Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,303
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    cybernyc
    Newest Member
    cybernyc
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/21/2022 at 6:22 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Interesting paper. It provides yet more evidence of the anthropogenic role that is driving an increase in marine heatwaves.

I had heard/read of marine heatwaves in the recent past, but the 'direct' causality aspect is a little new to me. 

Meteorologist's inquiry I'd be interested in the fuller explanation of the total circuitry there - I mean it's not like there is some button pushed that has a label reading, "cook fish" 

It's easy to imagine, anthropogenic C02 and/or other anthropogenic flux attributed warming, then causes the planetary circulation modes to change. The SS stressing patterns change with it. That disrupts the prior thermal distribution. Given time, that then integrates to depth ... etc. 

But there is also conduction thermodynamics in the quasi oceanic-atmospheric exchange.  Heat source/sink in either direction should obviously matter.  Example, warm water does not evaporate as fast into warm air that is by nature already holding more water vapor.  Less phase change means less cooling of the water. 

Also, I am not certain, but I wonder if IR radiation, the other way a black-body cools, is also effected because the ocean and the air then come into equilibrium at a higher temperature, such that the water doesn't cool as fast from that mechanism, too ( it does not radiate heat at the same amount). 

These factors prooobably make up a lot or some of that circuitry?  But ... I don't have access to a retinue of over worked red-eyed grad students crunching numbers to back my rise to insight glory here ... 

Anyway, these seemingly minor lags in winter cooling, set up the following warm seasons to achieve warmer and warmer SST states ... It doesn't take a huge leap of intuition to see how that's a kind of "quasi" ( or like a -) run-away effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-arctic-temperatures-faster-global.html

 

Abstract

While the annual mean Arctic Amplification (AA) index varied between two and three during the 1970–2000 period, it reached values exceeding four during the first two decades of the 21st century. The AA did not change in a continuous fashion but rather in two sharp increases around 1986 and 1999. During those steps the mean global surface air temperature trend remained almost constant, while the Arctic trend increased. Although the “best” CMIP6 models reproduce the increasing trend of the AA in 1980s they do not capture the sharply increasing trend of the AA after 1999 including its rapid step-like increase. We propose that the first sharp AA increase around 1986 is due to external forcing, while the second step close to 1999 is due to internal climate variability, which models cannot reproduce in the observed time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 8, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced up to 11 potential lease sales for expanded oil and gas drilling (10 in the Gulf of Mexico and 1 in the northern portion of Alaska’s Cook Inlet). With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to accumulate, expansion of oil and gas production would be shortsighted and destructive. A short-term increase in prices does not justify the much greater long-term costs associated with such production. I submitted the following comment in opposition of the proposal:

I respectfully submit the following comments on the Proposed Program for the 2023-2028 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS Program). The Proposed Program includes no more than ten potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and an option for one potential lease sale in the northern portion of the Cook Inlet of Alaska.  Due to the ongoing grave and growing climate crisis, no lease sales should be permitted anywhere on United States lands or waters.

The science is clear. There is no ambiguity. The world’s climate is changing. Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the predominant driver of ongoing warming and a range of related adverse consequences. Less than one year ago, in August 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarized the science as it stands today. In its Sixth Assessment Report, the IPCC explained:

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred... Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001–2020) was 0.99 [0.84 to 1.10] °C higher than 1850–1900… Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years.1

Climate change is leading to a growing incidence of extreme outcomes. The IPCC continued:

It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006... The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have increased since the 1950s over most land area for which observational data are sufficient for trend analysis (high confidence), and human-induced climate change is likely the main driver... Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s. This includes increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts on the global scale (high confidence)...2

The United States has experienced extreme weather in recent years. Four examples include:

Summer 2019: Anchorage saw its warmest June, warmest July, and warmest August on record. On July 4, Anchorage recorded its first ever 90° temperature. On 8 days, the temperature reached 80° or above (old record: 4 days, 2015). The average summer temperature was 62.8°.  The prior record of 60.8° was set in 2016.

Summer 2020: Phoenix recorded its hottest summer on record. July (mean temperature: 98.9°) was Phoenix’s hottest month on record by 0.6°. August surpassed that mark with a 99.1° mean temperature. Select summer heat records included: high temperatures of 110° or above: 48 days (old record: 31 days, 2007 and 2011); high temperatures of 115° or above: 13 days (old record: 7 days, 1974); low temperatures of 90° or above: 28 days (old record: 15 days, 2003 and 2013). For the year, Phoenix set records for most 100° high temperatures (145 days); 110° high temperatures (53 days); 115° high temperatures (14 days); and, 90° low temperatures (28 days). The summer mean temperature of 96.7° easily surpassed the earlier record of 95.1°, which was set in 2013 and tied in 2015.

