Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

While further temperature increases may go too far and erode lobster populations in coming decades, for now crustaceans are still breeding in great profundity.

Point taken, but I think you may have meant to say 'fecundity'.

Lol yes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/18/global-warming-has-changed-the-great-barrier-reef-forever-scientists-say/?utm_term=.a291320a898d

Instead, “we were surprised to see about a 25 percent loss of corals in the north that was more or less instantaneous,” Hughes said. “That number of corals died in two weeks. They didn’t die slowly of starvation, they actually cooked.”

Last week, I wrote a comment under my favorite German dirtbag leftist podcast, linking a speech in which Chancellor Merkel, doctor of physics, went offscript for a minute in 2013, casually mentioning to a crowd of scientists that the two-degree target could not be reached even if all emissions were cut immediately, and that this has been widely known and accepted since the 2009 Copenhagen conference.

This week, one of the podcast's presenters went on a lengthy rant on how climate change couldn't possibly end humanity, let alone all life on Earth. Increased migration, food shortages, some shitty weather, but extinction? Impossible.

I envy that man, a little.

i don't think humanity will go extinct, either. and all life going instinct isn't going to happen anytime soon, unless a giant object collides with Earth and we all go flying out into deep space

but yeah, iirc almost all the scenarios that involve keeping it under a 2 degree increase involve not only emission cuts but also "negative emissions" - geoengineering, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it underground, etc. we're fucked

I agree with that. The earth system has seen "humanity" sized injections of carbon dioxide in the recent geological past from large igneous provinces (Columbia River Basalts (17-14 Ma) or Ethiopian Highlands (29-31 Ma)), which constrains the effects. I see the worst case scenario, incorporating feedbacks, would be a repeat of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, an extinction event, but not one of the 'big 5'. Human carrying capacity could fall to as low as 1-3 billion, but we're just as adaptable as rats and cockroaches.

unless a giant object collides with Earth and we all go flying out into deep space

and even then i bet there would be some tiny earth fragment hurdling through space with a cockroach in a space helmet doing a wheelie

somehow there's not a stock image for that, so i borrowed a bit from an orkin commercial

https://i.imgur.com/T4EvVOA.jpg

Life will not go extinct. Bacteria own this planet and always will. Multi-cellular life will not entirely die off, either.

we're just as adaptable as rats and cockroaches.

Those animals exist much closer to the base of the ecosystem, while humans are at the apex and require a lot of energy inputs to stay alive. I do not expect human extinction, but anticipating a population of 1-3 billion humans as a worst case scenario seems overly rosy to me. Somewhere south of 500 million seems very conceivable to me.

We're not eating lions and wolves. The global human trophic level is 2.21 (same as anchovies), the US/UK trophic level is 2.44-2.45, mine as a vegan is 2. So there's room for improvement. Before climate change, the carrying capacity of the U.S. is around 800 million on a lacto-vegetarian diet.

My thought of a carrying capacity around 1-3 B is largely driven by the Ag research:

Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming

Grain yield declined by 10% for each 1°C increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season

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.

suitable growing days will actually decrease globally by up to 11% when other climatic variables that limit plant growth are considered (i.e., temperature, water availability, and solar radiation). Areas in Russia, China, and Canada are projected to gain suitable plant growing days, but the rest of the world will experience losses. Notably, tropical areas could lose up to 200 suitable plant growing days per year.

A study conducted comparing normal seasonal temperatures (1980–2010) for Ames, IA, to a normal + 4°C environment.... Grain yields decreased from 84 to 100% because of exposure to high nighttime temperatures and disruption of the pollination process as evidenced by the large reduction in kernels per ear.

Status quo groundwater management will likely reduce irrigated corn acreage by ~60% and wheat acreage by ~50%. This widespread forced shift to dryland farming, coupled with the likely effects of climate change, will contribute to overall changes in crop production. Taking into account both changes in yield and available irrigated acreage, corn production would decrease by approximately 60%

These are all effects seen before the end of the century, long before much of Miami is flooded. Humanity will starve *long* before many of us are displaced by rising sea levels.

I wouldn't be surprised if populations fell south of 500 million, but not from climate effects alone. Fundamentally, I think the 20th century was bumping against food resource constraints around 2-3 billion, before Haber-Bosch ammonia, superphosphate, and Norman Borlaug's dwarf cereals. Ammonia can be made with renewable energy (and is a pretty ideal way of using surplus renewable electricity), but phosphate bearing rock is limited, and very unevenly distributed. I expect phosphate will ultimately determine human populations, and the phosphate deposits of Morocco & Western Sahara to be fought over for centuries to come. That last cite has the elegant line, "When all of these are exhausted, a food-based population reduction will follow."

ilu

More disaster porn (flooding in California).

https://features.weather.com/us-climate-change/california/

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/April-2018/The-Future-of-Water/

I’m finna airbnb my place to make money off all the climate change tourists.

