Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

i am also laura dern

If i have to get bad news i prefer it from sanpaku tbh he doesnt set off my bs detector (which i know is not necessarily reliable anyway, but still)

I'm not in favor of geoengineering, per se. I just see it as inevitable.

We're on a pretty lousy trajectory. If countries adhered to Paris Accord commitments, that's committing the world to 3-3.5° C warming, before considering poorly contrained positive feedbacks. IF nativist know-nothings come to power elsewhere in the world, an ever increasing likelihood as the climate refugee crisis grows, even that's questionable. Every scenario to keep below 2° C relies heavily on negative emissions technologies, which may not be feasible, have huge parasitic/efficiency losses, have never existed at scale, and would require reallocating large parts of the planet away from food production or Nature. When one delves, so much hope for non-horrific resolutions just seems cosmetic, political cover for business as usual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chsas3u8k-k

By the way, do check out the Understanding Climate Change channel on YouTube, where I found that Kevin Anderson talk, if you haven't.

John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has killed an effort by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to stage public debates challenging climate change science, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, thwarting a plan that had intrigued President Trump even as it set off alarm bells among his top advisers.

The idea of publicly critiquing climate change on the national stage has been a notable theme for Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the E.P.A. For nearly a year he has championed the notion of holding military-style exercises known as red team, blue team debates, possibly to be broadcast live, to question the validity of climate change.

Mr. Pruitt has spoken personally with Mr. Trump about the idea, and the president expressed enthusiasm for it, according to people familiar with the conversations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/climate/pruitt-red-team-climate-debate-kelly.html

there's only one person i loathe as much as scott pruitt

this is sad to read, esp. from McKibben, who usually manages to sneak in a bit of optimism into even the most dire assessments.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-to-make-clear-the-problem-with-natural-gas-mckibben

The idea that natural gas combats climate change is a sleight of hand. But explaining why appears to be just slightly too technical for it ever to get across, in the media or on Capitol Hill, in statehouses or city halls. Still, I’ll try one more time.

It’s true that when you burn natural gas in a power plant, you emit less carbon dioxide than when you burn coal — for simplicity’s sake, let’s say half as much. That sounds good, since carbon is the main contributor to climate change. It’s what allowed President Obama to boast in his 2014 State of the Union address that “Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth.” He added, “One of the reasons why is natural gas — if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.” In fact, his administration was so fond of fracking that the State Department set up an entire agency whose only task was to spread the technology to other countries.

Here’s the trouble: carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas, but it’s not the only one. Another one — present in smaller amounts, but far more potent — is CH4, otherwise known as methane, the primary component of natural gas. If you burn natural gas, you get less carbon dioxide than with coal. But any methane that escapes unburned into the atmosphere on the way to the power plant warms the planet very effectively — so effectively that if you leak more than 2 or 3 percent it’s worse for climate change than coal.

It turns out that there are lots of places for leaks to happen — when you frack a field, when you connect a pipe, when you send gas thousands of miles through pumping stations — and so most studies show that the leakage rate is at least 3 percent and probably higher. What that means is: America has cut its carbon emissions, but only at the cost of dramatically increasing its methane emissions. It means that what we’ve done is run in place.

...We picked the worst possible strategy we could have used to combat climate change. We didn’t know it at first, but as the chemistry became clear no one wanted to change course. Most of them doubled down. I have no confidence that we will ever manage to get this message across, though it is magnificent to see the continuing efforts of local activists across the country. (Check out this new video from Josh Fox, of Gasland fame, in New Orleans) But it’s not in the interest of anyone in power to concede the facts about natural gas. It’s possible — likely even — that this essay, and everything else I or anyone else writes and says on the topic, is so much shouting into the (increasingly hot and gusty) wind. On this we’ve so far failed, and the failure has had huge consequences.

fuck

i already excerpted way too much of a relatively short article, but the parts i snipped out are about democrats and even many environmentalists fell into the trap.

anyway, nothing new here - when obama started talking about an "all of the above energy approach" i ripped my entrails out through my throat and whipped them against the window pane repeatedly before letting out a bloodcurdling horror scream that caused a traffic accident two blocks away, in my dreams - but we're now at the stage where people like mckibben have started talking about the great natural gas fuckup in the past tense, rather than something to be avoided:

