This month’s open thread on climate science issues.
A lot of interest in the new Resplandy et al paper (WaPo), with some exploration of the implications on twitter i.e.
Interesting new paper “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition”
But I’m not sure about their argument on the consequences on future warming. 1/https://t.co/g29m3SzIvN— Reto Knutti (@Knutti_ETH) November 1, 2018
and
https://twitter.com/jamesannan/status/1057944837163491328
Meanwhile, the CMIP6 model output is starting to come out…
K 92: I am against any and all utility-owned renewables.
BPL: Because business is BAD! Capitalism is, like, the corporations control, like, everything! So we shouldn’t have any corporations! Just, you know, living the simple life, like the Indians. Got any peyote?
#97, OC–
Yes, that’s my understanding, too, based both on what I read and what I see every day that I drive into town–the patch of rural South Carolina in which I reside has as its main land-use industry logging (for paper-making, mostly). And yes, I see a whole lot of slash left, and a whole lot of new, weedy growth.
We don’t have the fire problem the West has because drought here is pretty rare–the climate tends toward the moist. (Although to be fair, historically there was quite a bit of fire-adapted ecology–most notably the vast stretches of long-leaf pine forest.) In 2017, we had less than 12,000 acres burned in wildfires. Somewhat eyepoppingly, we had nearly a quarter of a million acres burned in prescribed fires. A quick scan of historical tables suggests that’s an increasing tendency in the Southeast at large–the same year, prescribed burns in Florida amounted to nearly 2 million acres, which surprised me!
That said, in the first year we were living here full time, I spent quite a lot of time clearing quasi-parasitic vine growth which was strangling our trees–mostly species of galax (‘cat-briar’ or ‘greenbriar’) and, less noxiously, wild grape. And I was struck by the potential fuel load around–between pine needles and oak leaves, both of which are relatively persistent on the ground and highly flammable, and the vines in the trees, which have a tendency to die in place, leaving trees festooned with potential wicks, it would have been quite susceptible to ignition under the right (or wrong) conditions.
But I’m rambling, aren’t I?
Oct. 28 – Nov. 3, 2018 406.48 ppm
Oct. 28 – Nov. 3, 2017 404.07 ppm 2.41 ppm increase
Oct. 28 – Nov. 3, 2008 383.96 ppm 22.52 ppm increase
I think we have seen the fall off in yoy comparison end as the EN bump is out of the picture now. I think the current week at is noisy, of course, but probably also close to the true background rate of increase at this moment.
Looking at the ten year numbers, we get an annualized rate of 2.25, but that is an average, with the rate of increase ramping up during the ten year period, hence, my sense that we are currently living with a true background rate of increase of about 2.4 to 2.5 ppm.
If you think this is ok, please grab your shovel and head for Paradise CA to help look for remains from the Camp Fire.
Warm regards all,
Mike
Could a meteorite be responsible for the NGRIP core?
A Massive Geological Surprise Has Been Discovered Under Greenland’s Ice Sheet
The age of the crater is difficult to estimate precisely. There’s solid evidence that it happened before Greenland was covered in ice, which is around 3 million years at the oldest, but it could have occurred as recently as 12,000 years ago, around the end of the last ice age. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-impact-crater-from-a-huge-iron-meteorite-has-been-found-under-greenland-s-ice-sheet
The Bølling-Allerød interstadial was an abrupt warm and moist interstadial period that occurred during the final stages of the last glacial period. This warm period ran from c. 14,700 to c. 12,700 years before the present (BP).[1] It began with the end of the cold period known as the Oldest Dryas, and ended abruptly with the onset of the Younger Dryas, a cold period that reduced temperatures back to near-glacial levels within a decade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bølling-Allerød_warming
NGRIP .. a matter of one or two years… https://youtu.be/siWCXOypJh4?t=92
MR KIA @98, A solar panel instillation for an average sized home is indeed about $7000, and if you add a heavy duty tesla battery packs these are also about $7000 as it happens. I was looking at solar rooftop costs a couple of days ago.
You cannot expect to power your house with solar for free or a few hundred dollars. Weigh the environmental benefits, independence from power companies, and ultimately very low cost electricity and they make sense.
People are prepared to spend thousands on large screen televisions and big expensive SUV’s to drive to the local shops or refurbishing the ensuite bathroom because its ten years old, so obviously positively ancient. They have the money but don’t stop to think about wider environmental concerns and longer term financial benefits of solar power.
