Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[bluewave]

Maybe Hansen and Simons will turn out to be correct about marine aerosol reductions having a greater influence on climate than earlier models had shown.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

On 4/10/2024 at 1:25 AM, GaWx said:

 

TheCCer,

 Is the bolded really true?

Credit: Chris Kuball for the following Des Moines data from the heart of the Corn Belt

            ++++++++++++++++

“Out of those top 21 longest stretches of a 100+ Heat Index, only 5 have occurred since 2000.

 

It does not go back to prior to 1936 but there were several other Dust Bowl years prior to 1936 with extreme heat in IA, as well as previous decades with extreme heat. 

Decade and # of times on the list

30's-1(doesn't include the very hot years 1930-35)

40s-1

50s-2

60s-1

70s-4

80s-5

90s-2

00s-1

10s-3

20s-1.

In fact, last year, 2023  getting back up there in the top 21,  stopped the longest streak of NOT having a year in the top 21 (11 years from 2012-2023)."

 The above doesn't suggest an increase in long dangerously high heat index streaks at Des Moines over the last few decades. If anything, there was a peak in the 70s to 80s.

 So, with regard to the longest 100+ HI streaks at Des Moines, where's the beef?

 

July 1934 was very similar to 1936 at Des Moines, Iowa, albeit a couple of degrees cooler.

I took the given temperatures and relative humidity values for 7 am, 12 noon, and 7 pm, to create the following tables, for the period from July 14 through July 31. Note that the value for 7 pm on July 16, 1934 (101F) appears to be a scrivener's error, as the observed high temperature was only 96F on that date. It may have been intended to read 91F, but in the table below I had used the given value.

As you can see, there was a stretch of 7 straight days of 100F+ heat indices, which would have nearly certainly extended into the 25th for an eighth straight day if we had more data to confirm. Taken literally, this would also match the 11 of 12 stretch from 1999; however, as noted the value for 7 pm on the 16th appears to be incorrect. And the humidity was otherwise too low for a heat index of 100F or better given the actual high of 96F.

But overall, the heat index values are not that crazy considering this is probably the worst heat wave on record in Des Moines. Heat warning criteria would not have been met on any date. While we think of heat index as additive, most days during this stretch it would have actually resulted in a reading below the dry bulb temperature.

Also, of note, the calculated dewpoint of 39F at 7 pm on the 28th would be among the lowest ever observed at Des Moines in the month of July. There has never been a dewpoint below 40F observed in the month of July since July 30, 1936 (see chart below for lowest hourly readings from 1936 to the present). Even a dew point below 50F would be exceptionally rare today, and yet this value was achieved on numerous dates in this stretch - including some of the record-breaking hot days.

Figure 1. Calculated dewpoints and heat index values at Des Moines, from July 14-July 31, 1934.

 

Figure 2. Lowest hourly dew point temperature readings at Des Moines in the month of July (1936-present).

[bdgwx]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

Maybe Hansen and Simons will turn out to be correct about marine aerosol reductions having a greater influence on climate than earlier models had shown.

It's a pretty big deal if true. Hansen name dropped Mann as an example of a scientists who are dismissive of this hypothesis in his latest monthly email. So there is some friendly debate in the climate science community right now. I think Schmidt said we'll know within a year if we've been underestimating the warming all along.

[bluewave]

34 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

It's a pretty big deal if true. Hansen name dropped Mann as an example of a scientists who are dismissive of this hypothesis in his latest monthly email. So there is some friendly debate in the climate science community right now. I think Schmidt said we'll know within a year if we've been underestimating the warming all along.

There seems to be a few issues at hand here not expressly stated In this most recent debate.

First, an acceleration of global warming makes it unlikely that we will be able to cap warming at +1.5C or perhaps even +2.0C. Some scientists believe this could cause people to give up on finding possible solutions if we already surpassed this level. It’s one of the risks that the climate community took when targeting specific temperature level like +1.5C in all these reports put out over the years.

Second, faster warming could cause some to doubt the climate models in general which make some scientists uneasy since they have come to rely so heavily on them.

But even if the answer lies somewhere in the middle between Hansen and others, any acceleration of the warming rate is problematic in a world where we are still so reliant on fossil fuels to drive out current civilization. 

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, bluewave said:

There seems to be a few issues at hand here not expressly stated In this most recent debate.

First, an acceleration of global warming makes it unlikely that we will be able to cap warming at +1.5C or perhaps even +2.0C. Some scientists believe this could cause people to give up on finding possible solutions if we already surpassed this level. It’s one of the risks that the climate community took when targeting specific temperature level like +1.5C in all these reports put out over the years.

Second, faster warming could cause some to doubt the climate models in general which make some scientists uneasy since they have come to rely so heavily on them.

But even if the answer lies somewhere in the middle between Hansen and others, any acceleration of the warming rate is problematic in a world where we are still so reliant on fossil fuels to drive out current civilization. 

There is confusion about whether the warming rate is accelerating and/or climate sensitivity is higher than expected. An acceleration in the warming rate starting around 2010 is expected due to reductions in aerosol emissions. Per a recent Real Climate blog, Hanson's yellow cone is inline with CMIP6 model predictions. There is a large body of work on climate sensitivity, so will need multiple studies and sustained warming above the red line to move the needle. We will see.