Summer 2021: A historic heatwave demolished longstanding records in the Pacific Northwest. June 26-28 saw the highest temperatures in the region. At Portland, high temperatures were 108°, 112°, and 116° respectively. At Seattle, high temperatures were 102°, 104°, and 108° respectively. An attribution study following the extreme heatwave concluded that the magnitude of the heat “was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.”3

Late Spring-Early Summer 2022: As of this writing, Galveston has seen its warmest April, warmest May, and warmest June on record. May had a mean temperature of 83.0° (old record: 80.4°, 2018). June had a mean temperature of 87.5° (old record: 86.2°, 2011). Only August 2011, 2019, and 2020 were warmer. During the 61 days in May-June, 29 record high maximum temperatures were tied or broken and 33 record high minimum temperatures were tied or broken. The 86° low temperature on June 21st was the earliest such temperature on record (old record: August 8, 2019).

Climate change is producing aridification in the Southwestern United States. Aridification is the process that leads to a hotter and drier climate. As part of that process, the region is experiencing a historic drought that began in 1999.4 Aridification leads to “progressively lower river flows, drier landscapes, higher forest mortality, and more severe and widespread wildfires.”5 Recently, Nevada’s Lake Mead has reached its lowest levels on record.6 Utah’s Great Salt Lake has reached record lows twice this year.7 As aridification advances, the need for tough trade-offs from water rationing will likely become increasingly frequent. Longer-term, a chronic water shortage will lead to the need to rethink agricultural and other economic activity in this region. Such a shortage could drive a population movement out of the Southwest.

Climate change is also deadly. In the United States, heat now causes more deaths than any other form of weather.8 Research has estimated that projected yearly excess deaths from climate change would be relatively stable at approximately 100,000 per year when warming is held below 2°C.9 However, the projected yearly excess deaths increase at an accelerating rate as warming increases to about 4.6 million at 4.1°C.10

Despite all the net adverse consequences of climate change—for the United States and globally—and the clear responsibility of fossil fuel burning for anthropogenic climate change, advocates of expanded oil and gas exploitation will very likely justify their case with two major arguments. They will assert that expanded exploitation is necessary to ensure a stable energy market with sufficient flexibility to accommodate a growing population and economy. They will suggest that the dramatic recent increase in oil and gas prices on account of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine make the rapid introduction of new supplies necessary.

Both lines of argument fit the classic dictionary definition of shortsighted11 prescriptions. The first line of argument conflates oil and gas with energy supply. An aggressive scaling up of renewable energy sources could readily meet the medium- and longer-term supply needs of a growing economy and population without the climate-destructive greenhouse gas pollution. There is no compelling reason that fossil fuels should be indistinguishable from energy supply.

The second line of argument also fails. First, assuming the leased areas have discovered oil and gas reserves, it would take 6-12 months for production to commence.12 The second and more devastating counterargument is that policy would essentially be making a structural long-term commitment to expanded fossil fuel production and greenhouse gas pollution to try to address a short-term, temporary dislocation in the oil and gas market. There is virtually no probability that once the investments have been made and oil and gas production expanded, such production would immediately cease once prices come down and stabilize at lower levels. The profit motive would assure the opposite outcome. In short, policymakers would commit to a near-permanent increase in global temperatures (and related consequences) all to try to resolve a short-term, temporary issue. The mismatch between short-term challenges and long-term consequences could not be starker.

The second line of argument also falls for ethical reasons. Aging policymakers, who have limited life exposure to the consequences of their choice, would be imposing more severe climate change on younger people and future generations whose lifetime exposure is much greater. This would be an incredibly selfish decision from which younger people and future generations would have no recourse. It is also a somewhat cowardly decision, as the responsible policymakers will have left the scene long before future generations suffer through the most devastating consequences of the departed leaders’ terrible choice.

The decision to expand fossil fuel production despite full knowledge of climate change, its causes, and its consequences, would be nothing less than a catastrophic failure of leadership. It would be a product of shortsightedness, absence of ethical regard for the lives and wellbeing of younger people and future generations who would suffer irreparable harm, and a lack of confidence in American innovation to liberate the nation from an unsustainable and destructive energy status quo.

Today, in response to oil and gas prices having risen to their highest level in just over a decade13 in response to temporary factors (the sharp post-COVID economic rebound and disruptions related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine), there has been an all-out scramble to secure new oil and gas supplies. This proposed lease is one element of that rush. That there was no comparable urgency to scale up renewable energy investments and infrastructure and slash the burning of fossil fuels following publication of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report says much about current United States and international priorities. Despite the gravity and urgency of climate change, there remains a deep-seated inability or unwillingness to break from the a harmful fossil fuel-centered status quo. Those priorities are badly misplaced.