To the northeast of and within the structure, this unit sits conformably below the Holocene unit, but within the structure, it does not contain any reflection-rich Bølling-Allerød ice (14.7 to 12.8 ka ago)…
Regardless of its exact age, based on the size of the Hiawatha impact crater, this impact very likely had significant environmental consequences in the Northern Hemisphere and possibly globally http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaar8173
Made a video..
Did a Greenland Asteroid Cause Abrupt Warming Last Ice Age? http://climatestate.com/2018/11/15/did-a-greenland-asteroid-cause-abrupt-warming-last-ice-age/
Chris @106 — The Hiawatha structure might well be the result of the so-called Clovis Comet hypothesized to initiate the Younger Dryas cooling interval. A good dating should resolve the matter.
Action plans need to be proportionate to the size of the problem – 12 Years left for serous success says the IPCC SRM1.5
Ocasio-Cortez Joins Protest Inside Pelosi’s Office
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT8gW8o3Sxo
The main question is how did the impact caused the mentioned abrupt global warming?
– Water vapor injection (calculate crater ice volume, and vaporized quantities from regional surface heating)
– Sea ice melting, sea ice rifting through waves, also large scale penetration of upper sea ice surface layer, causing a thin layer of melt)
– Methane incursion due to subglacial methane reservoir disintegration.
It vaporized large amounts of water, creating water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas. The atmospheric heating in the polar region very likely melted sea ice too, and the shockwave created wave action on the Arctic Ocean, rifting remaining sea ice to some extent, subsequently less sunlight was reflected. It may released some methane (which is often found under ice sheets). It may released more methane through the impact of the traveling shockwave? Quote: While an object of 9,000 kg maintains about 6% of its original velocity, one of 900,000 kg already preserves about 70%. Extremely large bodies (about 100,000 tonnes) are not slowed by the atmosphere at all, and impact with their initial cosmic velocity if no prior disintegration occurs.
Impacts at these high speeds produce shock waves in solid materials, and both impactor and the material impacted are rapidly compressed to high density. Following initial compression, the high-density, over-compressed region rapidly depressurizes, exploding violently, to set in train the sequence of events that produces the impact crater. Impact-crater formation is therefore more closely analogous to cratering by high explosives than by mechanical displacement. Indeed, the energy density of some material involved in the formation of impact craters is many times higher than that generated by high explosives. Since craters are caused by explosions, they are nearly always circular – only very low-angle impacts cause significantly elliptical craters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_crater
Also usually,
Large impacts such as Chicxulub can cause a range of effects that include dust and aerosols being ejected high into the atmosphere that prevent sunlight from getting through. These materials insulate the Earth from solar radiation and cause global temperatures to fall; the effects can last for a few years (Kring, 2007). https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html
Under the ice was not much dust or aerosols. Thus, it appears as if planetary snowball scenarios rather cause warming trends, see also Panspermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
New discovery: The Greenland Icesheet emits methane to the atmosphere https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2018/11/new-discovery-the-greenland-icesheet-emits-methane-to-the-atmosphere/
David B. Benson @108 What about the Cape York meteorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_meteorite ?
Younger Dryas impact hypothesis
Related
A 2013 study found a spike in platinum in Greenland ice. The authors of that study conclude that such a small impact of an iron meteorite is “unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis.”[49] But they write that the large Pt anomaly “hints for an extraterrestrial source of Pt,” showing that any disagreement with the proponents of the original YDIH is over the nature of the extraterrestrial object, not whether there was one, and it is much more likely that the Greenland Pt anomaly was caused by a small local iron meteorite fall without any widespread consequences. Boslough, M. (2013). “Greenland Pt anomaly may point to noncataclysmic Cape York meteorite entry”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (52): E5035–E5035. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320328111. ISSN 0027-8424 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis
GISTEMP has posted for October with an anomaly of +0.99ºC, the highest anomaly fo the year-so-far and a quite spectacular* jump up from September’s +0.74ºC anomaly. Previously the monthly anomalies for 2018 have sat in the range +0.73ºC to +0.91ºC. The GISS anomaly map for Oct 2018 shows “moocho scorchio” anomalies stretching from the Urals eastward to the eastern border of Alaska.