1. Much of the key climate news of late has been about sea level rise. It hasn’t been good.

— Chris Mooney (@chriscmooney) April 25, 2018

a good, quick summary of two recent developments related to rising sea-levels and freshwater: the stratification feedback loop (melting glacier water leading to increased melting of glaciers), and the availability of freshwater on low-lying islands (rising sea levels/waves can salinize groundwater)

worthwhile thread thx

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

A Hawaiian island got about 50 inches of rain in 24 hours. Scientists warn it's a sign of the future (LA Times link)

Since the 1940s, the Hawaiian island of Kauai has endured two tsunamis and two hurricanes, but locals say they have never experienced anything like the thunderstorm that drenched the island this month. "The rain gauge in Hanalei broke at 28 inches within 24 hours," said state Rep. Nadine Nakamura of the North Shore community. "In a neighboring valley, their rain gauge showed 44 inches within 24 hours. It's off the charts." Actually, it was even worse. This week the National Weather Service said nearly 50 inches of rain fell in 24 hours. Now, as Kauai continues to recover, scientists warn that this deluge on April 14 and 15 was something new — the first major storm in Hawaii linked to climate change.

always a good time to check in on global CO2 emissions

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lf2WZ2K1QcQ_Dp5OBa7Cz8TZPGc=/0x0:1080x1080/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1080x1080):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10749029/jz_climate_contributors.png

(https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/4/30/17300946/global-warming-degrees-replace-fossil-fuels)

*blinks, replaces head firmly in sand*

Pakistan May Have Just Set a World Heat Record

🌡️🔥Exceptionnel 50.2°C à Nawabshah au #Pakistan ce lundi 30/04/2018, #RECORD national de chaleur pour un mois d'avril ! 🔥🌡️
(précédent : 50°C à Larkana le 19/04/2017)
*** aussi un nouveau record mensuel pour tout le continent asiatique ! *** pic.twitter.com/GTCOJuDT9Q

— Etienne Kapikian (@EKMeteo) April 30, 2018

hello future climate refugees, sorry we fucked up your homelands

in the meantime here's a deep thought from dinesh d'souza which will no doubt help you get through your 50-plus-degree spring weather

https://i.redditmedia.com/K55pAUNPgsdi7RrbV7wx7CbwYgJzKF3GLg48-cT-Kto.jpg?w=640&s=bbc78a7b4857f3bd747cfbed270172c3

a quite literal hot take if u will

jfc

can't wait to hear his verse on the next ye single

Maybe an apple... is an orange!

so if you believe gender is an immutable scientific fact then you think climate change is...still all in your head? also D, anthropogenic climate change is literally a social construct but thanks for participating

terrible arguments made via brute-forced nonsense analogies were so common in the blogosphere days, but twitter has really made them virulent

After his book (The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left), I think we can shun/ostracise Dinesh, forever.

meanwhile, everyone in the northern US complained about abnormally cold weather in early April

April 2018 was the 3rd warmest on record globally - @CopernicusECMWF analysis (ERA-Interim). Coldest conditions (relative to average) over eastern North America. Well above average in Europe, Arctic, and coastal Antarctica.

For more information: https://t.co/galMOMkRbz pic.twitter.com/UrQLLxUFng

— Zack Labe (@ZLabe) May 4, 2018

spent some time today with an academic who has a paper coming out soon on a climate-change related topic which has been bounced around in peer review for months, primarily because one of the reviewers is a climate change skeptic who is also a petrochemical-industry-funded lobbyist who kept raising objections he had cut-and-pasted from other reviews he'd done elsewhere

that same academic has another paper held up with another journal for reasons he suspects are not too dissimilar

makes me wonder just how much potentially important research around the world is being delayed by deliberate interventions from what are essentially paid saboteurs

makes me wonder just how much potentially important research around the world is being delayed by deliberate interventions from what are essentially paid saboteurs

From 2010: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2010/10/14/8484/big-oil-goes-to-college/

If Big Oil doesn't have a problem with funding civil wars and buying off politicians, tossing your petty cash at academics seems like a good insurance policy.

A stat that caught me by surprise- Wyoming is, by far, the largest producer of coal in the US:

As of 2014, twenty-five states produced coal. The coal-producing states were, in descending order, with annual production in millions of short tons:

1. Wyoming 395.7
2. West Virginia 112.2
3. Kentucky 77.3
4. Pennsylvania 60.9
5. Illinois 58.0
6. Montana 44.6
7. Texas 43.7
8. Indiana 39.3
9. North Dakota 29.2
10 Colorado 24.0
11. Ohio 22.3
12. New Mexico 22.0
13. Utah 17.9
14. Alabama 16.4
15. Virginia 15.1
16. Arizona 8.1
17. Mississippi 3.7
18. Louisiana 2.6
19. Maryland 2.0
20. Alaska 1.5
21. Oklahoma 0.9
22. Tennessee 0.8
23. Missouri 0.4
24. Arkansas 0.1
25. Kansas 0.1

something something trump's hairspray amirite

A sharp and mysterious rise in emissions of a key ozone-destroying chemical has been detected by scientists, despite its production being banned around the world.