One final comment: increased forcing from aerosol reduction is better than increased forcing from CO2 emission increases. Aerosol emissions are going to zero anyway. The acceleration has a shelf life on the order of decades before aerosols are depleted.. By pulling the aerosol reductions forward in time due to air pollution control we are giving ourselves a preview of our climate future. Maybe it will spur action. Not that we have placed ourselves in a good position, with warming accelerating just as we approach 1.5C warming; which means we are leaving our comfortable Holocene climate.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=much-ado-about-acceleration

[bluewave]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:03 AM, chubbs said:

Not that we have placed ourselves in a good position, with warming accelerating just as we approach 1.5C warming; which means we are leaving our comfortable Holocene climate.

That’s why we probably need to put more focus on adaptation to a warmer climate that we have built our civilization on to date. But it becomes a sticky issue since the topic of money is involved. Increasing extreme weather events are costly to society for numerous reasons including more expensive property reinsurance which directly affects the insurance rates consumers pay. It’s great that we have developed early weather detection methods which save more lives. But the increasing cost burden of a more extreme climate is difficult since the topic of money gets processed through a more polarized societal filter due to the introduction of politics. Plus forced migrations throughout history due to extremes such as droughts or heat have been proven to add a destabilizing factor to societal systems. Can’t even imagine what a future scramble will look like when coastal cities eventually become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. This is not to say that we can’t find ways to adapt since we are such a clever species. But it may very well come with a steep price tag.

[Typhoon Tip]

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

That’s why we probably need to put more focus on adaptation and mitigation to a warmer climate that we have built our civilization on to date. But it becomes a sticky issue since the topic of money is involved. Increasing extreme weather events are costly to society for numerous reasons including more expensive property reinsurance which directly affects the insurance rates consumers pay. It’s great that we have developed early weather detection methods which save more lives. But the increasing cost burden of a more extreme climate is difficult since the topic of money gets processed through a more polarized societal filter due to the introduction of politics. Plus forced migrations throughout history due to extremes such as droughts or heat have been proven to add a destabilizing factor to societal systems. Can’t even imagine what a future scramble will look like when coastal cities eventually become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. This is not to say that we can’t find ways to adapt since we are such a clever species. But it may very well come with a steep price tag.

Mm... surviving CC cannot be about money.

In fact....that's entirely trivial, really.  Money is but a human invention. I mean... not you per se ( I realize what you were after above and it is not your problem - ).  The 'societal machinery' is autopilot-attempting to mediate everything through the lens of dollars and cents - but unfortunately ... the natural order is 100% mutually exclusive  to that invention. 

Money is internal to the 'human bubble,' a delusion in the sense that it's ability to solve problems is not what it seems because humans have a tendency not to see beyond the boundary. 

The  human construct bubble has served a very good purpose. There's no question. It's the ( sorry, gross cliche incoming...) threads in the fabric of civilization.  It's what creates our human cooperative cloth. It allows the primitive tribal 150 member "entrusted" model of antiquity, to function at scales of population that are so large in scalar numbers that it's impossible for even the finest polymaths to completely wrap their heads around the far reaches of such population numbers.  It's the collective belief in the "intrinsic" value of money that keeps people operating in relative unison, well beyond the periphery of the tribal size.  Noah Harari's "Sapiens" - is vert a good read.  He finely describes the historical significance of economic emergence on large scales, and why-for how it assisted transforming humanity's primitive tribal states ...ultimately into countries ( spanning some 7 to 10,000 years to do so), replete with all the modern amenities that allow both population to explode to billions over ...but extending the life expectancy by decades.

Except along the way( oops ), humanity repeatedly demos its willingness to die by it.  And I'm not talking just about CC in the current context, either.  Wars are fought over it sponsored by state, and individuals act out antisocially for take.

If we make decisions designed to ameliorate CC's certain dilemmas based upon it?  Doesn't seem to project very well.  It may be that humanity doesn't otherwise know how.  That may be so.  But tough shit. Adaptation and mitigation mean nothing if mass-extinction fractures critical connections between inextricably codependent nodes of "Gaia" ( for lack of better word). The self-correcting super structure no longer corrects.  Pull enough 'keystone relationships' out of that web, and life cannot be supported.

While people are trying to figure out how to pay for CC?  

[donsutherland1]

On the issue of mitigation vs. adaptation, I would rather see much more attention devoted to mitigation, even at the expense of adaptation. An investment in mitigation would yield far bigger returns than a strategy aimed largely at adaptation. The former would limit the consequences. The latter would delay mitigation and amount to perhaps a down payment into an even worse future. Ultimately, adaptation would be largely futile if the world descends into a Mid-Pliocene-type climate with an irrevocable commitment to extreme heat, devastating floods, and a long-term 25-meter sea level rise. Yet, humanity remains far from making a credible effort aimed at mitigating climate change.

For all of humanity's lofty achievements and acquisition of knowledge (some of which is being rejected by climate change denial and those with a stake in it), humanity is incredibly bad at looking beyond the near-term and in solving complex societal problems. It views the future as little more than a linear extension of the present despite overwhelming evidence that the future is anything but a linear extension of the present. It seeks to sustain an unsustainable status quo where resources are being consumed far faster than they can be renewed. It places blind faith in technological miracles that would arrive just in time to avert the consequences of its choice not to address climate change, among other big issues. It wholesale ignores physics, even as physics as provided insight into the greenhouse effect since the 19th century and a correct long-range forecast from decades ago that an increase in greenhouse gases would lead to warming.

In 1987, Lamont-Doherty scientist Wallace S. Broecker observed:

The inhabitants of planet Earth are quietly conducting a gigantic environmental experiment. So vast and so sweeping will be the consequences that, were it brought before any responsible council for approval, it would be firmly rejected. Yet it goes on with little interference from any jurisdiction or nation.

