change-says-the-sooner-you-start-the-better/395808)

"Things change when we strongly mobilise," he said. "Our planet on which we live is in danger. We can't succeed by sitting back and waiting for someone else to do it". Obama, who left the White House in 2017 after two terms, was in Germany to promote his foundation.

He signed the Paris climate accord in 2015 which calls for capping global warming at "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) but the planet is currently on track to heat up by double that figure. His successor Donald Trump decided in June last year to exit the accord.

Did Obama do much for climate while in the White House, apart from signing the Paris Accord? Or rather, did he not do something that was possible for him to do, given the Republican Congress?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 09, 2019, 04:19:11 PM
'Climate Refugee' news

Article: Guatemalan Climate Change Refugees Pouring Over U.S. Border – And Into South Florida (https://www.wlrn.org/post/guatemalan-climate-change-refugees-pouring-over-us-border-and-south-florida)
From: WLRN
Date: 2019 APR 8

Quote
Last week President Trump threatened to close the U.S. southern border because record numbers of Central American migrants are arriving there – including 100,000 apprehended in March. “I’m not playing games,” Trump warned. “We can’t hold people anymore.”

But what’s lost in Trump’s border-security bluster is that there’s something unusual about this wave of Central American migrants. Most are not from Honduras or El Salvador. Most are instead from Guatemala. And immigrant advocates say the main force driving them to flee here is climate change.

...

"Corn, beans – when I was younger we often had full harvests,” says Abraham. “Now, nothing.”

...

At least his corner of Guatemala, which is part of El Corredor Seco, The Dry Corridor. Scientists say climate change has been hostile to agriculture in that region – so much so that last year farmers there say they lost 90 percent of their crops. At the same time, severely depressed prices for Guatemalan coffee have left those campesinos with little or alternative cash source to buy food.

“The number of Guatemalan families, new arrivals, is increasing a lot,” says Amanda Escalante, a family aid coordinator at the nonprofit Guatemalan Maya Center in Lake Worth. “I see the unusual level of desperation, extreme poverty.”

Escalante believes the Guatemalans she’s helping now are part of the world’s new and growing cohort of displaced people: climate change refugees.

“This is a reality,” she insists. “If there is no agriculture in Guatemala how can they survive?”

But how has climate change made Guatemala’s Corredor Seco so unsurvivable? What distinguishes this prolonged, dust bowl-style crisis from, say, routine cycles of drought?

“It’s the unusual climate volatility,” says Dan McQuillan, agricultural programs manager for the nonprofit Catholic Relief Services and an expert on farming in Guatemala.

“Volatility is really what affects farming systems.”

McQuillan, who spoke with WLRN from his base in Calgary, Canada, says climate change volatility is so damaging because it brings not just temperature rise and drought, but things like erratic bursts of hard rain – even during drought. And that can kill crops not for just a harvest cycle but for years to come.

“The soil is baked hard as concrete and the rain comes pouring down, battering the crop, then just runs off,” says McQuillan. “We’re seeing a tremendous amount of erosion and loss of the productive top soil.”

...

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on April 09, 2019, 04:25:59 PM

Did Obama do much for climate while in the White House, apart from signing the Paris Accord? Or rather, did he not do something that was possible for him to do, given the Republican Congress?

Certainly. As usual, those on the right think he overstepped (and now we are seeing that position put into force by the current administration) and those on the left complain that he didn't do enough. His first term was one of status quo vis a vis Bush era policies while the US got back on its feet from the recession. His second term was characterized by a lot of policies implemented by various federal departments without the teeth of law (which the GOP congress was certainly not about to provide what with all the investigations into Clinton's emails and the tragic death of PFC Ben Ghazi - inside joke).

A few highlights...

* Clean Power Plan
* Better Building Challenge
* Climate data Initiative
* Higher efficiency standards for automobiles, appliances, federal buildings
* Federal subsidies for solar manufacturing
* Curbed drilling on federal lands and off-shore
* Allowed for 10 gigagwatts of solar and wind production on federal land
* Initiated a comprehensive national methane strategy
* Committed the US to reducing carbon by 3 billion metric tonnes by 2030
* Terminated federal financing for new coal plants
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on April 09, 2019, 05:39:41 PM

Did Obama do much for climate while in the White House, apart from signing the Paris Accord? Or rather, did he not do something that was possible for him to do, given the Republican Congress?

Certainly. As usual, those on the right think he overstepped (and now we are seeing that position put into force by the current administration) and those on the left complain that he didn't do enough. His first term was one of status quo vis a vis Bush era policies while the US got back on its feet from the recession. His second term was characterized by a lot of policies implemented by various federal departments without the teeth of law (which the GOP congress was certainly not about to provide what with all the investigations into Clinton's emails and the tragic death of PFC Ben Ghazi - inside joke).

A few highlights...

* Clean Power Plan
* Better Building Challenge
* Climate data Initiative
* Higher efficiency standards for automobiles, appliances, federal buildings
* Federal subsidies for solar manufacturing
* Curbed drilling on federal lands and off-shore
* Allowed for 10 gigagwatts of solar and wind production on federal land
* Initiated a comprehensive national methane strategy
* Committed the US to reducing carbon by 3 billion metric tonnes by 2030
* Terminated federal financing for new coal plants

Not to mention allowing funds to be spent to study Global Warming, and allowing DoD to study and invest in counter measures. Under Obama Global Warming was identified by DoD as a national security threat
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 11, 2019, 01:26:13 AM
Article: Climate crisis: today’s children face lives with tiny carbon footprints (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/10/climate-crisis-todays-children-face-lives-with-tiny-carbon-footprints)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2019 APR 10

Quote
...

Previous and existing generations have emitted nearly all the carbon dioxide needed to take the world to 1.5C or 2C, meaning future generations will have to severely cut the emissions from flying, meat consumption and other activities in their lifetimes. The children and young people taking part in the youth strikes (born 1997-2012) will have carbon budgets just one sixth those of their baby boomer grandparents (1946-1964).

...

There is a currently a wide gap between the average annual emissions of a US citizen (16.9 tonnes) and an Indian citizen (1.9 tonnes). The analysis showing that children born now would have a lifetime carbon budget 90% lower than their grandparents assumes the relative gap would remain.

But in a second analysis, Carbon Brief posited a future carbon budget that would be the same for every citizen on the planet. This would mean that the budget for a child born today in the US is even lower, 97% lower than that of that of their grandparents. For someone born today in Europe, their budget would be 94% lower.


...

We're gonna blow right past +2C.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 11, 2019, 10:43:59 PM
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1116455911005073409
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 12, 2019, 01:24:48 PM

Did Obama do much for climate while in the White House, apart from signing the Paris Accord? Or rather, did he not do something that was possible for him to do, given the Republican Congress?

Certainly. As usual, those on the right think he overstepped (and now we are seeing that position put into force by the current administration) and those on the left complain that he didn't do enough. His first term was one of status quo vis a vis Bush era policies while the US got back on its feet from the recession. His second term was characterized by a lot of policies implemented by various federal departments without the teeth of law (which the GOP congress was certainly not about to provide what with all the investigations into Clinton's emails and the tragic death of PFC Ben Ghazi - inside joke).

A few highlights...

* Clean Power Plan
* Better Building Challenge
* Climate data Initiative
* Higher efficiency standards for automobiles, appliances, federal buildings
* Federal subsidies for solar manufacturing
* Curbed drilling on federal lands and off-shore
* Allowed for 10 gigagwatts of solar and wind production on federal land
* Initiated a comprehensive national methane strategy
* Committed the US to reducing carbon by 3 billion metric tonnes by 2030
* Terminated federal financing for new coal plants

That's very good to know, thank you. :)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on April 17, 2019, 09:54:30 AM
Number of climate protesters arrested in the UK this week: 300
Number of CEOs personally responsible for the upcoming climate apocalypse arrested since the beginning of time: 0
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on April 22, 2019, 05:07:22 AM
I don't think flying cars are in our future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ypaUH57MO4&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0jH6l3ah8xdGV6NNRQRQu_NXASJMPbNH70OSITbqGyQsXb_g_ldaJiaNw
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on April 22, 2019, 11:21:08 PM
I think they are, but mostly as a luxury and/or curiosity.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on April 26, 2019, 01:19:50 AM
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1121640295680970752
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on April 26, 2019, 02:43:28 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/KeMwTJC.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on April 26, 2019, 03:20:43 AM
Ce n'est pas un feu?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2019, 11:19:59 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvVephTIHU

I don't know who he is, but he seems to parrot the standard denialist rhetoric without going all the way to deny that climate change is happening.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on April 28, 2019, 12:52:26 PM
https://youtu.be/RUBrV0VFcbY

Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric sciences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 28, 2019, 04:32:45 PM
You beat me to it.

Lindzen has his own pet hypothesis, called the "iris hypothesis". He basically argues that the earth's clouds work like an iris, i.e. that they provide a strong negative cloud feedback. He's not a pseudoscientist but he is on the fringe. Clouds are really complicated because the different types of clouds have different effects (blocking and absorbing more incoming versus outgoing radiation, having different levels of reflectivity, having interactions with things like soot and sulphate aerosols that can form condensation nuclei and change the optical properties of the cloud, and so forth (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-017-0060-3)) and they are small enough that modelling them has been difficult. It's still an area of contention today. However, modelling work and observations have so far failed (https://www.skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm) to confirm his hypothesis (and some of his more recent work has been suspiciously flawed), and in fact, nowadays the cloud feedback is thought to be a net positive feedback. You can find more info on him here (https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: John Albert on April 28, 2019, 06:45:21 PM
You beat me to it.

Lindzen has his own pet hypothesis, called the "iris hypothesis". He basically argues that the earth's clouds work like an iris, i.e. that they provide a strong negative cloud feedback. He's not a pseudoscientist but he is on the fringe. Clouds are really complicated because the different types of clouds have different effects (blocking and absorbing more incoming versus outgoing radiation, having different levels of reflectivity, having interactions with things like soot and sulphate aerosols that can form condensation nuclei and change the optical properties of the cloud, and so forth (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-017-0060-3)) and they are small enough that modelling them has been difficult. It's still an area of contention today. However, modelling work and observations have so far failed (https://www.skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm) to confirm his hypothesis (and some of his more recent work has been suspiciously flawed), and in fact, nowadays the cloud feedback is thought to be a net positive feedback. You can find more info on him here (https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm).

It seems redolent of other pseudoscience movements like the panspermia evangelists who misinterpret actual scientific findings and present that as evidence for their views.

Does it seem as if his reasoning is motivated by some particular agenda?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on April 28, 2019, 07:01:45 PM
It seems redolent of other pseudoscience movements like the panspermia evangelists who misinterpret actual scientific findings and present that as evidence for their views.

Does it seem as if his reasoning is motivated by some particular agenda?

Hard to say. He may just be heavily invested in his hypothesis, or he may be one of those anti-big-government types who thinks action against climate change is going to lead to COMMUNISM

He's part of the CATO institute and has cooperated with Heartland and some of the more notorious misinformation spreaders like Anthony Watts from wattsupwiththat. He has gotten substantial funding (https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen) from fossil fuel companies as well, and seems to be a little amorous towards Exxon, but who knows which was the chicken and which the egg. In any case, it doesn't really matter what his real motivations are. With his background he certainly has to know that he's spreading utter misinformation. Case in point (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6259555/Climate-scientist-says-climate-claims-nonsense-coral-reefs-not-danger.html).

(http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ComparisonFigure_2018.png)

See that steepest 20 year temperature trend there at the end of that graph? Yeah, that's when he claims global warming "ended". There's no way the guy is not completely full of shit.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on April 29, 2019, 01:53:48 PM
Oops...

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-rapid-world-largest-ice-shelf.html
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 03, 2019, 02:30:56 PM
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1124106254832553985

Climate Change increases probability of extreme weather events like this.  The worse it gets, the more normal this gets.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on May 03, 2019, 04:57:58 PM


Climate Change increases probability of extreme weather events like this.  The worse it gets, the more normal this gets.

It isn't just extreme weather; prolonged droughts, seawater incursion on fresh water aquifers, costal degradation, mass migration of humans, species extinction....  I shall stop.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: John Albert on May 03, 2019, 08:00:58 PM
COMMUNISM

Holy SHIT, don't startle me like that! What do you want, to give me a heart attack?


He's part of the CATO institute and has cooperated with Heartland and some of the more notorious misinformation spreaders like Anthony Watts from wattsupwiththat.

Enough said.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Nacreous on May 04, 2019, 02:43:55 AM
Lindzen is a borderline crackpot who is not as thoroughly debauched as, say, ex-tobacco company shill S. Fred Singer.  Still, he has taken Heartland's silver, which is all you need to know.  Put him on the deni-o-scale between Singer and Roy Spencer but not among the outright loons like Monckton; a small-time climateball player clinging to shreds of his former respectability.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 06, 2019, 11:47:08 AM
We've cracked 415PPM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D50a4PbW4AEGMFm.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D53EE8ZW0AA8h-i.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on May 08, 2019, 12:29:18 AM
Climate change a bigger threat to Australia's interests than terrorism, Lowy Institute poll suggests (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/australians-think-climate-change-bigger-threat-than-terrorism/11091276) - ABC

Quote
Climate change is a "critical threat" to Australia's interests according to almost two-thirds of Australians — ranked as a more serious concern than international terrorism, North Korea's nuclear program or cyber attacks from other countries.

This is the first time climate change has led the list of potential threats in the long-running Lowy Institute poll since the question was first included in 2006.

The poll also confirmed Australians were more concerned about climate change this election than at any time since Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007 — when both major parties proposed an emissions trading scheme.

Australians overwhelmingly agree climate emergency is nation's No 1 threat (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/08/australians-overwhelmingly-agree-climate-emergency-is-the-nations-number-one-threat) - The Guardian

Quote
New polling from a respected foreign policy thinktank underscores the point that 2019 is the climate change election, with a majority of Australians saying global warming is a critical threat.

The poll undertaken for Lowy says 64% of adults rank climate change number one on a list of 12 threats to Australia’s national interests, up six points from last year’s survey and a jump of 18 points since 2014.

The 2019 result is the first time climate has topped the list of threats since Lowy began the research in 2006. After climate change, cyberattacks ranks second, terrorism third and North Korea’s nuclear program fourth.

The Lowy result is consistent with private research undertaken by environmental groups and by the major political parties, which suggest climate change is surfacing as a concern in parts of the country normally sanguine about the issue.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 08, 2019, 10:15:00 AM
In other news: water wet!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on May 08, 2019, 11:49:17 AM
Quote
The Overshoot (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2019/05/the-overshoot/)

At the moment, renewables are still only a tiny fraction of global power generation. But we’re approaching a much bigger and more disruptive milestone: very soon, it will be cheaper to build new renewable energy than to operate existing fossil fuel plants.

This will happen as soon as 2020 in some places, and it will be true virtually everywhere by 2030. It will happen in the immense, industrializing population centers of China and India. It will be true in deep-blue coastal cities and deep-red rural counties of the U.S.

Very interesting blogpost.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 08, 2019, 11:59:34 AM
Quote
The Overshoot (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2019/05/the-overshoot/)

At the moment, renewables are still only a tiny fraction of global power generation. But we’re approaching a much bigger and more disruptive milestone: very soon, it will be cheaper to build new renewable energy than to operate existing fossil fuel plants.

This will happen as soon as 2020 in some places, and it will be true virtually everywhere by 2030. It will happen in the immense, industrializing population centers of China and India. It will be true in deep-blue coastal cities and deep-red rural counties of the U.S.

Very interesting blogpost.

That's good news. Although I'm sure the fossil fuel lobby won't just lay down quietly.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 08, 2019, 12:58:53 PM
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1124544710280749056
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 08, 2019, 01:45:39 PM
Article: Canada’s forests haven’t absorbed more carbon than they’ve released since 2001 (https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-forests-havent-absorbed-more-carbon-than-theyve-released-since-2001/)
From: The Narwhal
Date: 2019 MAY 7

Quote
Trees are adaptable, but only within certain limits, and right now they’re dying at a consistent rate two to nearly four-times what was seen before 2000.

About four to five per cent of the Aspen Hogg studies as an example species is dying each year.

In the most extreme cases, tree stands that used to house birds and forest animals are flat out disappearing with mortality rates nearing 100 per cent. Where trees once stood, there is now Prairie grasslands.

Quote
With dry conditions and standing dead trees, there are two imminent threats that arise. The first are pests and disease ravaging the already-stressed trees, which are now more susceptible to attack. The mountain pine beetle has been able to spread its range from B.C. to Alberta across the Rockies because warmer winters allow it to thrive.

The second threat announces itself each summer with socked-in red skies in Western Canada as the forest transforms into a tinderbox, resulting in record wildfires.

(https://i.imgur.com/bxPVQwJ.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 08, 2019, 02:11:22 PM
So far for pdb's (at least, I think it was him) pet theory on global greening offsetting global warming.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on May 08, 2019, 02:36:03 PM
Quote
The Overshoot (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2019/05/the-overshoot/)

At the moment, renewables are still only a tiny fraction of global power generation. But we’re approaching a much bigger and more disruptive milestone: very soon, it will be cheaper to build new renewable energy than to operate existing fossil fuel plants.

This will happen as soon as 2020 in some places, and it will be true virtually everywhere by 2030. It will happen in the immense, industrializing population centers of China and India. It will be true in deep-blue coastal cities and deep-red rural counties of the U.S.

Very interesting blogpost.

That's good news. Although I'm sure the fossil fuel lobby won't just lay down quietly.

Oh, they seem to want to profit from it. From the same blogpost:

Quote
Carbon-capture technologies are now attracting major investment, including from oil companies, one of the better signs that the technology is viable and scalable. I’m not thrilled by the idea that the same corporations which profited by ruining the planet could profit again by saving it, but I’d much rather save the Earth than see it burn for spite.

I can't speak for other countries, but over here, climate change is widely accepted across the political spectrum (except the populist far-right), and heavy industry, financial industry, etc, pretty much all agree on the seriousness of the problem, and put in various amounts of work to combat it. It is a source of optimism for me.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 08, 2019, 02:56:27 PM
Yeah, they try to have their cake and eat it too all the time.

Quote
Carbon-capture technologies are now attracting major investment, including from oil companies, one of the better signs that the technology is viable and scalable. I’m not thrilled by the idea that the same corporations which profited by ruining the planet could profit again by saving it, but I’d much rather save the Earth than see it burn for spite.

I agree with the essence of the quote, but I suspect I'm a little more spiteful. Maybe a lot. And burning those fossil fuels and then developing expensive technologies for recapturing the carbon just seems wasteful in light of your earlier post. But I guess we're gonna need those anyway now.

I can't speak for other countries, but over here, climate change is widely accepted across the political spectrum (except the populist far-right), and heavy industry, financial industry, etc, pretty much all agree on the seriousness of the problem, and put in various amounts of work to combat it. It is a source of optimism for me.

Not me... There's a lot of talk but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot political will for the kind of action that is needed at this stage.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 08, 2019, 03:00:58 PM
Carbon capture to store carbon permanently is what we need. Carbon capture to create fuel to burn is pointless. It's not carbon neutral unless all fuels were made that way, including any fuel that has to be spent on the process of capturing carbon.