(*See graph here – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’.)
It is 2nd warmest October on record, below top place Oct 2015 (1.08ºC) and above 2016 (+0.90ºC) and 2017 (+0.88ºC).
October 2018 is 11th warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month GISTEMP record.
In the GISTEMP year-to-date table below, 2018 has now dropped into 4th pace which will be its final position by year’s-end (unless the remaining two months of the year can manage an average anomaly above +1.13ºC, which would be even more spectacular than October’s anomaly).
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.02ºC … … … +1.00ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 2nd
2015 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.87ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.82ºC
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.71ºC … … … 5th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 6th
2007 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 8th
2002 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 10th
1998 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 12th
2013 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.65ºC … … … 7th
105 – nigelj
nigelj,
I did not say the cost for off grid solar was $7K for an average home.
I said that’s how much it costs for an off-grid cabin with a load of 0.3kW for 5 hours or 1.5 kWh/day. That’s nothing. The typical home uses 867 kWh per month, or ~ 28 kWh/day. Yes, with some efficiency measures I’d think many of them could pull that down considerably, but they would not get any where near 1.5 kWh/day. So the cost for an average home would be much higher than $7K – probably more like $20K or $30K, for OFF grid. Grid-tied would be cheaper but typically they depend on utility power at night.
Many middle/upper class folks could borrow the $20K or $30K to install an off-grid system, but equally as many or more could not. A huge chunk of even developed nations are living paycheck to paycheck. They can barely afford daily living expenses.
Re #99 Fred Magyar said Killian @ 92
You say potatoe, I say pohtato.
To me BAU is a continuation of all systems on fossil fuels… As an example VW just plopped down 50 billion for battery procurement. Call that what you will. In my book that is called paradigm change!
Nope. Just a technical innovation. There is no underlying social change to the system. They are, imo, a negative factor in paradigm shift for humanity as they enable continuance of the current paradigm of extreme hierarchical structures, private ownership, extreme injustice and wealth imbalance, etc. An elecgtric vehicle changes nothing within the base of the system, and only improves CO2 emissions 25% in a *best case* scenario.
The term “paradigm shift” has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern—a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing
It’s technology, not paradigm shift. Is the some nod to ecological considerations? Sure. And we have a name for non-solutions, #greenwashing.
MR KIA @114, yes I should have said small home and not fully off grid. Your costs are correct so solar power is about $25,000 for an average home to go off grid, I just checked a local supplier.
Sure not everyone could possibly afford this but so what? Its affordable for a large segment if they had their priorities right. If you are building a new home its the equivalent of about 15M2 floor area. This is nothing given the average size of new homes is pushing 150M2, for middle class homes anyway.
The fact poor people can’t afford it doesn’t devalue the idea. Of course the government could subsidise instillations for people on low incomes and you wont find it hard to guess who I think should pay for this. We have a saying in my country “the polluter pays” so tax the fossil fuel companies. I know you just love taxes :)
This should be on forced responses but its not open for comments last time I looked.
The plot thickens..
The signatures identified by Dr McDonald are relatively close to those in iron meteorite fragments collected at Cape York not far from the Hiawatha site. It’s not inconceivable, the team argues, that the Cape York material represents pieces that came away from the main asteroid object as it moved towards its collision with Earth.
What are the doubts?
One concerns the absence of any trace of the impact in several cores that have been drilled through the ice sheet to the south. At the very least, these might have been expected to incorporate the dust that fell out of the sky after the event.
The other head-scratcher is the absence in the vicinity of the Hiawatha site of any rocky material that would have been ejected outwards from the crater on impact.
Prof Kjær says these missing signatures might be explained by a very shallow angle of impact that took most of the ejecta to the north. And if the fall-out area was covered in ice, it’s possible any debris was later transported away.
“We know that at one time the Greenland Ice Sheet was joined to the Canadian Ice Sheet, and flowed out into the Nares Strait. If you wanted to find this material today, you’d have to do deep drilling in the ocean,” Prof Kjær explained.
… without drilling through nearly 1km of ice to sample the bed directly, scientists can’t be more specific. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46181450
116 – nigelj
Even if those who could afford to go off-grid solar did so, in much of the USA, that would not mean they weren’t still using FFs to heat their home. Off-grid solar will power their refrigerator/lights/TV/computer/furnace fan/dishwasher/oven/maybe hot water/ but for many it would not provide enough power for heat. A new home could be designed for passive solar, but most homes are not new homes; and a FF powered furnace could be changed out to an electric heat pump in mild climates, but that’s another $10K or so added on top of the off-grid solar.
