Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

just read her last 30 tweets: https://twitter.com/kathrynlopez

She does have a sense of humor. Biden arrives early...

Sherwood, S. C., & Huber, M. (2010). An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(21), 9552-9555.

Because combustion of all available fossil fuels could produce 2.75 doublings of CO2 by 2300 (5), even a 4.5 °C sensitivity could eventually produce 12 °C of warming.

We conclude that a global-mean warming of roughly 7 °C would create small zones where metabolic heat dissipation would for the first time become impossible, calling into question their suitability for human habitation. A warming of 11–12 °C would expand these zones to encompass most of today’s human population. This likely overestimates what could practically be tolerated: Our limit applies to a person out of the sun, in gale-force winds, doused with water, wearing no clothing, and not working.

Bacteria will inherit the earth.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/06/20140625_warm3.jpg

man I feel like this should go on Hoos' "Rolling Thunderdome Apocalypse" thread, but we're all gonna die anyway so whatever

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/12/us-faces-worst-droughts-1000-years-climate-change-predict-scientists

Schlenker, W., & Roberts, M. J. (2009). [Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change](http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594.short). Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences, 106(37), 15594-15598.

The United States produces 41% of the world's corn and 38% of the world's soybeans. These crops comprise two of the four largest sources of caloric energy produced and are thus critical for world food supply. We pair a panel of county-level yields for these two crops, plus cotton (a warmer-weather crop), with a new fine-scale weather dataset that incorporates the whole distribution of temperatures within each day and across all days in the growing season. We find that yields increase with temperature up to 29° C for corn, 30° C for soybeans, and 32° C for cotton but that temperatures above these thresholds are very harmful. The slope of the decline above the optimum is significantly steeper than the incline below it. The same nonlinear and asymmetric relationship is found when we isolate either time-series or cross-sectional variations in temperatures and yields. This suggests limited historical adaptation of seed varieties or management practices to warmer temperatures because the cross-section includes farmers' adaptations to warmer climates and the time-series does not. Holding current growing regions fixed, area-weighted average yields are predicted to decrease by 30–46% before the end of the century under the slowest (B1) warming scenario and decrease by 63–82% under the most rapid warming scenario (A1FI) under the Hadley III model.

Wouldn't mind if admins added reddit style HTML shorthand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

there's no scientific evidence

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/video-watch-scotts-disaster-chief-refuse-to-say-climate-change-in-hearing-7548413

no scientific evidence

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-is-slowing-down-faster-than-ever-scientists-say-10128700.html

Well, there's no scientific evidence that the Gulf stream moderates the climate in Britain as asserted in the headline and article. It's heat from the North Atlantic and general hot air currents from the South that are responsible.

The thermohaline / Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has a huge influence on NW European climates, and for a glimpse of life without it, look to the Younger Dryas (much as the PETM offers a template for rapid global warming). During the Younger Dryas, mean annual temperatures in the UK dropped to −5 °C.

Whether this might locally mitigate global warming harms is an open question.

https://i.imgur.com/yKEBe1x.jpg

#humblebrag

truth in advertising

That's an earlier incarnation of the fine company that brought us the Exxon Valdez.

highest high ever in the south pole?

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=323

#humblebrag

― Doctor Casino, Sunday, 29 March 2015 17:49 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a+

That's an earlier incarnation of the fine company that brought us the Exxon Valdez.

Ah -- that's the Esso logo on the right, isn't it?

Esso, yes - the phonetic transmogrification of Standard Oil, the trust you'd most love to bust in the chops.

a brief, readable primer on permafrost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/the-arctic-climate-threat-that-nobodys-even-talking-about-yet/

i'm sure ilxors reading this thread are familiar with the issue but most people aren't. if you're not, take 5 minutes and read it!

