[TheClimate.Vote] August 24, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Aug 24 12:32:38 EDT 2018
/August 24, 2018/
[2040 but vote this November]
*Global Warming: How Long Do We Have Left?
<https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/global-warming-how-long-do-we-have-left/>*
Posted on August 24, 2018
It's already bad. But when will things get so bad that it is obviously -
obviously - the worst problem in the world? How long until we go over
the cliff? That depends on how much we've heated up already, and how
fast we're getting hotter.
We have already reached dangerous levels. The heat waves throughout the
northern hemisphere this summer have cost plenty, to the economy, in
human suffering, ill health, even lives lost. The wildfires in
California this year were much worse than they would have been without
global warming. Just last year we set a new record for the total cost
(adjusted for inflation) of billion-dollar climate-related disasters
<https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/climate-disasters-billions-and-billions-of-dollars/>.
They cost the U.S. over $300 billion.
As bad as it is already, extremely bad is yet to come. Some say it'll be
when total warming since pre-industrial times reaches 2C, others say -
and I agree with them, given the costs we've already seen - that we'll
cross that threshhold at 1.5C. That's the level at which the costs, both
economically and in terms of human life and suffering, will threaten our
ability to cope.
We've already warmed by 1.1C since the year 1900. That year was probably
a few tenths of a degree hotter than pre-industrial, so we've already
gone at least that far. Just to be conservative, let's say the total
warming we've experienced already is 1.1C. Another 0.4C will bring us to
extremely bad.
Since 1975, the globe has been warming at a steady rate, but how fast is
that rate? We can take the five best-known estimates of global
temperature and estimate their rates of increase: data from NASA, from
NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), HadCRU (the
Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), Cowtan & Way
(independent researchers from the University of York), and the Berkeley
Earth Surface Temperature project (an independent estimate organized by
one-time climate skeptic Richard Muller).
- - - -
The lowest estimate, from the NOAA data, gives a rate of 1.73 +/- 0.26 C
per century, i.e. the rate is between 1.47 and 1.99 C per century.
According to which we'll hit extremely bad between 2038 and 2045.
However, those rates aren't entirely due to man-made global warming.
Other factors affect global temperature which are only temporary, things
like volcanic explosions, variations in the output of the sun, and the
el Niño southern oscillation.
- - - - -
The fastest rate is still from the the lowest estimate, from the NOAA
data, gives a rate of 1.73 +/- 0.26 C per century, i.e. the rate is
between 1.47 and 1.99 C per century. According to which we'll hit
extremely bad between 2038 and 2045.hat's somewhere between 1.70 and
1.98 C per century, so we hit extremely bad between 2038 and 2041. The
lowest rate is again from NOAA data at 1.67 +/- 0.1 C per century,
somewhere in the range 1.57 and 1.77 C per century. We hit extremely bad
between 2040 and 2044.
*Bottom line: at the rate we're going, we'll hit extremely bad, possibly
intolerable, probably between 2040 and 2045.* Maybe a couple years
later, maybe a couple years earlier, but it's not far away. Most of you
reading this will still be around when it happens. Your kids will be.
We're headed for a cliff and it's not far away.
*That's at the rate we're going. So what do we do? Hit the brakes.*
That means reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2).
We can't stop immediately, that would bring such economic chaos it would
also be extremely bad. If we stop immediately it's like hitting a tree;
we avoid going over the cliff only to die in the crash.
But if we make a giant effort to increase renewable energy while
decreasing fossil-fuel energy (oil, coal, and gas), we can do it. We
have to hit the brakes hard because there's barely enough time to stop.
That's because we were warned that we're headed toward a cliff over 30
years ago, but instead of stepping on the brakes we put the pedal to the
metal. Now it's time to slam on the brakes.
We can't wait. If we wait until we reach the cliff to step on the
brakes, we won't be able to stop fast enough and we go over the edge.
But we can do it. What's the best way? Is it a carbon tax? A
cap-and-trade program? Massive investment in energy efficiency? All of
the above? I don't know.
But I do know that if governments - not just individuals but governments
- don't get started now, it'll be too late. The problem is that even
governments truly working on it aren't doing enough, and the U.S.
government insists on gunning the engine when we should be slowing down
as fast as we can.