The failure of COP 28, which convened 36 years after Dr. Broecker's observation and following the IPCC's declaration that it is "unequivocal" that  human activities have warmed the climate, to adopt even a minimal set of targets for weaning the world off its fossil fuel addiction reaffirmed the continuing relevance of Dr. Broeker's observation. Today, as the world still has a choice, its decision not to adopt a credible course of action is one of willful and knowing choice.

2022 and 2023 were defined by extremes in precipitation events, heat, global temperatures, and sea surface temperatures. None of that shook COP 28 or the world's leaders from their lazy complacency, even as technologies already exist for a much faster shift from fossil fuels than had been possible in 1987.

Broecker warned, "We play Russian roulette with climate, hoping that the future will hold no unpleasant surprises." The geological record shows that there have been times where the climate has made rapid, large-scale changes from a preceding state. The sudden enormous spike in sea surface temperatures, which remain near record highs and lack of consensus among the scientific community about the overall cause illustrates the reality that one can't be fully certain about what lies ahead beyond the skillful (to date) predictions about global temperatures.

Broecker advised, "To prepare ourselves, we must take the problem of climatic change as seriously as we take those of cancer and nuclear defense." That has not been the case among the world's political leaders through the opening of 2024.

Sure, there have been words. However, actions speak much more credibly. The absence of binding targets for fossil fuel burning and the lack of a credible path for a reduction consistent with achieving net zero emissions by 2050 speak far more authoritatively than the sum total of all the political rhetoric since climate change first burst onto the political scene in a big way with Dr. James Hansen's June 23, 1988 Congressional testimony.

Then, Hansen declared, "...the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." Political indifference followed when it came to concrete and credible actions.

Energy consumption from fossil fuels rose from 77.9 terawatt hours in 1988 to 13.2 terawatt hours in 2022, a 76% increase. Atmospheric CO2 increased from 351.7 PPM in 1988 to 421.1 PPM in 2023, a 20% increase. Humanity knowingly and deliberately invested in a warmer more unstable climate. At COP 28, it reaffirmed that tragic commitment. 2024 has begun in the shadow of humanity's latest choice to put efforts to preserve an unsustainable fossil fuel-centric status quo ahead of urgent and credible mitigation.

[bluewave]

On 4/12/2024 at 10:39 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

Mm... surviving CC cannot be about money.

In fact....that's entirely trivial, really.  Money is but a human invention. I mean... not you per se ( I realize what you were after above and it is not your problem - ).  The 'societal machinery' is autopilot-attempting to mediate everything through the lens of dollars and cents - but unfortunately ... the natural order is 100% mutually exclusive  to that invention. 

Money is internal to the 'human bubble,' a delusion in the sense that it's ability to solve problems is not what it seems because humans have a tendency not to see beyond the boundary. 

The  human construct bubble has served a very good purpose. There's no question. It's the ( sorry, gross cliche incoming...) threads in the fabric of civilization.  It's what creates our human cooperative cloth. It allows the primitive tribal 150 member "entrusted" model of antiquity, to function at scales of population that are so large in scalar numbers that it's impossible for even the finest polymaths to completely wrap their heads around the far reaches of such population numbers.  It's the collective belief in the "intrinsic" value of money that keeps people operating in relative unison, well beyond the periphery of the tribal size.  Noah Harari's "Sapiens" - is vert a good read.  He finely describes the historical significance of economic emergence on large scales, and why-for how it assisted transforming humanity's primitive tribal states ...ultimately into countries ( spanning some 7 to 10,000 years to do so), replete with all the modern amenities that allow both population to explode to billions over ...but extending the life expectancy by decades.

Except along the way( oops ), humanity repeatedly demos its willingness to die by it.  And I'm not talking just about CC in the current context, either.  Wars are fought over it sponsored by state, and individuals act out antisocially for take.

If we make decisions designed to ameliorate CC's certain dilemmas based upon it?  Doesn't seem to project very well.  It may be that humanity doesn't otherwise know how.  That may be so.  But tough shit. Adaptation and mitigation mean nothing if mass-extinction fractures critical connections between inextricably codependent nodes of "Gaia" ( for lack of better word). The self-correcting super structure no longer corrects.  Pull enough 'keystone relationships' out of that web, and life cannot be supported.

While people are trying to figure out how to pay for CC?  

Your views are based on the way you want the world to work and not how it currently works. I also have a soft spot for that sentiment since I think we could be doing so much more collectively across the world on a whole host of issues.

Society needs to have things demonstrated to them first before they are willing to make big changes in the way they do things. Scientists are missing the fact that societies are more reactive than proactive. And climate change involves being proactive in order to avoid the worst outcomes as the climate continues to rapidly warm. Big changes in society have historically happened after major catalyzing events. But on numerous occasions these events were well forecast by people who were paying attention to the signs. So I am sure climate change will be no different. We have been conditioned by experience to react to immediate threats in the here and now and not what could eventually happen in the future. Don’t be surprised it it takes the beginning of a break up in the WAIS and much faster seas level rises than we have seen for climate change to rise to the top of many nations list of priorities. My guess is that a sudden rise of sea levels in a relatively short period of time will get all the countries of the worlds attention. But we are not at that point yet. 

Money is just another form of abundance in life. So it’s the currency  that value across the globe is measured by. It’s a form of exchange that represents our current level of advancement. I am sure there are probably much more evolved civilizations out there in the universe where money isn’t such a dominant feature like on our planet. But we haven’t reached that level just yet. So climate change is going to need to start costing societies so much that collectively we all decide that we need to change the way we order our economies and societies. It would be great if we currently had some technology that could speed up the transition away from fossil fuels. But energy transitions throughout history have been slow. 