No easy solutions. Corporations, including FF companies, do not pay taxes, those who buy their products do – that would be you and me. They don’t have an infinite amount of money and neither do governments – it all comes from we the people.
Many people are working hard to undo failures:
“It isn’t clear whether the authors agree with all of Lewis’s criticisms, but Keeling said “we agree there were problems along the lines he identified.”
Paul Durack, a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said promptly acknowledging the errors in the study “is the right approach in the interests of transparency.”
But he added in an email, “This study, although there are additional questions that are arising now, confirms the long known result that the oceans have been warming over the observed record, and the rate of warming has been increasing,” he said.
Gavin Schmidt, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, followed the growing debate over the study closely on Twitter and said that measurements about the uptake of heat in the oceans have been bedeviled with data problems for some time — and that debuting new research in this area is hard.
“Obviously you rely on your co-authors and the reviewers to catch most problems, but things still sometimes slip through,” Schmidt wrote in an email.
Schmidt and Keeling agreed that other studies also support a higher level of ocean heat content than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saw in a landmark 2013 report.
Overall, Schmidt said, the episode can be seen as a positive one.
“The key is not whether mistakes are made, but how they are dealt with — and the response from Laure and Ralph here is exemplary. No panic, but a careful reexamination of their working — despite a somewhat hostile environment,” he wrote.
“So, plus one for some post-publication review, and plus one to the authors for reexamining the whole calculation in a constructive way. We will all end up wiser.””
And some of the comments at RC do really show the prejudices against Nic Lewis and other scientists who cannot support the agenda of IPCC.
Something to factor into projections of future energy demand:
hat tip to Soylent News
Hi to all, I’ve got a question which may have been answered somewhere before, but I’ve failed to find it:
If Anthro CO2 emissions seem to be stabilising and thst’s provable through isotopic signatures and yet the atmospheric concentration of total CO2 is still accelerating upwards. To me that clearly indicates that a major tipping point has been breached at some stage not long ago and that now natural ( shocked and unbalanced) processes are in the drivers seat.
That part I get. However where does the non directly anthro CO2 or CO2e emissions come from? Deforestation? Outgassing from the tundra? Methane outgassing from the arctic seas?….where?? Surely these other sources would have their own unique isotopic address.
Does anyone know for sure?
Cheers!
Making ice in the Arctic:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/cambridge-bay/ICAMBRID141?cm_ven=localwx_10day
Requesting again that the moderators revive Forced Responses.
There are a couple of comments to which I would like to respond, but am constrained by not wanting to turn UV into the mess it was before… there have been some worthwhile comments actually on climate science in this thread, but that is just going to get buried by mitigation/adaptation-associated topics.
Those topics are appropriate to discuss on RC, I think, but compartmentalized, to avoid clutter.
nobodysknowledge @119,
You write “And some of the comments at RC do really show the prejudices against Nic Lewis and other scientists who cannot support the agenda of IPCC.”
You may wish to name these “other scientists” you speak of, but concerning Lewis, I consider it evident that he takes a denialist path and has no time for the actual scientific process.
Consider his performance at the UK Parliamentary Energy & Climate Change Committee of 28/1/14, Lewis states of the authors of AR5:-
Challenged on this, Lewis softens the message but does not retract it. And later, when it is suggested that most scientist would disagree with Lewis’ assessment of ECS, he replies:-
[From 11:37:30]We are now almost five years on and has the basis for these (otherwise egregious) statements been established? Or is it that Lewis is non-scientific in his grand theorising?
Re: Lawrence Coleman: 121 – “If Anthro CO2 emissions seem to be stabilising and thst’s provable through isotopic signatures and yet the atmospheric concentration of total CO2 is still accelerating upwards. To me that clearly indicates that a major tipping point has been breached”
no necessarily:
– it may also mean that a smaller portion of the emitted CO2 is taken up by the sinks:
* by the ocean (smaller solubility of CO2 in warmer water, reduction in the removal of anthropogenic CO2 by the possibly weaker AMOC, increase in the Revelle factor)
* by the terrestrial sink – boreal forest sink may get weaker (particularly with releases of CO2 due to forest fires in Canada and Russia, and insect kills), as C sequestration by soil.