I've been bumming myself out about permafrost ever since I first bookmarked this thread.

it is a total bummer among other feedback loop bummers. also the ice-albedo feedback loop.

ugh. even just typing the words shuts me down

Have any of you seen the documentary Cowspiracy? Saw it recently and while it was tonally kind of grating, it did seem pretty legit (put simply: animal agriculture is a much bigger factor in climate change than carbon; also water usage, etc.), but I am not well-versed in the science of CC and don't want to fall for shoddy vegan propaganda.

dying to watch anything called Cowspiracy so should maybe hold back from engaging til i've seen it, but, just to offer the hot layman's take everyone's dying to hear: i think that the methane generated during farming is a bigger contributor than carbon emissions is settled, right? the permafrost article just linked mentions the additional problems of methane over co2.

yours, belligerent vegetarian, canada

ice-albedo feedback loop.

yep, those black particles are screwing everything up

yeah, it was reading about the methane in that article that reminded me. I guess the more contentious aspect of Cowspiracy is why we then waste so much time trying to reduce carbon emissions instead of reducing animal agriculture. The 'spiracy is the purported silence of environmental orgs on the issue, and he does score a few interviews where certain groups' PR people look surprisingly shady. That said, CC is not its focus, it's ultimately an argument for a plants-only diet along various environmental lines (overfishing, for ex), and as a belligerent vegetarian you should definitely check it out so long as the on-camera narrator dude's "what if Michael Moore was a SoCal yoga instructor" semi-faux naivete style doesn't bother you.

trying to reduce carbon emissions from non-agricultural sources isn't a waste of time.

this is total speculation and anecdotal, but i would guess that the big green groups don't focus too much on reducing meat consumption because they know that almost nothing enrages people more than the thought that eating meat is bad for the environment. the hatred of even discussing the topic crosses partisan lines. conservatives end up just saying the word "cow farts" and then cackle maniacally to their friends, but that's to be expected. left-leaning people are usually more thoughtful about the impact of agriculture but almost always steer the conversation toward ways that eating meat can be relatively environmentally friendly - eating local, grass-fed, etc etc - so that they can be absolved of wrongdoing. but (wild speculation/unsubstantiated opinions continuing here>>) while eating local/grass-fed meat is better for the environment, it also kind of removes well-meaning people from the conversation because (imo) you can't really advocate for reducing CAFO-style factory farm meat eating to reduce carbon emissions when A) you still eat meat, and B) the way that you eat meat is expensive and out of reach for almost everyone in the world. s

anyway tl;dr criticizing meat-eating as terrible for the environment is valid (it's why i don't eat meat), but i'd guess that highlighting that fact is something that environmental organizations perceive to be detrimental to the perception of environmentalism on the whole because people get so fucking ANGRY at the thought of someone telling them that the world would be a better place if they didn't tear into animal flesh on a daily basis.

is going chicken-only a baby step on the right direction?

sorry for my condescending tone there. it's just coming from someone who has endured many agonizing discussions on the topic with people who are desperate to do anything possible to assure that they can eat some ribs the next day without feeling guilty. just the thought of those conversations makes my head hurt.

the big green orgs spend a lot of time trying to pitch climate change action as something that can be accomplished without significantly affecting the everyday lives of people. that's in response to the anti-environmental narrative, which is the evil green liberals want to control everyone's lives and increase the role of govt and huge tax increases and so on. so the green orgs (rightly, i think) emphasize all the ways that climate change mitigation can be accomplished through simple policies and small actions. most environmental organizations do advocate for at least reducing meat consumption, but it's rarely highlighted as much as other messages and issues because it feeds into the anti-environmentalist narrative.

imo the best approach to the meat-eating issue would be to get people to accept the idea that eating LESS meat is a great idea, as opposed to pushing everyone to adopt vegetarianism or veganism straight off. But, given the meat-centered menus of the fast food industry and their ceaseless advertising, any counter offensive would require an equally massive weight of propaganda for a healthier diet emphasizing plant-based foods and including much smaller amounts of animal-based foods.

That approach allows individuals to make good choices without feeling like they are making huge sacrifices and renouncing cherished pleasures.

xpost i think the best baby step is just to reduce the number of times that you eat meat. if you're eating meat every single day, maybe start with reducing it to 3-4 times a week, or just reducing the portions.

bunch of xposts, maybe not relevant anymore:
No, I'm sorry, "waste so much time" was very badly put, and in fact a misrepresentation of the film, which doesn't advocate not reducing carbon emissions, just questions why we -- or at least major env groups whose mission is to reduce environmental harm -- don't also advocate reducing animal agriculture's effects on the world. Of course you're right, the cultural reasons are sadly very obvious. And yes, re: grass-fed beef, the saddest part of the doc is when it breaks down how impossible it would be to switch to grass-fed on any kind of mass scale in terms of sheer land availability (and, iirc, it might actually be worse for the environment? or maybe just uses more water than factory farmed, I can't quite remember).