That's where individuals come in. There's only one way we can get the
government to stop our headlong rush toward hell in a handbasket called
Earth. VOTE. Vote climate. Make climate change your #1 issue in the
voting booth.
For Americans, it starts this November with the mid-term elections. Vote
climate.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/global-warming-how-long-do-we-have-left/
[NPR audio report - 1:59]
*Some Of The Oldest Ice In The Arctic Is Now Breaking Apart
<https://www.npr.org/2018/08/23/641285739/some-of-the-oldest-ice-in-the-arctic-is-now-breaking-apart>*
"We've never seen anything this large in terms of an opening north of
Greenland," says polar scientist Ted Scambos of the National Snow and
Ice Data Center, which collaborates with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
This sea ice is some of the oldest and thickest in the Arctic. Wind and
currents normally shove lots of ice up against the northern coast of
Greenland, where it stacks up and clings for years.
- - - see the video https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1026567965636870145
"It's like a crowd entering a stadium," Scambos says. "It's sort of
pushed by the ice behind it until it's packed really tight, and that's
made it thick and durable." Think of those long-lasting mounds of ice
left on city streets by snowplows - but up to 30 feet thick.
Global warming, however, has finally begun to break up this ice, Scambos
says. The Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the planet;
last February saw remarkably warm winter temperatures there.
The normally year-round frozen ice "kind of rattles around in the Arctic
now," he says. "And [in] this area north of Greenland, what we're seeing
is that the ice is so thin and sort of loosely packed that a few days of
strong winds in an unusual direction can push the ice away from the
coast that it always collided with in its drift pattern."...
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/23/641285739/some-of-the-oldest-ice-in-the-arctic-is-now-breaking-apart
[heat from the fire, but sun-shade from the smoke]
*How Wildfires Can Affect Climate Change (and Vice Versa)
<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082018/extreme-wildfires-climate-change-global-warming-air-pollution-fire-management-black-carbon-co2>*
It's complicated: While CO2 causes long-term warming, aerosols can have
both a warming and a temporary cooling effect.
BY BOB BERWYN, INSIDECLIMATE NEWS
To be sure, the leading cause of global warming remains overwhelmingly
the burning of fossil fuels. That warming lengthens the fire season,
drying and heating the forests. In turn, blazes like those scorching
areas across the Northern Hemisphere this summer have a feedback
effect-a vicious cycle when the results of warming produce yet more warming.
- - - -
Although the exact quantities are difficult to calculate, scientists
estimate that wildfires emitted about 8 billion tons of CO2 per year for
the past 20 years. In 2017, total global CO2 emissions reached 32.5
billion tons, according to the International Energy Agency.
When they calculate total global CO2 output, scientists don't include
all wildfire emissions as net emissions, though, because some of the CO2
is offset by renewed forest growth in the burned areas. As a result,
they estimate that wildfires make up 5 to 10 percent of annual global
CO2 emissions each year.
- - - - -
Fires don't just burn up trees and shrubs and emit smoke. They leave
behind long-lasting changes on the ground, and those changes also have
effects on the climate.
Over the course of several decades after a big fire, emissions from
decomposing dead wood often surpass by far the direct emissions from the
fire itself. But at the same time, new growth in burned areas starts to
once again take CO2 from the atmosphere and store it.
Fires also change the reflectivity of the land, called albedo. As burned
forest areas start to regrow, lighter-colored patches of grasses and
shrubs come in first, which, because they reflect more solar radiation,
can have a cooling effect until the vegetation thickens and darkens again.
- - - - -
The current increase in extreme fires in some regions is part of a
global ecosystem shift driven by human-caused global warming, Denning
said. He warned that societies need to adopt strong policies to prevent
huge regions of carbon-storing forests from being replaced by
lower-carbon grasslands and shrubs.
Based on the best estimates of CO2 emissions from wildfires, Denning
said they are dwarfed by emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and
gas, and that's where the focus should be on reducing emissions.