In the end, if the proposed leases are approved, future generations will forever be astonished how the leaders of one of the most advanced, prosperous, and powerful nations in human history, embraced enhanced climate change. They will be haunted by questions about how any rational and ethical leaders—particularly those who possessed knowledge of the gravity and urgency of climate change and who understood its causes—still chose to impose a hotter and more unstable climate on future generations.

What kind of leaders and what kind of country would purposely doom posterity to tragic centuries of lost dreams and ever-present climate catastrophes all to mitigate a modest and temporary challenge arising from energy sources that need to be phased out? Is this the legacy this Administration seeks? Is this the tomorrow it desires? Most importantly, is this the future it will choose?

The United States can still avoid choosing more global warming, more extreme weather, and more climate-related fatalities. This proposed leasing program should be withdrawn. No additional oil and gas leases should be offered in the future. Instead, the United States should increase its efforts to decarbonize and accelerate its transition to renewable energy. It should pursue a better future for its youth and forthcoming generations while it still enjoys the luxury of choosing such a future.

Endnotes:

1. IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp.4-6.
2. Ibid., pp.8-9.
3. https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/western-north-american-extreme-heat-virtually-impossible-without-human-caused-climate-change/
4. Jonathan T. Overpeck and Bradley Udall, “Climate change and the aridification of North America,” PNAS, May 19, 2020, p.11856.
5. Ibid., p.11857.
6. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/lake-mead-nearing-dead-pool-status-engineer-was-named-horrified-rcna35030
7. Claire Hardwick, “Water levels at Utah’s Great Salt Lake drop to record low for second time in a year,” USA Today, July 7, 2022.
8. https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/
9. Bressler, R.D. The mortality cost of carbon. Nat Commun 12, 4467 (2021), p.6
10. Ibid., pp.4-5.
11. Shortsighted: lacking foresight (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shortsighted)
12. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/15/biden-administration-to-resume-leasing-for-oil-and-gas-drilling-on-federal-lands.html
13. https://www.eia.gov/finance/markets/crudeoil/spot_prices.php and https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been pushing in the other forum threads a suspicion that we are getting a lot of this persistent pattern bias this summer as a feed-back from heat. 

"...Climate change is producing aridification in the Southwestern United States. Aridification is the process that leads to a hotter and drier climate. As part of that process, ..."

The mechanics of heat feedback surrounds hot air deflecting right (thermal wind component then subjected to C forcing ).  Such that if there is a basal flow tendency to ridging in the west, the two become constructive interference and the pattern then becomes harder to break down. The bold statement above fits that hypothesis.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With potential record heat likely in the UK, the climate change denial community is desperately seeking to deflect from the reality of the outcome. 

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1548120815962427392?s=20&t=ry37eyHIu5gGsAIXiSGx1Q

In fact, climate scientists forecast that the kind of heat that will descend on the UK will be increasingly likely.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16834-0

No such forecast was made by those trying to weaponize forecasts against climate scientists.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119

Abstract

Prudent risk management requires consideration of bad-to-worst-case scenarios. Yet, for climate change, such potential futures are poorly understood. Could anthropogenic climate change result in worldwide societal collapse or even eventual human extinction? At present, this is a dangerously under explored topic. Yet there are ample reasons to suspect that climate change could result in a global catastrophe. Analyzing the mechanisms for these extreme consequences could help galvanize action, improve resilience, and inform policy, including emergency responses. We outline current knowledge about the likelihood of extreme climate change, discuss why understanding bad-to-worst cases is vital, articulate reasons for concern about catastrophic outcomes, define key terms, and put forward a research agenda. The proposed agenda covers four main questions: 1) What is the potential for climate change to drive mass extinction events? 2) What are the mechanisms that could result in human mass mortality and morbidity? 3) What are human societies' vulnerabilities to climate-triggered risk cascades, such as from conflict, political instability, and systemic financial risk? 4) How can these multiple strands of evidence—together with other global dangers—be usefully synthesized into an “integrated catastrophe assessment”? It is time for the scientific community to grapple with the challenge of better understanding catastrophic climate change.
 
 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Was 1936 really the hottest summer in U.S. history? Looking at the data, I'm not sure it was... it looks mostly to be an artifact of the algorithm. Hagerstown, Maryland was 3.8 degrees below modern norms in July 1936, yet Washington County, Maryland shows up as warmer than normal for that month due to extreme smoothing likely as a result of bad figures elsewhere. One county south at Martinsburg, West Virginia, it was supposedly 2.8 degrees above modern norms. This is obviously ridiculous... there are days that month where the Martinsburg co-op are 10+ degrees warmer than the Hagerstown site? Morgantown came in cooler than normal with a mean temperature of 72.8F, yet somehow Monongalia County is shown as above normal with a mean of 72.7F. How could the county - mostly rural, with high mountain ridges in the east - have a mean only 0.1F lower than the observations from the city, which undoubtedly would have been the warmest spot in the county? So much bad data from that era, yet it gets repeated ad nauseum.

