ljgeoff: (Default)
We're nearly halfway through the 2020s, dubbed the most decisive decade for action on climate change. Where exactly do things stand? Climate impact scholar Johan Rockström offers the most up-to-date scientific assessment of the state of the planet and explains what must be done to preserve Earth's resilience to human pressure. (sorry, can't get it to embed)

https://www.ted.com/talks/johan_rockstrom_the_tipping_points_of_climate_change_and_where_we_stand?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

TED talk from July 2024
ljgeoff: (Default)
"Yes this is definitely an unusual setup, with almost all the old ice on the Atlantic front or pressed up as a kind of continental rind against Greenland/CAA(Canadian Arctic archipelago. I remember when we used to have a thick and long arm of old ice stretching across the Beaufort almost all the way to Siberia and delaying or even stopping melt procession on that front. Now it is all wide open - the Atlantic front will be exported to oblivion, and the continental rind also tends to be pushed towards the Fram our out the Nares.

Next year might be interesting ..." benntho, on The Arctic Ice Blog, Re: The 2023/2024 freezing season, Reply #173 on: December 11, 2023, 08:13:31 AM


click to enlarge

So, there's this area in the arctic called the Nares Strait; what's been happening is that, during the summer melt, ice gets pushed by winds toward and then out of the Nares Strait. When the ice is old ice, like all that red stuff that's currently just sitting by the strait ready for the heave-ho, then, well, there goes the old ice. And the arctic isn't really making much other old ice right now.
ljgeoff: (Default)
We humans keep pluggin' away, making art, making babies, making fantastic tech; I watch it all with love and wonder.

And with pity, horror, and despair. Ten years ago I said that the end of this century would be a charnel house. And I've been trying to prepare myself, to distance myself from the sure knowledge of our genocidal future.

At this time, the one thing that mankind needs to accomplish to survive as a society is to find solutions to climate change. But finding solutions to climate change are barely on most people's radar. Surely not as the most important thing. At this specific point in time, it seems not only tone deaf but cruel to say that finding solutions to mitigate and survive climate change is still where we need to put all of our money and time.

Every crisis draws attention from our long-term survival. About ten years ago, while I was finishing my BS at NMU, I had a dream that's still with me. I was looking at a city from above -- fires with billows of thick, black smoke. And a voice was speaking, as if someone was explaining to me, "It wasn't the weather that ended us. It was the wars, the endless wars."

After all this time, I can still see it.

Climate scientists are quick to point out that there is hope. Being paralyzed with despair is dangerous because we can always do something that will change things, even very bleak things, for the better.

I honestly don't think that humans are paralyzed by despair. I think that we're collectively too stupid to see the need to act in ways that will hurt so much more in the here-and-now than we're willing to suffer.

I want to say something about the civilians being slaughtered in Ukraine, Niger, Israel, and Gaza. But I really can't stand to say anything. Except that, like mega-fires, drought, and hurricanes, war is part of climate change. War is what will end us.
ljgeoff: (Default)
I remember reading about this over 10 years ago, and hey, now we have research data. Dr James Hansen has a paper out in peer review that points to a probable sudden warming spike of an additional one degree Celsius by 2050.

Mike came up to Negaunee yesterday to help the boys with wiring the meadery. He wanted to talk to me about a TEDtalk he had listed to on the drive up, exploring the difficulties of switching from fossil fuel to renewable. "It's going to take a huge social investment in infrastructure," Mike said. "And at the same time that countries, economic systems, are being stressed by increased climate disruptions and growing food insecurity."

He chewed on his lip and after a minute said, "There's a movie I watched on Netflix - The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind. I want to watch that with you."

And now there's this news from Hansen. I'll probably be dead by 2050, but Luke will be 50 years old. Sam and Kayla's baby, Rowan, will be 28.