I don’t think that we can rely on government bodies to protect us from an increasingly more volatile climate. My focus on adaptation  is based on the individual making informed choices on how to best navigate this change in climate. I don’t expect any government body to do it for us. So my focus is raising awareness of these climate issues so the individual can make their own best informed decisions. 

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

Your views are based on the way you want the world to work and not how it currently works. I also have a soft spot for that sentiment since I think we could be doing so much more collectively across the world on a whole host of issues.

Society needs to have things demonstrated to them first before they are willing to make big changes in the way they do things. Scientists are missing the fact that societies are more reactive than proactive. And climate change involves being proactive in order to avoid the worst outcomes as the climate continues to rapidly warm. Big changes in society have historically happened after major catalyzing events. But on numerous occasions these events were well forecast by people who were paying attention to the signs. So I am sure climate change will be no different. We have been conditioned by experience to react to immediate threats in the here and now and not what could eventually happen in the future. Don’t be surprised it it takes the beginning of a break up in the WAIS and much faster seas level rises than we have seen for climate change to rise to the top of many nations list of priorities. My guess is that a sudden rise of sea levels in a relatively short period of time will get all the countries of the worlds attention. But we are not at that point yet. 

Money is just another form of abundance in life. So it’s the currency  that value across the globe is measured by. It’s a form of exchange that represents our current level of advancement. I am sure there are probably much more evolved civilizations out there in the universe where money isn’t such a dominant feature like on our planet. But we haven’t reached that level just yet. So climate change is going to need to start costing societies so much that collectively we all decide that we need to change the way we order our economies and societies. It would be great if we currently had some technology that could speed up the transition away from fossil fuels. But energy transitions throughout history have been slow. 

I don’t think that we can rely on government bodies to protect us from an increasingly more volatile climate. My focus on adaptation and mitigation is based on the individual making informed choices on how to best navigate this change in climate. I don’t expect any government body to do it for us. So my focus is raising awareness of these climate issues so the individual can make their own best informed decisions. 

 

 

Not really ... What I "want" ? No, that is beside the point.  

What needs to happen, that is the point I was trying to make - however well, notwithstanding.  

We cannot sell CC mitigation and/or correcting tech and policy to the highest bidder. The virtue cannot be in profit.  It has to be in recognition of the problem at a personal level that triggers flight or fight, unfortunately.  Humans don't seem to 'believe' urgency unless it appeals that way. And since we cannot taste or touch, see or smell CC ... etc etc

Anyway, I like that 2nd bold statement there.  I've often thought to compared this to a race between making technology accessible to everyone as a means to survive, prior to time running out.  That, and tech also directly fixing the problem.  Maybe that is the entry into Kardashev 1 civilization ranking - when a species gets to this brink but then succeeds.    Sci Fiction's "Star Trek" provided matter-energy exchange replication.   Not meaning to imply that is relevant to objective reality by mentioning.  Just an example of tech 'winning the race'.  All the essentials become essentially free... etc etc, and there's no basis for greed. 

That's unlikely in our life time... But out there, some where there probably is in the infinitum of cosmic probabilities, societies that have succeeded.

[Ed, snow and hurricane fan]

It may be too late already.  https://tos.org/oceanography/article/is-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-approaching-a-tipping-point

[bluewave]

12 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not really ... What I "want" ? No, that is beside the point.  

What needs to happen, that is the point I was trying to make - however well, notwithstanding.  

We cannot sell CC mitigation and/or correcting tech and policy to the highest bidder. The virtue cannot be in profit.  It has to be in recognition of the problem at a personal level that triggers flight or fight, unfortunately.  Humans don't seem to 'believe' urgency unless it appeals that way. And since we cannot taste or touch, see or smell CC ... etc etc

Anyway, I like that 2nd bold statement there.  I've often thought to compared this to a race between making technology accessible to everyone as a means to survive, prior to time running out.  That, and tech also directly fixing the problem.  Maybe that is the entry into Kardashev 1 civilization ranking - when a species gets to this brink but then succeeds.    Sci Fiction's "Star Trek" provided matter-energy exchange replication.   Not meaning to imply that is relevant to objective reality by mentioning.  Just an example of tech 'winning the race'.  All the essentials become essentially free... etc etc, and there's no basis for greed. 

That's unlikely in our life time... But out there, some where there probably is in the infinitum of cosmic probabilities, societies that have succeeded.

 

12 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not really ... What I "want" ? No, that is beside the point.  

What needs to happen, that is the point I was trying to make - however well, notwithstanding.  

We cannot sell CC mitigation and/or correcting tech and policy to the highest bidder. The virtue cannot be in profit.  It has to be in recognition of the problem at a personal level that triggers flight or fight, unfortunately.  Humans don't seem to 'believe' urgency unless it appeals that way. And since we cannot taste or touch, see or smell CC ... etc etc

Anyway, I like that 2nd bold statement there.  I've often thought to compared this to a race between making technology accessible to everyone as a means to survive, prior to time running out.  That, and tech also directly fixing the problem.  Maybe that is the entry into Kardashev 1 civilization ranking - when a species gets to this brink but then succeeds.    Sci Fiction's "Star Trek" provided matter-energy exchange replication.   Not meaning to imply that is relevant to objective reality by mentioning.  Just an example of tech 'winning the race'.  All the essentials become essentially free... etc etc, and there's no basis for greed. 

That's unlikely in our life time... But out there, some where there probably is in the infinitum of cosmic probabilities, societies that have succeeded.

Addressing the issue is going to need creative solutions which aim to make life easier for the inhabitants of our societies across the globe and which appeal to their higher aspirations. So far we have heard from the politicians and world leaders how the average person needs to sacrifice to bring about changes. This is being done by individuals with giant carbon footprints in private jets who may mean well but have no idea the financial struggles and challenges that the average person faces on a daily basis.

We knew the original idea being promoted for years was a non starter right out of the gate of levying a carbon tax which would inevitably be passed on to individuals. People need relief from the high costs of life not more economic stress.

Countries like Germany have seen their electric rates shoot through the roof due to the high cost of trying to upgrade the grid to renewables which is extremely expensive. Instead of keeping their nuclear plants open they have now turned to coal to meet their additional energy needs. 

In this country there are many that in theory who want renewable energy. But once a large installation is proposed in their area they reject it. These installations take up large swaths of land and the local residents have moved to block them. Plus the current inflationary economy makes renewables less competitive since they were designed for a lower inflation environment. This is why their stock prices has been falling recently. Along with the cancellation of projects due to the higher costs.

Renewables like wind and solar also take a long time to scale up and have the issue of being intermittent. So it’s no surprise that that the fossil fuels share of the energy mix still remains constant across the globe and has not dropped. Countries in Europe have demonstrated that nuclear has scaled up more quickly than wind and solar. But there has been too much resistance to nuclear over the years. We now have next generation nuclear which is much safer. So there is no need to wait for fusion to become viable. That could still take another 15-30 years. 

I see government plans to transition from internal combustion engine cars to electric vehicles. But electric vehicles like Teslas are very expensive to the average consumer who is currently economically stressed due to the high rate of costs and inflation. These are niche items for the more affluent who own their own homes with chargers. We still don’t have enough charging infrastructure for the majority of people who are apartment dwellers in big cities. Plus the grid is nowhere near the level needed to sustain a large vehicle electrification project. 

China has taken a different approach with mass producing EVs for only 10,000 which would be affordable to the average citizen. But there are some who want to block the entry of these vehicles into our market. The contradictions coming out of China are very notable. On one hand they have become the greatest emitter of co2 due to their rapid expansion of coal plants. But they are also working on EV technology at a fast rate and look to end up dominating the world market. So there is no way the planet is going to reduce carbon emissions without China experiencing a rapid transformation first. For all our issues in this country, we still have managed to lower our emissions somewhat. We have been using more natural gas which greatly reduces mortality and disease from air pollution. China could take a cue for us here since it along with India has some of the worst air pollution in the world.

 

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

...and apologies for the seemingly dystopian bias but it is what it is.

All that stuff Bluewave mentions are problems that are technologically soluble - hence the race.  

And again ... I believe technology has to solve this, because the other solutions are just untenable -

Also, I very much agree with Don that mitigation is the shorter route to salvation - in fact, it's the only route if one can project the problem into the future logically.   You cannot merely adapt to a burning barn.  Sending the planet into an uncontrolled accelerating hot house makes that metaphor apropos, unfortunately.   In other words, adaptation only works within a range that this CC thing will easily burst well outside of.   

Part of mitigation is both behavioral, and technologically assisted working together. 

I just read and hear this idea of the native adaptability of the human species ... .yeeeah, that's one of those bargaining statements that is both true and untrue - offering a 'stay of execution' that belays accepting the truth.  Particularly in the extended consequential context of CC going on unrestrained and indeterminably.  You'll get to a point where you can no longer adapt.  This stuff is academically obvious, frankly. 

 

[ChescoWx]

The fake news that the "science is settled" or the equally fake "90%+ consensus of scientists agree” from Lynas et al. (2021) was accomplished by pure selective math. To get that 90% plus "consensus" required dismissing over 68% of the studies reviewed. The real numbers paint a different story. Of the total 2,718 randomly-selected papers examined 1,869 (68.8%) expressed no position on human-caused climate change. However there were 849 of them did, and 845 indeed endorsed it. The 90%+ math comes from dividing 845 by 849, and ignoring the 1,869 other scientific studies that expressed absolutely no opinion. The true math actually comes out to  closer to 30% ....30% is of course quite far from consensus.

[donsutherland1]

16 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The fake news that the "science is settled" or the equally fake "90%+ consensus of scientists agree” from Lynas et al. (2021) was accomplished by pure selective math. To get that 90% plus "consensus" required dismissing over 68% of the studies reviewed. The real numbers paint a different story. Of the total 2,718 randomly-selected papers examined 1,869 (68.8%) expressed no position on human-caused climate change. However there were 849 of them did, and 845 indeed endorsed it. The 90%+ math comes from dividing 845 by 849, and ignoring the 1,869 other scientific studies that expressed absolutely no opinion. The true math actually comes out to  closer to 30% ....30% is of course quite far from consensus.

There's more to the story. When the authors of the papers that expressed no view in the abstract regarding AGW were asked to self-rate their positions, more than 60% endorsed AGW. Rejection of AGW languished at 1.8%. In short, very few scientists actually reject AGW. The majority endorse it.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

[bluewave]

Another study on how aerosol reduction is leading to more warming than originally forecast by some climate models. 

 

 

[ChescoWx]

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

There's more to the story. When the authors of the papers that expressed no view in the abstract regarding AGW were asked to self-rate their positions, more than 60% endorsed AGW. Rejection of AGW languished at 1.8%. In short, very few scientists actually reject AGW. The majority endorse it.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

Those numbers sure don't sound like consensus.....majority is far far from consensus!

"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus is the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way"Michael Crichton

 

[AdMC]

13 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Those numbers sure don't sound like consensus.....majority is far far from consensus!

"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus is the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way"Michael Crichton

 

[bluewave]

The climate models that predict sea level rise will need a significant upgrade in order to factor in this faster Antarctic ice sheet melt from warming ocean currents. 
 

https://www.earth.com/news/antarctica-ice-shelves-melting-faster-due-to-ocean-currents/

Antarctic ice shelves are melting faster due to ocean currents
 

This new discovery necessitates a reevaluation of our current understanding of the complex interactions between the Southern Ocean currents and the Antarctica ice sheet. Prior models primarily focused on wind patterns as the driver of ice shelf melt.

This new research highlights the crucial role of ocean currents and seabed topography in influencing the movement and upwelling of warm water towards the ice shelves. 

Consequently, climate models used to predict future sea level rise will require significant adjustments to incorporate these newly discovered dynamics. 

“Our findings challenge conventional wisdom,” explained Yoshihiro Nakayama from Hokkaido University. 

By integrating this information, scientists can develop more accurate and nuanced projections of how much global sea levels might rise due to Antarctic ice melt.

“Our study underscores that the interplay between meandering ocean currents and the ocean floor generates upwelling velocity, bringing warm water to shallower depths. Subsequently, this warm water reaches the ice-ocean interface, accelerating ice shelf melting.” Nakayama explains.

“This internal oceanic process driving ice shelf melting introduces a novel concept. With this in mind, we have to reevaluate winds driving Antarctic ice loss, which can significantly impact future projections,” he concludes.

 

This discovery highlights a crucial point: climate change isn’t just a matter of rising air temperatures. It’s a cascade of interconnected effects that ripple throughout Earth’s various systems. 

The ocean plays a far more significant role than previously thought, and its dynamic interactions with ice sheets and currents can have profound consequences for global sea levels. 

As we delve deeper into climate science, it’s becoming increasingly clear that a holistic approach is necessary to understand the intricate web of cause and effect that drives 

[donsutherland1]

While some on Social Media continue to dismiss or deny climate change, real world evidence of the consequences of anthropogenic climate change continue to pile up in a growing body of attribution studies. The latest study concerns an extreme heatwave that affected Africa's Sahel Region from March 31-April 4, 2024.

The magnitude of the heat was assessed as having been "virtually impossible" in the absence of climate change. Moreover, as the climate warms further, the frequency of such heat is expected to increase dramatically, with such events become a once-in-20-year case.

The full attribution study can be found at:
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/110771/2/Report 1.pdf

 

[Typhoon Tip]

21 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

While some on Social Media continue to dismiss or deny climate change, real world evidence of the consequences of anthropogenic climate change continue to pile up in a growing body of attribution studies. The latest study concerns an extreme heatwave that affected Africa's Sahel Region from March 31-April 4, 2024.

The magnitude of the heat was assessed as having been "virtually impossible" in the absence of climate change. Moreover, as the climate warms further, the frequency of such heat is expected to increase dramatically, with such events become a once-in-20-year case.

The full attribution study can be found at:
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/110771/2/Report 1.pdf

 

Ha, ... was just reading about that.  

Also ( imho ) likely an example of the 'synergistic heat wave,'  a type of heat burst phenomenon that exceeds leading indicators - but I did not admittedly read that stated.  If the so-called Weather Attribution Group's study contains that verbiage then credit - I've haven't read the entire report. 

Anyway, synergistic heat bursts are increasing in frequency, and they are a different animal than merely recognizing a ridge of warm air in the models out in time and assessing three days 90+.

[donsutherland1]

15 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Ha, ... was just reading about that.  

Also ( imho ) likely an example of the 'synergistic heat wave,'  a type of heat burst phenomenon that exceeds leading indicators - but I did not admittedly read that stated.  If the so-called Weather Attribution Group's study contains that verbiage then credit - I've haven't read the entire report. 

Anyway, synergistic heat bursts are increasing in frequency, and they are a different animal than merely recognizing a ridge of warm air in the models out in time and assessing three days 90+.

The report didn't mention a synergistic heat wave.

[Typhoon Tip]

23 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The report didn't mention a synergistic heat wave.

I see that.

Yeah, it'd be difficult to parse that out given that part of the world.  This is their 'hot season,' under near upright sun angle. 

Like in the Pacific Northwest in June 2021 ... comparing model output to verification/climatology is an easier distinction.

But it was historically hot in the Sahel nonetheless.

[LibertyBell]

On 3/31/2024 at 11:04 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Unfortunately, the film lacks scientific merit. It makes numerous claims that run counter to scientific understanding ranging from the basics of the greenhouse effect (which has been understood since the 19th century) to warming being an artifact of the urban heat island (UHI effect--UHI is real, but rural locations have been warming, too). The impact of adding greenhouse gases to the Earth System is a matter of physics, not politics. The Earth Energy Imbalance that has resulted is driving warming, as incoming solar radiation exceeds outgoing longwave radiation.

The geological record provides further illustrations of the role CO2 has played in amplifying the warming, even as past triggers for increasing atmospheric CO2 were natural. It makes no difference whether CO2 is released through volcanic activity or from the burning of fossil fuels. The effects are the same given the well-understood properties of the gas. There remain some questions about whether sensitivity to increasing CO2 also ramps up at some point. Recent research suggests that it does on account of a decrease in low- and medium-level cloud cover at the mid- and high-latitudes, allowing more incoming solar radiation to reach the surface than would otherwise be the case.

Not surprisingly, summing up the body of research, science journalist Peter Brannen observed, "...our current experiment--quickly injecting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere--has in fact been run many times before in the geological past, and it never ends well."

The warming is just one problem. Most of the CO2 is absorbed by the oceans leading to acidification. The combination of acidification and warming reduces oxygen (even as sea life needs more oxygen to deal with warmer temperatures), which can create food chain die-offs. Recent bleaching events of corals off Florida and Australia are early symptoms of what could become a much bigger problem if the issue is not addressed in a sufficient and timely matter. And what happens in the sea doesn't stay in the sea. A substantial loss of sea life would be felt by human society. There would be no quick fixes.

In the end, the film trivializes what is a major issue with profound consequences. It seeks to delay societal action by injecting disinformation into the public sphere. The costs of a delayed response could be magnitudes of order greater than those associated with earlier efforts to address the problem.

A report came out how much the fossil fuel cartel has been lying about plastic recycling.

MOST PLASTIC CANNOT --REPEAT-- CANNOT BE RECYCLED!

 

BUT THE PLASTIC PUSHERS OF THE DIRTY FOSSIL FUEL CARTELS CONTINUE TO LIE AND DECEIVE BY SAYING IT CAN!

 

THEY'VE BEEN LYING ABOUT PLASTIC RECYCLING FOR 30 YEARS NOW

[LibertyBell]

On 4/19/2024 at 1:22 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

I see that.

Yeah, it'd be difficult to parse that out given that part of the world.  This is their 'hot season,' under near upright sun angle. 

Like in the Pacific Northwest in June 2021 ... comparing model output to verification/climatology is an easier distinction.

But it was historically hot in the Sahel nonetheless.

Reading this makes so angry.

We should be treating the fossil fuel cartels like terrorists and create a war on fossil fuels.

Associated articles about how dirty they fight so we need to fight dirty too.

 

https://www.makechevroncleanup.com/press-releases/2019/6/20/judge-kaplan-ordered-the-seizure-of-his-passport-computer-and-cell-human-rights-defender-steven-donziger-refused-to-turn-them-over-here-is-his-explanation

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-steven-donziger/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-05/chevrons-rico-victory-provides-a-model-for-other-companies?sref=fqqmZ8gi

https://www.wsj.com/articles/litigation-without-end-chevron-battles-on-in-28-year-old-ecuador-lawsuit-11619975500
 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/neye7z/chevrons-star-witness-admits-to-lying-in-the-amazon-pollution-case

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawyer-steven-donziger-ecuador-house-arrest
 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/chevron-amazon-ecuador-steven-donziger-erin-brockovich
 

 

other companies in other cartels also fight dirty

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/business/chemours-dupont-pfas-genx-chemicals.html

 

 

Monsanto/Bayer losing lawsuits is a bright spot in all this

 

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-12-02/bayer-suffering-buyers-remorse-for-monsanto-acquisition/
 

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 4/13/2024 at 7:30 AM, bluewave said:

 

Addressing the issue is going to need creative solutions which aim to make life easier for the inhabitants of our societies across the globe and which appeal to their higher aspirations. So far we have heard from the politicians and world leaders how the average person needs to sacrifice to bring about changes. This is being done by individuals with giant carbon footprints in private jets who may mean well but have no idea the financial struggles and challenges that the average person faces on a daily basis.

We knew the original idea being promoted for years was a non starter right out of the gate of levying a carbon tax which would inevitably be passed on to individuals. People need relief from the high costs of life not more economic stress.

Countries like Germany have seen their electric rates shoot through the roof due to the high cost of trying to upgrade the grid to renewables which is extremely expensive. Instead of keeping their nuclear plants open they have now turned to coal to meet their additional energy needs. 

In this country there are many that in theory who want renewable energy. But once a large installation is proposed in their area they reject it. These installations take up large swaths of land and the local residents have moved to block them. Plus the current inflationary economy makes renewables less competitive since they were designed for a lower inflation environment. This is why their stock prices has been falling recently. Along with the cancellation of projects due to the higher costs.

Renewables like wind and solar also take a long time to scale up and have the issue of being intermittent. So it’s no surprise that that the fossil fuels share of the energy mix still remains constant across the globe and has not dropped. Countries in Europe have demonstrated that nuclear has scaled up more quickly than wind and solar. But there has been too much resistance to nuclear over the years. We now have next generation nuclear which is much safer. So there is no need to wait for fusion to become viable. That could still take another 15-30 years. 

I see government plans to transition from internal combustion engine cars to electric vehicles. But electric vehicles like Teslas are very expensive to the average consumer who is currently economically stressed due to the high rate of costs and inflation. These are niche items for the more affluent who own their own homes with chargers. We still don’t have enough charging infrastructure for the majority of people who are apartment dwellers in big cities. Plus the grid is nowhere near the level needed to sustain a large vehicle electrification project. 

China has taken a different approach with mass producing EVs for only 10,000 which would be affordable to the average citizen. But there are some who want to block the entry of these vehicles into our market. The contradictions coming out of China are very notable. On one hand they have become the greatest emitter of co2 due to their rapid expansion of coal plants. But they are also working on EV technology at a fast rate and look to end up dominating the world market. So there is no way the planet is going to reduce carbon emissions without China experiencing a rapid transformation first. For all our issues in this country, we still have managed to lower our emissions somewhat. We have been using more natural gas which greatly reduces mortality and disease from air pollution. China could take a cue for us here since it along with India has some of the worst air pollution in the world.

 

 

 

Natural gas isn't natural and isn't safe either, it's carcinogenic.

We need to make it extremely difficult for the fossil fuel cartels to do business, including labeling them as terrorists and making life miserable for them-- including seizing their assets and properties.  Look what they have been doing to Donzinger.  We need to take away their rights to litigate too.