– and/or may mean an increase in non fossil fuel emissions – deforestation in non-boreal forest, more wildfire there (e,g, California) and bigger release of CO2 from eroding soils (in the near future. Look closely what will happen in Brasil where the alt-right president opens the gates for the Amazon to farmers and ranchers – who will burn tropical rain forest (releasing C contained in living and recently dead biomass) and use the land for agriculture – releasing of C sequestered in the soils there)
Not the right thread, but when the right one is inaccessible…
Going off-grid is dumber than dirt for anyone with access to the grid. Seriously, you’d choose to use expensive and incredibly inefficient batteries when cheap and incredibly efficient power sharing is available through the grid?
Talk about upgrading the grid, not avoiding it.
DESIGNING CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: A policy guide for low-carbon energy by Hal Harvey and team is a new book mostly for American audiences about how to maximize innovation in transitioning to a low carbon economy. Lots of good ideas here but also (unless I’m very much mistaken) maybe the most stunning example of new climate change denial. I’m posting to see what you think.
There is a useful outline of the book online that you can read through and in the section Do the Math https://www.energypolicy.solutions/do-the-math/ the authors detail a carbon budget and mitigation timeline that is so different from the prevailing science as to be invented to fit the authors projection of what is possible using only demand side policies in BAU. Whereas Rockstroms carbon rule of 50% reduction each decade is a reasonable benchmark for mitigation to stay under 2C, this book is based upon reaching a 41% – 55% emission reduction by 2050????? Unless I’m missing something.
Here’s a relevant quote from the online book:
“The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that we must keep global warming below two degrees Celsius through 2100 to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Achieving that goal requires limiting emissions, and doing so quickly. Without additional action, greenhouse gases will continue to grow for the foreseeable future.
Climate change is caused by the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, so thinking about emissions in terms of cumulative totals rather than annual totals provides an accurate picture of the challenge. This website and book focus on the cumulative reductions necessary by 2050, instead of all the way to 2100, because the further the horizon, the more uncertain the predictions. Although climate models vary, they generally agree that in order to stay below the two-degrees Celsius target, to the world must reduce total cumulative emissions by 25% to 55% below business as usual levels by 2050.
This analysis relies on modeling completed in 2013 as part of the Low Climate Impact Scenarios and the Implications of Required Tight Emissions Control Strategies (LIMITS) exercise. In particular, it relies on modeling done by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Joint Global Change Research Institute using the Global Change Assessment Model, evaluating emissions between 2010 and 2050. The LIMITS study results suggest that for a 50% shot at staying under two degrees of warming, the world must reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by at least 41% between 2010 and 2050.
…..
There is broad consensus that preventing the worst impacts of climate change requires keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius through the end of the 21st century. To have at least a 50/50 chance of limiting warming to two degrees, we must limit concentrations of CO2e to 500 ppm by 2100, although some overshoot of this target in previous years is okay. Yet in 2015, CO2e concentrations measured 485 ppm, and they have been increasing at a rate of two to four parts per million per year. To achieve the 500 ppm target by 2100, immediate on-the-ground action is needed. But what does this mean in terms of emissions?
Climate change and the warming that drives it are a function of the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere. In other words, it is a stock problem, not a flow problem, as discussed in the Introduction. Therefore, it is useful to think of emissions, and necessary emission reductions, in terms of cumulative totals rather than annual amounts. Significant action to reduce emissions will be needed throughout the 21st century, but for simplicity and given the growing uncertainty in years further out, we focus on the necessary reductions between now and 2050.
Without additional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, just over two trillion tons of CO2e will be emitted between 2016 and 2050. Although climate models vary, they show that in order to meet the 500 ppm target, cumulative total emission reductions of 25% to 55% relative to a business-as-usual scenario are necessary between 2016 and 2050.
…..
The results of the LIMITS study suggest that to have a 50/50 shot at staying under two degrees of warming we need to reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by at least 41% between 2010 and 2050.
This value is global; emission reductions needed from individual countries will vary, depending on their development status. For example, the most industrialized countries will need to achieve significantly deeper reductions than the 41% global number to compensate for other emerging economies with high rates of economic development.