Hansen says "Claiming that current scientific literature supports the idea that warming can be limited to "well below" 2 degrees Celcius is "egregious" and shows "uncritical acceptance of models and the assumptions that went into them."
ljgeoff: (Default)
The effects of the sudden stratospheric warming: January 23, 2023 more about that here

ssw event


from a wind chart, null school, for January 29, 2023; jdallen on the arctic ice net forum writes
"10hPa circulation over the pole has gone seriously cattywhompus. (earth.nullschool.net)"

null school winds

And again, jdallen posts:
"From Gerontocrat’s post in the area/extent thread:

“…Average remaining extent gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in March 2023 of 13.84 million km2, 0.04 million km2 below the March 2017 record low maximum of 13.88 million km2, which would be 1st lowest in the satellite record.…”

I don’t have anything concrete to share as yet, but, I’m increasingly concerned about what’s going to happen in the coming melt season.

If we get 2016 or 2012 or 2011 momentum with this years melt, things could go very badly.

Fortunately, there’s a lot that can change between now and when “May Melt Ponds” start manifesting, or not, but we are already in a place, where the ice at the end of the refreeze season, is going to start as or more vulnerable than it has been in the last decade."

Changes in arctic ice change the climate of the planet, like crazy weather, shifting of historical rain patterns, heat waves, etc

this link should send you to today's nullschool
ljgeoff: (Default)
Because the arctic has been warming, and warming faster than the mid-latitudes, the temperature difference between the arctic and the mid-latitudes is getting smaller.

A smaller temperature difference between the arctic and the mid-latitudes causes the polar jet stream to weaken.

Rossby waves flow across the mid-latitudes, flowing from west to east in a wavy pattern. So imagine a wave that flows north from southern California, up the Rockys, until it hits the northern jet stream up by the arctic circle, bounces off the jet stream, and bends to the south.

When the jet stream is weakened and that rossby wave hits it, the rossby wave actually distorts the jet stream. When the jet stream is weak and distorted, it's unable to keep the polar vortex trapped over the arctic. Instead of a tight, cyclonic wind over the pole, the polar vortex gets sloppy and starts spinning outside of its zone, dipping down onto the mid-latitudes.



click to animate (how cool is that!) (from Uniquorn on the Arctic Ice Blog)

Sometimes the rossby waves crash into the jet stream like waves crashing onto a breakwall, and are pushed up on top of the polar vortex. This action is called a sudden stratospheric warming. Imagine that air that got picked up in southern California crashing into and over the jet stream, piling on top of the polar vortex like a baker's torch on a Baked Alaska, squishing the polar vortex all over the mid-latitudes.

Because it's so high up in the atmosphere, the effects of sudden stratospheric warming takes a while to reach the surface, but mainly what you see is weird weather - unusually cold temps in the south and warmer than average temps in the arctic. The cold snap of February 2021 that took out the Texas power grid and killed as many as 700 people across the US was caused by a sudden stratospheric warming formed on January 5th, about 5-6 weeks before the cold outbreak.

Interesting, huh? Can you visualize it now?
ljgeoff: (Default)
I haven't written much about the climate lately because everyone is pretty much getting it now, and there's just not much more to say. But this study that came out a year ago blindsided me:

New climate models reveal faster and larger increases in Arctic precipitation than previously projected

I'm always surprised at the mild, understated way that scientists talk. I didn't see anything about this in the regular climate news that I follow. What this study says is that sometime between 2050 and 2080, the arctic will see more rainfall than snow.

More rain than snow. In the arctic circle. In thirty to fifty years.

"The transition from a snow- to rain-dominated Arctic in the summer and autumn is projected to occur decades earlier and at a lower level of global warming, potentially under 1.5 °C, with profound climatic, ecosystem and socio-economic impact."

McCrystall's study came up because there's a new study out this month confirming the findings: More Frequent, Intense, and Extensive Rainfall Events in a Strongly Warming Arctic"
"The largest increase in the maximum intensity of rainfall occurs over eastern Siberia, western Alaska and the southwestern edge of Greenland from July to September, which can reach ∼12 mm/day. This means that there will be more heavy rainfall events in the warm season in a large part of the Arctic land area with global warming."