I have cut my red meat consumption down to once a week (gotta have that burger). I also recycle, and I am 100% sure neither will ultimately matter.

And as GWB said, "I'll be gone."

ok ty! xps

honestly do not understand how anyone can eat beef today.

but you still understand people murdering one another, right?

an uncomfortable truth that no one ever wants to talk about is that the fears about environmentalism leading to big lifestyle changes, increased prices, bigger govt, etc are actually warranted in some respects.

for example: if we don't take serious action on climate change ASAP (and it's already too late to prevent bad stuff from happening, as you've no doubt heard from your depressed friends), there will inevitably be more government in people's lives. that's what happens when disasters occur, and an ever-warming world is a world of persistent disaster. one of the purposes of government is to protect people and provide a system of justice, and danger and instability and injustice will only be increasing in a world with food shortages, climate refugees, droughts, underwater Florida, and resource wars.

a better example, probably, is the water rationing in california that was announced yesterday. if california would have heeded the calls for a reasonable policy over the past 50 years, that wouldn't be happening. but instead politicians, being human beings, prioritized the short-term over the long-term, and now the govt is forced to alter californians lifestyles in a very tangible way.

it's just a terrible, terrible irony, that so many conservatives are terrified of the govt intruding in their lives, yet by fighting climate change action tooth-and-nail they're virtually guaranteeing that future for themselves.

and then there's the fact that putting a price on carbon (which we MUST do, due to inaction the last several decades) would most likely alter eating habits, if the price applied to agriculture as well. ten calories of fossil fuel energy go into every calorie of food that we eat, at least in the united states. putting a price on carbon would make the price of meat increase, which would FORCE many people to reduce their meat consumption. that, in my mind, is an inevitability brought upon by our failure to address climate change proactively. again, it's increased govt. intervention brought upon by a lack of action which is, in turn, largely motivated by fear of govt. intervention. it's a circle of ironic bullshit.

obligatory disclaimer: if anyone is taking me seriously just take it all with a grain of salt. many of you know i work for a prominent environmental organization, but i don't work on these kinds of issues at all. i WANT to, but i don't, at least not right now. you might think that we all get some sort of training on climate change and that we're all experts or something and up to date with the latest climate change research, but that's not the case at all. so i probably know as much about this stuff as the crazy old lady with electric white hair that keeps staring at you in your local co-op, or whatever.

actually we don't need to, individual is nothign compared to the corporate pollution being done, and it's something env orgs refuse to go after: the corps.

as in, the beef corps. its the cows and their feed farms that are destroying our planet and forests.

xp
well-informed co-op ladies aside, I think the logic of your preceding post is irrefutable!

a better example, probably, is the water rationing in california that was announced yesterday. if california would have heeded the calls for a reasonable policy over the past 50 years, that wouldn't be happening. but instead politicians, being human beings, prioritized the short-term over the long-term, and now the govt is forced to alter californians lifestyles in a very tangible way.

My in-laws live in California and I was shocked to see people watering their lawns in the middle of the day when I was there in February. Also relevant is that I believe none of those restrictions apply to agriculture...which is probably necessary given how dependent the world is on CA agriculture

do we have a thread devoted to the death of the oceans? just found out about microbeads and I hate everything right now

I think the logic of your preceding post is irrefutable!

thanks, but i doubt it's true. i haven't really read much on what the implementation of a price on carbon would do to food prices. it's inevitable that it would lead to an increase in the cost of meat (and other foods), but maybe not to a degree that would force significant changes in meat consumption (in fact, i'd guess that they'd design the carbon tax with the goal of NOT changing people's food consumption choices too much). i've been pretty depressed over the last few months so i'm not exactly a source of reliable wisdom right now, not that i ever was.

People will give up meat right after fossil fuels.

it's juuuuust beneath it on the to-do list!

but you still understand people murdering one another, right?

― Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Thursday, April 2, 2015 12:51 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbf this is the only real solution to global warming

Good news is that climate change will lead to that!

defeatist and not true

religion is playing a part in overpopulation though