The low temperatures at many spots were truly at summer of yesteryear levels in July 1936 with many nights in the 40s and 50s. No need for A/C with that radiational cooling. Look at Brookville, PA (not even high elevation - 1100') - the monthly mean low temperature was below 50F that month. 4th coldest minimum temperatures at Morgantown, WV in the station thread. 6th coldest in the Wheeling, West Virginia station thread. Allegany and Cattaraugus Counties in New York have minimum temperatures 2nd and 3rd lowest in the entire data set.

More importantly, it's supposedly a tiny fraction warmer than last summer, but those numbers don't include the Great Lake water temperatures, which cover a large expanse of the U.S. If you include those lake surface temperatures, I think several recent years would easily surpass it. Just look at the lake surface temperatures at Buffalo from that year...

Frozen over until May 16th, only year later was 1971. Hasn't been freezing water temperatures in the month of May since 1996. https://www.weather.gov/buf/LakeErieMay.

Water temperatures stayed well below seasonal averages all through June: https://www.weather.gov/buf/LakeErieJune

Water temperatures opened July much cooler than normal, briefly spiked to near record levels with the major heat episode, then cooled back down. The 70 degree reading on July 31, 1936 hasn't been matched since the chilly summer of 2009. It's only been cooler on that date on three years (1956, 1962 and the volcanic summer of 1992): https://www.weather.gov/buf/LakeErieJuly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was like a very impressive 8-day heat wave in July 1936, but the rest of the month was a "summer of yesteryear" with comfortable temperatures and low humidity. It's like a weeklong heat wave that gets blown way out of proportion. I wonder why Bastardi never uses his population weighted metrics on that summer? It looks like the core of the heat was in places where nobody lives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2022 at 10:48 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

Was 1936 really the hottest summer in U.S. history? Looking at the data, I'm not sure it was... it looks mostly to be an artifact of the algorithm. Hagerstown, Maryland was 3.8 degrees below modern norms in July 1936, yet Washington County, Maryland shows up as warmer than normal for that month due to extreme smoothing likely as a result of bad figures elsewhere. One county south at Martinsburg, West Virginia, it was supposedly 2.8 degrees above modern norms. This is obviously ridiculous... there are days that month where the Martinsburg co-op are 10+ degrees warmer than the Hagerstown site? Morgantown came in cooler than normal with a mean temperature of 72.8F, yet somehow Monongalia County is shown as above normal with a mean of 72.7F. How could the county - mostly rural, with high mountain ridges in the east - have a mean only 0.1F lower than the observations from the city, which undoubtedly would have been the warmest spot in the county? So much bad data from that era, yet it gets repeated ad nauseum.

The low temperatures at many spots were truly at summer of yesteryear levels in July 1936 with many nights in the 40s and 50s. No need for A/C with that radiational cooling. Look at Brookville, PA (not even high elevation - 1100') - the monthly mean low temperature was below 50F that month. 4th coldest minimum temperatures at Morgantown, WV in the station thread. 6th coldest in the Wheeling, West Virginia station thread. Allegany and Cattaraugus Counties in New York have minimum temperatures 2nd and 3rd lowest in the entire data set.

More importantly, it's supposedly a tiny fraction warmer than last summer, but those numbers don't include the Great Lake water temperatures, which cover a large expanse of the U.S. If you include those lake surface temperatures, I think several recent years would easily surpass it. Just look at the lake surface temperatures at Buffalo from that year...

Frozen over until May 16th, only year later was 1971. Hasn't been freezing water temperatures in the month of May since 1996. https://www.weather.gov/buf/LakeErieMay.

Water temperatures stayed well below seasonal averages all through June: https://www.weather.gov/buf/LakeErieJune

Water temperatures opened July much cooler than normal, briefly spiked to near record levels with the major heat episode, then cooled back down. The 70 degree reading on July 31, 1936 hasn't been matched since the chilly summer of 2009. It's only been cooler on that date on three years (1956, 1962 and the volcanic summer of 1992): https://www.weather.gov/buf/LakeErieJuly

Summer 1936 and Summer 2021 are currently tied for hottest summer according to the NOAA's most recent ranking.