This is fucking huge; glacier melt, tundra melt, methane release, greening of the tundra, ecosystem chaos. It's all there, crammed into a span of a few decades. I actually feel a little sick.
ljgeoff: (Default)
arctic ice 2021 When the arctic ice goes, life of earth will get bad for every living thing. Bad for us because our societies will crash and food and clean water will be scarce for billions of people. Bad for every other living thing because their habitats will change so quickly that they too won't have the shelter, food, and water that they need.

A couple of decades ago, I wrote to this crazy old scientist who lives in England, Dr. James Lovelock. He was talking about climate change in ways that made sense to me. He's still alive, living in England and engaged with the scientific community. But since he's 102 years old, I was surprised to see an op-ed from him this week in the Guardian.

"Almost 60 years ago, I suggested our planet self-regulated like a living organism. I called this the Gaia theory, and was later joined by biologist Lynn Margulis, who also espoused this idea. Both of us were roundly criticised by scientists in academia. I was an outsider, an independent scientist, and the mainstream view then was the neo-Darwinist one that life adapts to the environment, not that the relationship also works in the other direction, as we argued. In the years since, we have seen just how much life – especially human life – can affect the environment. Two genocidal acts – suffocation by greenhouse gases and the clearance of the rainforests – have caused changes on a scale not seen in millions of years."

A vast number of environmentalists have dropped Lovelock because of his position on nuclear power -- that is, Lovelock believes that wind, solar, waves and all won't be enough, that we should stop all fossil fuel burning now-right-now, and use nuclear until we get a better grip on large scale renewables. In his op-ed, Lovelock lectures about the properties of water -- how snow reflects heat back into space, how ice absorbs energy, and about how, when water is turned into vapor, humidity, it acts as a powerful greenhouse gas.

When reading about this stuff, it's good to know the phrase "global water amplification": water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases as temperature increases. What this means is that saltier oceans will get saltier, fresher oceans will get fresher; dry places will be dryer and wet places will get wetter. More extremes. And the water in the atmosphere is yet another positive reinforcement for global heating.

But Lovelock goes beyond the heat-trapping qualities of water vaper. "Much of the confusion over global heating comes about because of the huge quantities of heat needed to change the state of water. Few are aware that to melt a gram of ice takes 80 calories, enough heat to raise the temperature of 1ml of water to 80C. Try an ice cube in your boiling hot tea.

Then imagine how much heat was needed to melt large areas of the polar ice cap during the recent summer and how much hotter the world would have been if the ice had not been there. No wonder there is confusion about whether there is global heating or not."
Lovelock op-ed in the Guardian

And, well, we'll get to that place where most of the ice is gone. Most artic ice is already gone in the summer and the arctic is transitioning to an only-winter ice ecosystem. I wrote to Dr. Lovelock, sometime in the 'aughts.

What should we do, I asked. What can I do? His reply then was -- Enjoy life. Travel and see this beautiful world. Love your family. Which, ya know, is what you tell someone with a terminal illness. I told him that I was studying nursing. I wonder if he knew that I'd get it.
ljgeoff: (Default)
It's all been too much this year. For everyone and for me, too. Personally, I've been working too many hours and overextending myself financially even beyond that. My Plan is coming together, but so slowly!

But as Mike said, the Earth is a big, complex system, and things happen slowly there, too. Here is some of the things that are happening:

1) A warm pool in the Indo-Pacific Ocean has almost doubled in size, changing global rainfall patterns. Mainly, what they're seeing is that this vast area of warmer-than-usual sea is causing a change in weather patterns, making more rain in some places, and less in others. And of course, we need steady weather to grow food. So this isn't one of those We're All Going To Die! things, but certainly some of us are going to die from starvation. But, you know, more than we have been.