"if we hadn’t discovered fracked natural gas, the effort to deal with climate change would have moved us far more quickly into renewables; instead, we’ve wasted a decade and likely far more, since all those new pipelines and power plants are designed (and financed) to last for 40 or 50 years. "

yeah, i don't even know what to say anymore tbh, it's so clear to anyone who cares to look that we as a species have fucked ourselves so thoroughly, and so avoidably

one thing's for sure, i picked a great time to start a family

dont know if youre being glib but yeah you fuckin did, we need more kids raised by parents who gaf about the climate

'bout 50/50 on glibness tbh but yeah i'm three months away from adding another human to the planet

can we not just find and fix the leaks

according to american hero scott pruitt, finding and fixing leaks is too hard

http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/12/27/in-his-efforts-to-delay-the-epa-methane-rule-pruitt-rejects-american-ingenuity/

it should be noted that the obama administration was SHITTY on this issue as well. they crawled in response to studies showing that the methane leakage rates were higher than EPA's working estimates. the topic of methane leakage was a faux pas during his administration because it wouldn't be politically convenient for EPA to talk about dangerous methane leakage rates when the president and his administration were busy promoting natural gas as a central component of their bold all-of-the-above energy plan.

i'm now officially the weird drunk guy living in the woods who yells "COWARDS!" to himself

we are all the unabomber now

march is the new january for us east coasters.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02992-9

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/14/climate-researchers-say-march-may-new-january-thanks-soaring-arctic-temperatures/

i could have told you that though. without all the fancy research.

If geoengineering is being considered as a realistic fallback, what about reconsidering nuclear?

this is good, although it seems like articles like this have been written for 20 years now, with the same assessments (WW2/apollo program level effort is needed to transform energy ASAP; nothing will change until there's a price on carbon), and just updating the stats slightly each year :

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/

xpost wind/solar are cleaner/safer than nuclear, and are cheaper to build and maintain, even without subsidies.

we're not failing because of a lack of good energy options. we're failing because the real costs of fossil fuel aren't reflected in the price.

that's true

though you cannot use wind energy as jet fuel afaict

can’t melt steel beams with it either

xp not quite yet, but close

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28540/boeing-backed-electric-plane-fly-2020s/

xp: nuclear is a good litmus test of how well informed environmentalists are of the relative risks of nuclear energy and anthropogenic climate change.

Fugitive emissions are a real and sometimes underestimated complication of the natural gas transition, but the science McKibben tells you not to worry your pretty little head about suggests that they're a matter for regulatory and technological improvements rather than giving up on what remains a less greenhouse-gas-intensive approach

https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/ted-nordhaus/bill-mckibbens-misleading-new-chemistry
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/05/did-fracking-ruin-obamas-climate-legacy/
https://grist.org/climate-energy/is-a-fracking-ban-a-good-idea/

xpost
i mean, go to town on nuclear energy. if the choices are limited to coal, natural gas, and nuclear, then let's put on the fallout soundtrack and get nuclear. but the reason it's not the fuel of the future is because it's already more expensive to build, maintain, and decommission new nuclear plants than it is to build various permutations of solar/wind tech, and solar/wind is likely to get even less expensive as time goes on, compared to nuclear.

also, as someone who expects a bleak century with widespread climate and resource scarcity-driven civil disorder and conflict, i think wind and solar tech will be much easier/simpler to repair and continue to put to use as compared to trying to rehabilitate scores of abandoned, unmaintained nuclear power plants

i watched an episode of Deep Space Nine last night where they accidentally time traveled to 2024, a future where the many structurally unemployed are herded into "sanctuary zones," put on years-long waiting lists for jobs maintaining machinery, and often arrested for lacking the proper national ID card. when they get there the medical officer admits he doesn't know much about the time they're in--"21st century history isn't one of my strong points. Too depressing."

v prescient except the part where humanity survives and travels the galaxy

that'll just be elon musk and about 20 descendants of jeff bezos, all of them bald

"You know, Commander, having seen a little of the 21st century, there is one thing I don't understand: how could they have let things get so bad?"
"That's a good question. I wish I had an answer."

the most fanciful part of that episode was that a riot/martyrdom would have provoked sweeping changes

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/20/marine-heatwave-set-off-carbon-bomb-in-worlds-largest-seagrass-meadow

baby steps

https://www.reuters.com/article/oil-climatechange-hearing/us-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSL1N1R21OY

that case is really interesting and weird.

On trial for causing climate change, oil companies don’t plan to deny it’s happening

The hearing stems from a state lawsuit that San Francisco and Oakland filed against the world’s biggest oil companies for their greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. District Judge William Alsup agreed to move the case to his court, and in so doing, he ordered both sides to present him with a five-hour “tutorial” Wednesday on climate change science.