image.png.736c560fbff29832365ad514ca39f56b.png

In the larger scheme of things, most of the hot summers (mean temperature of 73° or above) have occurred since 2000. 10/13 (77%) have occurred since 2000, including 7/13 (54%) have occurred since 2010. Only 1934, 1936, and 1988 had mean temperatures of 73° or above prior to 2000. Ongoing climate change is leading to an outcome where such summers are becoming the new "normal." Summer 2022 could join that list.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/18/2022 at 8:52 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Summer 1936 and Summer 2021 are currently tied for hottest summer according to the NOAA's most recent ranking.

image.png.736c560fbff29832365ad514ca39f56b.png

In the larger scheme of things, most of the hot summers (mean temperature of 73° or above) have occurred since 2000. 10/13 (77%) have occurred since 2000, including 7/13 (54%) have occurred since 2010. Only 1934, 1936, and 1988 had mean temperatures of 73° or above prior to 2000. Ongoing climate change is leading to an outcome where such summers are becoming the new "normal." Summer 2022 could join that list.

Summer 2022 was the 3rd hottest summer on record, just behind summers 1936 and 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/19/2022 at 7:29 PM, Fantom X said:

I just wanted to express how I hate that climate change is political game, rather than everyone taking it seriously. We had a problem with CFCs in the 1980s and it was REAGAN who was involved with the banning of CFCs. Now the GOPs stance is that climate change is a hoax. 

https://www.livescience.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-realized

 

On the positive side, the dumb species of humanity may be removed from this planet much sooner than they think.

Climate 'points of no return' may be much closer than we thought

published 7 days ago

The "tipping points" are also more numerous than researchers previously realized.

  •  
  • (opens in new tab)
  •  
  • (opens in new tab)
  • (opens in new tab)
  •  
  • (opens in new tab)
  •  
  • (opens in new tab)
 
 

 

A new study has warned that irreversible climate "tipping points" are more numerous and close to being triggered than previously thought. A new study has warned that irreversible climate "tipping points" are more numerous and close to being triggered than previously thought. (Image credit: Shutterstock) (opens in new tab)

Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study.     

 

In climatology, a tipping point is defined as a rise in global temperature past which a localized climate system, or "tipping element" — such as the Amazon rainforest or the Greenland ice sheet — starts to irreversibly decline. Once a tipping point has been reached, that tipping element will experience runaway effects that essentially doom it forever, even if global temperatures retreat below the tipping point. 

 

The idea of climate tipping points first emerged in a 2008 paper published in the journal PNAS, when researchers identified nine key tipping elements that could reach such a threshold due to human-caused climate change. In the new study, which was published Sept. 9 in the journal Science, a team of researchers reassessed data from more than 200 papers on the subject of tipping points published since 2008. They found that there are now 16 major tipping points, almost all of which could reach the point of no return if global warming continues beyond 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels. 

 
 

Earth has already warmed by more than 2 degrees F (1.1 C) above preindustrial levels and, if current warming trends continue, is on track to reach between 3.6 and 5.4 F (2 and 3 C) above preindustrial levels, the study authors said in a statement.

"This sets Earth on course to cross multiple dangerous tipping points that will be disastrous for people across the world," study co-author Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said in the statement.

 

Related: Is climate change making the weather worse? 

 
CLOSE
 

 

Tipping points could be triggered much earlier than expected. Tipping points could be triggered much earlier than previosly expected, according to the new study. (Image credit: Shutterstock) (opens in new tab)

When the researchers conducted their reassessment, they eliminated two of the original nine tipping points due to insufficient evidence — but then, they identified nine new ones that had been previously overlooked, bringing the toal to 16, they reported in the study.

"Since I first assessed climate tipping points in 2008, the list has grown and our assessment of the risk they pose has increased dramatically," co-author Tim Lenton, director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter in the U.K. and lead author of the original 2008 tipping points paper, said in the statement.

In the new study, the researchers calculated the exact temperature at which each tipping element would be likely to pass its point of no return. Their analysis revealed that five tipping elements — the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets; Arctic permafrost; tropical coral reefs; and a key ocean current in the Labrador Sea — are in the "danger zone," meaning they are quickly approaching their tipping points.

Two of these danger zone tipping points, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, are already beyond their lowest potential tipping points of 1.4 F (0.8 C) and 1.8 F (1 C) above preindustrial times respectively, which suggests these two systems may already be beyond saving, researchers wrote. 

The other 11 tipping points are listed as "likely" or "possible" if warming continues past 2.7 F.

 

Triggering climate tipping points will increase the severity and frequency of extreme events like wildfires. Triggering climate tipping points will increase the severity and frequency of extreme events like wildfires. (Image credit: Shutterstock) (opens in new tab)

Past estimates, such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report, published in three parts in 2021 and 2022, suggested that most major tipping points would be reached only if Earth warmed past 3.6 F, which would give humanity more time to prepare mitigation and adaptation strategies. But according to the new study, those tipping points may be closer than expected.