Unless the culprit is found and stopped, the recovery of the ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging UV radiation, could be delayed by a decade. The source of the new emissions has been tracked to east Asia, but finding a more precise location requires further investigation.

CFC chemicals were used in making foams for furniture and buildings, in aerosols and as refrigerants. But they were banned under the global Montreal protocol after the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in the 1980s. Since 2007, there has been essentially zero reported production of CFC-11, the second most damaging of all CFCs.
Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories
Read more

The rise in CFC-11 was revealed by Stephen Montzka, at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Colorado, and colleagues who monitor chemicals in the atmosphere. “I have been doing this for 27 years and this is the most surprising thing I’ve ever seen,” he said. “I was just shocked by it.”

link?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0106-2

thanks, but I was referring to the quoted article (always appreciate primary sources though)

yeah, sorry about that

also https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/16/mysterious-rise-in-banned-ozone-destroying-chemical-shocks-scientists

Yes this happened

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388161-gop-lawmaker-says-rocks-falling-into-the-ocean-is-causing-higher

from the splinter news story on this guy:

As the Washington Post found, you’d need to drop a rock that weighed 6.6 quadrillion pounds directly into the ocean to see the level of sea rise that we see now.

look if you can prove to me that a 6.6 quadrillion pound rock didn't fall into the ocean i might be more likely to accept climate change is possible okay

"I'm pretty sure that on human time scales, those are minuscule effects,” responded Duffy

The only way to be absolutely sure is to halt all research on global alarmist warmism and divert all funding and attention to the important new Falling Rocks Theory Law

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study?CMP=share_btn_tw

Humankind is revealed as simultaneously insignificant and utterly dominant in the grand scheme of life on Earth by a groundbreaking new assessment of all life on the planet.

The world’s 7.6 billion people represent just 0.01% of all living things, according to the study. Yet since the dawn of civilisation, humanity has caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of plants, while livestock kept by humans abounds.

hell yeah, fuck you animals

*dons giant foam finger with 'humanity #1' printed on it*

Somehow misread the thread title as Global Warming's Terrifying New Hat.

https://goo.gl/images/4yP4Zr

Fuck,should have been
https://i3.cpcache.com/product/293429211/cap.jpg

so uh this seems bad

https://theoutline.com/post/4708/montreal-protocol-vienna-convention-noaa-nasa-ozone-layer-hole-cfc?zd=2&zi=k5lys3ei

Pruitt pointed to “the demand for Powder River Basin coal,” referring to the basin straddling Wyoming and Montana that accounts for a large chunk of American coal production, as an example of exported American coal.

“I was in Wyoming recently,” he continued. “And if we really care about clean air, we would allow Indonesia to buy our coal from Wyoming, because it’s far cleaner than what they’re using now.”

...“So we need to be exporting LNG [Liquid Natural Gas], and we need to be exporting coal to the rest of the world,” Pruitt continued. “We need to be sharing with them our technology to access natural gas through hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Those are things that will help air quality across the globe.”

“What most people don’t realize,” he added, “is that the challenges we have domestically with respect to air quality, a lot of it is because of what happens internationally. And if those countries would simply adopt what we’re doing here, air quality in the United States would be better, and it would be better in those areas as well.”

https://i.imgur.com/T03Espu.jpg

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-if-we-really-care-about-clean-air-we-should-export-more-american-coal

to state the obvious, this kind of analysis only makes sense in a world a) without a greenhouse gas effect, b) with zero other options for energy besides coal. a real leader would be pushing to make the united states the leader in clean energy tech and exporting THAT

There's an argument for a robust LNG market as a bridge fuel to a zero carbon future. At present, natural gas is a natural complement to renewables, as in places without massive hydropower resources (like say, Denmark+Sweden), every MW of utility solar or wind power is backed by a MW of gas turbines to handle intermittency. Increased green energy purchasing and mandates have driven firms to build renewables, and replace coal boilers with gas turbines. It's the later shift that's been responsible for most reductions in greenhouse emissions.

However, O&G companies have been exporting fracking technology for a decade, and frankly, there are relatively few places outside the US where its been successful. For example, Poland has some huge shale beds, and Europe has high gas prices, and hundreds of exploratory wells have been drilled by a dozen companies, but the returns to date have been dismal. China has its own mega O&G companies that are perfectly capable of developing their own fracking tech. As I understand it, pretty much every innovation in the field since Mitchell Energy fracked the Barnett shale under the DFW area in the late 90s has been incremental improvements to number of fracked stages or in pumped fracking solutions for specific fields, nothing earth shattering.

Of course, Pruitt is a shill, and no serious observers believes there's a role for coal. There's simply no way to make clean coal (gassification + oxy-fuel combustion + underground sequestration) profitable. Even renewable power-to-methane (PTM) for carbon neutral use of gas turbines would be cheaper.