"Without very strong climate policy, industrial emissions are likely to
triple in this century. Against that backdrop, the climate effects of
increased wildfires are smaller than the error bars in the climate
effects of all that coal, oil, and gas," he said.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082018/extreme-wildfires-climate-change-global-warming-air-pollution-fire-management-black-carbon-co2
[climate pundits predict]
*The Coming Disruption of the Carbon Bubble
<http://climatestate.com/2018/08/22/the-coming-disruption-of-the-carbon-bubble/>*
by Editor
In order to avert the most serious climate scenarios, governments and
people around the world need to phase out fossil fuel emissions, coal,
gas, and switch to clean energy and electric transportation. This video
presents some recent discussions and fundamental obstacles. Speakers
include Lester Brown (Earth Policy Institute), Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
(Potsdam Climate Impact Research), Roy Scranton (Author), David Spratt
(Climate researchers), and Shawn James (YouTuber).
Source
Roy Scranton discusses his new book
(WGBHForum)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L32FS_B2dLI
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: We Need Disruptive Changehttps://youtu.be/SIp-4QT18GQ
David Spratt on climate actionshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nLEXXvXRY8
Climate Change: Live Like You Believe We Are Causing It (Shawn
James)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmnrnvX4P98
Teaser
imagehttps://pixabay.com/en/universe-earth-planet-space-cosmos-1784292/
http://climatestate.com/2018/08/22/the-coming-disruption-of-the-carbon-bubble/
[if it's not the heat, it's the heat]*
Why the Wildfires of 2018 Have Been So Ferocious
<https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/why-this-years-wildfires-have-been-so-ferocious/567215/>*
It's the heat, not the humidity.
ROBINSON MEYER - AUG 10, 2018
There would be little precedent for this year's fire season in
California-if the last few years hadn't been wretched as well. 2017 was
the state's costliest, most destructive wildfire season. Six of the 10
largest wildfires in the state's history have occurred in the past
decade, and all but one of them have happened this century...
- - - -
"The factor that clearly made the difference in 2017, and again in 2018,
is heat," Williams said. "Last summer was record-breaking, or near
record-breaking, hot across much of the West, and I believe July 2018
will break records or come close to it again this year. Even if the deep
soils are wet following winter and spring, a hot and dry atmosphere
seems to be able to overwhelm that effect."
As it turned out, July 2018 was the hottest month in California ever
recorded. The state as a whole was 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than
normal. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced
the record on Wednesday, after Williams and I corresponded.)
Death Valley also endured the hottest month ever recorded on Earth,
averaging 108.1 degrees Fahrenheit (or 42.3 degrees Celsius) across day
and night.
The literature suggests that wildfires are more driven by the
temperature and moisture content in the air than by the moisture content
in the soil, Williams said. This bodes ill for our warming world. It
also means that wildfires may become harder to predict during the
preceding winter and spring. "We tend to think of fire danger as being a
function of the drought status of an area," Williams said. "Even the
Earth-system models used to project climate/land-cover changes for the
next century do this." But extreme air temperatures may overwhelm that
effect, leading us to undercount future fire risk.
What has been "reinforced this year and last," Williams said, is that
there's even more evidence "that a warming climate strongly promotes
increases in forest fire activity in western North America."
As if there wasn't enough evidence of that. Last year, the National
Climate Assessment-written by a panel of scientists in the military,
federal civilian agencies, and private universities-reviewed the
complete scientific literature on climate change and wildfires. They
concluded that the number of large blazes had increased since the early
1980s. They also said the number of wildfires "is projected to further
increase in those regions as the climate warms." They warned this could
induce "profound changes to certain ecosystems."
This was not a controversial conclusion. A 2016 study in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences found that human-caused climate
change had doubled the number of overall acres burned by wildfires since
the mid-1980s. (It was co-authored by Williams.)
Yet some commentators-including, bizarrely, the Canadian pop
psychologist Jordan Peterson-have claimed that climate change is not
having an effect on fires. They assert that U.S. government data show
that larger wildfires burned in the West during the 1920s and '30s.
In fact, the National Interagency Fire Center-which maintains that
data-says that none of its fire-acreage records from before 1960 should
be trusted. Regional fire authorities often double- or triple-counted
the same fire, or they estimated fire size inaccurately at that time.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/why-this-years-wildfires-have-been-so-ferocious/567215/
[from a wise young scientist]
*Future projections of Antarctic ice shelf melting
<https://climatesight.org/2018/06/26/future-projections-of-antarctic-ice-shelf-melting/>*
Posted on June 26, 2018
Climate change will increase ice shelf melt rates around Antarctica.