One explanation for this accelerated timeline is that researchers now fully understand the interconnectedness of tipping points. Better climate models now show that the fall of one tipping point could increase the likelihood of another's collapse. For example, if the Arctic permafrost melts due to rising temperatures, it will release more carbon into the atmosphere. This will further increase surface temperatures on land and in the oceans, thereby accelerating melt in major ice sheets and stressing coral reefs. In other words, tipping points are stacked up like dominoes; as soon as one falls, the others could swiftly follow.  

Related: Could climate change make humans go extinct?

Therefore, it is imperative to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions immediately before this irreversible chain reaction begins, the researchers warned. 

"To maintain liveable conditions on Earth, protect people from rising extremes, and enable stable societies, we must do everything possible to prevent crossing tipping points," Rockström said. "Every tenth of a degree counts."

 

Scientists believe that a "social tipping point" could be our only hope for avoiding the consequences of climate tipping points Researchers warn that we must rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. (Image credit: Shutterstock) (opens in new tab)

But this will be no easy task. To have just a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 2.7 F, greenhouse gas emissions would have to be cut in half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, the researchers said in the statement. 

Given the meager progress in combating climate change, this goal may seem unachievable. In fact, in some ways, we seem to be moving backward; in June, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling severely limited the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions

However, the study authors argue that it could still be possible to achieve such drastic changes through a different type of tipping point: a social one. This is a theoretical threshold in public opinion that, once passed, will force governments and large corporations to take drastic climate action, the scientists said in the statement. 

The only problem is that this social tipping point must be reached well before the climate tipping points are passed — otherwise, it will be too little, too late. 

Originally published on Live Science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been tracking what's been going on in the UK and their conservative Tory government is awful.  They brought back fracking in spite of the earthquakes happening there and have been arresting peaceful protestors and putting them in jail-- including scientists and teachers!  They are surveilling on peaceful protestors and sharing that info with fossil fuel companies so they can use that against them in court to get injunctions against peaceful protesting.  And when local communities outlaw fracking the national government overturns those decisions.....

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CcX-rNIo8jR/

 

One example

 

Scientists protested outside Charing Cross police station after a marine biologist was held for more than 40 hours for taking part in a climate change protest.

Emma Smart, 44, was arrested on Wednesday for glueing her hand to the windows of a government department.

On Thursday, a photograph of her arrest was published on the front page of the Guardian. On Friday police were saying she would not be released before being brought before a court, which may not happen until Tuesday.

Smart’s supporters say she is being held in a windowless cell with the light on 24 hours a day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read all these articles in a few hours.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthstrikers-meet-the-women-who-refuse-to-have-children-until-climate-change-ends

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/03/david-wallace-wells-on-climate-people-should-be-scared-im-scared

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2019/feb/27/is-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-right-to-ask-if-the-climate-means-we-should-have-fewer-children

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2019/feb/27/is-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-right-to-ask-if-the-climate-means-we-should-have-fewer-children

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/extinction-rebellion-activists-arrested-over-scottish-oil-protest

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/25/extinction-rebellion-activists-occupy-scottish-parliament

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/26/facts-about-our-ecological-crisis-are-incontrovertible-we-must-take-action

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/26/we-have-a-duty-to-act-hundreds-ready-to-go-to-jail-over-climate-crisis

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/18/this-is-just-the-beginning-freed-activists-return-to-fracking-site

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/anti-fracking-activists-jailed-for-blackpool-cuadrilla-protest

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/anti-fracking-activists-jailed-for-blackpool-cuadrilla-protest

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/18/two-directors-quit-fracking-firm-third-energy-amid-tory-rebellion-claims

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/blow-to-fracking-firms-as-uk-insists-on-financial-checks

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/19/caroline-lucas-arrest-balcombe-anti-fracking

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/18/fracking-protesters-march-sussex-balcombe-drilling

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/07/fracking-delayed-north-yorkshire-site-autumn-third-energy

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/05/cuadrilla-starts-work-on-lancashire-fracking-site-fylde

https://drillordrop.com/2018/07/24/first-lock-on-challenge-to-cuadrilla-fracking-protest-injunction/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/24/cuadrilla-gets-go-ahead-to-start-fracking-at-lancashire-site

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/01/cuadrilla-secures-new-injunction-against-fracking-protesters

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/01/cuadrilla-secures-new-injunction-against-fracking-protesters

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/11/campaigner-challenges-ineos-in-court-over-order-curbing-fracking-protests

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/10/ineos-discloses-document-used-to-gain-injunction-on-fracking-protests

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/02/fracking-cause-lancashire-quakes