If we're going to subsidize private entities capturing carbon, then we should (as we should in general) tax them as much molecule for molecule for the emissions on the other side of it. If they can manage to come out even, good on them. But if they want to come out ahead, they should make sure that it stays captured.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on May 09, 2019, 01:11:17 AM
Britain goes a week without coal power for the first time since the Industrial Revolution (https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/48190269)

Quote
The UK has gone a week without burning any coal to make electricity - the first coal-free week since 1882.

Britain has relied on burning coal for power since the Industrial Revolution, which began in the UK in the 18th Century and spread to other parts of the world.

The Industrial Revolution saw new factories being built and a massive increase in the use of fossil fuels. The world's first coal-fired power station was opened in London in 1882.

Burning fossil fuels has a big impact on the environment and many countries, including the UK, are cutting emissions in an effort to tackle climate change.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on May 09, 2019, 02:41:50 AM
Carbon capture to store carbon permanently is what we need. Carbon capture to create fuel to burn is pointless. It's not carbon neutral unless all fuels were made that way, including any fuel that has to be spent on the process of capturing carbon.

If we're going to subsidize private entities capturing carbon, then we should (as we should in general) tax them as much molecule for molecule for the emissions on the other side of it. If they can manage to come out even, good on them. But if they want to come out ahead, they should make sure that it stays captured.

Returning to large ruminants grazing vast suitable pastures of deep rooting herbs, grasses and legumes, is the way forward.  It is the one way w have to permanently store atmospheric carbon, except for the efforts in Iceland using vast amounts of geothermal energy and taking advantage of advantageous geology.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 09, 2019, 08:31:23 AM
Deep roots, tall trunks, bury it in a solid form somewhere where it can't degrade and cause emissions later. Even building stuff out of wood can be a help, though it's difficult to scale that up without negatively affecting forestation.

Currently annoyed with "green" politicians who are talking about protecting the environment, and they use tourism as an argument for why certain things should be preserved, because apparently tourism is just great. Maybe it's a nice experience, and a financial benefit for a lucky few, but you're not protecting the environment by having people use energy to travel everywhere, leaving garbage wherever they go, even wearing down the ground they're walking on, as well as disturbing wildlife. Looking up some things, I see this Lonely Planet article:

Quote
Travel trends for 2019: getting off the touristed path (https://www.lonelyplanet.com/travel-tips-and-articles/travel-trends-for-2019-getting-off-the-touristed-path/40625c8c-8a11-5710-a052-1479d2754788)

It’s no secret that some of the world’s most amazing destinations are feeling the tourism squeeze. But that’s no reason to stay put: as communities cope with travellers’ all-too-loving embrace, being a good tourist just means getting strategic about where to go and when.

Every traveller is on a journey, though it’s becoming clearer that some paths are so well trodden that they’re at risk of wearing out. Even when we try to venture off the tourist track it can be hard not to bump into others doing the same thing. But that doesn’t mean it’s time to put away your packing cubes and ignore your itchy feet; it’s just a new opportunity to consider your impact on the places you cherish.

There are many ways to spread the travel love, and beating the crowds doesn’t mean skipping the iconic spots. Sustainable travel can come in many forms. Stay in an under-explored neighbourhood in a must-see city and you’ll get to live like a local and support the community. Skip the day trip – which will only leave you without a feel for the place – and spend more time in local shops and cafes, picking up some incredible, and meaningful, souvenirs.

Skipping day trips, sure, if that means you spend more time in one place, rather than spend more time traveling.

But the answer to where to go and when should be closer and less often. Not to hunt down the last few undisturbed places in the world to disturb them as well. Sustainable travel is like drinking moderately. If you want to do it better, do it less. Any advert for it is an advert for more damage to be caused.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on May 09, 2019, 03:52:06 PM
Yeah, they try to have their cake and eat it too all the time.

Quote
Carbon-capture technologies are now attracting major investment, including from oil companies, one of the better signs that the technology is viable and scalable. I’m not thrilled by the idea that the same corporations which profited by ruining the planet could profit again by saving it, but I’d much rather save the Earth than see it burn for spite.

I agree with the essence of the quote, but I suspect I'm a little more spiteful. Maybe a lot. And burning those fossil fuels and then developing expensive technologies for recapturing the carbon just seems wasteful in light of your earlier post. But I guess we're gonna need those anyway now.

I can't speak for other countries, but over here, climate change is widely accepted across the political spectrum (except the populist far-right), and heavy industry, financial industry, etc, pretty much all agree on the seriousness of the problem, and put in various amounts of work to combat it. It is a source of optimism for me.

Not me... There's a lot of talk but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot political will for the kind of action that is needed at this stage.

Maybe I am just a hopeless, naive, optimist? I admit to having a strong bias in that I want for the human species, and other species on this planet, to flourish. Not that I don't think you want the same, of course. :)

The problem is massive, and it will probably take centuries to undo the damage we have done, the parts that can be undone, at least. Still, all the more reason to start it now. And all those initiatives from various corners are steps in the right direction.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 09, 2019, 05:37:33 PM
The problem is massive, and it will probably take centuries to undo the damage we have done, the parts that can be undone, at least. Still, all the more reason to start it now. And all those initiatives from various corners are steps in the right direction.

We can make changes to the climate, atmospheric conditions, ice and sea levels, etc., at any time, as long as we have a civilization with the resources and energy generation to do it. Probably at a slower rate than we're currently wrecking it as we're putting nearly all of our energy into wrecking it, and fusion still isn't happening for the foreseeable future.

But there's no bringing back the species that are going extinct at an increasing rate. A bit of DNA from a number of species isn't going to do us any good when their ecosystem is gone. If it takes us centuries to deal with the climate, it will take millions of years for biodiversity to return to previous levels.

Quote
THE EXTINCTION CRISIS (https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/)

It's frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species' extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel.

Quote
PLANTS
Through photosynthesis, plants provide the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat and are thus the foundation of most life on Earth. They're also the source of a majority of medicines in use today. Of the more than 300,000 known species of plants, the IUCN has evaluated only 12,914 species, finding that about 68 percent of evaluated plant species are threatened with extinction.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 09, 2019, 06:39:08 PM
Well, I don't know about hopelessly naive... I may just be a pessimist on this issue. I think people have kind of gotten the message, and politicians in many countries pay lip service to it, but I see a lot of thumb twiddling when it comes to actually curbing emissions. In fact, emission rates are still going up (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/05/carbon-dioxide-earths-atmosphere-soars-highest-level-millions-years/2215508002/) - let alone actually reducing the CO2 that's already in the atmosphere. The Paris Agreement was a step in the right direction, but it was a wishy-washy agreement with no enforcement mechanisms and as such largely impotent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Criticism).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Billzbub on May 10, 2019, 01:00:40 PM
Well, I don't know about hopelessly naive... I may just be a pessimist on this issue. I think people have kind of gotten the message, and politicians in many countries pay lip service to it, but I see a lot of thumb twiddling when it comes to actually curbing emissions. In fact, emission rates are still going up (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/05/carbon-dioxide-earths-atmosphere-soars-highest-level-millions-years/2215508002/) - let alone actually reducing the CO2 that's already in the atmosphere. The Paris Agreement was a step in the right direction, but it was a wishy-washy agreement with no enforcement mechanisms and as such largely impotent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Criticism).

I am a microcosm of this macroscopic idea.  I know that plastic is a problem, but I hate washing dishes, so I use disposable plastic cups.  I feel guilty for this, but I haven't mustered up the oomph to change my behavior.  I think society is the same way.  Most people agree that something should be done, and most people recognize what they are doing is a problem, but they just don't want to change.  I have faith in humanity as individuals to continue this behavior until we are all dead.  However, I am optimistic that these same people would support governmental regulation to curb their own behavior.  I would vote for a change that limits my ability to use plastic cups for example, even though I don't have the willpower to stop using them on my own.  So, while I am pessimistic about a human's ability to curb environmental catastrophe, I am optimistic about humankind's collective desire to do something.  Alright, maybe I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 10, 2019, 01:17:14 PM
Norway might be banning various single use plastics in 2020, getting a head start on the EU ban (which would affect us through the EEA) in 2021.

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/disposable-plastic-ban/

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20190321IPR32111/parliament-seals-ban-on-throwaway-plastics-by-2021

Quote

On Wednesday, Parliament approved a new law banning single-use plastic items such as plates, cutlery, straws and cotton buds sticks.

560 MEPs voted in favour of the agreement with EU ministers, 35 against and 28 abstained.

The following products will be banned in the EU by 2021:

    Single-use plastic cutlery (forks, knives, spoons and chopsticks)
    Single-use plastic plates
    Plastic straws
    Cotton bud sticks made of plastic
    Plastic balloon sticks
    Oxo-degradable plastics and food containers and expanded polystyrene cups

New recycling target and more responsibility for producers

Member states will have to achieve a 90% collection target for plastic bottles by 2029, and plastic bottles will have to contain at least 25% of recycled content by 2025 and 30% by 2030.

The agreement also strengthens the application of the polluter pays principle, in particular for tobacco, by introducing extended responsibility for producers. This new regime will also apply to fishing gear, to ensure that manufacturers, and not fishermen, bear the costs of collecting nets lost at sea.

Tangentially related to the climate. Getting rid of plastics won't reduce GHG emissions. Only reduced consumption can accomplish that, in that context. Cleaning with heated water uses comparable amounts of energy to producing and shipping lightweight plastic items, and plastic packaging helps reduce food waste. But it would be nice to not be drinking and eating plastic every day because of it being everywhere.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 10, 2019, 04:12:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3YxyWyL.jpg)

Article: Burger King is rolling out meatless Impossible Whoppers nationwide (https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/29/18522637/burger-king-impossible-whopper-nationwide-rollout-meatless-vegetarian)
From: The Verge
Date: 2019 APR 29

Quote
Burger King is rolling out the Impossible Whopper nationwide, after a successful trial run testing the meatless burger in St. Louis. The chain announced in a statement today that it plans to test in more markets before distributing the burger nationally by the end of this year.

The Impossible Whopper is made with startup Impossible Foods’ plant-based patties, which are designed to look and taste like meat. The patties are also designed to “bleed,” just like the real thing, which can be attributed to the use of heme, a soy-based compound found in plants and meat. The burgers have 15 percent less fat and 90 percent less cholesterol than regular Whoppers, and Burger King’s taste test experiments claim that customers and employees can’t tell the difference.

Meatless options are gaining popularity at more fast food restaurants. White Castle offers Impossible Burgers, which uses another meat-free patty recipe from Impossible Foods, and Carl’s Jr. sells a veggie burger made by Beyond Meat, a competitor to Impossible Foods.

Product Substitution could grease the skids on reducing meat consumption/production.  Hope this all keeps up.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 10, 2019, 07:31:02 PM
I am a microcosm of this macroscopic idea.  I know that plastic is a problem, but I hate washing dishes, so I use disposable plastic cups.  I feel guilty for this, but I haven't mustered up the oomph to change my behavior.  I think society is the same way.  Most people agree that something should be done, and most people recognize what they are doing is a problem, but they just don't want to change.  I have faith in humanity as individuals to continue this behavior until we are all dead.  However, I am optimistic that these same people would support governmental regulation to curb their own behavior.  I would vote for a change that limits my ability to use plastic cups for example, even though I don't have the willpower to stop using them on my own.  So, while I am pessimistic about a human's ability to curb environmental catastrophe, I am optimistic about humankind's collective desire to do something.  Alright, maybe I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful.

My opinion has always been that there's no way we are ever going to get the percentage of people acting conscientiously that we need to. It's just a tragedy of the commons cliché. Hell, I've been increasingly concerned about climate change over the past 15 years but it took until 2 years ago before I switched my plan to 100% wind power, and my computer is on at all times. And I am a big old carnivore, too. Most people are not just going to give up on luxuries they've had for years. I think the only way forward is to make available equally good alternatives that are not harmful at the same or a lower price. And that can have all sorts of side benefits, like creating new industries, reducing health damage, and so on. But in order to get off those industries of the ground in the face of well-established competition we need research and development that is funded by governments. Fund this type of research and companies with the right ideas by actually taxing fossil fuel companies and other polluters as much as they should be taxed (and no more hidden externalities either), and we could be there in no time. But the political will...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on May 12, 2019, 02:12:16 PM
(the political will)...is sadly lacking. 

Our ship is taking in water and the pumps have not (and will not) reach equilibrium without a sea change by everyone.  Unfortunately for us, the ship is so low in the water it could be easy swamped, and sunk, by any rogue wave. 

Lowering our consumption of fossil fuels will not (and can not) lower the CO2 level in the atmosphere.  There is no way of sequestering atmospheric carbon quickly enough to prevent disaster.  We are past "tipping points" and now have discovered events like the collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf.

Game over, IMHO.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 12, 2019, 03:17:35 PM
I think it's still a solvable problem, and it's only that lack of will that's the barrier, other than new technologies making it easier in spite of the lack of will.

NATO countries are supposed to spend 2% of their GDP on the military. Many don't, but the US spent 3.6% of GDP in 2017 according to Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/).

We should be able to have an industry of combating climate change at a similar scale to other large government departments. It would definitely be worth it, vs. human civilization being regressed to a level that it might never recover from.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 12, 2019, 04:05:08 PM
Game over, IMHO.

Oh I strongly disagree with that. For one thing, just assuming defeat is not a helpful attitude to have. It's just kind of paralyzing. And while we're moving way too slow, we are finally taking baby steps in the right direction now. I have a reasonable degree of confidence that we can develop the necessary technologies to reverse at least the worst of the problems we're facing, especially when it comes to climate change, and I think we will do that as the gravity of the situation becomes increasingly obvious to more and more people. One might be cynical about political will and the influence of money on politics, but the fact is the next few generations of billionaires will have to live in that world, too, and I suspect they like clean air and water and lush natural habitats almost as much as the rest of us. And the natural world does have a tendency to bounce back from some pretty severe abuse, so while it may take thousands of years to regain the diversity we had maybe two hundred years ago, I don't think it's so bleak as to be hopeless, or "game over". So I'm not particularly optimistic, and I think some awfully depressing stuff is happening and will continue to happen for some time to come, but I don't think we're doomed, either.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on May 12, 2019, 04:50:54 PM
werecow, you pretty much summarized my position. :)

I would add that we already have the necessary technology to make the shift.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on May 13, 2019, 04:45:26 AM
Tell me how we get back to 350 ppm, please.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Rai on May 13, 2019, 05:13:49 AM
Tell me how we get back to 350 ppm, please.

Or how do we roll-out carbon-neutral energy and food production in a few years, re-forest huge chunks of the planet and basically end all extractive industries.


While the super rich are either outright murdering the planet or pouring their resources into getting the hell out as fast as they can.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 13, 2019, 05:54:46 AM
Tell me how we get back to 350 ppm, please.

Tax carbon (and equivalent) emissions to the full extent of the damages they're estimated to cause. Spend the money on the poor to avoid killing people by doing this, and/or implement UBI, which would also get us away from the culture of it being better to pay people to do pointless things (which wastes resources) than for people to be able to survive in spite of not having a well-paying job.

Implement the tax retroactively for any business and the estates of any individuals who have deliberately acted against actions on climate change. If they go broke, they'll be among the poor who should be taken care of in any case.

Stop all subsidies and tax breaks for industry and agriculture that have lower emission-/higher carbon sequestration-alternatives. Give subsidies for transition to alternatives, or for safely shutting down, and retraining.

Hire 1% of the population to plant trees, possibly with a large biologist contingent. Or make that the draft. Keep the professional military (preferably stop advertising military service to kids and as a way to pay for college, college should be made affordable for all), but require everyone to spend a year of their life actively mitigating climate change. More land becomes available for this as inefficient land use becomes too expensive to keep up with.

And scale up investments in and research of other ways of moving the carbon out of the atmosphere and oceans.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 13, 2019, 06:49:22 AM
Quote
Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Hit $5.2 Trillion (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-210000114.html)

The world spent a staggering $4.7 trillion and $5.2 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2015 and 2017, respectively, according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund. That means that in 2017 the world spent a whopping 6.5 percent of global GDP just to subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels.

China was “by far, the largest subsidizer” in 2015 at $1.4 trillion, the IMF said. The U.S. came in second at $649 billion. In other words, the U.S. spent more on fossil fuel subsidies in 2015 than it did on the bloated Pentagon budget ($599 billion in 2015). Russia spent $551 billion, the EU spent $289 billion, and India spent $209 billion. Emerging markets in Asia accounted for 40 percent of the total while the industrialized world accounted for 27 percent, with smaller percentages found in other regions.

The subsidy figure the IMF uses incorporates a variety of supports for fossil fuels, including not pricing for local air pollution, climate change and environmental costs, as well as undercharging for consumption taxes and undercharging for supply costs.

By fuel, coal is receives the most largesse, account for 44 percent of the global total. Oil was shortly behind at 41 percent, and natural gas and electricity output received 10 percent and 4 percent, respectively.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on May 13, 2019, 02:05:53 PM
Tell me how we get back to 350 ppm, please.

Hire 1% of the population to plant trees, possibly with a large biologist contingent.
And scale up investments in and research of other ways of moving the carbon out of the atmosphere and oceans.

As Soldier of Fortran (and many climate scientists) have pointed out, planting trees is not a solution.  Covering the Great Plains with bison, wolves and cougars might help.  That's where a large part of that carbon that is in the atmosphere came from.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 13, 2019, 02:48:00 PM
As Soldier of Fortran (and many climate scientists) have pointed out, planting trees is not a solution.  Covering the Great Plains with bison, wolves and cougars might help.  That's where a large part of that carbon that is in the atmosphere came from.

It's a solution, if not the solution. Plant bison, whatever works.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: John Albert on May 13, 2019, 03:46:21 PM
As Soldier of Fortran (and many climate scientists) have pointed out, planting trees is not a solution.  Covering the Great Plains with bison, wolves and cougars might help.  That's where a large part of that carbon that is in the atmosphere came from.

Nonsense. Your understanding of carbon sequestration is totally upside down.

I appreciate how much you love your lifestyle, but cattle ranching is part of the problem, not the solution.

Even if we could replenish those species in the Great Plains, the best that could do is temporarily restore that biome to some extent, at least until the ranchers and hunters massacre them again. Even if we could manage to institute strict wildlife protection laws, it's only a matter of decades before those indigenous species would die off and/or migrate north into cooler climes.

Restoring bison, wolves and cougars will do nothing to fix the problem of climate change, because the carbon in the atmosphere did not come from bison, wolves and cougars.

The carbon in the atmosphere came from under the ground, where it had lain in the form of coal and petroleum oil for hundreds of millions of years since the Carboniferous Period, until we started digging it up and burning it for fuel.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 13, 2019, 04:49:30 PM
As Soldier of Fortran (and many climate scientists) have pointed out, planting trees is not a solution.

I wouldn't go that far.

You'd need to play to the self-replacing aspect of trees:That being said, the framing on Climate Change needs some work.  Something I myself, others and media do all the time is frame things in terms of 'the' solution -- as though we'll find 'a' way to 'fix' this.  We're only ever going to have adaptation and mitigation strategies composed of many smaller elements. 