2) 2018 was A difficult year for forests, fields and meadows -- this article reports on Physiological response of Swiss ecosystems to 2018 drought across plant types and elevation, research gathered in the summer of 2018, showing overall less development of foliage, and increased plant respiration. "This means that while these systems absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere, they also released more CO2 back into it." Which is something that's been proven over and over, so nothing really new. The paper also talks about stressed out spruce, compared to less stressed out beech. So, changes of course in what is going to grow where. I would assume that the research gathered here would be easily extrapolated to other forests, fields, and meadow areas.

3) Behold the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich!



This sweetheart was successfully launched Nov. 21: "Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich is the first of two satellites jointly developed by a group of agencies in the United States and Europe, including NASA, NOAA, the European Space Agency, Eumetsat and the European Commission, to provide precise measurements of rising sea levels." Will having stone-cold scientific proof from satellite data make any difference? No, I don't think it will. Or, rather, it hasn't so far. But Mikey is a pretty little thing, and people have worked their hearts out to have it up there above us, so love to them.

BTW, yeah, the oceans are rising about twice as fast as they did 20 years ago. But no one is going to suddenly drown unless there's a hurricane, and then what do you expect? Sheesh! Hey, remember Mexico Beach, Florida, wiped off the face of the earth in Hurricane Michael? A recent review of the place on Trip Advisor says "Beautiful beach without the crowd! Loved the seclusion of this beach. My family and I were able to set up and enjoy social distancing to the fullest. We did not have anyone near us for as far as we could see down the beach. Nice & clean beach."

4) Methane is seeping from all our very cold places -- the Laptev underwater slope is destabilizing, giant holes continue to appear in the Siberian tundra,


and now the first active leak of methane from the sea floor in Antarctica has been revealed by scientists". But really, whenever I get crazy over methane, I remember what Richard Alley said when I went to see him talk, "The difference between methane and CO2 is hitting a wall at 100 mph or hitting a wall at 60 mph. The 60 mph will do the job."

But with all of this... I have to hope. I have to continue with our Plans. I have to stop being relaxed with my money and funnel all of our resources to the only thing I can imagine has a slim chance of saving some of us. It's pretty nuts, and most of the time I'm just sitting her talking myself into the idea that it might be worth the effort.
ljgeoff: (Default)
"Rachel Martin: Author David Wallace-Wells opens his new book The Uninhabitable Earth outlining three misunderstandings about climate change. First it's speed:

Wallace-Wells: More than half of all the fossil fuel emissions that we've ever put into the atmosphere have come in the last 25 years. Which means that we've now done more damage to the climate than all of the millennia before and all of the centuries before.

Rachel Martin: Then it's scope:

Wallace-Wells: We were sort of taught that the problem was really about sea level and coastlines. We're starting to see that climate change is really an all-enveloping threat which promises to transform, probably deform, every life lived on the planet in some way.

Rachel Martin: And finally, it's severity:

Wallace-Wells: It was basically considered irresponsible to consider scenarios north of about two degrees of warming. It was called the Threshold of Catastrophe, and no one really wanted to think about it. It turns out that two degrees looks basically like our floor for warming rather than our ceiling. And so we really need to start thinking about what the impacts will be at two and a half, three and even four degrees of warming.
Read more... )
ljgeoff: (Default)
I used to post about this stuff a lot. Now I just check in on it every once in a while. Here's a paragraph from a 2018 meta analysis that caught my attention:

"What is known about the expected impacts under various warming levels (the damage function)? Moore et al (2017a) find that in a low warming scenario the global response yield, with CO2 fertilization and adaptation, is positive, and becomes negative in the 2 ◦C to 3 ◦C range. Without CO2 fertilization impacts are always negative. They also use the GTAP economic model to assess the impacts on welfare and derive an agriculture damage function, with confidence intervals. With CO2 fertilization, the welfare changes are negligible at 1 ◦C to 2 ◦C warming, becoming negative at 3 ◦C. Without CO2 fertilization there are substantial welfare losses at all warming levels." (my emphasis)

Juan-Carlos Ciscar et al 2018 Synthesis and Review: an inter-method comparison of climate change impacts on agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 070401 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac7cb/pdf http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac7cb/meta


Global response yield becomes negative in the 2 ◦C to 3 ◦C range. If you add in the CO2 fertilization effect, the yield doesn't become negative until 3 ◦C.