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquake-tremors-gas-drilling

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/17/fast-track-fracking-plan-by-uk-government-prompts-criticism

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/17/fast-track-fracking-plan-by-uk-government-prompts-criticism

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/08/uk-fracking-backlash-seven-out-of-eight-plans-rejected-in-2018

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/25/fracking-start-2018-shale-gas-uk-industry-protests

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/03/ineos-leads-lobbying-effort-to-get-out-of-paying-green-tax

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/28/british-firm-ineos-accused-bribes-bulldozers-approach-fracking

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/13/shale-gas-fracking-cameron-all-out

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/13/shale-gas-fracking-cameron-all-out

https://drillordrop.com/2017/12/29/europa-seeks-extended-injunction-over-bury-hill-wood-site-in-surrey/

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/26/fracking-the-reality-the-risks-and-what-the-future-holds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/13/government-will-step-in-if-councils-dont-fast-track-fracking-applications

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/23/fracking-firm-wins-extension-to-draconian-protest-injunction

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/23/fracking-firm-wins-extension-to-draconian-protest-injunction

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/07/vivienne-westwoods-son-challenges-ineos-injunction-on-fracking-protest

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/12/anti-fracking-campaigners-challenge-ineos-injunction-joe-corre-joe-boyd

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/31/moves-to-curb-democratic-fracking-protests-in-the-uk-extremely-worrying

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/07/another-oil-firm-seeks-sweeping-injunction-against-uk-protesters

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/31/sheffield-trees-campaigner-jail-flouting-injunction-calvin-payne

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/19/transport-secretary-injunction-stop-hs2-protesters-chris-grayling-london

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/12/climate-activists-glue-hands-to-uk-government-building-in-new-protest

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds

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

http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aan2683
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/21/assumed-safety-of-widespread-pesticide-use-is-false-says-top-government-scientist

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-could-slash-pesticide-use-without-losses-research-reveals

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/un-experts-denounce-myth-pesticides-are-necessary-to-feed-the-world

http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1190

http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aam7470

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/29/pesticides-damage-survival-of-bee-colonies-landmark-study-shows

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-collapse-we-are-destroying-our-life-support-systems

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/18/prison-protesting-fracking-justice

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/17/court-quashes-excessive-sentences-of-fracking-protesters
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/15/fracking-protesters-blockade-cuadrilla-site-where-uk-work-due-to-restart

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13053040

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/06/uk-fracking-given-go-ahead-as-lancashire-council-rejection-is-overturned

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/oil-bosses-have-given-390000-to-tories-conservatives-under-theresa-may

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/03/how-germany-quietly-turned-against-action-on-climate-change/

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-election-angela-merkel-journey-from-madchen-to-mutti/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/brazils-bolsonaro-would-unleash-a-war-on-the-environment

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/17/court-quashes-excessive-sentences-of-fracking-protesters

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/13/german-police-to-clear-treehouse-activists-after-six-year-standoff-environment-energy

Congratulations on being one of our top readers globally – you've read 62 articles in the last year

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-biofuels-merkel/bad-policy-not-biofuel-drive-food-prices-merkel-idUSKRA45973520080424

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia-fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1112114_german-chancellor-merkel-rejects-electric-car-quotas-for-europe-not-well-thought-out

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-election-merkel-idUSKBN1AS0FI

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/09/miserable-life-overcrowded-earth-2100

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-clarkson-im-sure-youll-be-dying-to-hear-about-my-plans-for-a-population-implosion-k7x8pxz90

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born

https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2016/apr/08/nascar-female-driver-leilani-munter-racing-extinction-vegan-environment

https://www.theguardian.com/global/the-coral-triangle/2015/dec/02/cove-directors-new-doc-warns-of-impending-ecological-catastrophe

https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2016/apr/08/nascar-female-driver-leilani-munter-racing-extinction-vegan-environment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2022 at 2:27 AM, LibertyBell said:

It gets worse, John, read some of the info I posted in the "worst predictions" thread about some of the other horrible things going on.

 

Ha ha.  It gets worse?   - you mean worse than "too late"  ? 

Tongue in cheek:   but too late's contextual sentiment should encapsulate a certain kind of ... "finality,"  beyond which ...there is no furthering existentially-based distinction  ;)  

LOL  I don't know though.  I think it's all an unkind numbers game, really.  I mean, by the time this all comes to a head, we rabbit-humans will have bloated to 8 billion -altho, I've been reading that among 2nd and 1st world industrial societies, birthing rates are plummeting along multi-decadal scales.  Seems to me, since these worlds are either directly or indirectly service/enabling most of that huge populations ... that tends to enter the argument that there are mechanism going that are capping [enter the ambrosia of reasons ]  

Most people have heard numbers that big when we audience to modern media's covering governmental fiduciaries ... or the elite 1% ... etc, but really?  The average person does not dimensionalize just how big 7.5 or 8 BILLION BILLION BILLION ...  really is.   