Maybe in a few hundred years, if we're lucky, we'll be able to keep atmospheric CO2 at a fixed 320PPM or something courtesy of weather control infrastructure or something. But until then, it's just adaptation/mitigation strategies built out of many parts.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 13, 2019, 05:11:44 PM
That said, wildlife and soils do deserve attention. No disagreement there.

Article: Soil as Carbon Storehouse: New Weapon in Climate Fight? (https://e360.yale.edu/features/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight)
From: Yale Environment 360
Date: 2014 MAR 04

Quote
In the 19th century, as land-hungry pioneers steered their wagon trains westward across the United States, they encountered a vast landscape of towering grasses that nurtured deep, fertile soils.

Today, just 3 percent of North America’s tallgrass prairie remains. Its disappearance has had a dramatic impact on the landscape and ecology of the U.S., but a key consequence of that transformation has largely been overlooked: a massive loss of soil carbon into the atmosphere. The importance of soil carbon — how it is leached from the earth and how that process can be reversed — is the subject of intensifying scientific investigation, with important implications for the effort to slow the rapid rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

According to Rattan Lal, director of Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, the world’s cultivated soils have lost between 50 and 70 percent of their original carbon stock, much of which has oxidized upon exposure to air to become CO2. Now, armed with rapidly expanding knowledge about carbon sequestration in soils, researchers are studying how land restoration programs in places like the former North American prairie, the North China Plain, and even the parched interior of Australia might help put carbon back into the soil.

Absent carbon and critical microbes, soil becomes mere dirt, a process of deterioration that’s been rampant around the globe. Many scientists say that regenerative agricultural practices can turn back the carbon clock, reducing atmospheric CO2 while also boosting soil productivity and increasing resilience to floods and drought. Such regenerative techniques include planting fields year-round in crops or other cover, and agroforestry that combines crops, trees, and animal husbandry.

Recognition of the vital role played by soil carbon could mark an important if subtle shift in the discussion about global warming, which has been heavily focused on curbing emissions of fossil fuels. But a look at soil brings a sharper focus on potential carbon sinks. Reducing emissions is crucial, but soil carbon sequestration needs to be part of the picture as well, says Lal. The top priorities, he says, are restoring degraded and eroded lands, as well as avoiding deforestation and the farming of peatlands, which are a major reservoir of carbon and are easily decomposed upon drainage and cultivation.

...

Scientists say that more carbon resides in soil than in the atmosphere and all plant life combined; there are 2,500 billion tons of carbon in soil, compared with 800 billion tons in the atmosphere and 560 billion tons in plant and animal life. And compared to many proposed geoengineering fixes, storing carbon in soil is simple: It’s a matter of returning carbon where it belongs.

Through photosynthesis, a plant draws carbon out of the air to form carbon compounds. What the plant doesn’t need for growth is exuded through the roots to feed soil organisms, whereby the carbon is humified, or rendered stable. Carbon is the main component of soil organic matter and helps give soil its water-retention capacity, its structure, and its fertility. According to Lal, some pools of carbon housed in soil aggregates are so stable that they can last thousands of years. This is in contrast to “active” soil carbon, which resides in topsoil and is in continual flux between microbial hosts and the atmosphere.

“If we treat soil carbon as a renewable resource, we can change the dynamics,” says Goreau. “When we have erosion, we lose soil, which carries with it organic carbon, into waterways. When soil is exposed, it oxidizes, essentially burning the soil carbon. We can take an alternate trajectory.”

...

Even at our current level of knowledge, many see great potential for storing carbon in soil. Lal of Ohio State says that restoring soils of degraded and desertified ecosystems has the potential to store in world soils an additional 1 billion to 3 billion tons of carbon annually, equivalent to roughly 3.5 billion to 11 billion tons of CO2 emissions. (Annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning are roughly 32 billion tons.)

Many call Lal’s carbon soil storage figures low. This could reflect the fact that soil carbon is generally measured in the top 15 to 30 centimeters, whereas soil at depth may store carbon at much higher rates. For example, in land with deep-rooted grasses the soil can go down five meters or more. Research by Australian and British scientists published last year in the journal Plant and Soil examined soils in five southwestern Australia sites at depths as great as nearly 40 meters. These findings add impetus to explore strategies such as working with deep-rooted perennial grasses to secure carbon at depth.

Those who champion soil carbon for climate mitigation frequently look to grasslands, which cover more than a quarter of the world’s land. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, grasslands also hold 20 percent of the world’s soil carbon stock. Much of this land is degraded, as evidenced in the U.S. Great Plains and places like northern Mexico, Africa’s Sahel, and Mongolia.

...

Emphasized excerpt:
Quote
Seth Itzkan — founder of Massachusetts-based Planet-TECH Associates, a consulting firm specializing in restoration ecology — advocates Holistic Planned Grazing (HPG), a model developed by Zimbabwean wildlife biologist Allan Savory. In this practice, livestock are managed as a tool for large-scale land restoration, mimicking the herding and grazing patterns of wild ruminants that coevolved with grassland ecosystems. Animals are moved so that no plants are overgrazed, and grazing stimulates biological activity in the soil. Their waste adds fertility, and as they move in a herd their trampling aerates soil, presses in seeds, and pushes down dead plant matter so it can be acted upon by soil microorganisms. All of this generates soil carbon, plant carbon, and water retention. Savory says HPG doesn’t require more land — in fact it generally supports greater animal density — so it can be applied wherever livestock are raised.

Reminder:  Our current M.O. gives us worldwide collapse of agriculture outputs in <60 years due to soil degredation.

Article: How many harvests are left in your soil? (https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/opinion/blog/letter-from-the-editor/many-harvests-left-soil/)
From: Farmer's Weekly
Date: 2017 SEPT 8

Quote
Speaking at a World Soil Day event in 2016, Maria-Helena Semedo, deputy director-general of natural resources at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, said that if current soil degradation rates were not reversed, all the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years.

This means that there may only be 60 or so harvests left to reap from the world’s soil. She says some of the main causes of soil destruction include chemical-heavy farming techniques, deforestation, which increases erosion, and global warming.

Estimates published by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, suggest that the world is losing roughly 20ha of topsoil every minute, mostly due to intensive farming.

In a recent interview with UK newspaper, The Independent, Prof Raj Patel, research professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said that industrial agriculture was bringing about the mass extinction of life on Earth.

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 13, 2019, 05:29:09 PM
An impatient Bill Nye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgBFYkBZ6E
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Nacreous on May 13, 2019, 08:45:01 PM
That said, wildlife and soils do deserve attention. No disagreement there....

Indeed, but beware of woo in the moo.  One recent soil regeneration scheme claims we can cattle our way to CO2 mitigation.  I don’t think so.  See:

Allan Savory's Holistic Management Theory Falls Short on Science

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change (https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change)

And

All Sizzle and No Steak
Why Allan Savory’s TED talk about how cattle can reverse global warming is dead wrong.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-talk-is-wrong-and-the-benefits-of-holistic-grazing-have-been-debunked.html
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 13, 2019, 11:12:54 PM
Shit, good catch!  I actually saw that TED Talk but never the rebuttal.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 14, 2019, 09:22:36 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6fbaqdWwAEPg5Z.png)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6fdMi_X4AEiLOv.png)

https://twitter.com/tsrandall/status/1128144447852765184
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 16, 2019, 05:13:55 PM
https://twitter.com/mikarantane/status/1127188356608212992

29C = ~84F

edit, Clarification: The map is indeed colored for temperature anomaly (+20C) but the temperature is 29C in the red-text labeled area.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 16, 2019, 05:53:34 PM
I'm not a fan of drones being everywhere, but I hope that with technological advances we can at least get better at monitoring forests and responding to fires early.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on May 20, 2019, 02:33:12 PM
As Soldier of Fortran (and many climate scientists) have pointed out, planting trees is not a solution.  Covering the Great Plains with bison, wolves and cougars might help.  That's where a large part of that carbon that is in the atmosphere came from.

It's a solution, if not the solution. Plant bison, whatever works.

I agree. It is part of the solution, not the single magic bullet. Forests also have other benefits apart from capturing carbon.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2019, 03:14:11 PM
Quote
Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment)

From now, house style guide recommends terms such as ‘climate crisis’ and ‘global heating’

The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.

Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”

“Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,” she said.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Nacreous on May 22, 2019, 07:17:42 PM
Quote
Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment)

From now, house style guide recommends terms such as ‘climate crisis’ and ‘global heating’

The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.

Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”

“Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,” she said.
This will play into the hands of the denialist propaganda mills, which will doubtless spin it as an attempt by "alarmists" to change the story.  They will simply tack it onto their old lie about "global warming" being dropped in favor of "climate change" to give the whole thing new life.  Expect to see it soon wherever climateball is played.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 23, 2019, 04:05:03 AM
I wouldn't be surprised... That's why I tend to prefer "contrarians" over "deniers".
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 23, 2019, 05:37:36 AM
Denial is a financial investment, the rest is ignorance. With occasional trolling from people who just don't care.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on May 23, 2019, 07:32:04 AM
Also I've had some discussions with people who were genuinely interested in the science but were fearful of the political repercussions, just did not have much of a skeptisense or science background, and were simply mislead by people like Watts and McIntyre. They were distrustful of greenpeace and other advocate groups (and frankly, not without good reason) and felt like they were branded deniers just to take away from the legitimacy of their concerns. I kind of get that, given that I was frequently called a "commie satanist nazi" (paraphrasing) for discussing topics like climate change, atheism and evolution.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 24, 2019, 04:28:57 PM
Quote
'We have to learn to live with fire': How wildfires are changing Canadian summers (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/we-have-to-learn-to-live-with-fire-how-wildfires-are-changing-canadian-summers-1.5135539)

2.5 million hectares of land is charred every year, an expert predicts that will double

A change in weather patterns, stoked by climate change, has a wildfire expert predicting "a hot, smoky future" for Canadian summers.

The spectre of wildfires looms in B.C., Alberta and Ontario — provinces that have been repeatedly scorched by catastrophic fires in recent years.

Mike Flannigan, a professor of wildland fire at the University of Alberta, is warning that a dramatic rise in temperature and a changing climate have pushed things over the edge and will continue to cause unprecedented wildfires.

"We can't always rely on our experience and the history of what we've seen in fire; we're moving into new territory," he told CBC Radio's special Smoked Out.

An average of about 2.5 million hectares of land is charred every year during Canada's annual wildfire season, he says.

"That's half the size of Nova Scotia, and it's doubled since the early '70s due to our changing climate," said Flannigan, who's also the director of the Western Partnership for Wildland Fire Science in Edmonton.
Climate change's role in reshaping wildfires

His research suggests the size of land consumed by wildfires will double or quadruple — again — as the earth heats up.

According to Natural Resources Canada, about 3.4 million hectares of land was consumed by wildfires in 2017 — well beyond the annual average. Ministry data shows in recent years fire destruction has steadily climbed in terms of area covered.

In 2013, for example, some 6,300 forest fires burned over 4.2 million hectares. The following year, nearly 4.6 million hectares was scorched by about 5,200 wildfires.

(https://i.imgur.com/bYZI0H6.jpg)

Canada makes up nine per cent of the world's forests, yet much of that landscape is being threatened by unprecedented wildfires. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

"We have to learn to live with fire, coexist with fire, because fire is not going to disappear," Flannigan said.

"There will always be fuel to burn, there will always be ignitions and there will always be conducive weather."

Canada is, on average, experiencing warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, according to Canada's Changing Climate Report.

The study, commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada and released last month, found that Canada's annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 C since 1948 — with higher rates seen in the North, the Prairies and northern B.C.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on May 25, 2019, 02:16:16 PM
Where I live, both the political left and the political right accept climate change, and that we must work against it. In June 2017, the parliament voted through The Swedish climate
policy framework (https://www.government.se/495f60/contentassets/883ae8e123bc4e42aa8d59296ebe0478/the-swedish-climate-policy-framework.pdf). Of the parliament's eight parties, all except the far-right Sweden Democrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats) voted for it.

Some of its contents:

Quote
By 2045, Sweden is to have zero net emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and should thereafter achieve negative emissions. Negative emissions will mean that Sweden overall helps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That is, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by Sweden is less than the amount of greenhouse gases reduced through the natural ecocycle, or through climate projects pursued by Sweden abroad. However, emissions from activities in Sweden must be at least 85 per cent lower than in 1990. Based on current population forecasts for Sweden, this means that emissions in Sweden will be less than one tonne per person by 2045.

Quote
As for the goal of zero net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2045, it will also be possible to achieve parts of these goals by 2030 and 2040 through supplementary measures, such as increased uptake of carbon dioxide by forests or investments in various climate projects abroad. Such measures may be used to achieve a maximum of 8 and 2 percentage points, respectively, of the emission reduction goals by 2030 and 2040. That is, by 2030 emissions from activities in Sweden should be at least 55 per cent lower than in 1990, and by 2040 at least 73 per cent lower than in 1990.

Quote
The third pillar of the framework is a climate policy council. The climate policy council will be tasked with supporting the Government by providing an independent assessment of how the overall policy presented by the Government is compatible with the climate goals. The council will evaluate whether the direction of various policy areas will increase or reduce the likelihood of achieving the climate goals.

My questions are:

1. Is this realistic?

2. Is it enough?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 25, 2019, 05:12:30 PM
Realistic for relatively wealthy and less populated Sweden, yes. Enough, if the whole world does it, maybe.

Net zero by 2045 is late. We could've already passed 2°C warming by then (given that we're currently polluting more than expected), and the permafrost thawing could drive climate change further all on its own.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 28, 2019, 02:04:49 PM
There's always more and it's always worse.

Article: Trump administration orders government agency to stop predicting long-term climate change impacts (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-climate-change-us-geological-survey-national-assessment-james-reilly-a8932836.html)
From: Independent
Date: 2019 MAY 28

Quote
The Trump administration has told a major US government department to end predicting what the long-term effects of climate change will be on the country.

Director of the US Geological Survey (USGS) James Reilly – a White House-appointed former oil geologist – ordered that scientific assessments only use computer-generated models that track the possible impact of climate change until 2040, according to The New York Times.

Previously the USGS modelled effects until the end of the century, the second half of which is likely to see the most dramatic impacts of global warming.

The order is likely to impact the US government’s National Climate Assessment, an interagency report produced every four years which outlines the projected impact of climate change in every corner of US society.

...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 28, 2019, 02:14:54 PM
There's an excellent example of government secrets that should be leaked and spread far and wide. National security being the reason why they should be leaked.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 29, 2019, 07:19:31 PM
#NoPlant19 has a lot of interesting content

tl:dr; Unusual weather has disrupted US agriculture.  Focus is on (1) could bankrupt small farmers, (2) could hike food prices and (3) what if it's the new normal? 

https://twitter.com/Germanscott74/status/1132276761193066497

Article: Farmers Are Using Twitter to Document the Disastrous Effects of Climate Change on Crops (https://www.eater.com/2019/5/29/18644596/farmers-are-using-noplant19-to-document-climate-change)
From: Eater
Date: 2019 MAY 29

Quote
In case we need anymore evidence that the globe is disastrously warmed, a pattern of conditions is impacting the world’s agricultural systems and threatening food supplies in the U.S. and abroad. Because legislators will continue to deny the what’s literally happening before their eyes (*cough* Climate Change), U.S. farmers have now turned to the Twitter hashtag #NoPlant19 to bring attention to the extremely wet spring that’s made it difficult plant corn and soybeans.

The U.S. is currently in the midst of its wettest 12 months on record, with regions of the Great Plains and Midwest — where much of the nation’s corn and soy is produced — bearing the brunt of this spring’s rainfall. Not only are homes being damaged as a result of the extreme flooding, but the conditions are making it damn near impossible for farmers to plant their crops.

On average over the past four years, farmers in the states that represent a majority of the nation’s harvest would have planted 90 percent of their corn and 66 percent of their soy by May 26, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report. That makes a lot of sense since crop yields tend to decline when corn is planted after May 10 and farmers typically wrap up their planting efforts by May 31. However 2019’s crops are far behind schedule. As of May 26, only 58 percent of the nation’s corn had been planted and just 29 percent of its soy. Farmers are rightly worried and consumers should be too. Crop shortages will likely result in higher prices for consumers and since corn and soy are basically in every part of the American diet, that could be a real problem.

...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WqxCkWwAEVF6Z.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7QWpz8X4AACrnc.png)

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: wastrel on May 29, 2019, 07:25:33 PM
Wouldn't generally warmer temperatures also mean that you could plant later than in previous years?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 29, 2019, 08:11:41 PM
Not if the general warmth is an average of much more variable weather.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on May 29, 2019, 08:26:30 PM
Wouldn't generally warmer temperatures also mean that you could plant later than in previous years?

Once the flood waters reside.

The issue isn't just warming, it's also more extreme weather that causes problems. In this case, floods.

Also one of the reasons that the early plantings are more productive than later plantings is that they avoid scorching in the summer heat.

So, warmer temperatures could mean you have to plant earlier than in previous years. As long as your land isn't underwater.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: bachfiend on May 30, 2019, 01:19:20 AM
Wouldn't generally warmer temperatures also mean that you could plant later than in previous years?

Once the flood waters reside.

The issue isn't just warming, it's also more extreme weather that causes problems. In this case, floods.

Also one of the reasons that the early plantings are more productive than later plantings is that they avoid scorching in the summer heat.

So, warmer temperatures could mean you have to plant earlier than in previous years. As long as your land isn't underwater.

Agreed.

A warmer Earth might mean that there’ll be both losers and winners.  A very much warmer Earth means that there’ll be just losers. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on May 31, 2019, 03:28:59 PM
Wouldn't generally warmer temperatures also mean that you could plant later than in previous years?

Once the flood waters reside.

The issue isn't just warming, it's also more extreme weather that causes problems. In this case, floods.

Also one of the reasons that the early plantings are more productive than later plantings is that they avoid scorching in the summer heat.

So, warmer temperatures could mean you have to plant earlier than in previous years. As long as your land isn't underwater.

Agreed.

A warmer Earth might mean that there’ll be both losers and winners.  A very much warmer Earth means that there’ll be just losers.

Of course, it won't only be bad in every single instance. But the net result for the planet is very likely going to be negative, by a long shot.

From what I have read, the northern-most countries of the world (like Canada and those in northern Europe) will be spared from some of the worst effects of global warming, and a warmer climate will certainly bring some benefits to those countries. But even for these countries, the net effect is still going to be negative. Just less net negative than for other parts of the world.

But these countries are rich, highly developed democracies. They will very likely be able to adapt to the net negative effects.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on May 31, 2019, 04:41:17 PM
Wouldn't generally warmer temperatures also mean that you could plant later than in previous years?

Once the flood waters reside.

The issue isn't just warming, it's also more extreme weather that causes problems. In this case, floods.

Also one of the reasons that the early plantings are more productive than later plantings is that they avoid scorching in the summer heat.

So, warmer temperatures could mean you have to plant earlier than in previous years. As long as your land isn't underwater.

Agreed.