From Climate Interactive Scoreboard:
485 ppm CO2 equivalent gives us about 2 ◦C of warming above pre-industrial levels.
At 855 ppm CO2 equivalent, we'll hit about 3.5 ◦C.

In 2018, the atmosphere reached its highest level in recorded history, at 410 parts per million. CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s.

So what are we looking at?


From Wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:All_forcing_agents_CO2_equivalent_concentration.png#cite_ref-1 This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

If we keep going as we are, we'll hit 485 ppm CO2 equivalent sometime in the 2030s, and 855 sometime in the 2060s. I expect that we'll hit 485 and then industry will slow down because people will begin to die. But even if we have a big collapse and stop burning fossil fuels, the earth will continue to warm due to the loss of albedo and increased methane pumping from the arctic circle until the CO2 gets taken up by the ocean and chemical weathering.

If we slow way down, more than we've promised that we will, we'll still hit 2◦C by the 2050s, and hit between 2.5◦C to 3◦C by 2100, so that gives us a possibility of a soft collapse with a world population of 25% - 50% what it is now. Soft collapse is the current best case scenario.

The green scenario on the chart is if the whole globe stops all anthropomorphic carbon emissions by something like 2020. Uh, no.

This does not take into effect the possibility of geoengineering (because, why not?) or carbon capture (sorry, I don't think we'll get this in time) or aliens or God stepping in and pulling our nuts from the fire.

In other words, nothing has changed. This is the same information that we had almost 10 years ago. Carry on.
ljgeoff: (Default)
re: This post about California vs. oil companies

"To prepare for it, William Alsup, the judge presiding over two of the lawsuits — filed by San Francisco and Oakland against Royal Dutch Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil — has scheduled a five-hour tutorial on climate science this Wednesday.

The tutorial is a big deal: It will set a federal judicial precedent establishing the facts of the actual mechanisms of global warming."

Article here

Tomorrow! I'm very curious to how this might change things. Not particularly hopeful for the long term outcomes, but curious to how all of the legal stuff will play out.
ljgeoff: (Default)
The cities of San Francisco and Oakland are suing in state court and under state law the oil companies BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and Shell. Previous suits against fossil fuel companies have gone after the selling of a product that harms the environment and the people living in it and "US Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers California) had dismissed prior cases brought in federal court, holding that congress enacted the Clean Air Act to comprehensively address the emission of greenhouse gases, and that therefore there was no role for federal lawsuits of this kind."

This suit, instead, claims that the fossil fuel companies sold their products under deception:"The court found that while the Clean Air Act addresses the ­emissions from fossil fuel combustion, the San Francisco/Oakland case was not about emissions of pollutants, but rather an alleged scheme to sell a product through deception. The court reasoned—again with some logic—that the Clean Air Act offered no remedy for that conduct, and therefore did not preempt this lawsuit."

Here's the part that I was wondering about: "On top of this, the court also ordered the parties to participate in a five-hour “climate science” tutorial for the court, to be held on March 21. The judge ordered the parties to “trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historic cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes and global warming.” And further, to inform the court of “the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise and coastal flooding.”

This is fascinating and highly unusual."

full post on Ken Kimmell's Union of Concerned Scientists blog, here.
ljgeoff: (Default)
My Wiscon panel is up, if anyone is interested: Power, Privilege, and Oppression -- Social Justice and Rising Sea Levels.