It’s also worth noting that a 41% reduction in cumulative emissions entails much greater annual emission reductions in later years as emission reductions are phased in. In 2050, global annual emission reductions of 65% relative to business-as-usual will be necessary, with the more economically developed regions needing to achieve reductions of 70% or more.”
So are the authors right? Or is this an example of new climate denial? Combined with the latest IEA World Outlook, for example, which projects fossil fuel production and use continuing mostly unchanged past 2040, isn’t this just another example of conceptualizing the climate danger and mitigation paths so that we waste precious time and fail to mitigate because ideological blinders keep us trying to shoehorn effective mitigation into BAU where only a slow transition is allowed?
KIA 118: Corporations, including FF companies, do not pay taxes,
BPL: They have an income, therefore they pay taxes.
Al Bundy @126.
I never had any doubts that going off grid when you already have it would be foolish. Usually people want to do it because they do distrust the utility, that they fear any grid connection will allow the utility to gouge them. Now I’m beginning to wonder if these fears might be realized. The issue in California is the the electric companies are liable for damages due to wildfires sparked by their equipment. These damages are far greater than the assets of these corps, so can’t be fully recouped from utility investors.
Some combination of state government and ratepayers will have to make up the difference. Depending on how that plays out, the charge for connection to the grid may become substantial.
Sorry to post here, but FR seems to be being made extinct either via neglect or intention:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0205-y?WT.feed_name=subjects_evolution
#117
There is some modeling that suggests not much debris might be ejected in collision with ice because the ice would tend to compress the material.
Last Week
November 11 – 17, 2018 408.72 ppm
November 11 – 17, 2017 404.89 ppm
3.83 ppm increase over this time last year.
Noisy number, but the trend for a few weeks has been upward.
Maybe some wishful thinking going on with LC at 121. I will let others explain complexities or ask the obvious questions, as has been done at 125 and 128.
The situation with CO2 in atmosphere and oceans is very bad and the needle continues to go in the wrong direction.
Warm regards
Mike
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/climate/climate-disasters.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0315-6
further excerpt:In a scientific world marked by specialization and siloed research, this multidisciplinary effort by 23 authors reviewed more than 3,000 papers on various effects of climate change. The authors determined 467 ways in which those changes in climate affect human physical and mental health, food security, water availability, infrastructure and other facets of life on Earth.
(Gus Speth)
Hi 121 Lawrence Coleman, you have to be lucky to spot things like this from NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike/
The info is out there drowned out by the noise that “we still have time, it’s all in our hands” blah blah blah propaganda hype and disinformation from climate scientists is now as bad as that from deniers.
Then there is the 2018 nth hemisphere wildfires forced CO2 spike, and then there’s ………….. it never ends. The data is everywhere and yet no where. All you will get here is an argument and multiple putdowns (see above.)
————
133 mike
3.83 ppm increase over this time last year.
incl November 16: 409.52 ppm
already at March 2018 levels
ROTFLMFAO
#134–
Thanks for that, Hank.
https://thenextsystem.org/gus-speth
I learned about him from a guy in Amsterdam.
You know that line:
Hank at 136, isn’t the truth bad enough? do we need to exaggerate the serious problems that we face by suggesting that we don’t have the answers to our problems? I think you should be more cautious and thoughtful about what you post here. Why are you being so negative and posting stuff that says that we don’t know how to deal with selfishness, greed and apathy.
It’s kind of an old formula for throwing in the towel, is it not?
http://www.foldvary.net/works/iag.html
https://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Being-Selfish
We have to talk about the dangers of selfishness, greed and apathy. Human evolution away from these dead-end behaviors is not written in stone.
Well bless your heart.
NOAA has posted for October with an anomaly of +0.86ºC, the highest anomaly fo the year-so-far and a jump up from September’s +0.77ºC anomal, (but not quite as spectacular as the jump in GISS). Previously the NOAA monthly anomalies for 2018 have sat in the range +0.69ºC to +0.85ºC. The NOAA data shows the rise was all NH Land (which rose by +0.29ºC) with the SH & NH Ocean all recording a drop in anomaly.
It is 2nd warmest October on record (as it was in GISS & BEST), in NOAA below top place Oct 2015 (0.99ºC) and above 2014 (+0.78ºC), 2016 (+0.74ºC) and 2017 (+0.3ºC).