A warmer Earth might mean that there’ll be both losers and winners.  A very much warmer Earth means that there’ll be just losers.

Of course, it won't only be bad in every single instance. But the net result for the planet is very likely going to be negative, by a long shot.

From what I have read, the northern-most countries of the world (like Canada and those in northern Europe) will be spared from some of the worst effects of global warming, and a warmer climate will certainly bring some benefits to those countries. But even for these countries, the net effect is still going to be negative. Just less net negative than for other parts of the world.

But these countries are rich, highly developed democracies. They will very likely be able to adapt to the net negative effects.

The changes are happening so fast I don't think it will be good thing for anyone.

It takes time to generate the capacity to growing foods on new land. Plus, much of the land that will be warm enough for crops now has trees, which are doing their part absorbing CO2.

Also, this season in Southern California, as one example, we've had a lot of rain (a good thing) and moderate temperatures (another good thing). But come summer, we're probably going to break records for highest temperature (a bad thing) and highest average temperature (another bad thing) and combined with increasing dryness (still another bad thing) will result in more massive wildfires (not just a bad thing, but they dump tons and ones of greenhouse gasses and take the Trees and other plants that absorb Co2). So while it may make for more pleasant spring afternoons, on balance it's a bad bad thing.

 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on May 31, 2019, 07:06:57 PM
Norway is a cold country that you might think would be better off with a warmer climate. But the last few years have been pretty bad for agriculture because of the unusual weather patterns. We had a long drought last year which meant a lot of failed crops, then a slightly early spring this year before it turns freezing again which does damage to crops that had already started growing. It seems it's easier for the changes to do damage than to benefit.

Following the drought we had unusually much rainfall, which doesn't negate the drought, it just means more flooding. https://cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/climate-news/western-norway-to-see-more-heavy-rain-and-flooding-in-the-future
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on May 31, 2019, 07:13:46 PM
We need giant GMO fast-growers.

Giant tomatoes.  Giant potatoes.

The over-sized trays of our hydroponic racks shall feed the world.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on May 31, 2019, 07:27:43 PM
Norway is a cold country that you might think would be better off with a warmer climate. But the last few years have been pretty bad for agriculture because of the unusual weather patterns. We had a long drought last year which meant a lot of failed crops, then a slightly early spring this year before it turns freezing again which does damage to crops that had already started growing. It seems it's easier for the changes to do damage than to benefit.

Following the drought we had unusually much rainfall, which doesn't negate the drought, it just means more flooding. https://cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/climate-news/western-norway-to-see-more-heavy-rain-and-flooding-in-the-future

This. Over the centuries farmers have learned how to grow in a relatively stable and fairly predictable climate.

With the rapid changes, that becomes impossible. Farmers don't know if last year will be the new normal, if it was an extreme, one-off case, or if the climate is going to be different every year.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 01, 2019, 08:04:50 AM
Norway is a cold country that you might think would be better off with a warmer climate. But the last few years have been pretty bad for agriculture because of the unusual weather patterns. We had a long drought last year which meant a lot of failed crops, then a slightly early spring this year before it turns freezing again which does damage to crops that had already started growing. It seems it's easier for the changes to do damage than to benefit.

Following the drought we had unusually much rainfall, which doesn't negate the drought, it just means more flooding. https://cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/climate-news/western-norway-to-see-more-heavy-rain-and-flooding-in-the-future

According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/Klimat-och-luft/Klimat/Klimatet-i-framtiden/Effekter-i-Sverige/), some excerpts:

Quote
The following are among the expected effects:

- Increased precipitation in the entire country. A general increase in precipitation is expected in the entire country. Also the number of instances of intensive precipitations is expected to increase. The precipitation is expected to increase the most in northern and western Sweden. In the mountain areas, the precipitation can increase up to 25 percent. That means a large addition of water in an area today that already has a lot of precipitation.

- Increased risk for floodings. Increased precipitation and more intensive rainfalls increase the risk for floodings.

- Shortage of water and drought in southern Sweden. Changes in precipitation and increased evaporation can lead to increased summer drought in southern Sweden. At the same time, the number of cloudburst is expected to increase and become more intensive even in southern Sweden.

- Temperature zones move northwards. The growing period is expected to increase between one and two months except for farthest down south in which the increase can become up to three months.

...

For Sweden, the effects of a warmer climate can in some parts be positive. The average temperature only needs to increase one degree in order for southern Sweden to have the climate that now prevails in central Germany. The farming prospects increase when the climate becomes milder, something that increases the possibilities for increased yield in farming and forestry.

Mild winters on the other hand increases the risk that we receive pests and vectors that the cold so far has spared us from. Wetter winters also mean increased risk for flooding along watercourses and lakes. Higher sea levels contributes to increased coastal erosion in Scania and can in combination with storms increase the risks of flooding in the coastal cities of southern Sweden.

...

Viewed from a global point of view, the expected negative effects of climate change for society dominates over the positive. Sweden will never be able to isolate itself from the effects of disturbances and weather events that take place in other parts of the world.

This is what I had in mind. I.e, though there will be some local positive effects, it's going to be mostly negative. And I don't think the described effects spell the dissolution of our society.

And of course, we in the far north are likely to be less affected than further south.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 02, 2019, 03:50:39 PM
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1yNN3cRDEY6eJENeJbKBuxHoros=/0x0:1200x900/920x613/filters:focal(0x0:1200x900):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/45224720/3047060508_737c7687bd_o.0.0.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2019, 12:14:48 AM

And of course, we in the far north are likely to be less affected than further south.

That is wishful thinking



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 03, 2019, 02:04:19 PM
Quote
The power switch: tracking Britain's record coal-free run (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-run)

Britain has set a new record for going without coal-powered energy, but how long will it last and when will we ditch the dirty fuel entirely?

Coal is currently generating 0% of Britain's power. The coal-free run has lasted 17 days and 2 hours so far.

...

Phasing out the heavily polluting fuel is a key step in the transition towards a net-zero carbon economy and essential to averting catastrophic climate change.

Britain is rapidly phasing out coal

The government last year unveiled its plan to shut down all remaining coal plants by 2025, a move that was welcomed by environmental groups.

The rapid collapse of coal power in Britain has in part been predicated on the introduction of a “carbon price floor” in 2013, which slashed the fuel’s profitability.

Nice!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on June 03, 2019, 07:52:13 PM
Yes, it's a good step, but they're phasing out coal in favour of natural gas. It's a bit cleaner than coal, but it's still a non-renewable fossil fuel. It's only an interim solution.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 06, 2019, 04:35:15 PM
Article: India weather: Temperature passes 50C Celsius in northern India (https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/india-weather-temperature-passes-50c-celsius-in-northern-india/news-story/0985e58e9ded4524fe586312b5154aef)
From: News.com.au
Date: 2019 JUN 03

Quote
Temperatures passed 50 degrees Celsius in northern India as an unrelenting heatwave triggered warnings of water shortages and heatstroke.

The thermometer hit 50.6 degrees Celsius in the Rajasthan desert city of Churu over the weekend, the weather department said.

All of Rajasthan suffered in severe heat with several cities hitting maximum temperatures above 47 Celsius.

...

About 200 million people live in northern India.

...

Yikes!

edit:

Churu's current forecast

(https://i.imgur.com/5XrlaCl.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 06, 2019, 05:03:48 PM
School strike for climate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_strike_for_climate)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Maximum_school_strikers_per_country.svg/640px-Maximum_school_strikers_per_country.svg.png)

I'm not really sure how much of an impact this thing might have, but it's good that people are engaged. Also good that it engages people in some locations that surprised me, like Pakistan and Colombia.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 06, 2019, 09:55:25 PM
Tangentially related to the climate, this could lead to a whole lot of pigs being slaughtered and not turned into food, and then that food will have to be sourced some other way. Also shows how vulnerable our food supply can be.

Quote
'No way to stop it': millions of pigs culled across Asia as swine fever spreads (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/06/millions-of-pigs-culled-across-asia-african-swine-fever-spreads-thailand-)

Experts say region is losing the battle to stop the biggest animal disease outbreak the planet has ever faced

South-east Asia is battling to contain the spread of highly contagious African swine fever, known as “pig Ebola”, which has already led to the culling of millions of pigs in China and Vietnam.

African swine fever, which is harmless to humans but fatal to pigs, was discovered in China in August, where it has caused havoc, leading to more than 1.2m pigs being culled. China is home to almost half of the world’s pigs and the news sent the global price of pork soaring.

There is no vaccination for African swine fever, which causes pigs to internally haemorrhage until they die, so the only option to contain the disease is to kill any contaminated animals. Some estimates say that in China up to 200m animals may eventually be slaughtered. The virus can last for several weeks on anything from clothes to vehicles, allowing for it to easily travel long distances.

It has spread like wildfire across Asia, causing growing devastation to the pig farmers of Vietnam and Cambodia and putting Thailand, Asia’s second-biggest pork producer, on “red alert”. Cases have increased in Mongolia, North Korea and Hong Kong in recent weeks, while South Korea is blood testing pigs at the border.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stands2reason on June 06, 2019, 10:38:47 PM
Guess they'll just have to buy American pork instead.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Nacreous on June 07, 2019, 10:47:57 AM
Yes, it's a good step, but they're phasing out coal in favour of natural gas. It's a bit cleaner than coal, but it's still a non-renewable fossil fuel. It's only an interim solution.
It’s no solution at all because it further depletes what little is left of the carbon budget, only at a slower rate.  Once we emit that carbon, we can’t get it back—at least not until carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) becomes economically and technically viable on an immense scale.  If we're to stop global warming even at something beyond 2 deg. C this century (a figure no longer practically achievable, IMO), we need to stop wasting the carbon budget, not take comfort from being a bit slower about wasting it. 
Re-posted from a related thread:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EprNPlSe6co

It is, of course, possible that some deus ex technica will come along to save us from ourselves by turning atmospheric CO2 into building materials or something, but such a savior is currently nowhere in sight and "he may tarry," as the rabbi said.  Meanwhile, we are rushing headlong toward a civilization-upending 4 deg. C of warming this century with every gigaton of carbon we emit, whether it comes from natural gas or coal.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 07, 2019, 11:33:13 AM
Article: US schools accused of censoring climate crisis message in graduation speeches (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jun/07/climate-crisis-emergency-graduation-message-censoring-class-of-0000)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2019 JUN 07

Quote
Schools and colleges across the US have been accused of censoring students who have attempted to use their graduation speeches to speak out on the unfolding climate crisis.

A youth-led movement called Class of 0000 is encouraging students to read out a prepared text at their graduation ceremonies that warns of “catastrophic climate change” and tells elected leaders to “have plan to get to zero emissions, or get zero of our votes”.

More than 350 students set to speak at ceremonies as valedictorians, or in other roles, have pledged to read the message, but many have complained that educational authorities have barred them from doing so as the global climate emergency is deemed too political to mention.

In the US education system, a valedictorian is typically a student with the highest academic performance in the class. This student delivers a farewell speech for the class at its graduation.

Emily Shal, an 18-year-old senior, was told by her school that the climate message was “too controversial” for her graduation speech as class president. Shal read the speech at a talent show before the graduation ceremony and said she still received backlash from school authorities.

“The administration were very mad, they were pissed,” said Shal, who attends Whittier Tech high school in Haverhill, Massachusetts. [...]

...

This is perhaps LESS THAN IDEAL.

But what stands out to me here is the youth activism.  Good on them!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 07, 2019, 11:57:53 AM
So why is it in the interest of the school authorities to cover up recognition of reality?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on June 07, 2019, 12:23:21 PM
Once we emit that carbon, we can’t get it back—at least not until carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) becomes economically and technically viable on an immense scale.
That makes no sense.   The majority of carbon added (from any source) is removed, and quickly.  If this were not the case we should be at 540 ppm already. (estimated)

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 07, 2019, 12:30:46 PM
So why is it in the interest of the school authorities to cover up recognition of reality?

Fear.  Blowback could hurt their careers.  Across the country, excessive and over-the-top 'ass covering' is a problem.

The most common defensive posture is, "I was just following the rules," and it's like a perpetual work-to-rule protest. 

e.g. Oh, Oliver was suspending for getting beat up?  Well, we have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy on FIGHTING.

Mindlessly following over-broad rules strips you agency.  All you did was do your job correctly as per the rules.  It's a blame-shifting strategy.  If you want to argue against punishing kids for plastic butter knives in their lunch bags, getting beat up or having inhalers then they can just wave their arms around while bloviating and now you're talking about bringing weapons to school, getting into fist fights and bringing drugs to school.

It's one of things I'd like to see changed.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 07, 2019, 01:18:25 PM
Is it just that I have started to pay more attention to it, or has climate change received significantly more public attention in the past few years?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 07, 2019, 01:18:44 PM
Once we emit that carbon, we can’t get it back—at least not until carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) becomes economically and technically viable on an immense scale.
That makes no sense.   The majority of carbon added (from any source) is removed, and quickly.  If this were not the case we should be at 540 ppm already. (estimated)

Most of the extra emissions from human activity go either into the oceans or into the atmosphere. Ocean acidification is just as bad as higher atmospheric CO2, but possibly more difficult to undo the consequences of when we finally start doing artificial sequestration at similar rates.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 07, 2019, 01:28:20 PM
Once we emit that carbon, we can’t get it back—at least not until carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) becomes economically and technically viable on an immense scale.
That makes no sense.   The majority of carbon added (from any source) is removed, and quickly.  If this were not the case we should be at 540 ppm already. (estimated)

The amount of carbon that is removed is a relatively fixed amount. More carbon is not removed is more carbon is admitted (not at these levels). So any additional carbon emitted beyond the relatively fixed amount that's removed is not getting removed.

That is the problem.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: st3class on June 07, 2019, 04:58:58 PM
So why is it in the interest of the school authorities to cover up recognition of reality?

Fear.  Blowback could hurt their careers.  Across the country, excessive and over-the-top 'ass covering' is a problem.

The most common defensive posture is, "I was just following the rules," and it's like a perpetual work-to-rule protest. 

e.g. Oh, Oliver was suspending for getting beat up?  Well, we have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy on FIGHTING.

Mindlessly following over-broad rules strips you agency.  All you did was do your job correctly as per the rules.  It's a blame-shifting strategy.  If you want to argue against punishing kids for plastic butter knives in their lunch bags, getting beat up or having inhalers then they can just wave their arms around while bloviating and now you're talking about bringing weapons to school, getting into fist fights and bringing drugs to school.

It's one of things I'd like to see changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A80j4r_Gtto
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 07, 2019, 05:39:23 PM
No spoilers.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Nacreous on June 07, 2019, 09:37:25 PM
Once we emit that carbon, we can’t get it back—at least not until carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) becomes economically and technically viable on an immense scale.
That makes no sense.   The majority of carbon added (from any source) is removed, and quickly.  If this were not the case we should be at 540 ppm already. (estimated)
The Earth's carbon cycle had been pretty much in balance for hundreds of thousands of years before we started dumping huge amounts of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. The stuff we've been adding is responsible for the increase from ~280 PPM to the current 410+ PPM.  That added portion will be there for thousands of years until the process of weathering has had time to move it to the bottom of the ocean and the balance is restored.  That’s what I mean by "we can’t get it back."  Once that quantity is up there, it’s staying, absent any new technology that can remove it on a grand scale at a bearable cost.

Of course, any particular CO2 molecule is subject to being removed from the atmosphere by natural means, whether it came from a power plant or a hummingbird's breath.  It’s the amount we're adding above what nature can simultaneously remove that’s the problem, and even if we stopped emitting today, that extra carbon would still be up there a long time, creating a new, higher equilibrium temperature.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Nacreous on June 07, 2019, 09:50:12 PM
Is it just that I have started to pay more attention to it, or has climate change received significantly more public attention in the past few years?
Perhaps the effects are getting harder for the public to ignore, particularly the floods and wildfires.  It certainly isn’t due to increased coverage by major news media, who are still giving it scant notice relative to the colossal implications of the story.   

What story in human history is more momentous than a genuinely existential threat to civilization?  I would say the imminent danger of a nuclear world war was in the same class, but one hasn’t actually begun—yet.  Man-made climate change is in progress and accelerating.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 07, 2019, 10:22:17 PM

What story in human history is more momentous than a genuinely existential threat to civilization?

Her emails?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 07, 2019, 10:28:30 PM
The Earth's carbon cycle had been pretty much in balance for hundreds of thousands of years

Hm, I get what you're saying, but I don't know if "balanced" is the word I'd use, as that makes it sound like it was more or less static... but of course the swings between the glacial/interglacial periods are highly significant; ~20,000 years ago it was over 100 ppm less than pre-industrial.

(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/800kandKeeling.png)

[/pedantry]
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Nacreous on June 08, 2019, 12:10:18 AM
The Earth's carbon cycle had been pretty much in balance for hundreds of thousands of years

Hm, I get what you're saying, but I don't know if "balanced" is the word I'd use, as that makes it sound like it was more or less static... but of course the swings between the glacial/interglacial periods are highly significant; ~20,000 years ago it was over 100 ppm less than pre-industrial.

[/pedantry]
Yes, the signal is noisy, but a trend line through it would be pretty flat until recently, wouldn’t it? CO2 minima and maxima were produced by glaciations and deglaciations and damped by natural feedbacks such that the max never got much above 280.  I would call it balanced, but I guess it would be in the same sense that a teeter-totter is.

It probably isn’t news to you, but while I was googling around trying to remember what the underlying mechanisms of CO2 concentration changes associated with glacial cycles were, I discovered that we still aren’t very sure.  I thought we knew this, but apparently all we're confident of is that it did happen, not exactly how:
Quote
However, we have not yet identi®ed the cause of these variations in CO2. How do the orbitally driven cycles in solar radiation set this particular positive feedback into motion?
This question has persisted for two decades, motivating intensive research by palaeoclimatologists and palaeoceanographers. From this research, we now recognize many processes that could regulate atmospheric CO2 on the timescales of glacial/interglacial transi- tions, and it may well be that the actual cause of glacial/interglacial CO2 change is among them. However, evaluating the importance of these mechanisms with data from the recent geological and glaciological record has been a challenging and controversial task, leading as yet to no consensus on a fundamental mechanism.
https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 08, 2019, 08:28:44 AM
The Earth's carbon cycle had been pretty much in balance for hundreds of thousands of years

Hm, I get what you're saying, but I don't know if "balanced" is the word I'd use, as that makes it sound like it was more or less static... but of course the swings between the glacial/interglacial periods are highly significant; ~20,000 years ago it was over 100 ppm less than pre-industrial.

[/pedantry]
Yes, the signal is noisy, but a trend line through it would be pretty flat until recently, wouldn’t it? CO2 minima and maxima were produced by glaciations and deglaciations and damped by natural feedbacks such that the max never got much above 280.  I would call it balanced, but I guess it would be in the same sense that a teeter-totter is.