I'm babbling ... the point is,  if the non-sustainability finally does topple all, numbers that big guarantees some survive - purely based on probability.  The only way an 'absolute' realization, is to vaporize the planet - perhaps literally.  Have the moon suddenly finish the collision event that began some 3.75 billion years ago, ...and technically is still happening  ( in about a billion years, the moon's orbit will stop expanding ... and then slowly contract ...gradually accelerating, and 500 million years or so after that, will finish what Theia started ...) ...   The sun will also be 10% hotter, too ...  To mention, the shear probability of sustaining another billion years without a CRB in our local astronomical neighborhood truly scorching the Earth...and so on... 

It's all pointless.  It's all over, already...   But for the sake of here-and-now, and what we 'can' control - the pragmatic context is, do we annihilate our present way of living,  ...sort of being confuses with whether humanity still has life.  We don't need the above ad infinitum to force the former result.  It's just after the after period of the aftermath.. .whatever gets around to still capable of fucking and borning babies... will probably just be much smaller numbers.  Then, perhaps the sinusoidal nature of evolution will rise again into a favorable  realm ...one that exists sans the present day's paradoxic tandem of insatiable self-servitude and glut being in conflict with ways and means by which it carries on. A future "utopia" ...

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1947636

 

ABSTRACT

The role of particular scientists in opposing policies to slow and halt global warming has been extensively documented. The role of economists, however, has received less attention. Here, I trace the history of an influential group of economic consultants hired by the petroleum industry from the 1990s to the 2010s to estimate the costs of various proposed climate policies. The economists used models that inflated predicted costs while ignoring policy benefits, and their results were often portrayed to the public as independent rather than industry-sponsored. Their work played a key role in undermining numerous major climate policy initiatives in the US over a span of decades, including carbon pricing and participation in international climate agreements. This study illustrates how the fossil fuel industry has funded biased economic analyses to oppose climate policy and highlights the need for greater attention on the role of economists and economic paradigms, doctrines, and models in climate policy delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.euronews.com/green/amp/2022/09/23/shell-bp-exxon-seized-emails-reveal-deceptive-climate-tactics-and-greenwashing

Oil and gas companies may commit to net zero goals in public - but internal emails tell a different story.

A US congressional investigation into climate disinformation has revealed over 200 pages of in-house messages between lobbyists and Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil employees.

In these internal memos, personnel question their own environmental commitments and joke about climate collapse.

Politicians and campaigners have slammed the companies for their “deception.”

“These revelations are the latest evidence that oil giants keep lying about their commitments to solve the climate crisis and should never be trusted by policymakers,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/19/2022 at 7:29 PM, Fantom X said:

I just wanted to express how I hate that climate change is political game, rather than everyone taking it seriously. We had a problem with CFCs in the 1980s and it was REAGAN who was involved with the banning of CFCs. Now the GOPs stance is that climate change is a hoax. 

The climate change narrative is more than just a political game, much more. At the core is carbon credits, already a multi-billion dollar racket on Wall Street, it will grow into the trillions. You'll pay, you always do. The wealthy elites, politically-connected, and media moguls run this game, and you can take it to the bank they are not stupid. (Or perhaps you believe these people can't sleep at night because they're worried about YOU. LOL.) 

I see it everywhere, people barking at trees oblivious to the forest that will consume them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cop27-world-track-increase-emissions-106-by-2030-un-report-2022-10-26/

 

This is only if the nations keep their current pledges

It could be far worse than this.

LONDON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - If countries fulfill their current climate commitments, global greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 10.6% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels, according to a United Nations report released on Wednesday.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a 43% reduction in emissions by 2030 is needed to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.

With world leaders expected to gather in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt for the COP27 climate summit from Nov. 6, experts said more action was urgently needed.ister now

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Report an ad

"At the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow last year, all countries agreed to revisit and strengthen their climate plans," said Simon Stiell, executive secretary of UN Climate Change in a statement. "The fact that only 24 new or updated climate plans were submitted since COP26 is disappointing."

These include Bolivia, Vanuatu and Uganda, as well as the large emitter nations of India and Indonesia. The latter, which sees most emissions come from deforestation and peatland clearance, now says it will cut emissions levels by at least 31.89% by 2030.

Globally, inadequate pledges put the world on a path to warm by 2.5C by 2100.

Still, a 10.6% increase in emissions represents slight progress. Last year's UN assessment found countries were on track to up emissions by 13.7% by 2030.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...