Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

RINOs think the silliest things

http://www.wral.com/choose-science-stewardship-in-understanding-climate-change/14964318/

"And oh by the way, I am not for a one-world government."

a sadly necessary point that must be made in any former climate skeptic's conversion story

Alaska mulls extra oil drilling to cope with climate change

The state is suffering significant climate impacts from rising seas forcing the relocation of remote villages.
Governor Bill Walker says that coping with these changes is hugely expensive.
He wants to "urgently" drill in the protected lands of the Arctic National Wilderness Refuge to fund them.

Hey that makes sense.

so not gonna happen

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Interior-Department-curbing-future-Arctic-6574641.php

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9567863/climate-change-ambitious-cuts

The science here is pretty straightforward: if we want decent odds of avoiding more than 2°C (or 3.6°F) of global warming — which has long been the goal — then there's only so much more carbon-dioxide we can put into the atmosphere. The world's annual CO2 emissions will need to shrink to zero to stay within this "carbon budget."

In their paper, Peters and his co-authors sketch out a plausible carbon budget if we want a 66 percent chance of staying below 2°C. (Because there's some uncertainty around climate sensitivity, this is couched in terms of probabilities.) Roughly speaking, the world has just 765 gigatons of CO2 left to emit. We currently emit about 35 gigatons per year.

The authors then compared this carbon budget (the dark line) with what the United States, European Union, and China* are currently promising to do on emissions between now and 2030:

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/C3aRcK7NInEfdlAra_tbOPFVuBU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4176176/Screen%20Shot%202015-10-19%20at%2010.46.24%20AM.png

There's a huge problem here: If the United States, EU, and China all followed through on their current emissions pledges, they'd consume practically the world's entire carbon budget by 2030 — leaving only scraps for the rest of the world (the part shaded in gray).

This thread is a really effective means of birth control.

Off-topic environmentalist question: I accidentally bought some soap that have microbeads in it -- it's safer just to throw it out than to use it, yes?

more terrifying news:

Bubble plumes off Washington, Oregon suggest warmer ocean may be releasing frozen methane

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wzF7mLm8JIM/ViUwIAENMII/AAAAAAAAB2A/5hv5_n3CCWk/s400/McKibben_ExxonKnew_1_CRYGvCkUsAAdO-m.jpg
^
bill mckibben

http://exxonknew.tumblr.com/

Couldn't get through that whole post.

I'm having a hard time engaging with the moral panic on the #exxonknew front. Of course they knew. Every big IOC and most of big NOCs have enough PhD's on hand, and specifically geophysicists, that working through the math for elementary climate models could be done in their spare time. Arrhenius came close to modern results with pencil and paper in 1896. As for big coal, its plausible they wouldn't have staff with the requisite skills.

Corporations, by their very nature, aren't moral. They're chartered to maximise discounted present value for their shareholders. Discount the future at a high enough rate, and starvation of our great grandchildren doesn't figure at all.

This is of course a major reason why corporations should be excluded from any voice in political systems. Human lives aren't discounted as profits are, so arguably the welfare of future generations should be of paramount importance to us today. Only "persons" that have a stake in the future, including past their own deaths, should be granted free political speech.

agree w all that

i wouldn't expect anyone that is somewhat knowledgeable about climate change to experience anything approaching moral panic over it because no, it's not surprising in the least.

i think that the exxon knews might be more interesting to people who need to put a human face on the entire "controversy". there are a lot of people who just zone out at the mention of ppm, CO2, charts, graphs, science, statistics, etc etc. i think some people need to be able to identify a Villain. Exxon and frenz were already the Villains in this story, but that might not have been as obvious to some people when their misdeeds were described in terms of their products contributing X% of global emissions over Y% of time, leading to a Z% chance of exceeding a certain temperature decades in the future. Putting it in the context of human beings who knew about something and then consciously lied about it to maximize profit might be more persuasive to some people.

(there may also be a small subset of people who bought into anti-climate change propaganda who would feel a bit betrayed, though that's doubtful because i doubt those same people would make the connection to exxon et al's role in funding/promoting disinformation.)

the biggest impact might come from litigation? putting exxon in a phillip-morris-esque position? i dunno. i mean, it's almost certain that absolutely nothing will come of the #exxonknew effort - interest in it, anecdotally, seems to be just about zero. but in the end it's an attempt to open up another front in a much larger war.

any outrage is good outrage, really

i know no one cares but sanders is asking the attorney general to look into it

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-for-probe-into-exxon-mobil-claims-on-climate-change

I am writing concerning a potential instance of corporate fraud – behavior that may ultimately qualify as a violation of federal law. I respectfully request the Department investigate these allegations, and take appropriate action if the investigation yields evidence of wrongdoing.

...These reports, if true, raise serious allegations of a misinformation campaign that may have caused public harm similar to the tobacco industry’s actions – conduct that led to federal racketeering convictions. Based on available public information, it appears that Exxon knew its product was causing harm to the public, and spent millions of dollars to obfuscate the facts in the public discourse. The information that has come to light about Exxon’s past activities raises potentially serious concerns that should be investigated.