The hearing, first reported by McClatchy, is unusual and sure to be closely watched. But it promises to be far from a full-throated public debate on atmospheric science that some partisans have sought. Lawyers for Chevron, one of the defendants in the case, say the company accepts the international consensus that human activities are a main driver of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the resulting warming.

...Legal experts, including those for Chevron, say they’ve never previously heard of a court-ordered tutorial on climate change. “I’m not aware of a similar type of tutorial setup,” said Garbow, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Alsup wants to the two sides to answer eight questions about the history of climate change, and how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases interact in the atmosphere. These questions range from the melt-off from previous ice ages to: “What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?”

Each side will have 60 minutes each to present material on the history of climate change science, and then another 60 minutes each to present on the best climate science currently available. But it will not be an evidentiary hearing, with both sides grilling each other. Only the judge will ask questions.

i guess it's the debate that scott pruitt and trump wanted, only in a court of law, and both sides of the debate agree that climate change is driven by human activity, but one of those sides actively funded anti-science climate change to amplify the exact opposite message for a few decades

chinesehoaxwhere'sthebirthcertificatebenghazitaxcuts

https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/world-sees-rapid-upsurge-extreme-weather-report-doc-12v7z32

if the choices are limited to coal, natural gas, and nuclear, then let's put on the fallout soundtrack and get nuclear. but the reason it's not the fuel of the future is because it's already more expensive to build, maintain, and decommission new nuclear plants than it is to build various permutations of solar/wind tech, and solar/wind is likely to get even less expensive as time goes on, compared to nuclear.

all true. tbh my environmental concerns re: nuclear have less to do with radioactive waste and more to do with the heat transfered to natural water sources from the cooling towers

but it is kind of neat that one gram of uranium can yield as much energy as, like, carving out a whole fucking mountain full of coal

The hearing is a good move and part of a larger trend in the law. A judge with a generalist legal education that ended nearly 50 years ago when the prospect of planetary AGW was just being seriously recognized is not going to be equipped with the latest in climate science as would be an expert in the area, and should be. The same goes for the other scientific/technical areas as to which he's previously requested such tutorials.

http://quotes.ino.com/img/sites/ino/email/5485.jpg

Solarwinds is a company that sells network performance monitors for enterprise IT. Effectively zero renewables exposure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUnJQWO4YJY

For the curious, the best compendium. I've found for greenhouse emissions from various foods in the American context. A supplement to:

Heller and Keoleian, 2015. Greenhouse gas emission estimates of US dietary choices and food loss. J Indust Ecol, 19(3), pp.391-401.

The research for emissions from individual foods in the UK context is better, IMO. See pg 37-39 here:

Audsley et al, 2010. How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope reduction by 2050. Report for the WWF and Food Climate Research Network.

The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a major change to the way it assesses scientific work, a move that would severely restrict the research available to it when writing environmental regulations.

Under the proposed policy, the agency would no longer consider scientific research unless the underlying raw data can be made public for other scientists and industry groups to examine. As a result, regulators crafting future rules would quite likely find themselves restricted from using some of the most consequential environmental research of recent decades, such as studies linking air pollution to premature deaths or work that measures human exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.

The reason: These fields of research often require personal health information for thousands of individuals, who typically agree to participate only if the details of their lives are kept confidential.

The proposed new policy — the details of which are still being worked out — is championed by the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, who has argued that releasing the raw data would let others test the scientific findings more thoroughly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/climate/epa-scientific-transparency-honest-act.html

not specifically climate change-related, but wasn't sure where else to put it. scott pruitt is the worst. evil + competent

I've a long list of people's graves I will shit upon. His is near the top.

Maybe I'll make it a photo essay.

Here's hoping that Pruitt is the next to get the boot: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/curbelo-pruitt/index.html

We're in the middle of a mid-April ice storm up here, with treacherous, unplowed roads. When I talk about the weather with my 3/4s tomorrow, I want to begin by saying "Seriously, guys--what the fuck?"

WE
COULD
USE
SOME
OF
THAT
GLOBAL
WARMING
RIGHT
ABOUT
NOW

Fatboy Slim lyric, right?

Check out current Rossby waves over the North America. The poles are warming faster than the tropics, the polar vortex is weakening, and Rossby waves meander far more to the north/south. This video offers a succinct description of the mechanism.