I have no idea yet of how I'm going to structure this -- there are a lot of different ways it could go, such as:

"before Hurricane Katrina, the region supported approximately one million non-farm jobs, with 600,000 of them in New Orleans. One study, by Mark Burton and Michael J. Hicks estimated the total economic impact to Louisiana and Mississippi may exceed $150 billion. Hundreds of thousands of residents of southern Louisiana and Mississippi, including nearly everyone who lived in New Orleans, were left unemployed. No paychecks were being cashed and no money was being spent, and therefore no taxes were being collected by local governments. The lack of revenue will limit the resources of the affected communities and states for years to come. Before the storm, the region was already one of the poorest in America with one of the highest unemployment rates."
-- Wikipedia, Economic effects of Hurricane Katrina

I'm sure I'll be able to throw some talking points together. For me, the actual sea rise is pretty straight forward. What we might do about it is completely unknown.
ljgeoff: (Default)
there is open water north of Greenland

Crazy Jet Stream

First link goes to the twitter feed of Lars Kaleschke; second one goes to the twitter feed of Randall Gates.

Write ups by Sea Ice Blog and RobertScribbler

ljgeoff: (Default)
There's a new article in The Guardian quoting a study published this month in Nature. The author of the study is quoted as saying:
But uncertainty about how hot things will get also stems from the inability of scientists to nail down a very simple question: By how much will Earth’s average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?

That “known unknown” is called equilibrium climate sensitivity, and for the last 25 years the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the ultimate authority on climate science – has settled on a range of 1.5C to 4.5C (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit).

Cox and colleagues, using a new methodology, have come up with a far narrower range: 2.2C to 3.4C, with a best estimate of 2.8C.


Such a relief to know that we won't see anything above 4.5C!

Well, except for tipping points. The study excludes any extra warming from tipping points:
One wild card not taken into consideration by the new model is the possibility of rapid shifts in climate brought on by the planet itself. “There is indeed evidence that the climate system can undergo abrupt changes or ‘tipping points’,” Cox said.

The collapse of the gulf stream, the thawing of carbon-rich permafrost, or the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica – any of these could quickly change the equation, and not in the Earth’s favour.


Oh, and the fact that around the middle of that range, at about 3C, we lose modern agriculture. There's that.
ljgeoff: (Default)
"The rate of increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over the past 70 years is nearly 100 times larger than that at the end of the last ice age. As far as direct and proxy observations can tell, such abrupt changes in the atmospheric levels of CO2 have never before been seen." WMO GREENHOUSE GAS BULLETIN No. 13 | 30 October 2017

Dr Oksana Tarasova, chief of WMO's global atmosphere watch programme, told BBC News: "It is the largest increase we have ever seen in the 30 years we have had this network. The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in 1997-1998, and it was 2.7ppm; and now it is 3.3ppm. It is also 50% higher than the average of the last 10 years."


From Reticence, Responsibility, and Climate Science: Why Climate Scientists Sometimes Need to Think Like Emergency Room Doctors - Kent A. Peacock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge

"It is worth reviewing the reasons why scientists may voluntarily choose to be reticent:

1. A good reason: In science it is very hard to be right, very easy to be wrong. Scientists
are understandably reluctant to publish a prediction unless they are virtually certain about
it, or at least about the level of uncertainty they can attach to it.

2. A not-so-good reason: stubborn pride. A notable historical example is the eminent 19th
century mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss. His personal motto was pauca sed pura,
“few but ripe” [22]. Gauss would not publish anything until it was polished to perfection,
with the result that some of his important discoveries (such as non-Euclidean geometry)
were scooped by younger and slightly less cautious mathematicians.

3. A regrettable reason: a scientist might lose funding if he or she pursues unorthodox
topics or extreme case scenarios [1].

4. A very regrettable reason: scientists can become subject to personal attacks [23,24].

5. Also very regrettable: climate scientists may be unconsciously hesitant to say what they
know because of possible “seepage” into professional discourse of the often-poisonous
atmosphere of climate science denialism [25].

6. Yet another bad reason: fear of disapproval of colleagues [3]."

Profile

ljgeoff: (Default)
ljgeoff

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  1 2345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728 2930   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags