Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

The fossil record from our epoch will probably look like a more rapid loss of species/dramatic climate change than the Permian event. I don't think there is any doubt about that, might not be any geologists about to examine it though. Btw hello Scott!

Al Gore reviewed that E Kolbert book in the NYTBR, and his lede suggests he still has that ol' tin ear:

those who have enjoyed her previous works like “Field Notes From a Catastrophe” will not be disappointed...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/books/review/the-sixth-extinction-by-elizabeth-kolbert.html?_r=0

McCain's comments follow a series of tweets by former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who on Monday called on Kerry to resign over his climate speech in Jakarta, Indonesia.

"A delusional secretary of State is dangerous to our safety," Gingrich said on Twitter and asked, does Kerry "really believe global warming more dangerous than North Korean and Iranian nukes? More than Russian and Chinese nukes? Really?"

Kolbert on Stewart.

It only works in the US, worth seeking out?

are more people coming around to near term extinction? should I quit my job and spend our final days with my family?

Nah.

Even the full runaway greenhouse scenario; with burning rainforests, burping permafrost, belching seabed methane hydrate releases, Greenland and West Antarctica on the rocks; will take thousands of years to play out. For our lifetimes, the major effects are mostly just persistent droughts in grain belts, and possibly tropical storms, and the political unrest and diasporas of the perenially hungry. We're pretty durable, and I'm fairly confident that in 5000 years there will still be hundreds of thousands of our descendants living around current cliffsides of the Arctic and Southern Ocean, and as the seas abate over the following 100,000 years, we might get another go at the whole industrial enterprise, only with scarce fossil fuels. Its perhaps just a normal rough patch faced by every sentient species in universe.

good, staying put then.

http://libcom.org/blog/whos-afraid-ruins-18022014

― j., Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:48 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can i just say it warms my cockles to see a libcom link on ilx

Sanpaku, I'm actually disappointed I won't be around for the collapse of civilization.

It wouldn't be as satisfying as you might imagine. More of a stressful grind.

I guess it would be kind of funny if this became a huge existential crisis for humanity, and after much thought, effort, debate, depression etc. we just were struck by an astroid one day

Good opportunities in coal-powered air conditioning.

http://inventorspot.com/files/images/fuzhou-china-air-conditioner-wall-03-280x453.jpg

'asteroid'
I know how to spell

A troubling lesson from the Eocene is that scientists are unable to simulate Eocene climate conditions using climate models designed for the modern climate. When CO2 levels are raised in the computer models to levels appropriate for what scientists think existed during the Eocene, global temperatures rise but high latitude temperatures do not warm as much as what scientists measure, particularly in winter. Some scientists believe that this is because there are unrecognized feedbacks in the climate system involving types of clouds that only form when CO2 levels are very high. If this theory is correct, future climate could warm even more in response to anthropogenic release of CO2 than most models predict.

http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=12&secNum=4

I can't really recommend the James Lovelock books, unless you are a fan of fatalism.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

apparently he's swung back the other way.

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

that article is from 2008

so it is! never trust new postings from FB friends....

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/climate_confidential_beacon.php

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038

Qualms about geoengineering: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25639343

I keep hearing stories of hurricanes in the UK and weather related damage so severe that the wisdom of rebuilding is being questioned in some regions. But every time I look on the BBC site I see nothing about the weather, and my sister in Leeds hasn't sent any urgent message of despair (which I'd expect) if it was so terrible. What's going on, people who live over there?

It was slightly windy in London so it was all over the news, some quite heavy winds up north a couple of weeks but nothing compared to the US hurricane season!

a couple of weeks back

There was some pretty dramatic wave action in Wales and the South of England recently, iirc. Just as this one.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bf8lTIHIgAApYKB.jpg

The thread:
Monster Waves!

karl malone, have you seen the EF! open letter about sunday's protest making the rounds? curious to hear your thoughts.

Global Warming Slows Antarctica's Coldest Currents

"this has effectively shut one of the main conduits for deep-ocean heat to escape," said Casimir de Lavergne, an oceanographer at McGill University in Montreal.

If humans had a life expectancy of 1000 years, we'd be all over this shit, pronto!

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/04/pithovirus-sibericum-siberian-permafrost-virus-released-after-30000-years-4405144/

this freaks my shit out to no end

Climate change's highest price is
The polar ice's virus crisis

Decisive!

Decisive tho' the ocean's rise is,
As we despise the skies what fries us,
We fly before the cry that drives us
'Ho! the polar virus crisis!'

Aye, science wise wins noble prizes,
Vain tries; revive not Gaia's life thus!
A lie, a lie, math terrifies us
To dust, wee dye, the ice's virus.

hey guys, no need to worry anymore, this guy says it's not happening

http://thegazette.com/2014/03/07/global-warming-debunked/

The Liz Kolbert book was a decent read, not much climatological analysis in it but loads of interesting stuff about the reluctance to accept extinction in the 19th century and the human history of wrecking habitats and hunting species to extinction since we became humans. The chapter about the last ever Auks in existence was heart breaking, a modest bounty was paid to finish 'em off :(

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/03/tucson_tries_to_reinvent_itself_in_the_face_of_a_drought.html

fairly ok interview with the mayor of tuscon about their water-management problems

this guy says it's not happening

always heartwarming when one guy on the internet proves he's smarter than a few thousand climate scientists who do field studies, construct computer models and peer review each others papers.

this is the real game:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-the-koch-brothers-are-hacking-science

they're smart to concentrate on attacking state renewable energy standards, which is what has driven a lot of the actual improvements in the overall energy portfolio in this country (as opposed to the dream of a national price on carbon, which they've already successfully sabotaged over the past 20+ years).

also great to hear that ALEC is lending their hand to the efforts.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--JbV-pBZ4--/c_fit,w_636/gvgew62klmdnvxnkdweg.png

This stuff depresses me so much. I tend to be a fairly wide reader of political journalism, but find myself steering clear of articles that deal with climate change as it just scares the crap out of me. I have wondered whether a morally reprehensible fear campaign about the inflow of climate change related refugees is what is needed to create a consensus for action in xenophobic Australia though.

those two brave scientists are the giordano bruno and nicholas copernicus of the now. wake up, hippies!

the second section of a series of three reports that will make up the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report is out, and good news, we're in the clear! oh wait,

Panel’s Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to Come

even if you think you've heard this stuff before, please take the time to at least read an article or two about it, or wade into the summary for policymakers (linked above).

a key point that was mentioned by the NYT but will probably be left out of the vast majority of media coverage: this is a watered down report, by design. the language in the executive summary reports is combed over by politicos from every UN country, and especially the US, and every sentence that's in there must be agreed to by EVERYONE. including the U.S., assholes of the world. that requirement leads to things like this:

The poorest people in the world, who have had virtually nothing to do with causing global warming, will be high on the list of victims as climatic disruptions intensify, the report said. It cited a World Bank estimate that poor countries need as much as $100 billion a year to try to offset the effects of climate change; they are now getting, at best, a few billion dollars a year in such aid from rich countries.

The $100 billion figure, though included in the 2,500-page main report, was removed from a 48-page executive summary to be read by the world’s top political leaders. It was among the most significant changes made as the summary underwent final review during an editing session of several days in Yokohama.

The edit came after several rich countries, including the United States, raised questions about the language, according to several people who were in the room at the time but did not wish to be identified because the negotiations were private. The language is contentious because poor countries are expected to renew their demand for aid this September in New York at a summit meeting of world leaders, who will attempt to make headway on a new treaty to limit greenhouse gases.

Yikes all around. I'm buying a boat. A big boat.

Drown us all

The objections to the $100B figure came from policy/governmental figures as opposed to scientists, I assume?

yeah, i mean i wasn't in the room obviously but it's the politicos who censor it at the end. the $100 billion figure still made it into the overall report (the 2,500-page main report that no one actually reads).

so how much is the sea gonna rise in the next 40 years, Karl? trying to plan ahead here...

http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/Projected%20sea%20level%20rise%20by%20year%20440_tcm3-27687.jpg

Maybe 20 cm.

One reason I dislike An Inconvenient Truth as an introduction to climate impacts: sea level rises are among the least of our problems in a warming world. Want to know how bad things get in our lifetimes, look at rainfall, especially persistent droughts over grain belts.

when i spoke about this with my denier relations, i just started right off with "forget about warming- how do you feel about famines? because that, and the resulting conflicts over food resources, are what scare me first off." i got some "why u scaremonger," but it def got more attention than the idea of hot summers.

persistent droughts over grain belts

I comfort myself with the thought that the Ogallala aquifer is infinite in extent and no possible ill could come of our tapping it infinitely. Then I suck my thumb for that extra bit of comfort.

of course, the primary dude being interviewed about this right now on totebag central? toll, the one guy of 300 who pulled his name off because of the doomy nature of the report. "it'll be divisive!"