It probably isn’t news to you, but while I was googling around trying to remember what the underlying mechanisms of CO2 concentration changes associated with glacial cycles were, I discovered that we still aren’t very sure.  I thought we knew this, but apparently all we're confident of is that it did happen, not exactly how:
Quote
However, we have not yet identi®ed the cause of these variations in CO2. How do the orbitally driven cycles in solar radiation set this particular positive feedback into motion?
This question has persisted for two decades, motivating intensive research by palaeoclimatologists and palaeoceanographers. From this research, we now recognize many processes that could regulate atmospheric CO2 on the timescales of glacial/interglacial transi- tions, and it may well be that the actual cause of glacial/interglacial CO2 change is among them. However, evaluating the importance of these mechanisms with data from the recent geological and glaciological record has been a challenging and controversial task, leading as yet to no consensus on a fundamental mechanism.
https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf

Well I think the broad brushstrokes are there (the Milankovitch cycles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) are almost certainly driven by changes in the Earth's precession, eccentricity and obliquity), but not all the details are well understood. For reference, modeled solar forcing due to these cycles vs ice cores:

(http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg)

Clearly not a perfect fit, but still pretty good (keeping in mind that there is some degree - up to about 5% (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ba46/aabee83496bbb6f7de686e4ab5ee1ba7b784.pdf) - of timescale uncertainty in ice core data that gets worse the further back you go and which also depends on the climate itself).

From skepticalscience (https://skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html):

Quote
Some Final Words

There are still a number of unresolved questions that remain in the astronomical theory of climate change, even during the more familiar Quaternary timeframe.  For instance, while we know changes in the orbit pace ice ages, the precise way the three Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is not well known.

For example, about 800,000 years ago a shift of the dominant periodicity from a 41,000 yr to 100,000 yr signal in glacial oscillations occurred (called the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, see e.g., Clark et al., 2006), and while a lot of ideas exist for why this should be the case, there's no bulletproof answer to this.  Explaining the 100,000 yr recurrence period of ice ages is difficult because although the 100,000 yr cycle dominates the ice-volume record, it is small in the insolation spectrum. Therefore, there's still a lot to be done here.

It seems that the Earth listens to the Northern Hemisphere when deciding to have an ice age.  If the North and South are alternatively near and far from the Sun during summer, why has glaciation been globally synchronous? What connections are there between Northern insolation and Antarctic climate at the obliquity and precession timescales? What are the competitive roles between a further distance from the sun during summer and a longer summer, following Kepler's law? These quesrions are still not resolved (for a flavor of the discussion, see  Huybers, 2009...see also Kawamura et al 2007; Huybers and Denton, 2008; Cheng et al 2009; Denton et al 2010 ).  This problem also involves work at the interface of carbon cycle and ice sheet dynamics, processes that are in their infancy in terms of modeling.

I think the underlying theme (to most of climate science in general and this issue in particular) is how climate feedbacks and the redistribution of heat by the ocean and atmosphere interact with these primary orbital drivers to either exacerbate or reduce their impact on the climate. I read an interesting book by Wally Broecker a few years back, The Great Ocean Conveyor, in which he tries to deal with some of the particularly dramatic jumps in climate (the Dansgaard-Oeschger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event) events and related phenomena). Not exactly the same problem, but probably somewhat related.
Title: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 08, 2019, 11:50:37 AM
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-auto-emissions-california-trump-20190607-story.html
Quote
The administration’s proposal would undo one of the most significant environmental regulations put in place under President Obama — rules that sought to cut down on vehicle emissions, improve fuel efficiency and forestall the worst effects of climate change.

Basically automakers asked trump to make minor changes to the vehicle emission standards and the California standards.

Instead Trump wants to make drastic changes and end California’s ability to set higher standards.

End result: more co2 less alternative sources

We’re going in the wrong direction

Thanks Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 08, 2019, 01:48:12 PM
Quote
The regulations require car manufacturers to build increasingly efficient vehicles so that by 2025 the nation’s cars and trucks would average more than 50 miles per gallon.

So that's the "too strict" standard they want to get rid of. That's already pathetic. We'll have used up our carbon budget momentarily, and beyond that we need massive carbon sequestration projects. We need to stop all the emissions that can be stopped as early as possible.

At least some countries will ban sale of new fossil fuel cars 2020-2030, and some cities (and Costa Rica) will ban them entirely. Some more countries after that. Later is too late, but having it on the table means it can be moved up in time. Having some countries with bans will make it easier for zero emission vehicles to become the norm.

I thought at first California was a state that had a ban coming up, but apparently it's just a requirement that 15% of "new vehicles sold offered for sale" 2018-2025 are zero emission. I hope California responds to the Trump administration's threats to worsen their standards by improving them further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles

https://detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2018/04/02/epa-roll-back-auto-fuel-economy-rules/33485969/
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 08, 2019, 02:12:10 PM
At least some countries will ban sale of new fossil fuel cars 2020-2030, and some cities (and Costa Rica) will ban them entirely.

At least they say they will. I don't believe it until it has passed through.

Otherwise, I agree. We need to reduce wherever we can, as fast as we can.

I saw that Wiki link, and unfortunately it is a bit pathetic. 2030 is late. And China, 2040? Really? And the US isn't even in there, neither is Germany or Turkey.

Most of those countries are peanuts. I agree that all countries should do as much as they possibly can, but the more populous countries count for more. What small countries like Sweden, Norway, and Israel do, make little difference unless the big boys are also on.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 08, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
Man, how the fuck are we ever going to tackle this problem if we have to keep fighting uphill battles over gas guzzlers and lightbulbs. I'm not one to have a defeatist attitude on this issue, but some days...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 08, 2019, 08:20:25 PM
Man, how the fuck are we ever going to tackle this problem if we have to keep fighting uphill battles over gas guzzlers and lightbulbs. I'm not one to have a defeatist attitude on this issue, but some days...

See my answer here, in another Global Warming thread

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 09, 2019, 11:14:06 AM
Quote
WAITROSE TRIALS 'BRING YOUR OWN' CONTAINER SCHEME TO REDUCE PLASTIC WASTE (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/waitrose-plastic-container-bring-your-own-trial-a8942876.html)

Waitrose is trialling a "bring your own" container scheme that encourages customers to buy and refill produce.

The supermarket chain, which is part of John Lewis & Partners, will start selling items such as cereals, pasta, coffee and rice in large dispensers as part of the concept, which it hopes will effectively reduce waste from plastic packaging.

Cleaning products and alcohol will also be available through dispensers.

Baby steps...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on June 10, 2019, 07:45:37 AM
Maybe some good news. I don't know if he is a good or bad person but this is something everybody with money needs to help with.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/climate/bloomberg-climate-pledge-coal.html

Michael Bloomberg Promises $500 Million to Help End Coal
Quote
WASHINGTON — Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, said on Friday he would donate $500 million to a new campaign to close every coal-fired power plant in the United States and halt the growth of natural gas.

The new campaign, called Beyond Carbon, is designed to help eliminate coal by focusing on state and local governments. The effort will bypass Washington, where Mr. Bloomberg has said national action appears unlikely because of a divided Congress and a president who denies the established science of climate change.

“We’re in a race against time with climate change, and yet there is virtually no hope of bold federal action on this issue for at least another two years,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement before the announcement, which he made in a commencement address at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Mother Nature is not waiting on our political calendar, and neither can we.”

President Trump has made reviving what he has called “clean, beautiful coal” a cornerstone of his energy agenda.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 10, 2019, 08:23:43 AM
Quote
It will fund lobbying efforts by environmental groups — in state legislatures, City Councils and public utility commissions — that aim to close coal plants and replace them with wind, solar and other renewable power. Part of the cash also will go toward efforts to elect local lawmakers who prioritize clean energy.

I guess it's better than nothing, but I was hoping for something more significant, like buying coal plants and shutting them down, or targeting the workers and finding other jobs for them. Instead it's just another lobbying group.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on June 10, 2019, 06:13:38 PM
Quote
It will fund lobbying efforts by environmental groups — in state legislatures, City Councils and public utility commissions — that aim to close coal plants and replace them with wind, solar and other renewable power. Part of the cash also will go toward efforts to elect local lawmakers who prioritize clean energy.

I guess it's better than nothing, but I was hoping for something more significant, like buying coal plants and shutting them down, or targeting the workers and finding other jobs for them. Instead it's just another lobbying group.

I don't think 500 million will buy many coal plants - Looks like building cost of a new coal plan is about $2 billion. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on June 11, 2019, 07:06:56 PM
Wow. . . .This is a hell of a milestone to hit. One item is that it sure looks like Trump cannot back a winner.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/business/renewable-energy-coal-capacity/index.html

Quote
America's renewable energy capacity is now greater than coal

New York (CNN Business)America's coal industry has already been left in the dust by natural gas. Now it's under immense pressure from the renewable energy boom.

The renewable energy sector had slightly more installed capacity than coal in April, according to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report.
SUN DAY Campaign, a nonprofit research group supporting sustainable energy. The breakthrough reflects the plunging cost of solar and wind as well as heightened environmental concern about coal.
"Coal has no technology path," said Jeff McDermott, managing partner at Greentech Capital Advisors, a boutique investment bank focused on clean energy. "It's got nowhere to go but extinction."
The clean energy revolution is on the verge of a tipping point.
Also in April, the renewable energy sector was projected to have generated more electricity than coal, according to a separate report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That transition was partially driven by seasonal issues.
At the same time, America has drastically cut back on its appetite for coal. Since peaking in 2008, US coal consumption has plunged 39% to the lowest level in 40 years, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 13, 2019, 12:41:24 AM
Article: Climate change drives widespread and rapid thermokarst development in very cold permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2019GL082187)
From: Geophysical Research Letters
Date: 2019 JUN 10

Quote
...

[...] Observed maximum thaw depths at our sites are already exceeding those projected to occur by 2090 under RCP 4.5.

Key Points:
  • Observed thermokarst development in very cold permafrost at 3 monitoring sites along a 700 km transect in the Canadian High Arctic.
  • Rapid landscape response to above average summer warmth is due to limited thermal buffering from overlying ecosystem components and near‐surface ground ice.
  • Change was greatest at Mould Bay where thawing index values were 240 % above historic normals causing ~90 cm of subsidence in 12 years.

lmao owned
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on June 14, 2019, 04:46:00 AM
Article: Climate change drives widespread and rapid thermokarst development in very cold permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2019GL082187)
From: Geophysical Research Letters
Date: 2019 JUN 10

Quote
...

[...] Observed maximum thaw depths at our sites are already exceeding those projected to occur by 2090 under RCP 4.5.

Key Points:
  • Observed thermokarst development in very cold permafrost at 3 monitoring sites along a 700 km transect in the Canadian High Arctic.
  • Rapid landscape response to above average summer warmth is due to limited thermal buffering from overlying ecosystem components and near‐surface ground ice.
  • Change was greatest at Mould Bay where thawing index values were 240 % above historic normals causing ~90 cm of subsidence in 12 years.

lmao owned


Cattle burps will seem insignificant.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 16, 2019, 01:35:04 AM
Looks like the start of another bad year for Greenland:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D89fySiXUAAUBgV.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D89fySpX4AEP73I.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9BUmLPXYAA37cw.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 16, 2019, 11:18:05 PM
1987 - July - 23
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9N6Fo1U4AIvaHL.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on June 17, 2019, 01:35:43 PM
https://www.changeobserved.com

(https://i.imgur.com/BwdzKlB.gif)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 17, 2019, 02:28:52 PM
In many ways that is a population density map, possibly weighted by how much trash and coal people burn. But I'm guessing some of that is rainforests being burned.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: John Albert on June 18, 2019, 12:26:27 AM
Man, this thread is fucking depressing.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stlc8tr on June 18, 2019, 12:37:32 AM
Was listening to Econtalk (a Libertarian-focused interview show) last week when they had Bjorn Lomborg on.

http://www.econtalk.org/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-attacking-climate-change/

I don't really follow climate change news that closely but I'm guessing Lomborg is a well known climate change skeptic?

Though perhaps "skeptic" isn't the correct term since he seems to acknowledge that it's happening but that it's not that big of a deal.

Quote
   
Bjorn Lomborg: So, I think the first thing to really realize is that I'm not talking about this as me. I'm simply trying to take some of the best people who have been working on this, typically with the U.N. Climate Panel [United Nations IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. So, when you are asking what is my assessment, I'm simply answering: What is it that the U.N. Climate Panel is telling us. Because, I'm just working in economics. I'm not the science guy who has been looking at this. There's lots of economists who have been looking at this. What they find is: Global warming is a problem; it's not the end of the world. By the 2070s, the net impact of global warming will be somewhere between the equivalent of 0.2 and 2% of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. So, it's the equivalent of probably 1 recession over the next 50 years. By the end of the century, unmitigated global warming might cost somewhere between 2 and 4% of global GDP. Remember: by then we'll probably be somewhere between 5 and 10 times richer; so, out of a 1000% increase, we'll still have to pay 2 to 4%. That's certainly a problem: certainly not the end of the world.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on June 18, 2019, 12:32:52 PM
Fun with numbers! Libertarians are god damned idiots.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 18, 2019, 12:37:25 PM
Going off the excerpt, seems like he's downplaying the upper-bound on how bad this could get. 

Like, last I checked:Warming, instability, melting and other metrics keep exceeding projections.  Projections keep getting worse.  There's a steady stream of dire research coming out and we can only hope it's all wrong. And, to top it off, the world's not doing nearly enough.  What we're doing now would've been great in the '80s. 

His, "one recession," remark also fails to account for other risks.  For example, geopolitical instability everywhere will be increased. Such as by glacier-fed rivers in SE Asia drying up, leaving over a billion people high and dry. This includes hundreds of millions in India-Pakistan who rely on shared rivers and this will be a nasty situation. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 18, 2019, 01:11:36 PM
Going off the excerpt, seems like he's downplaying the upper-bound on how bad this could get. 

Like, last I checked:
  • Current Lock-In: +1.5C (2.7f) by 2100
  • Current Worst-Case: ~+5C (9f) by 2100.  This is vastly worse than 'one recession.'
  • (Bonus) Absolute Worst-Case I Can Assemble Using Articles I've Read Recently:
    • Worst Case #1 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/): Current trajectory gives +2C (3.6f) in 2036
    • Worst Case #2 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/06/domino-effect-of-climate-events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state): +2C (3.6f) accelerates slide to +4C (7.2f)
    • Worst Case #3 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1): +4.5C (8.1f) triggers additional 8C (14.4f) via stratocumulus cloud dissolution
    • Overall Scenario: +2C (3.6f) by 2036 leads to +12.5C (22.5f) and that's Doomsday territory.
Warming, instability, melting and other metrics keep exceeding projections.  Projections keep getting worse.  There's a steady stream of dire research coming out and we can only hope it's all wrong. And, to top it off, the world's not doing nearly enough.  What we're doing now would've been great in the '80s. 

His, "one recession," remark also fails to account for other risks.  Geopolitical instability everywhere will be increased.  Like, glacier-fed revers in SE Asia will be drying up, leaving over a billion people high and dry. This includes hundreds of millions in India-Pakistan who rely on shared rivers and this will be a nasty situation.

Especially for US readers, temperatures should always include Fahrenheit. Not just because it's what most people outside of science relate to, but also because the C temperatures on a smaller scale may seem to downplay the true effect.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on June 18, 2019, 02:18:51 PM
Especially for US readers, temperatures should always include Fahrenheit. Not just because it's what most people outside of science relate to, but also because the C temperatures on a smaller scale may seem to downplay the true effect.

Grow up.  SI rules.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on June 18, 2019, 02:25:06 PM
I attended a very interesting lecture last night at out Forest and Bird meeting regarding the relationship of microbes and climate change.  the lecturer was a researcher at the University of Canterbury... he wasn't particularly optimistic about the outcome of current policy.

The slide show was very easy to follow and introduced some new and some familiar) aspects of the influence of the very tiny on the very large.

No mention of Fahrenheit, miles or pounds, BTW.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 18, 2019, 03:09:45 PM
Such as by glacier-fed rivers in SE Asia drying up, leaving over a billion people high and dry.

To expand on this point:

(https://i.imgur.com/xvicJn3.jpg)

By 2100, those glaciers will be mostly gone.  Hope we develop efficient, scalable desal soon.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 18, 2019, 03:41:14 PM
I'm 100% sure that the next update from the bulletin of atomic scientists will move the doomsday clock closer to midnight than ever before. Maybe we are one minute and a half from midnight... or even just one minute...

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on June 18, 2019, 04:34:49 PM
Especially for US readers, temperatures should always include Fahrenheit. Not just because it's what most people outside of science relate to, but also because the C temperatures on a smaller scale may seem to downplay the true effect.
People reading about a scientific issue on a science and skepticism forum are not "outside science".
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 18, 2019, 04:42:35 PM
I'm 100% sure that the next update from the bulletin of atomic scientists will move the doomsday clock closer to midnight than ever before. Maybe we are one minute and a half from midnight... or even just one minute...

I thought that clock was Nuclear War Doomsday. Not the slow burn of Global Warming.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 18, 2019, 04:43:30 PM
Especially for US readers, temperatures should always include Fahrenheit. Not just because it's what most people outside of science relate to, but also because the C temperatures on a smaller scale may seem to downplay the true effect.
People reading about a scientific issue on a science and skepticism forum are not "outside science".

I think there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. (FWIW, even  :steve: prefers F)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on June 18, 2019, 04:47:01 PM
Especially for US readers, temperatures should always include Fahrenheit. Not just because it's what most people outside of science relate to, but also because the C temperatures on a smaller scale may seem to downplay the true effect.
People reading about a scientific issue on a science and skepticism forum are not "outside science".
I think there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Evidence like what? Your lone complaint here in this thread?

Quote
(FWIW, even  :steve: prefers F)
In some situations so do I, but that doesn't mean I can't relate to C.

Nor is it relevant to your statement about people outside science, since Steve isn't one of those.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 18, 2019, 04:48:19 PM
I'm 100% sure that the next update from the bulletin of atomic scientists will move the doomsday clock closer to midnight than ever before. Maybe we are one minute and a half from midnight... or even just one minute...

I thought that clock was Nuclear War Doomsday. Not the slow burn of Global Warming.

Apparently not.



Current Time - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/)

Quote
A new abnormal: It is still two minutes to midnight


Humanity now faces two simultaneous existential threats, either of which would be cause for extreme concern and immediate attention. These major threats—nuclear weapons and climate change—were exacerbated this past year by the increased use of information warfare to undermine democracy around the world, amplifying risk from these and other threats and putting the future of civilization in extraordinary danger.

Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: The Latinist on June 19, 2019, 01:17:25 AM
The doomsday clock is ridiculous for the same reason that terror alerts that are always red are: they reject nuance and the ability to communicate information in favor of perpetual alarmism, with the result that people become inured to them.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Desert Fox on June 19, 2019, 01:52:29 AM
The doomsday clock is ridiculous for the same reason that terror alerts that are always red are: they reject nuance and the ability to communicate information in favor of perpetual alarmism, with the result that people become inured to them.

That is a good point - One could argue that we may be past midnight with respect to Global Waming
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Gigabyte on June 19, 2019, 03:40:17 AM
One could argue it's 4 in the morning as well.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: arthwollipot on June 19, 2019, 03:52:16 AM
We still have time to act on climate change — but records will tumble for next 20 years regardless of emissions: study (https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-06-18/climate-change-emissions-smashing-temperature-records-study/11160340)

Quote
Our last summer was the hottest on record in Australia, and we can expect the record breaking weather to continue for at least the next 20 years, new climate change research has found.