That's the not-very-surprising conclusion of my latest modelling study,
done in collaboration with both Australian and German researchers, which
was just published in Journal of Climate. Here's the less intuitive
result: much of the projected increase in melt rates is actually linked
to a decrease in sea ice formation.
That's a lot of different kinds of ice, so let's back up a bit. Sea ice
is just frozen seawater. But ice shelves (as well as ice sheets and
icebergs) are originally formed of snow. Snow falls on the Antarctic
continent, and over many years compacts into a system of interconnected
glaciers that we call an ice sheet. These glaciers flow downhill towards
the coast. If they hit the coast and keep going, floating on the ocean
surface, the floating bits are called ice shelves. Sometimes the edges
of ice shelves will break off and form icebergs, but they don't really
come into this story.
Climate models don't typically include ice sheets, or ice shelves, or
icebergs. This is one reason why projections of sea level rise are so
uncertain. But some standalone ocean models do include ice shelves. At
least, they include the little pockets of ocean beneath the ice shelves
– we call them ice shelf cavities – and can simulate the melting and
refreezing that happens on the ice shelf base.
- - - -
This link between weakened sea ice formation and increased ice shelf
melting has troubling implications for sea level rise. The next step is
to simulate the sea level rise itself, which requires some model
development. Ocean models like the one we used for this study have to
assume that ice shelf geometry stays constant, so no matter how much ice
shelf melting the model simulates, the ice shelves aren't allowed to
thin or collapse. Basically, this design assumes that any ocean-driven
melting is exactly compensated by the flow of the upstream glacier such
that ice shelf geometry remains constant.
Of course this is not a good assumption, because we're observing ice
shelves thinning all over the place, and a few have even collapsed. But
removing this assumption would necessitate coupling with an ice sheet
model, which presents major engineering challenges. We're working on it
– at least ten different research groups around the world – and over the
next few years, fully coupled ice-sheet/ocean models should be ready to
use for the most reliable sea level rise projections yet.
https://climatesight.org/2018/06/26/future-projections-of-antarctic-ice-shelf-melting/
[dust and deluge]
*The Strange Future Hurricane Harvey Portends
<https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/the-strange-future-hurricane-harvey-portends/538557/>*
Climate change is pushing more water into the atmosphere-with bizarre
consequences.
PETER BRANNEN - AUG 31, 2017
The Earth system is getting warmer. Water is evaporating faster. There's
more of it in the air. It's moving through the system faster. As a
result, the coming centuries will play out under a new atmospheric
regime, one with more extreme rain, falling in patterns unfamiliar to
those around which civilization has grown.
"Basically the idea is that as the climate warms there's more energy in
the atmosphere," says Gabriel Bowen, a geochemist at the University of
Utah. "That drives a more vigorous water cycle: Evaporation rates go up,
precipitation rates go up-there's just more water moving through that
cycle faster and more intensely."
For each degree Celsius of warming the atmosphere is able to hold 6
percent more water. For a planet that's expected to warm by 4 degrees by
the end of the century, that means a transition to a profoundly
different climate.
- - - -
In 2012, a study
<http://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/455.full> led by
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory oceanographer Paul Durack found
that the global water cycle was actually speeding up at twice the rate
predicted by climate models, likely intensifying by 16 to 24 percent by
the end of the century...
- - - -
"The worst-case scenario is that we see Harveys happen not once in a
lifetime but routinely every summer in multiple places, and it's
exacerbated by the fact that sea level is rising rapidly," says Bowen.
"And then we see many of the agricultural areas of the world-sunny
places with marginal water availability-become dust bowls."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/the-strange-future-hurricane-harvey-portends/538557/
[ugh]
*Florida's red tide crisis shows how climate change will make the world
an ugly place
<https://qz.com/1365496/floridas-red-tide-shows-that-climate-change-isnt-just-dangerous-its-ugly/>*
By Ephrat Livni
SARASOTA, FLORIDA, Aug. 22
All the water birds-pelicans, egrets, cormorants-are gone.
Flies swarm the coast of the seaside city of Sarasota, Florida. Crows
caw. The air stinks of death. Carpets of fish, belly-up, mouths gaping,
line the shore. This is the putrid new world created by a toxic red
algae bloom spanning 130 miles of the state's west coast, which has so
far killed masses of fish, 12 dolphins, more than 500 manatees, 300 sea
turtles, countless horseshoe crabs, a whale shark, and the local economy.