October 2018 is 25th warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month GISTEMP record (11th in GISS, 24th in BEST).
In the NOAA year-to-date table below, 2018 sits firmly in 4th place (as per GISS & BEST) which to change rank by year’s-end will require the remaining two months of the year to average an anomaly above +1.21ºC or below +0.59ºC.
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.98ºC … … … +0.94ºC … … … 1st
2015 .. +0.87ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 2nd
2017 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 3rd
2018 .. +0.77ºC
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.70ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 7th
2013 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 6th
2009 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.63ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 13th
For info, I’ve started a blog that (currently) majors on climate bets. There’s a scoreboard of all the ones that I’m aware of where terms were agreed in public, and I’m writing an account of each, in chronological order.
http://ohbwaa.blogspot.com/
Just published: Evans, D. vs Schmidt, B. (2007). I’m looking forward to comments from the protagonists and anyone else wishing to make a constructive point!
Hank Roberts, #136
” I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that. (Gus Speth)”
Best statement ever, imo. I judge any society by its dreams and visions. What are the dreams and visions of modern capitalism? Easy to answer:
Profit, profit and more profit.
Quiz for everyone:
What are the most important things you got at home? There are two most important things at my home…
For Mike:
Call for Papers, Case Studies, Speakers, and Posters
“Healthy Plants in a World with Phytophthora”
The Seventh Sudden Oak Death Science and Management Symposium
June 25-27, 2019
The Golden Gate Club – The Presidio
San Francisco, California
We’re seeking abstracts (up to 1 page) for proposed papers or posters by December 15, 2018. Please see instructions, along with the format to follow, on the conference website at https://ucanr.edu/sites/sod7/. Clearly state your preference to present a paper or a poster. Abstracts should be sent to Janice Alexander at jalexander@ucanr.edu. Further information is available at the conference website – https://ucanr.edu/sites/sod7/.
About the Conference
“Healthy Plants in a World with Phytophthora” — The Seventh Sudden Oak Death Science and Management Symposium (SOD7) brings together the scientific and management communities working on Phytophthora ramorum/sudden oak death, Phytophthoras on California native plants, and related forest health concerns. Presentations, discussions, and posters will focus on many aspects of Phytophthoras as well as associated tree and plant diseases in wildland, urban, nursery, restoration, park, and landscape settings. The broad scope is intended to foster cooperation among individuals working in various disciplines and geographic areas and to provide current findings and management guidance for scientists, managers, regulators, volunteers, students, and environmentalists.
If you’re not gloomy enough yet:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/26/how-extreme-weather-is-shrinking-the-planet/
MAR at 142: I think the global heat that you report is closely linked to the recent rise in CO2 increase in yoy comparison numbers. There are numerous trends to be considered with watching atmospheric CO2 numbers. One is the bumps and troughs that flow through the yoy numbers due to EN and LN events. Another would be the global temperature number. I think it’s generally settled science that global heat increases produce upticks in CO2 numbers because of heat-related changes in numerous large natural CO2 sink features of the planet. 2nd hottest October on record and that happens in what appears to have no El Nino bump. Hmmm…
What is the background rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere at this moment? I continue to think it is in the 2.4 to 2.5 ppm range. This is a very bad number. Selfishness and greed are certainly causative factors in our plight. I am not so sure about apathy. I think lots of us are anything but apathetic, but I think an argument can be made that scientists and climate-concerned folks have been ineffective at helping our species change it’s CO2 trajectory, but that may be more a function of tragedy than apathy. How do we overcome a Cassandra-type failure? Gently, persistently? Maybe it can’t be overcome because of biological tropisms of our species? Maybe we burn fossil fuels in the way that moths fly to a flame? Hope not.
I think we should talk about the dangers of selfishness and greed and their impact on the ecological habitat that humans need for survival. Give it a try. What do we have to lose?
Cheers
Mike
I invite you to take a vigilant look at the german drought monitor:
http://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=37937
That’s the picture after only 8 months of drought^^… Com on, Germany used to be one of the wettest european countries, we are in the midst of november, the wettest month statistically, but this looks like Death Valley for real :’D
Those, who feel themselves safe and wealthy, will be hit hardest in the mid- and longterm. Ignorance in the cooking pot of Nature comes with a high price:
Extinction.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/21/climate-change-report-released-friday-after-thanksgiving/2080298002/
Links at the original page to further content