Regardless of action on climate change, monthly temperature records will continue to be smashed for the next two decades, but what happens beyond then depends on whether or not we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Immediate action to drastically reduce emissions would rein in the temperature record-breaking from around 2040, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0498-5) today.

But the rate of record-smashing will continue to rise throughout the 21st century if emissions keep increasing at the current rate.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 19, 2019, 07:07:55 AM
(FWIW, even  :steve: prefers F)

He also has an even-number bias when setting the thermostat, which I would guess is a significant reason for it. The difference of two degrees in Celsius might be too much.

Such as by glacier-fed rivers in SE Asia drying up, leaving over a billion people high and dry.

To expand on this point:

(https://i.imgur.com/xvicJn3.jpg)

By 2100, those glaciers will be mostly gone.  Hope we develop efficient, scalable desal soon.

That's something I hadn't really thought of, but it's sort of obvious that these massive stores of frozen water help balance the water supply across multiple years. So once they're gone, the effects of droughts are going to be a lot more immediate.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 19, 2019, 05:13:05 PM
Holy fucking shit... there isn't a single scientific report update that shows that things could stabilize or get better... This trend reveals something very serious and profound with all the previous weather studies... they suffer from a severe optimistic bias. Basically 100% of the updates that process new data show that current metrics are worse than the models predicted...

Himalayan glaciers melting at alarming rate, spy satellites show
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/himalayan-glaciers-melting-alarming-rate-spy-satellites-show/
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 19, 2019, 05:45:21 PM
Holy fucking shit... there isn't a single scientific report update that shows that things could stabilize or get better... This trend reveals something very serious and profound with all the previous weather studies... they suffer from a severe optimistic bias. Basically 100% of the updates that process new data show that current metrics are worse than the models predicted...

Himalayan glaciers melting at alarming rate, spy satellites show
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/himalayan-glaciers-melting-alarming-rate-spy-satellites-show/
Yes.

I believe that scientists have deliberately been too cautious and conservative in their predictions for reasons other than science.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 19, 2019, 06:02:39 PM
Possibly because they themselves have been too optimistic, assuming that we'd do more than less than nothing to reduce emissions. Human emissions were too high when they were 22 gigatons 30 years ago, and now they've been reduced by negative 68%.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 19, 2019, 07:12:41 PM
Possibly because they themselves have been too optimistic, assuming that we'd do more than less than nothing to reduce emissions. Human emissions were too high when they were 22 gigatons 30 years ago, and now they've been reduced by negative 68%.
Nope. Most of the predictions are of the “if we don’t do something then...” variety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 19, 2019, 09:45:52 PM
This issue of the ecological breakdown is being exceedingly hard for me to digest. I'm in a moment of my life that I am seriously wondering about the possibility of having children in the near future... But a scientific and logic analysis clearly shows that this might be unethical... If you know that in the next 50 years society will start collapsing, having children could mean creating human beings knowing in advance that they will have a life of major suffering... suffering and despair that can be completely avoided by not allowing them to be born.

Do any of you guys have some input regarding this issue? Is there anyone going through a similar mental conflict? (On top of that, having a child is the #1 thing that you could possible do with the highest impact on the environment...)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: brilligtove on June 20, 2019, 12:00:33 AM
This issue of the ecological breakdown is being exceedingly hard for me to digest. I'm in a moment of my life that I am seriously wondering about the possibility of having children in the near future... But a scientific and logic analysis clearly shows that this might be unethical... If you know that in the next 50 years society will start collapsing, having children could mean creating human beings knowing in advance that they will have a life of major suffering... suffering and despair that can be completely avoided by not allowing them to be born.

Do any of you guys have some input regarding this issue? Is there anyone going through a similar mental conflict? (On top of that, having a child is the #1 thing that you could possible do with the highest impact on the environment...)

maybe unpopular opinion ranty alert

My kid is now 8, going into grade 4 in Sept. She is a concentration of resources, since she's the only offspring of four people.

Suffering? The only way to have no suffering is to have no existence. Unfortunately this is also the way to have no joy, pleasure, creativity, invention, delight, and so on. Everyone is going to suffer. Many of us will suffer horribly. That's not about climate change - that's just life.

Where I live and for some decades life is probably going to be pretty good. My child has a good chance of being healthy and productive for a long time to come unless civilization collapses entirely. I'm not willing to become a prepper, so I'm working to set up Kidzilla to be able to handle what is coming, and maybe help hold the line.

Having a child is an utterly irrational decision. The cost/benefit is a pile of stinking camel shit - even when you ignore money and look at raw value gained and lost. If you want to have a happy life, kids are not a great option.

Children tend to be deeply satisfying, however. Humans tend to be more satisfied and happy with life when we feel productive - and having a child is just about the most literally productive thing you can do. My child and I have a deeply frustrating and difficult relationship for a variety of reasons - and we both find that relationship immensely satisfying and critically important to our lives. (My clever monkey has some deep thoughts on occasion).

I guess what I'm saying is, if potential suffering is your only measure for the worth of a human life you should seriously consider how and when you'll euthanize yourself. I'm not being sarcastic or poking at you. I've had my life radically altered by cancer and had to consider this very thing.

For me, suffering - potential and actual - are not the only factor to consider in the worth of a life. On balance I think I bring more to the table than I take (a grossly biased opinion to be sure!) I am contributing to population decline while keeping an interest in the future with my child.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 20, 2019, 05:25:21 AM
Do any of you guys have some input regarding this issue? Is there anyone going through a similar mental conflict? (On top of that, having a child is the #1 thing that you could possible do with the highest impact on the environment...)

Skip to the last paragraph for my answer. First I feel like I should be clear that I don't want to tell random individuals, or anyone who didn't ask my opinion, that they shouldn't be having children, or that they shouldn't have had children.

I think that in terms of the climate, and in terms of raising the standard of living with more resources available per person, that societies should aim to have as few children as possible. And the way to do that is to maximize choice. Free reproductive healthcare and preventives. Freedoms for both women and men to do with their lives what they want, so that having (more) children doesn't become the default. Social welfare programs to stop reproduction being necessary to provide for yourself. And mandatory science-based sex education to make sure that as many people as possible can be informed in their choices.

I'd like for adoption to be the officially recommended way to have children. So that there's a surplus of potential parents ready for any children born by accident, or born to families who for one reason or another aren't (or cease to be) able to care for them.

Children are still going to be born regardless of policies, but the fewer born, the easier it is to deal with the problems. I'm not against artificial reproduction, especially because that means you really have to make a choice to go through with it. But I would say that not having children when you want to, isn't as bad as not having parents. Society should be more concerned with making sure that children have parents, than vice versa.

For me personally, the state of the climate and the political corruption that makes solutions difficult, are among the reasons why I don't want to have children. I agree that lack of existence is the only guaranteed way to prevent suffering, but that makes not reproducing the most definitive way to prevent suffering. There's no equivalent guarantee that someone will have joy in their lives. Ultimately, if you make an informed choice to create a child, whatever suffering they go through, they can blame it on you. Whatever joy they experience, you shouldn't expect them to be thankful for it, because they never asked to be born. As a parent, you should expect to give what time and effort you can. Then once they're independent, they can choose to remain in your life or not.

For those who want my opinion; I would say that if you don't think that there's a very good chance, beyond reasonable doubt, that you're going to be able to provide a good life for any (additional) children you have, then you shouldn't create them. But you can still consider fostering or adoption, and use what resources that are available to you to help care for the children who already exist.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 20, 2019, 07:53:08 AM
Was listening to Econtalk (a Libertarian-focused interview show) last week when they had Bjorn Lomborg on.

http://www.econtalk.org/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-attacking-climate-change/

I don't really follow climate change news that closely but I'm guessing Lomborg is a well known climate change skeptic?

Though perhaps "skeptic" isn't the correct term since he seems to acknowledge that it's happening but that it's not that big of a deal.

Quote
   
Bjorn Lomborg: So, I think the first thing to really realize is that I'm not talking about this as me. I'm simply trying to take some of the best people who have been working on this, typically with the U.N. Climate Panel [United Nations IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. So, when you are asking what is my assessment, I'm simply answering: What is it that the U.N. Climate Panel is telling us. Because, I'm just working in economics. I'm not the science guy who has been looking at this. There's lots of economists who have been looking at this. What they find is: Global warming is a problem; it's not the end of the world. By the 2070s, the net impact of global warming will be somewhere between the equivalent of 0.2 and 2% of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. So, it's the equivalent of probably 1 recession over the next 50 years. By the end of the century, unmitigated global warming might cost somewhere between 2 and 4% of global GDP. Remember: by then we'll probably be somewhere between 5 and 10 times richer; so, out of a 1000% increase, we'll still have to pay 2 to 4%. That's certainly a problem: certainly not the end of the world.

Yes, Lomborg has been beating this dead horse for well over a decade now. He tends to exaggerate the costs of mitigation while downplaying the costs of dealing with the fallout from climate change. He calls himself the skeptical environmentalist, but he's neither of those things. One image summary:

(http://www.realclimate.org/images/Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise.png)

More here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/) and here (http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 20, 2019, 08:30:00 AM
Holy fucking shit... there isn't a single scientific report update that shows that things could stabilize or get better... This trend reveals something very serious and profound with all the previous weather studies... they suffer from a severe optimistic bias. Basically 100% of the updates that process new data show that current metrics are worse than the models predicted...

Himalayan glaciers melting at alarming rate, spy satellites show
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/himalayan-glaciers-melting-alarming-rate-spy-satellites-show/
Yes.

I believe that scientists have deliberately been too cautious and conservative in their predictions for reasons other than science.

I doubt that. Being "deliberately" overly conservative implies that these scientists could have known that things would have turned out much worse than we thought and yet chose not to say anything. That sounds like nonsense to me. And plenty of climate scientists have been warning about the asymmetric fat tail on the range of climate sensitivity estimates for a while now.

(https://skepticalscience.com/pics/uncertainty_sensitivity.gif)

That fat tail is (IMO) our main problem.

I think the main issue is that there are still a lot of unknowns and they often turn out not to be on our side. For example, the scientific community couldn't say much about rapid ice melt on Greenland glaciers, because the models couldn't reproduce it. They make mention of that fact in the IPCC AR5 but then can't include it in subsequent analysis because there's nothing to analyze. So then when it turns out that glacier dynamics behave as a rather strong positive feedback on glacial melt, you have models that underestimate the real rate of ice sheet melt, the real sea level rise, the real albedo feedback, and by extension everything else. Cloud feedbacks have been the biggest source of uncertainty for a while, and many people suspected they might constitute a net negative feedback. Now it turns out that they're likely a smallish net positive, but there was no way to know that without further research.

The IPCC is probably overly conservative, though, as it has political entities that have to sign off on it. The AR5 says it has 95% confidence that manmade emissions are driving climate change, which sounds good, but it actually gives the "human CO2 emissions are not the main driver" narrative a 1/20 chance of being correct. That seemed ridiculously high to me even when the report came out.

And another problem is that most people outside of climate science are treating the climate like a linear system because they're not very familiar with nonlinear ones in their day to day lives. That's a very dangerous assumption.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 20, 2019, 01:36:05 PM
And another problem is that most people outside of climate science are treating the climate like a linear system because they're not very familiar with nonlinear ones in their day to day lives. That's a very dangerous assumption.

I like the imagery of boat capsize for this. It can only tilt so far before capsize. And once it's upside-down, the boat really wants to stay that because it's very stable.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 20, 2019, 10:37:28 PM
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/kate-brown-oregon-republican-senators-police-climate-change/index.html

Lock em up!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: bachfiend on June 21, 2019, 12:01:01 AM
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/kate-brown-oregon-republican-senators-police-climate-change/index.html

Lock em up!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amazing.  Reminds me of the two conservative politicians who did the reverse by appearing despite promising not to do so:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/labor-s-fire-service-rejig-goes-pear-shaped-after-paired-pair-reappear-20180330-p4z73j.html

Actually, I’ve only just noticed the subeditor’s pun in the headline.  It’s almost a tongue twister.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 21, 2019, 06:20:35 AM
It should be illegal for representatives not to appear, and for parties to agree to not send them, if they're not sending someone in their place to cast their vote for them. The only point of elected representatives is to be there because the people can't all be there. Whatever personal matters, or campaigning they do shouldn't impact that. And for anything else, they have staff.

I agree with sending the police after them.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 21, 2019, 11:02:00 PM
brilligtove & 2397, thank you for your answers. I'm asking this question to other people, and it is being very interesting and enlightening to be exposed to such different views and opinions...

I guess what I'm saying is, if potential suffering is your only measure for the worth of a human life you should seriously consider how and when you'll euthanize yourself. I'm not being sarcastic or poking at you. I've had my life radically altered by cancer and had to consider this very thing.

Well... definitely I'm not close to doing anything on that direction. But I must say that the whole collapse of civilization made me take more interest in the philosophical debate of Antinatalism and Suicide. The discovery of Albert Camus and his texts on the Human Crisis and The Myth of Sisyphus were very interesting founds. There is a video of Viggo Mortensen reading his text on YouTube, really interesting... I do recommend it. Specially the Myth of Sisyphus.

For those who want my opinion; I would say that if you don't think that there's a very good chance, beyond reasonable doubt, that you're going to be able to provide a good life for any (additional) children you have, then you shouldn't create them. But you can still consider fostering or adoption, and use what resources that are available to you to help care for the children who already exist.

That's the crux of the problem. I'm kinda having a very hard philosophical debate inside my head. Would a life that will start probably around 2022 and last until the year 2102 be worth living? Will I be putting a child into a reasonable world, or into collapsing society? Sometimes I convince myself that the answer is yes, and sometimes that it is no. Maybe I will need some more years to figure it out.

Thank you both for your time. I really appreciate your time and personal responses.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 22, 2019, 01:30:41 PM
Where should we be at this time? Becoming not only carbon neutral, but carbon negative.
Where are we? Still increasing emissions to record high values... and now, since Bolsonaro took power (The most anti-science president in the entire history of Brazil), the destruction of our Nature basically got free from consequences. Bolsonaro is doing whatever he can to destroy the Ministry of the Environment. He literally proposed it to be extinguished, and since that caused a huge backlash from all parties, he felt it would be enough to assign an science denier to be the Minister. He is removing all the powers from IBAMA (The Brazilian equivalent of the EPA), said is going to forgive all the industries that illegally deforested huge regions, and spreading the lunacy that climate change is a communist hoax...


Deforestation of Brazilian Amazon surges to record high
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/deforestation-of-brazilian-amazon-surges-to-record-high-bolsonaro
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on June 22, 2019, 02:38:30 PM
Looks like he's following the Trump Strategy for effectively eliminating troublesome agencies without officially ending them on paper.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on June 22, 2019, 04:30:16 PM
I was reminded at the recent lecture on microbes and climate (but not addressed by the lecturer) about di hydrogen sulfide and the negative loop with regards to albedo.  Thanks Dr Lovelock for another discovery.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 22, 2019, 04:42:44 PM
Hoping we'll have prepared some engineered microbes that can produce a few terratons of oxygen per year, if the entire rest of the ecosystem collapses.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 22, 2019, 04:49:48 PM
Hoping we'll have prepared some engineered microbes that can produce a few terratons of oxygen per year, if the entire rest of the ecosystem collapses.


 if that dream doesn’t come true we’re screwed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 22, 2019, 06:13:26 PM
I was reminded at the recent lecture on microbes and climate (but not addressed by the lecturer) about di hydrogen sulfide and the negative loop with regards to albedo.  Thanks Dr Lovelock for another discovery.

Using sulfate aerosols to cause a global dimming is one proposed method of geoengineering. If I remember correctly, though, if you want sulfate aerosols (or precursors) to do anything to the climate you need to inject it into the stratosphere, otherwise it'll just come down as acid rain almost immediately.
Title: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 22, 2019, 06:31:08 PM
I was reminded at the recent lecture on microbes and climate (but not addressed by the lecturer) about di hydrogen sulfide and the negative loop with regards to albedo.  Thanks Dr Lovelock for another discovery.

Using sulfate aerosols to cause a global dimming is one proposed method of geoengineering. If I remember correctly, though, if you want sulfate aerosols (or precursors) to do anything to the climate you need to inject it into the stratosphere, otherwise it'll just come down as acid rain almost immediately.
Do you realize how far away are we from getting ready to do this?

I think it will take massive crop failures and widespread food shortages before people realize how bad things are getting and by then it may be too late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on June 22, 2019, 09:53:02 PM
I was reminded at the recent lecture on microbes and climate (but not addressed by the lecturer) about di hydrogen sulfide and the negative loop with regards to albedo.  Thanks Dr Lovelock for another discovery.

Using sulfate aerosols to cause a global dimming is one proposed method of geoengineering. If I remember correctly, though, if you want sulfate aerosols (or precursors) to do anything to the climate you need to inject it into the stratosphere, otherwise it'll just come down as acid rain almost immediately.

The ancient loop of di hydrogen sulfide is totally different than sulphates in the stratosphere. That system is well known and described foot only increasing albedo (mostly coastal) and as a ccn, irrigating those coasts.  It is also a huge contributor to sulfur in soil.

Dumping mass quantities of H2SO4 or SO2 willingly cut the global average temperature a degree or so.  And when we find the unintended consequenses so diabolic and stop, the temperature will rapidly increase to the level it would have risen without the modification.  Of course this will do nothing for oceanic acidification, glacial retreat or changes in oceanic currents (ups and downs included). 

Totally bad idea, IMHO
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 23, 2019, 04:03:02 PM
I was reminded at the recent lecture on microbes and climate (but not addressed by the lecturer) about di hydrogen sulfide and the negative loop with regards to albedo.  Thanks Dr Lovelock for another discovery.

Using sulfate aerosols to cause a global dimming is one proposed method of geoengineering. If I remember correctly, though, if you want sulfate aerosols (or precursors) to do anything to the climate you need to inject it into the stratosphere, otherwise it'll just come down as acid rain almost immediately.

The ancient loop of di hydrogen sulfide is totally different than sulphates in the stratosphere. That system is well known and described foot only increasing albedo (mostly coastal) and as a ccn, irrigating those coasts.  It is also a huge contributor to sulfur in soil.

Are you talking about this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLAW_hypothesis)? Then this (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254429031_The_CLAW_hypothesis_A_review_of_the_major_developments) might be of interest.

Totally bad idea, IMHO

Probably true.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 23, 2019, 05:54:55 PM
Still not a glimpse of any reasonable hope in the horizon.

83 Environmental
Rules Being Rolled
Back Under Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 23, 2019, 07:36:50 PM
Plants are being extinct 500 times faster than the natural rate. FIVE. HUNDRED. TIMES. FASTER.

World’s largest plant survey reveals alarming extinction rate
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01810-6
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on June 24, 2019, 04:17:28 AM
I was reminded at the recent lecture on microbes and climate (but not addressed by the lecturer) about di hydrogen sulfide and the negative loop with regards to albedo.  Thanks Dr Lovelock for another discovery.

Using sulfate aerosols to cause a global dimming is one proposed method of geoengineering. If I remember correctly, though, if you want sulfate aerosols (or precursors) to do anything to the climate you need to inject it into the stratosphere, otherwise it'll just come down as acid rain almost immediately.

The ancient loop of di hydrogen sulfide is totally different than sulphates in the stratosphere. That system is well known and described foot only increasing albedo (mostly coastal) and as a ccn, irrigating those coasts.  It is also a huge contributor to sulfur in soil.

Are you talking about this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLAW_hypothesis)? Then this (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254429031_The_CLAW_hypothesis_A_review_of_the_major_developments) might be of interest.

Totally bad idea, IMHO

Probably true.

Thanks for CLAW review.  I'll give it a more serious read soon. 
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CookieMustard on June 24, 2019, 05:43:18 PM
Plants are being extinct 500 times faster than the natural rate. FIVE. HUNDRED. TIMES. FASTER.

It doesn't make this news any better but it seems that most of this extinction is not due to climate change but to human intervention, deforestation, logging, destruction of habitat.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 24, 2019, 05:47:20 PM
A.k.a. we haven't really even started seeing what climate change can do to accelerate the process. The sixth mass extinction began long before the industrial age.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gebobs on June 25, 2019, 09:27:17 AM
Here's a new one from the denialist crew. I've seen them pimp this several times over the last few days.

Glacier National Park glaciers are actually growing – officials quietly remove its ‘Gone by 2020’ signs
https://tinyurl.com/y23u25sj

So the NPS has probably been told to take down any signs about climate change by the Trump Administration and this is evidence that science is wrong.

Here's the best science from the article: "Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing – not shrinking-since about 2010. "

Oooooooooooooookay!
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 25, 2019, 04:37:09 PM
Here's a new one from the denialist crew. I've seen them pimp this several times over the last few days.

Glacier National Park glaciers are actually growing – officials quietly remove its ‘Gone by 2020’ signs
https://tinyurl.com/y23u25sj

So the NPS has probably been told to take down any signs about climate change by the Trump Administration and this is evidence that science is wrong.

Here's the best science from the article: "Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing – not shrinking-since about 2010. "

Oooooooooooooookay!

The ice sheets perform a natural cycle of expansion and retraction... You can pick many points of the graph and say "See? Its increasing!"... there is just one detail: in 100% of the cases, the increases were followed by a decrease. And the current decrease is being very extreme, making the current trend point sharply downwards.

(https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images/cryosphere/sotc/arctic-antarctic-anomaly-trend-1978-2017.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on June 25, 2019, 04:42:23 PM
G20 countries triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nations-triple-coal-power-subsidies-climate-crisis

10 years ago, the politicians pledged to phase out any aid to coal. What the lobbyist transformed into reality today: the subsidies were tripled.

Every single promised today will fail for the very same reason. Scientists say one thing. The fucking sons of bitches with money will pay other sons of bitches to corrupt themselves to not only perpetuate the status-quo, but make it even worse.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 25, 2019, 05:14:28 PM
Plants are being extinct 500 times faster than the natural rate. FIVE. HUNDRED. TIMES. FASTER.

It doesn't make this news any better but it seems that most of this extinction is not due to climate change but to human intervention, deforestation, logging, destruction of habitat.

Maybe, but on the other hand I just started reading a textbook on ecology to brush up on my knowledge, and one of the early chapters points out that the ranges of many species of plants and animals are actually not determined by their adaptation to modern environments, but in fact many are still in the process of (re)gaining ground from their ranges during the last glacial period, roughly ~12,000 years ago and are actually somewhat better adapted to the climates of that fairly distant past in their current day ranges. Extrapolating from that, it seems quite obviously delusional to think that the natural world is capable of responding to change that is this rapid and extensive within a few decades or even centuries.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on June 25, 2019, 05:34:10 PM
I was reminded at the recent lecture on microbes and climate (but not addressed by the lecturer) about di hydrogen sulfide and the negative loop with regards to albedo.  Thanks Dr Lovelock for another discovery.

Using sulfate aerosols to cause a global dimming is one proposed method of geoengineering. If I remember correctly, though, if you want sulfate aerosols (or precursors) to do anything to the climate you need to inject it into the stratosphere, otherwise it'll just come down as acid rain almost immediately.

The ancient loop of di hydrogen sulfide is totally different than sulphates in the stratosphere. That system is well known and described foot only increasing albedo (mostly coastal) and as a ccn, irrigating those coasts.  It is also a huge contributor to sulfur in soil.

Are you talking about this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLAW_hypothesis)? Then this (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254429031_The_CLAW_hypothesis_A_review_of_the_major_developments) might be of interest.

Totally bad idea, IMHO

Probably true.

Thanks for CLAW review.  I'll give it a more serious read soon.

The bit on the Anti-CLAW hypothesis on the wikipedia page is also worth a read if you haven't yet. It's brief, but it demonstrates the high degree of uncertainty inherent in these kinds of climate-biosphere interactions:

Quote
In his 2006 book The Revenge of Gaia, Lovelock proposed that instead of providing negative feedback in the climate system, the components of the CLAW hypothesis may act to create a positive feedback loop.[7]

Under future global warming, increasing temperature may stratify the world ocean, decreasing the supply of nutrients from the deep ocean to its productive euphotic zone. Consequently, phytoplankton activity will decline with a concomitant fall in the production of DMS. In a reverse of the CLAW hypothesis, this decline in DMS production will lead to a decrease in cloud condensation nuclei and a fall in cloud albedo. The consequence of this will be further climate warming which may lead to even less DMS production (and further climate warming). The figure to the right shows a summarising schematic diagram.

Evidence for the anti-CLAW hypothesis is constrained by similar uncertainties as those of the sulfur cycle feedback loop of the CLAW hypothesis. However, researchers simulating future oceanic primary production have found evidence of declining production with increasing ocean stratification,[8][9] leaving open the possibility that such a mechanism may exist.

EDIT: It also reminds me of Peter Ward's Medea hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_hypothesis), which is kind of the anti-Gaia hypothesis. I recall seeing a lecture in which he puts the blame for the Permian mass extinction on a massive bloom of hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria due to, you guessed it, global warming (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm). I don't recall all the details but the lecture gave me the shivers.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 26, 2019, 12:05:19 PM
Quote
Denmark’s new government raises climate change to highest priority (https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/26/denmarks-new-government-raises-climate-change-highest-priority/)

In a deal with other left parties, the Social Democrats agreed to raise the country’s climate targets and place the green transition at the heart of policy

Denmark’s government announced a “new political direction” based on an ambitious climate manifesto, released on Wednesday.


Social Democrat leader Mette Frederiksen, 41, became the country’s new prime minister on Wednesday, after she secured a political deal with three other left-wing parties to form a one-party minority government.

Under the agreement, the new government pledged to introduce binding decarbonisation goals and strengthen its 2030 target to reduce emissions by 70% below the 1990 level – the current target is 40%.

The left-wing alliance acknowledged this was “a very ambitious target” and that the last five points of emissions reduction to 70% would be “particularly difficult to reach”.

But the alliance warned “the world and Denmark are in a climate crisis” and that limiting global temperature rise is “not just the right thing to do, it’s also the most economically responsible one”.

Denmark kicks ass! I wish Sweden had this level of climate ambition.

Below is a short video from 2017 about how Danish cities are preparing for climate change, in some ways new to me, that I think could be used by cities worldwide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG3pN7qQqZI
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 28, 2019, 03:12:40 PM
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1143922386351329281
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 28, 2019, 03:28:06 PM
Quote
McDonald's Israel to introduce vegan burgers (https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-mcdonalds-israel-to-serve-vegan-burgers-1001290977)

The Big Vegan is made of wheat and soybeans.

McDonald's Israel, the largest fast food chain in the country, will introduce a hamburger made of wheat and soybeans in six weeks.

The hamburgers, which were developed by Swiss food manufacturer Nestle, are already on sale at McDonald's outlets in Europe. The price for the product, which will be called Big Vegan, is unknown. It will be launched at a few branches in the Tel Aviv area as a pilot, and a decision about whether to offer it in all of McDonald's branches will be taken later.

Big corporations becoming more environmentally friendly on a massive scale is very good. Makes much more of a difference than individuals abstaining from meat (though of course that is also good).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on June 28, 2019, 04:35:26 PM
Then the next step is to stop offering the beef burgers.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 28, 2019, 04:49:42 PM
Then the next step is to stop offering the beef burgers.

Don't hold your breath
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 28, 2019, 05:08:39 PM
Then the next step is to stop offering the beef burgers.

Agreed.

Better yet, make it into law. We need to massively reduce meat-eating. As much as possible of the land currently used for grazing should be used for farming.

Max Hamburgers are phasing out meat (https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/klimat/max-fasar-ut-rott-kott-var-tredje-burgare-ska-vara-gron/). They recently introduced plantbeef (which is delicious), and they aim for that within three years, at least every second hamburger of theirs should be green.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 28, 2019, 05:44:37 PM
Then the next step is to stop offering the beef burgers.

Agreed.

Better yet, make it into law. We need to massively reduce meat-eating. As much as possible of the land currently used for grazing should be used for farming.

Max Hamburgers are phasing out meat (https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/klimat/max-fasar-ut-rott-kott-var-tredje-burgare-ska-vara-gron/). They recently introduced plantbeef (which is delicious), and they aim for that within three years, at least every second hamburger of theirs should be green.

Meat is not the issue.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on June 29, 2019, 02:19:47 PM
Article: Trump dismisses need for climate change action: ‘We have the cleanest water we’ve ever had, we have the cleanest air’ (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-news-latest-g20-climate-change-global-warming-us-japan-a8980156.html)
From: Independent
Date: 2019 JUN 29

Quote
Donald Trump has again dismissed the need to tackle climate change by saying the US has the cleanest air and water “ever”.

The president, speaking at the G20 Summit in Japan, also claimed that wind power “does not work” because it has to be heavily subsidised.

“We have the cleanest water we have ever had, we have the cleanest air we’ve ever had, but I’m not willing to sacrifice the tremendous power of what we’ve built up over a long period of time and what I’ve enhanced and revived,” he said.

“I’m not sure that I agree with certain countries with what they are doing, they are losing a lot of power. I am talking about the powering of a plant.

“It doesn’t always work with a windmill. When the wind goes off, the plant isn’t working. It doesn’t always work with solar because solar’s just not strong enough, and a lot of them want to go to wind, which has caused a lot of problems.

“Wind doesn’t work for the most part without subsidy. The United States is paying tremendous amounts of subsidies for wind. I don’t like it, I don’t like it.”

...

Defending his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord, Mr Trump denied he was “ignoring” the problem but claimed that trying to take action on global warming would affect the American economy.

“We have the best numbers we’ve ever had recently, and I’m not looking to put our companies out of business,” he said.


“I’m not looking to create a standard that is so high that we’re going to lose 20 to 25 per cent of our production.”

The president has previously described climate change as a “hoax” and dismissed the problem as a “change in the weather”.

In previous interviews and on campaign rallies he has claimed the US has “among the cleanest climates”.

However, earlier this week vice-president Mike Pence, when asked if climate change was a threat, said “America has the cleanest air and water in the world”.

...

:patriot:
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on June 30, 2019, 05:23:33 AM
This could also fit, sort of, in the LCHF thread

https://webinarsolutions.tv/permalink/v125cfedb9254t6nt0o6/?fbclid=IwAR1Saplt5z8MsN4IsqU8e09gRw6QaQCBzRrVDC-aQGf2S5TzL-0OwvoZ5y0#timeline
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 30, 2019, 12:34:38 PM
Then the next step is to stop offering the beef burgers.

Agreed.

Better yet, make it into law. We need to massively reduce meat-eating. As much as possible of the land currently used for grazing should be used for farming.

Max Hamburgers are phasing out meat (https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/klimat/max-fasar-ut-rott-kott-var-tredje-burgare-ska-vara-gron/). They recently introduced plantbeef (which is delicious), and they aim for that within three years, at least every second hamburger of theirs should be green.

Meat is not the issue.

Yes it is an issue. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production)

Quote
Why eating less meat is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/lifestyle-change-eat-less-meat-climate-change)

Eating meat has a hefty impact on the environment from fueling climate change to polluting landscapes and waterways

Recycling or taking the bus rather than driving to work has its place, but scientists are increasingly pointing to a deeper lifestyle change that would be the single biggest way to help the planet: eating far less meat.

A swathe of research released over the past year has laid bare the hefty impact that eating meat, especially beef and pork, has upon the environment by fueling climate change and polluting landscapes and waterways.

Industrialized agriculture and the onset of the worst species extinction crisis since the demise of the dinosaurs means that livestock and humans now make up 96% of all mammals. But despite consuming the vast majority of farmland, meat and dairy accounts for just 18% of all food calories and around a third of protein.

The mighty hoofprint of farmed meat isn’t just inefficient. Deforestation to make way for livestock, along with methane emissions from cows and fertilizer use, creates as much greenhouse gas emissions as all the world’s cars, trucks and airplanes. Meat rearing practices risk mass extinctions of other animals, as well as spawn significant pollution of streams, rivers and, ultimately, the ocean.

In October, scientists warned that huge reductions in meat eating are required if the world is to stave off dangerous climate change, with beef consumption in western countries needing to drop by 90%, replaced by five times more beans and pulses.

Quote
Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown)

Major study also finds huge changes to farming are needed to avoid destroying Earth’s ability to feed its population

Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses.

The research also finds that enormous changes to farming are needed to avoid destroying the planet’s ability to feed the 10 billion people expected to be on the planet in a few decades.

Food production already causes great damage to the environment, via greenhouse gases from livestock, deforestation and water shortages from farming, and vast ocean dead zones from agricultural pollution. But without action, its impact will get far worse as the world population rises by 2.3 billion people by 2050 and global income triples, enabling more people to eat meat-rich western diets.
Title: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on June 30, 2019, 05:49:46 PM
Here’s the question I asked at

Www.skepticalscience.com

Quote
One of the most common arguments I hear from Global Warming deniers is: Scientists predicted x, but x never happened.

Is there any comprehensive study that looks back at actual claims and predictions made by scientists and compares them to what has been actually come about?

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

And here is their response:

Quote
Yes, I've seen these too. Here is a recent example:

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/


One problem with lists like this is that they contain so many cherry-picks. Of course, scientists are always getting things wrong, but they also are constantly getting things right as well. Why not show us the
correct predictions?

Another question I have about such lists is: how representative of the entire science community are each of these predictions? Take the first example from the AEI list: "Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."

Who is George Wald? Were his views typical of the time he made them or was he viewed by his peers as a crank?

These lists are meant to show that because scientists have been wrong about future predictions in the past they must be wrong about their climate change predictions now.

That is some sloppy reasoning.

There is also another cherry-pick going on here: what about the failed predictions made by scientists who claim that global warming is over-blown or nothing to worry about or not caused by human emissions of CO2?

One of our writers, Dana Nuccitelli, has a series of posts highlighting the successful predictions made by climate scientists as well as the failed predictions of the "contrarian" scientists:

https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150

He put these in book form as well:

https://www.amazon.com/Climatology-versus-Pseudoscience-Exposing-Predictions/dp/1440832013/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426825773&sr=8-1&keywords=nuccitelli

You asked about a study about these claims.

The closest thing is another work featuring Nuccitelli as one of the authors:

http://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014_Abraham-et-al.-Climate-consensus.pdf

And he explains the paper in this post:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/11/climate-change-research-quality-imbalance

Hope these links cover all your questions. Let me know if you have more!

The Skeptical Science team
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on July 01, 2019, 07:21:20 PM
Where would we be without skepticalscience? It's the talkorigins of climate science, but better maintained.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: superdave on July 01, 2019, 08:33:25 PM
I subscribe to the science news magazine (and you all should too!)  and it really seems now that just about every issue has several stories suggestive of current measurable effects of climate change.  some can be small, like subtle migratory pattern changes, but when you have a convergence like this from many fields its strong evidence something is real.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 02, 2019, 06:38:58 PM
Article: Heatwave cooks mussels in their shells on California shore (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/28/california-mussels-cooked-heat)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2019 JUN 28

Quote
In all her years working at Bodega Bay, the marine reserve research coordinator Jackie Sones had never seen anything like it: scores of dead mussels on the rocks, their shells gaping and scorched, their meats thoroughly cooked.

A record-breaking June heatwave apparently caused the largest die-off of mussels in at least 15 years at Bodega Head, a small headland on the northern California bay. And Sones received reports from other researchers of similar mass mussel deaths at various beaches across roughly 140 miles (225km) of coastline.

While the people who flocked to the Pacific to enjoy a rare 80F (27C) beach day soaked up the sun, so did the mussel beds – where the rock-bound mollusks could have been experiencing temperatures above 100F at low tide, literally roasting in their shells.

...

RIP everything that can't survive the new weather.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 02, 2019, 08:47:09 PM
Article: Heatwave cooks mussels in their shells on California shore (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/28/california-mussels-cooked-heat)
From: The Guardian
Date: 2019 JUN 28

Quote
In all her years working at Bodega Bay, the marine reserve research coordinator Jackie Sones had never seen anything like it: scores of dead mussels on the rocks, their shells gaping and scorched, their meats thoroughly cooked.

A record-breaking June heatwave apparently caused the largest die-off of mussels in at least 15 years at Bodega Head, a small headland on the northern California bay. And Sones received reports from other researchers of similar mass mussel deaths at various beaches across roughly 140 miles (225km) of coastline.

While the people who flocked to the Pacific to enjoy a rare 80F (27C) beach day soaked up the sun, so did the mussel beds – where the rock-bound mollusks could have been experiencing temperatures above 100F at low tide, literally roasting in their shells.

...

RIP everything that can't survive the new weather.

I love Bodega Bay, it's where "The Birds" was filmed.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CookieMustard on July 04, 2019, 05:03:19 PM
The complete paper is behind a pay wall so I haven't been able to look at the details but this article just published in Science seems to be more optimistic about tree planting as a significant mitigator to atmospheric carbon. The abstract says tree planting is "our most effective climate change solution to date."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stands2reason on July 04, 2019, 05:11:17 PM
Trees only sequester carbon as long as they are alive, unless of course we bury them underground in airtight enclosures before they decompose. Or use the wood for something that would otherwise work as long-term sequestration.

Increasing the biomass of trees/forest would be a one-off change. According to their numbers, 200 Giga-tonnes of carbon (not CO2), that's basically twenty years of emission at current rate.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 04, 2019, 05:27:31 PM
Trees only sequester carbon as long as they are alive, unless of course we bury them underground in airtight enclosures before they decompose. Or use the wood for something that would otherwise work as long-term sequestration.

Increasing the biomass of trees/forest would be a one-off change. According to their numbers, 200 Giga-tonnes of carbon (not CO2), that's basically twenty years of emission at current rate.