Bubble plumes off Washington, Oregon suggest warmer ocean may be releasing frozen methane

― sleeve, Monday, October 19, 2015 7:14 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

suddenly glad i have a lot of canned goods

a fun glimpse into the future

Climate Change Is Expected To Turn The Persian Gulf Into an Intolerable Kiln Where People Can't Go Outside

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/27/world/greenland-is-melting-away.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

read a sci-fi book recently where siberia was the big rich power in the world because it was the world's breadbasket. makes sense. might start seeing mass migration to greenland. when it's greener...

https://theconversation.com/its-been-australias-hottest-ever-october-and-thats-no-coincidence-49941

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/aLsovV69NYR5fp3hspIgKeTy6ck=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4213871/borneo_amo_2015292.jpg

On at least 38 days in September and October, Indonesia's fires were spewing more daily CO2 than the entire United States economy.

One of the worst eco-disasters on the planet is currently unfolding in Indonesia. Over the past two months, thousands of forest and peatland fires have been raging out of control, choking the entire region with thick, toxic haze.

The massive smoke columns can be seen from space. NASA snapped this satellite pic of Borneo peat fires on October 19:

The fires have been a public health nightmare, forcing widespread evacuations, killing at least 19, and triggering respiratory illnesses in more than half a million people. The haze has stretched as far as Malaysia and Singapore.

It's also a climate-change disaster. So far this year, Indonesia's fires have released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all the fossil fuels burned annually in Germany. On at least 38 days in September and October, Indonesia's fires were spewing more daily CO2 than the entire United States economy.

Follow-ups here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/asia/indonesia-forest-fires-wildlife.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia-fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nasa-warns-of-worst-ever-forest-fires-environmental-disaster-as-smoke-blankets-six-countries/story-e6frflp0-1227585225331

http://act.350.org/sign/exxon_DOJ/?akid=8314.808566.r1xGN2&rd=1&t=1

^petition for DOJ to investigate

just an isolated incident, folks. nothing to see here

http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/cyclone-chapala-live-3-killed-on-yemen-s-socotra-mukalla-set-for-hit-video-2015-11-02-1.608666

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/melting-ice-in-west-antarctica-could-raise-seas-by-3m-warns-study?CMP=ema_632

I thought I posted somewhere on this thread but maybe it was somewhere else about how it would be awesome if Obama waited until like his last month in office to kill the Keystone Pipeline with a "I'm outta here, suckers!" and oh guess what:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-will-decide-on-keystone-pipeline-before-he-leaves-office/2015/11/03/fb4904f4-7f10-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

NYT: Exxon Mobil Investigated in New York Over Possible Lies on Climate

The New York attorney general has begun a sweeping investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The focus includes the company’s activities dating to the late 1970s, including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that sought to undermine climate science. A major focus of the investigation is whether the company adequately warned investors about potential financial risks stemming from society’s need to limit fossil-fuel use.

..The people with knowledge of the New York case also said on Thursday that, in a separate inquiry, Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, had been under investigation by the attorney general for two years over whether it properly disclosed financial risks related to climate change. That investigation has not been previously reported, and has not resulted in any charges or other legal action against Peabody.

and some more:

The opening of an investigation of Exxon Mobil by the New York attorney general’s office into the company’s record on climate change may well spur legal inquiries into other oil companies, according to legal and climate experts, although successful prosecutions are far from assured.

STORIES FROM OUR ADVERTISERS

Many oil companies have funded lobbying efforts and research on climate change, so prosecutors would most likely be able to search through vast amounts of material. The industry has also resisted pressure for years from environmental groups to warn investors of the risks that stricter limits on carbon emissions could have on their businesses, although that appears to be changing.

“Exxon Mobil is not alone,” said Stephen Zamora, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. “This is not likely to be an isolated matter.”

An Exxon Mobil refinery in Los Angeles, Calif. The New York attorney general is investigating the oil and gas company.Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney GeneralNOV. 5, 2015
Energy experts said prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council, to see if discrepancies exist between the companies’ public and private statements.

Obama Rejects Construction of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline

The rail indexes have yet to respond to the good news.

I said this on the American politics thread but would be interested in yr take re:

I know people were arguing that the oil was gonna get moved anyway, regardless of the pipeline, but that NYT article makes it sound like as long as oil stays below $65/barrell (it's currently at $50) then the oil will stay in the ground. How likely (and how long) oil is likely to stay below $65/barrell I have no idea...

Not long. All of the excess oil at the margin was shale and oil sands, and they presently break even between 60 and 85 or so. Free money from the Fed lead to a lot of searching for yield and credit thrown into oil & gas (I believe oil & gas accounted for over half of U.S. capex expenditure in 2013). That was no more sustainable than other bubbles, so now that drilling has come to a halt.

https://secure.attenbabler.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Weekly-Total-US-Oil-Rig-Count-vs-Crude-Oil-Price-Sept-30.png

and as the backlog of drilled but unfracked shale wells diminishes, U.S. production is also falling.