 

Germany isn't a bastion of renewable energy-- I see they've been building more coal mines and removing nuclear as an option-- they are headed in the wrong direction.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:49 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Not really ... What I "want" ? No, that is beside the point.  

What needs to happen, that is the point I was trying to make - however well, notwithstanding.  

We cannot sell CC mitigation and/or correcting tech and policy to the highest bidder. The virtue cannot be in profit.  It has to be in recognition of the problem at a personal level that triggers flight or fight, unfortunately.  Humans don't seem to 'believe' urgency unless it appeals that way. And since we cannot taste or touch, see or smell CC ... etc etc

Anyway, I like that 2nd bold statement there.  I've often thought to compared this to a race between making technology accessible to everyone as a means to survive, prior to time running out.  That, and tech also directly fixing the problem.  Maybe that is the entry into Kardashev 1 civilization ranking - when a species gets to this brink but then succeeds.    Sci Fiction's "Star Trek" provided matter-energy exchange replication.   Not meaning to imply that is relevant to objective reality by mentioning.  Just an example of tech 'winning the race'.  All the essentials become essentially free... etc etc, and there's no basis for greed. 

That's unlikely in our life time... But out there, some where there probably is in the infinitum of cosmic probabilities, societies that have succeeded.

John, this is a really tough answer but it needs to be stated:

You need to destroy the current system completely and utterly in order to build a better one and completely from scratch.  That applies here.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 4/12/2024 at 1:54 PM, bluewave said:

Your views are based on the way you want the world to work and not how it currently works. I also have a soft spot for that sentiment since I think we could be doing so much more collectively across the world on a whole host of issues.

Society needs to have things demonstrated to them first before they are willing to make big changes in the way they do things. Scientists are missing the fact that societies are more reactive than proactive. And climate change involves being proactive in order to avoid the worst outcomes as the climate continues to rapidly warm. Big changes in society have historically happened after major catalyzing events. But on numerous occasions these events were well forecast by people who were paying attention to the signs. So I am sure climate change will be no different. We have been conditioned by experience to react to immediate threats in the here and now and not what could eventually happen in the future. Don’t be surprised it it takes the beginning of a break up in the WAIS and much faster seas level rises than we have seen for climate change to rise to the top of many nations list of priorities. My guess is that a sudden rise of sea levels in a relatively short period of time will get all the countries of the worlds attention. But we are not at that point yet. 

Money is just another form of abundance in life. So it’s the currency  that value across the globe is measured by. It’s a form of exchange that represents our current level of advancement. I am sure there are probably much more evolved civilizations out there in the universe where money isn’t such a dominant feature like on our planet. But we haven’t reached that level just yet. So climate change is going to need to start costing societies so much that collectively we all decide that we need to change the way we order our economies and societies. It would be great if we currently had some technology that could speed up the transition away from fossil fuels. But energy transitions throughout history have been slow. 

I don’t think that we can rely on government bodies to protect us from an increasingly more volatile climate. My focus on adaptation  is based on the individual making informed choices on how to best navigate this change in climate. I don’t expect any government body to do it for us. So my focus is raising awareness of these climate issues so the individual can make their own best informed decisions. 

 

 

Chris, humanity is completely unsustainable in its current form.  The world only works in its current form for the rich.  The hard truth is the world as it is now needs to be completely and utterly destroyed to create a better system from its ashes.  And I strongly believe that will happen-- whether we want it to or not.  Either we do it, or Nature will do it for us.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:50 AM, bluewave said:

That’s why we probably need to put more focus on adaptation to a warmer climate that we have built our civilization on to date. But it becomes a sticky issue since the topic of money is involved. Increasing extreme weather events are costly to society for numerous reasons including more expensive property reinsurance which directly affects the insurance rates consumers pay. It’s great that we have developed early weather detection methods which save more lives. But the increasing cost burden of a more extreme climate is difficult since the topic of money gets processed through a more polarized societal filter due to the introduction of politics. Plus forced migrations throughout history due to extremes such as droughts or heat have been proven to add a destabilizing factor to societal systems. Can’t even imagine what a future scramble will look like when coastal cities eventually become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. This is not to say that we can’t find ways to adapt since we are such a clever species. But it may very well come with a steep price tag.

But it's about much more than just climate.  It's a major health issue, asthma, cancer, systemic organ damage from plastics, etc.  The long term health effects are far worse than a couple of degrees of warming.

[LibertyBell]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:03 AM, chubbs said:

There is confusion about whether the warming rate is accelerating and/or climate sensitivity is higher than expected. An acceleration in the warming rate starting around 2010 is expected due to reductions in aerosol emissions. Per a recent Real Climate blog, Hanson's yellow cone is inline with CMIP6 model predictions. There is a large body of work on climate sensitivity, so will need multiple studies and sustained warming above the red line to move the needle. We will see.

One final comment: increased forcing from aerosol reduction is better than increased forcing from CO2 emission increases. Aerosol emissions are going to zero anyway. The acceleration has a shelf life on the order of decades before aerosols are depleted.. By pulling the aerosol reductions forward in time due to air pollution control we are giving ourselves a preview of our climate future. Maybe it will spur action. Not that we have placed ourselves in a good position, with warming accelerating just as we approach 1.5C warming; which means we are leaving our comfortable Holocene climate.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=much-ado-about-acceleration

air pollution from fossil fuels is much worse than air pollution from aerosols.  Soon we will be increasing aerosols to reel in climate change.

Plans are already underway to increase aerosols.