The docks behind otherwise desirable condo buildings are surrounded by
fish carcasses. The waters of the bay are dotted with them, silver and
white, glinting in the hot sun, looking from a distance like the crests
of thousands of small waves. At least 100 tons of sea creatures have
fallen victim to the toxic bloom known as "red tide." Meanwhile, when
breezes blow the toxin inland, people cough, and reports of respiratory
problems are on the rise in local hospitals.
The bloom occurs almost annually in Florida. But its effects this year
have been exceptionally devastating. It's a terrifying sight to behold,
and a stark foreshadowing of what may become commonplace as climate
change transforms nature and our lives. Although scientists don't know
exactly what caused this particularly vicious red algae bloom, they do
believe that warming waters brought on by human-induced weather changes
and the effects of building development have contributed to the
ever-more extreme red tides of the last half-century.
There's a lot of talk about the threats posed by climate change-to
animals, people, and the environment. But abstract chatter is hard to
fathom. We can't really imagine what it will be like when the reality we
know is replaced, and what's beautiful turns to rot. The red tide in
Florida doesn't just make the issue of global warming visible; it's an
all-out sensory onslaught. And it's a reminder that climate change isn't
just dangerous. It's also going to make the world an increasingly ugly
and unpleasant place.
On Aug. 13, Florida governor Rick Scott declared a state of emergency in
Hillsborough, Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee and Pinellas
counties. The order provides added funding and resources for clean-up
efforts.
But money is no match for the sea. In Sarasota, the fish carcasses pile
up again soon after they're removed. Yachts are stalled in their
dockside slips. Tourists are canceling trips. The sidewalk cafes and
restaurants are empty. The tourism group Visit Sarasota County surveyed
local businesses and found that 90% of 77 respondents-from hotels to
jet-ski rental companies to restaurants- said they had lower sales
between Aug. 1-7 because of the toxic algae and resulting dead fish.
Locals, too, are staying inside, hiding from the heat and stench and
signs of death, hoping that the region's most redeeming feature, the
water, will become hospitable again soon.
Red tide is caused by massive blooms of the toxic organism Karenia
brevis. The bloom is composed of millions of minuscule, single-celled
plant-like organisms that produce chemicals as a defense, including the
compound brevetoxin.
The toxic red algae, or something like it, was first reported in the
1500s by Spanish explorers...who spotted dead fish in unusual quantities
on crimson-hued waters. It's been officially documented by scientists
since the mid-19th century.
The naturally-occurring bloom's spread seems to have been exacerbated by
human activities. In the last 60 years, red tides have become more
severe. Some scientists posit (paywall) that this is a result of warming
waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Warm waters boost algae growth, and the
Gulf's surface temperature has warmed by about two degrees Fahrenheit
since 1977, as oceans soak up more heat in the atmosphere from
ever-increasing carbon dioxide emissions.
Also notable is the fact that human endeavors have reshaped the flow of
Florida's waters. Agriculture, building development, canals, levees, and
dikes have all changed the way rainwater, containing phosphorous and
nitrogen from farm fertilizers, is directed. The rainwater runoff now
rushes into rivers and bays, and the nitrogen-laden flow coaxes algae
blooms.
Another contributing factor to this year's red tide: About a year ago,
in September of 2017, hurricane Irma struck Florida. The US Army Corps
of Engineers had to release loads of nutrient-ridden water from Lake
Okeechobee to limit water levels at the Hoover Dike. The latest red tide
began about a month later.
- - - -
There seem to be no signs that the red tide is abating. It's impossible
to look at the fish carcasses piling up and the empty city and not
wonder if the dismal future predicted by environmental scientists is
already here. If so, it's not a pretty sight to behold.
https://qz.com/1365496/floridas-red-tide-shows-that-climate-change-isnt-just-dangerous-its-ugly/
*This Day in Climate History - August 24, 2013
<http://youtu.be/ntiBmsNYdio> - from D.R. Tucker*
August 24, 2013: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes discuss the
League of Conservation Voters' ad campaign against Congressional
climate-change deniers.
http://youtu.be/ntiBmsNYdio
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
/to news digest. /
*** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20180824/6856bce3/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list