Trees and plants do a great job sequestering carbon when they're buried. They turn to stone or crude oil and are isolated from the environment for hundreds of millions of years, until humans dig them up and burn them.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on July 04, 2019, 05:54:11 PM
Yeah but the point is that we'd have to bury them ourselves, or else they'd decompose on the surface and release all that carbon again.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CookieMustard on July 04, 2019, 06:38:02 PM
I think that the main new contribution of the paper is to have identified specific regions where reforestation would be effective. Since three of the main countries with the largest amounts of land that could be reforested are Russia, Brazil, and the United States it doesn't seem likely that any such plan will be implemented (despite it being relatively inexpensive and not requiring any new technology).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 04, 2019, 06:51:04 PM
Yeah but the point is that we'd have to bury them ourselves, or else they'd decompose on the surface and release all that carbon again.

Exactly. And that would not be practical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 04, 2019, 06:54:25 PM
The point of planting trees is to increase the total biomass of trees. It's no good just replacing dead trees, or planting trees and then not protecting the forests. We need to plant enough trees for the forests to grow continually, and prevent deforestation.

Growing forests is the same as capturing carbon through other methods and burying it. Except we have all the necessary technology already, it's the policies that are lacking.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 04, 2019, 09:15:54 PM
https://apple.news/A23SveexGQRG7byBxGoaZhQ

Quote
Last year, there were 484 official heat waves across India, up from 21 in 2010. During that period, more than 5,000 people died. This year's figures show little respite.
In June, Delhi hit temperatures of 48 degrees Celsius (118 Fahrenheit), the highest ever recorded in that month. West of the capital, Churu in Rajasthan nearly broke the country's heat record with a high of 50.6 Celsius (123 Fahrenheit)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: stands2reason on July 04, 2019, 11:06:53 PM
Just think of the CO2 from all those burning fireworks...
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: PANTS! on July 05, 2019, 12:03:18 AM
Then the next step is to stop offering the beef burgers.

Agreed.

Better yet, make it into law. We need to massively reduce meat-eating. As much as possible of the land currently used for grazing should be used for farming.

Max Hamburgers are phasing out meat (https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/klimat/max-fasar-ut-rott-kott-var-tredje-burgare-ska-vara-gron/). They recently introduced plantbeef (which is delicious), and they aim for that within three years, at least every second hamburger of theirs should be green.

Meat is not the issue.

It's 14% of the issue.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 05, 2019, 01:33:53 AM
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 05, 2019, 03:20:24 AM
People don't have to eat meat, especially if we can make it more readily replacable in diets. Reducing meat consumption is one of the easiest way to reduce land use, since it uses much more land per calorie.

As long as we can make it about fully giving up the land to carbon sequestration and nature preservation, rather than expand other farming or polluting activities.

https://apple.news/A23SveexGQRG7byBxGoaZhQ

Quote
Last year, there were 484 official heat waves across India, up from 21 in 2010. During that period, more than 5,000 people died. This year's figures show little respite.
In June, Delhi hit temperatures of 48 degrees Celsius (118 Fahrenheit), the highest ever recorded in that month. West of the capital, Churu in Rajasthan nearly broke the country's heat record with a high of 50.6 Celsius (123 Fahrenheit)

Quote
A signatory to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the country has pledged to cuts its carbon emissions by 33% to 35% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Last month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration announced plans to add 500 gigawatts of renewable energy to the country's power grid by 2030. By that year, renewable energy should account for at least 40% of India's installed power capacity. The country is also planting forests to help mop up carbon emissions.

Those seem like incompatible goals, given that their electricity consumption has already increased by well over 100% since 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India#Demand

That's a lot of forest to plant in a country that's also becoming too hot for humans to survive outdoors in.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on July 05, 2019, 07:42:31 AM
[citation needed]
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: PANTS! on July 05, 2019, 10:08:03 AM
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not according to ever survey I have read. 

https://academic.oup.com/af/article/9/1/69/5173494

Once again you are just wrong here.  I expect you will now double down.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on July 05, 2019, 02:54:14 PM
Quote
'Biggest compliment yet': Greta Thunberg welcomes oil chief's 'greatest threat' label (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/05/biggest-compliment-yet-greta-thunberg-welcomes-oil-chiefs-greatest-threat-label)

Activists say comments by Opec head prove world opinion is turning against fossil fuels

Greta Thunberg and other climate activists have said it is a badge of honour that the head of the world’s most powerful oil cartel believes their campaign may be the “greatest threat” to the fossil fuel industry.

The criticism of striking students by the trillion-dollar Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) highlights the growing reputational concerns of oil companies as public protests intensify along with extreme weather.

Mohammed Barkindo, the secretary general of Opec, said there was a growing mass mobilisation of world opinion against oil, which was “beginning to … dictate policies and corporate decisions, including investment in the industry”.

He said the pressure was also being felt within the families of Opec officials because their own children “are asking us about their future because … they see their peers on the streets campaigning against this industry”.

Although he accused the campaigners of misleading people with unscientific arguments, the comments were welcomed by student and divestment campaigners as a sign the oil industry is worried it may be losing the battle for public opinion.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1146700304219553792
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 05, 2019, 03:09:09 PM
https://twitter.com/WVNS59News/status/1146946992783994880

lmao
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 05, 2019, 04:27:57 PM
I can't read that particular article, but apparently there were 7 in total who died in the crash. Maybe not all so undeserving of sympathy.

Also a "possible illness" and lack of flight plan which could make it sound like they were rushing out of there, though I don't know if helicopter is also how they got there in the first place. If more details are released later, I'm guessing it'll remain in the local news.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Igor SMC on July 05, 2019, 09:15:23 PM
Another fresh paper with new data... And again, we see the words "worse than previously thought"...   fuck.

(https://i.imgur.com/z3xqZxo.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on July 06, 2019, 07:58:05 AM
I think this belongs on this thread as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfl_aUsTcQQ

Orwell, eat your heart out.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on July 07, 2019, 02:42:24 PM
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From everything I have read, it is significantly more than 3%. And for the land used, meat, at least red meat, seems very inefficient. There might be a place for it, for example in grassland areas that can't be farmed, but the place for it is way smaller than its current place. At least that's my understanding.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on July 07, 2019, 02:53:00 PM
Nina Teicholtz (generally an food author and activist) pointed to this article: 


http://m.startribune.com/it-s-not-about-the-hamburgers/512276872/?fbclid=IwAR3TI_HH-aAFL1NT-kO0_TjRY9LIU_iDsKFueOMI82afCbLnOOTyIVpE-nE

Worth reading, CS.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 07, 2019, 04:04:25 PM
Quote
When you stick to the knowable, direct emissions, the climate burden of cattle fall away. The EPA estimates that 9% of all direct emissions in the U.S. are due to agriculture, compared with 20% from industry, 28% from electricity and 28% from transportation. Just 3.9% are due to livestock. That’s half the CO2 attributable to concrete.

Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on July 07, 2019, 04:22:36 PM
And yet we read:

- Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)

- Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown)
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 07, 2019, 05:36:35 PM
Electricity and transportation are broader categories than livestock. It's not about either reducing emissions from transport or reducing meat consumption. If you reduce meat consumption you also reduce transport needs. Meat will always require more transportation than plants for human consumption, as long as the meat production relies on having extra feed that's grown elsewhere.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 07, 2019, 05:52:11 PM
And yet we read:

- Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)

- Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown)

The studies those articles are based on are addressed in the article Lonely Moa linked to.

Even if you disagree, it's an interesting read.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, we're right, and the total contribution of animal food products to green house gasses is closer to 3% than 18%, does that change your mind about meat?

Would that tell you anything about those who are pushing the Abandon Meat to Save the Planet agenda?
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CookieMustard on July 07, 2019, 06:06:44 PM
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.

From everything I have read, it is significantly more than 3%.

Regarding this discrepancy between 3% or significantly more than 3% you have to pay attention to exactly what is being measured. The 3% probably refers to direct emissions.  When you include indirect emissions related to meat production (mainly from growing food for cattle and shipping the animals or the meat) you get amounts around 14% (iirc). You also get different amounts depending if you are talking about global emissions, or US emissions, or some other group of countries. Also, when people criticize the amount of meat produced it is not only based on gas emissions,  water use is also a big factor.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: lonely moa on July 08, 2019, 04:23:07 AM
Beef cattle drink 20 or 30 litres of water a day and return 99% of that back to the soil.  Rain supplies all the irrigation most beef cattle need to grow pasture.  No doubt there is water used in processing, probably a similar amount to what you put down the drain everyday.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on July 08, 2019, 06:43:35 AM
From here (https://skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html):

Quote
The burning of fossil fuels for energy and animal agriculture are two of the biggest contributors to global warming, along with deforestation.  Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 60% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009).

[...]

Beef is a bigger problem than other sources of meat

Producing beef requires significantly more resources (e.g. land, fertilizer, and water) than other sources of meat.  As ruminant animals, cattle also produce methane that other sources (e.g. pigs and chickens) don't.

Eschel et al. 2014 estimated that producing beef requires 28 times more land, 6 times more fertilizer and 11 times more water than producing pork or chicken.  As a result, the study estimated that producing beef releases 4 times more greenhouse gases than a calorie-equivalent amount of pork, and 5 times as much as an equivalent amount of poultry.

[...]

There are often suggestions that going vegan is the most important step people can take to solve the global warming problem.  While reducing meat consumption (particularly beef and lamb) reduces greenhouse gas emissions, this claim is an exaggeration.

An oft-used comparison is that globally, animal agriculture is responsible for a larger proportion of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (14-18%) than transportation (13.5%).  While this is true, transportation is just one of the many sources of human fossil fuel combustion.  Electricity and heat generation account for about 25% of global human greenhouse gas emissions alone.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: 2397 on July 08, 2019, 07:23:15 AM
And agriculture is the primary driver of deforestation.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on July 08, 2019, 07:46:27 AM
Beef cattle drink 20 or 30 litres of water a day and return 99% of that back to the soil.
If water is taken from wells and aquifers and pissed out on the ground, it can be as wasteful as using that same water for a golf course or just dumping it out somewhere. You always seem to forget that most of the world's beef isn't produced like it is in New Zealand.

Plus the water footprint also includes pollution caused, which is going to be high regardless of where the cows' food comes from.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on July 08, 2019, 01:57:20 PM
Quote
Fossil fuel exports make Australia one of the worst contributors to climate crisis (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/08/fossil-fuel-exports-make-australia-one-of-the-worst-contributors-to-climate-crisis)

Australia looking to become an emissions superpower, the Australian Conservation Foundation says

Australia is responsible for 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and could be contributing as much as 17% by 2030 if the pollution from its fossil fuel exports is factored in, research says.

Under climate accounting rules that record carbon dioxide released within a country, Australia is responsible for about 1.4% of global emissions. The analysis by science and policy institute Climate Analytics found more than twice that, another 3.6%, are a result of Australia’s coal, oil and gas exports.

If all proposed fossil fuel developments went ahead, including Adani’s Carmichael mine, other proposed coal developments in the Galilee Basin and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects in Western Australia, and other countries adopted policies consistent with the Paris agreement, Australia could be linked to up to 17% of carbon pollution.

I find Australia a generally likable country. It is definitely on my list of countries I could imagine myself living in some day. So I am very disappointed to read this. I thought better of you.

One country of about 25 million people could potentially be responsible for 17% of global carbon emissions? That's insane.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 08, 2019, 02:08:21 PM
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.

From everything I have read, it is significantly more than 3%.

Regarding this discrepancy between 3% or significantly more than 3% you have to pay attention to exactly what is being measured. The 3% probably refers to direct emissions.  When you include indirect emissions related to meat production (mainly from growing food for cattle and shipping the animals or the meat) you get amounts around 14% (iirc). You also get different amounts depending if you are talking about global emissions, or US emissions, or some other group of countries. Also, when people criticize the amount of meat produced it is not only based on gas emissions,  water use is also a big factor.

That claim is not valid, because if you use all the direct and indirect emissions related to meat production, you need to compare that to all direct and indirect of other other sources of emissions. Other wise it's a false comparison.

It's very likely that the indirect emissions related to producing and transporting autos and their parts and fuel, for example, is significantly higher than the indirect emissions from agriculture.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: PANTS! on July 08, 2019, 03:03:49 PM
Bullshit.  You are just pulling shit out of your ass.  Any numbers I see almost always add in indirect costs. 

Besides that, what kind of criticism is it to say "other numbers don't calculate the whole cost, so the number that does is wrong."
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on July 08, 2019, 04:00:59 PM
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.

From everything I have read, it is significantly more than 3%.

Regarding this discrepancy between 3% or significantly more than 3% you have to pay attention to exactly what is being measured. The 3% probably refers to direct emissions.  When you include indirect emissions related to meat production (mainly from growing food for cattle and shipping the animals or the meat) you get amounts around 14% (iirc). You also get different amounts depending if you are talking about global emissions, or US emissions, or some other group of countries. Also, when people criticize the amount of meat produced it is not only based on gas emissions,  water use is also a big factor.

That claim is not valid, because if you use all the direct and indirect emissions related to meat production, you need to compare that to all direct and indirect of other other sources of emissions. Other wise it's a false comparison.

It's very likely that the indirect emissions related to producing and transporting autos and their parts and fuel, for example, is significantly higher than the indirect emissions from agriculture.

No, it's the percentage of the total estimated anthropogenic emissions (http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/banr/AnimalProductionMaterials/PiteskyClearingAir.pdf):

Quote
LLS estimates the global contribution of anthropogenic GHG emissions from the livestock sector at 7100 Tg CO2-eq/yr, which is approximately 18% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (FAO et al., 2006). For comparison,  global  fossil  fuel  burning  accounts  for  4000–5200 Tg CO2-eq/yr (FAO et al., 2006). According to FAO et al. (2006), the major categories of anthropogenic
GHG emissions are:

1. Enteric fermentation and respiration (1800 Tg CO2-eq / yr
2. Animal manure (2160 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
3. Livestock related land-use changes (2400 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
4. Desertification linked to livestock (100 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
5. Livestock related release from cultivated soils (230 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
6. Feed production (240 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
7. On-farm fossil fuel use (90 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
8. Postharvest emissions (10–50 Tg CO2-eq / yr)

Granted, 2006 is a bit dated, but it's not going to magically go from 3 to 14 percent of total anthropogenic emissions just because you calculate the specifics of some other sector differently (unless that drastically changes the estimate of the total, of course, but that seems unlikely).
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 08, 2019, 04:11:33 PM
Bullshit.  You are just pulling shit out of your ass.  Any numbers I see almost always add in indirect costs. 

Besides that, what kind of criticism is it to say "other numbers don't calculate the whole cost, so the number that does is wrong."

Read the paper I linked to earlier.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: CarbShark on July 08, 2019, 04:15:15 PM
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.

From everything I have read, it is significantly more than 3%.

Regarding this discrepancy between 3% or significantly more than 3% you have to pay attention to exactly what is being measured. The 3% probably refers to direct emissions.  When you include indirect emissions related to meat production (mainly from growing food for cattle and shipping the animals or the meat) you get amounts around 14% (iirc). You also get different amounts depending if you are talking about global emissions, or US emissions, or some other group of countries. Also, when people criticize the amount of meat produced it is not only based on gas emissions,  water use is also a big factor.

That claim is not valid, because if you use all the direct and indirect emissions related to meat production, you need to compare that to all direct and indirect of other other sources of emissions. Other wise it's a false comparison.

It's very likely that the indirect emissions related to producing and transporting autos and their parts and fuel, for example, is significantly higher than the indirect emissions from agriculture.

No, it's the percentage of the total estimated anthropogenic emissions (http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/banr/AnimalProductionMaterials/PiteskyClearingAir.pdf):

Quote
LLS estimates the global contribution of anthropogenic GHG emissions from the livestock sector at 7100 Tg CO2-eq/yr, which is approximately 18% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (FAO et al., 2006). For comparison,  global  fossil  fuel  burning  accounts  for  4000–5200 Tg CO2-eq/yr (FAO et al., 2006). According to FAO et al. (2006), the major categories of anthropogenic
GHG emissions are:

1. Enteric fermentation and respiration (1800 Tg CO2-eq / yr
2. Animal manure (2160 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
3. Livestock related land-use changes (2400 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
4. Desertification linked to livestock (100 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
5. Livestock related release from cultivated soils (230 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
6. Feed production (240 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
7. On-farm fossil fuel use (90 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
8. Postharvest emissions (10–50 Tg CO2-eq / yr)

Granted, 2006 is a bit dated, but it's not going to magically go from 3 to 14 percent of total anthropogenic emissions just because you calculate the specifics of some other sector differently (unless that drastically changes the estimate of the total, of course, but that seems unlikely).

It's the other side of the equation where they don't go that detail.

If you can't calculate the total indirect input of the other sectors you cannot accurately or validly attribute a percentage.

Given the number of autos and truck on the road and planes in the air in any given moment and the amount of infrastructure needed to support them, I think it's quite likely that the number would drastically change.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: gmalivuk on July 08, 2019, 04:59:35 PM
That could only change what sector something counts in. It wouldn't change the total. For example, the amount produced by transporting car parts and fuel is still part of total GHG emissions, whether or not it's counted as part of personal transportation emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
Post by: werecow on July 08, 2019, 05:05:17 PM
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.

From everything I have read, it is significantly more than 3%.

Regarding this discrepancy between 3% or significantly more than 3% you have to pay attention to exactly what is being measured. The 3% probably refers to direct emissions.  When you include indirect emissions related to meat production (mainly from growing food for cattle and shipping the animals or the meat) you get amounts around 14% (iirc). You also get different amounts depending if you are talking about global emissions, or US emissions, or some other group of countries. Also, when people criticize the amount of meat produced it is not only based on gas emissions,  water use is also a big factor.

That claim is not valid, because if you use all the direct and indirect emissions related to meat production, you need to compare that to all direct and indirect of other other sources of emissions. Other wise it's a false comparison.

It's very likely that the indirect emissions related to producing and transporting autos and their parts and fuel, for example, is significantly higher than the indirect emissions from agriculture.

No, it's the percentage of the total estimated anthropogenic emissions (http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/banr/AnimalProductionMaterials/PiteskyClearingAir.pdf):

Quote
LLS estimates the global contribution of anthropogenic GHG emissions from the livestock sector at 7100 Tg CO2-eq/yr, which is approximately 18% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (FAO et al., 2006). For comparison,  global  fossil  fuel  burning  accounts  for  4000–5200 Tg CO2-eq/yr (FAO et al., 2006). According to FAO et al. (2006), the major categories of anthropogenic
GHG emissions are:

1. Enteric fermentation and respiration (1800 Tg CO2-eq / yr
2. Animal manure (2160 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
3. Livestock related land-use changes (2400 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
4. Desertification linked to livestock (100 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
5. Livestock related release from cultivated soils (230 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
6. Feed production (240 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
7. On-farm fossil fuel use (90 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
8. Postharvest emissions (10–50 Tg CO2-eq / yr)

Granted, 2006 is a bit dated, but it's not going to magically go from 3 to 14 percent of total anthropogenic emissions just because you calculate the specifics of some other sector differently (unless that drastically changes the estimate of the total, of course, but that seems unlikely).

It's the other side of the equation where they don't go that detail.

If you can't calculate the total indirect input of the other sectors you cannot accurately or validly attribute a percentage.

Given the number of autos and truck on the road and planes in the air in any