I think Chris Skrebowski's megaprojects database (last updated & presented in 2011) offered the best window into the oil situation. Annual incremental production from major projects increased through 2014-15, but after that there is a dearth of major projects in the development pipeline. Wise financiers all shorted in 2014, are getting flat now, and are awaiting confirmation of a trend before getting back onboard.

And that largely depends on the global economy, rather than technical issues in upstream oil. I have been a bit busy with personal developments to follow closely, but there were lots of indications that China is looking really bad right now.

The thickest and most prospective parts of the major U.S. shale oil plays (Bakken, Eagle Ford) has already been drilled. The speculation and drilling was moving into more marginal areas, which is normal for development of any basin, so I'd expect development to resume once oil hits $80 again.

The largest shale oil plays are the source rocks for the big oil fields in East Siberia. Ultimately, Russia may control the global oil price much as they control Europe's gas price. Depending on how long Russia plays monopolist, even the really expensive stuff, like deepwater 100 mi offshore Brazil, with breakevens above $120/bbl, will be developed.

thanks for that

I worried about Indonesian peat fires as a positive feedback upthread.

I'm not alone.

The fires in Indonesia are more than just a threat to endangered orangutans. They have shortened by up to two years the window to reduce carbon emissions and avoid runaway climate change, according to one of the CSIRO's leading climate scientists.

The head of the Global Carbon Project at the CSIRO, Pep Canadell, said the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in 2 million years, because of the 1 billion tonnes of carbon released by the fires in a two-month period.

Dr Canadell said the daily emissions of the Indonesian fires had been equal to the daily emissions of the US, accelerating humanity's progress along the upward line of global emissions by about one to two years.

Oh, and this from January:

Peatland loss could emit 2,800 years’ worth of carbon in an evolutionary eyeblink

Of the 3,300 tons of carbon per hectare stored in Indonesia’s coastal peatland areas, up to half would be released into the atmosphere over the 100 years following conversion to oil palm plantations—the equivalent of 2,800 years worth of accumulated carbon

The study in question.

The European tactic of fueling their cars with palm oil to meet renewables targets may be the most misguided environmental policy, ever.

this fuckin guy (slightly googleproofed)

hxxp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/30/bloombergs-alarming-graph-are-we-really-on-track-for-4c-global-warming-by-2100/

where do you even start?

why googleproof it? for years he's had one of the leading climate change denier websites (in some years the very highest, by traffic) and the internet is full of people going "ANTHONY WATTS IS A COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT"

I knew you would have some insight, ty

so many great links come up

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

haha, i didn't copy and paste the link until now and just realized it was a guest post by Christopher Monckton

http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

joe romm (of ThinkProgress/ClimateProgress) and watts were archenemies for a long time (probably still are) but things really heated up in 2008-2011, when watts' blog was overtaking romm in terms of traffic. the comments section of climateprogress was full of watts people invading with complete nonsense on nearly every post, and then occasionally Watts and Romm themselves would trade barbs in epic comment section faceoffs. it was like a continual trainwreck for several years, and even though Romm was right on the merits, i think in engaging watts so frequently he ended up giving him more of a platform than he should have.

I know that to make remarks about his appearance is irrelevant to the issue, but Monckton is a pop-eyed fuckwit

2015 is possibly the hottest year since we invented agriculture

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/11/10/huge_el_nino_pushes_climate_toward_records.html

a 2 degree centigrade increase in average temperature spells disaster for civilization and we are already halfway there. go humans

http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/11/6-insane-plans-to-hack-the-planets-ecosystems/

Kinda digging the seawater idea (backed by Bill Gates).

I hate the title, as there's nothing insane about thinking through necessary measures. If economists would simply include the discounted current cost of maintaining habitability into their cost/benefit analyses, then immedicate decarbonization of the energy sector would be a no brainer.

If sulfur is added to jet fuel/balloons etc., then maybe 5 billion can live at carbon levels that would otherwise result in 4+ degree warming. If not, I think we're down below 2 billion. You can't feed populations where nighttime temperatures are too high for grain germination, or the aquifers are exhausted and rain no longer falls. Stratospheric sulfur aerosol seeding is cheap enough for greatly affected countries (like Bangladesh) to do unilaterally, so barring some epidemic that wipes out most of us, sulfur albedo geoengineering looks pretty inevitable.

As for planting redwoods where they might survive, that's perfectly sensible. IIRC, climate patterns (for a given elevation) in the American West will move around 600 miles north this century. Too fast for normal seed dispersal. We should be planting trees as far north as they can survive current winters, and continue doing so.

Stratospheric sulfur aerosol seeding is cheap enough for greatly affected countries (like Bangladesh) to do unilaterally, so barring some epidemic that wipes out most of us, sulfur albedo geoengineering looks pretty inevitable.

Sure will be fun living with whatever catastrophio unintended consequences unfold out of this

what will the decay of 4 billion corpses do to temperatures? just curious

Not much. Assuming complete combustion:

16 kg C * 4 billion = 64 Mt C = 85 Mt CH4 or 234 Mt CO2. Annual CO2 emissions are 10 Gt = 10000 Mt CO2.