Last Build Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 01:38:56 +0000
Sat, 01 Oct 2016 01:38:56 +0000Most people alive today set to witness dangerous global warming in their lifetime, scientists warn. Average temperature could rise to two degrees Celsius above the norm by 2050 or ‘even sooner’ The world could hit two degrees Celsius of warming – the point at which many scientists believe climate change will become dangerous – as early as 2050, a group of leading experts has warned. In a report called The Truth About Climate Change, they said many people seemed to think of global warming as “abstract, distant and even controversial”. But the planet is now heating up “much faster” than anticipated, said Professor Sir Robert Watson, a former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the authors of the report. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-truth-about-climate-change-dangerous-2c-a7337871.html Been thinking and saying the same things for over a decade. Maybe I'm a new age John the Baptist or an alien spy planted on the earth? lol
Sat, 01 Oct 2016 01:33:09 +0000Global warming set to pass 2C threshold in 2050: report September 29, 2016 Signatories have submitted voluntary national pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Those pledges, however, are "totally inadequate", the report said. "If governments are serious about trying to achieve even the 2 degree goal, they will have to double and re-double their efforts—now," Watson said. "I think it is fair to say that there is literally no chance of making the 1.5 C target," he added. Urgent steps needed to decarbonise the global economy include improving energy efficiency, switching to renewable energy production, and removal of fossil fuel subsidies, said the report, entitled "The truth about climate change." http://www.energylivenews.com/2016/09/30/world-on-track-to-reach-2c-warming-by-2050-scientists-warn/ http://www.ipbes.net/article/press-release-ipbes-elects-new-bureau-and-sir-robert-watson-chair
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:33:48 +0000Thank you for this helpful post, Gavin. Just one small question: Am I right that the equation should be ~1 x S/3.7 W/m2 (rather than ~1 x S/3.7˚C as written), with 3.7 W/m2 representing the RF of a doubling of CO2?
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 22:48:42 +0000THURSDAY 29 SEPTEMBER 2016 Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html "Our findings confirm that climate change is already having an impact on parts of Australia," said Dr Abram from the Research School of Earth Sciences and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at ANU. "Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are remote but this region influences Australia's heat waves, affects whether our crops get the winter rainfall they need and determines how quickly our ocean levels rise." Winter rainfall in southwest Australia has declined by more than 20 per cent since the 1970s because of the shifting westerly rain belt, and Perth now relies on a desalination plant to supplement its water supplies. http://science.anu.edu.au/whats-on/all-news/australia-loses-vital-rain-climate-change-shifts-winds Another example of regional climate effects from AGW/CC. Of course the anecdotal knowledge about this has been obvious for well over a decade in both SW Western Australia and Tasmania. Farmers know from observation and experience what's going on long before anyone from the ANU pays attention, and decades before a politician would ... most of whom will happily ignore this science paper as well as all the others. Before this Paper the predominant wind shifts and lack of rain, which used to fall like clockwork, was not a secret nor unknown. Having a Paper confirm that definitively using science surely still helps (a little). Could it be that we will also get climate science papers confirming we have passed the non-return tipping point of the climate system 20 years after it happens? I suspect so. Which imo shows again that the problem to be solved here is not the quality climate science nor the scientists nor a lack of understanding of the climate system.
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 22:08:49 +0000Yeeez, the funny "elite" likes to give us the Truth bit by bit, you know :-): " 30.9.2016 - Scientists: Window for avoiding 1.5C global warming ‘closed’ " http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/06/29/scientists-window-for-avoiding-1-5c-global-warming-closed/ I got used to get the Truth from the funny "elite" bit by bit a long, long time ago already, so I am just glad, so glad, that I did not procreate. " 30.9.2016 - Climate Change: Most people alive today will witness its 'dangerous' effects in their lifetimes Most people alive today will witness the "dangerous" effects of global warming in their lifetimes, a group of leading scientists have warned. The earth is on track to warm up by 2C by 2050 unless governments at least double their efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, their report claims. Titled ‘the truth about climate change’, the report states that plans by almost 200 governments to cut greenhouse gases are not strong enough..." The Paris Climate Summit last December saw global leaders agree to try to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Before that, a 2C increase had been viewed by scientists as the point at which global warming becomes “dangerous”. However, this new report warns that the 1.5C target is already unrealistic. Robert Watson, a British-American scientist who was one of the study’s seven authors, told the Independent: "While the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is an important step in the right direction, what is needed is a doubling or tripling of efforts. “Without additional efforts by all major emitters, the 2C target could be reached even sooner.” This means that the majority of those alive today will be alive when global warming reaches this perceived dangerous level"." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/global-warming-most-people-alive-today-will-witness-the-serious-effects-of-temperauture-increase-in-a3357761.html
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +0000https://climateimagination.asu.edu/everything-change/ Everything Change features twelve stories from our 2016 Climate Fiction Short Story Contest along with along with a foreword by science fiction legend and contest judge Kim Stanley Robinson and an interview with renowned climate fiction author Paolo Bacigalupi. Everything Change is free to download, read, and share
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 20:44:34 +0000Hat tip to Phys.org: Donatella Zona. Biogeochemistry: Long-term effects of permafrost thaw, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/537625a Min Jung Kwon et al. Long-term drainage reduces CO2 uptake and increases CO2 emission on a Siberian floodplain due to shifts in vegetation community and soil thermal characteristics, Biogeosciences (2016). DOI: 10.5194/bg-13-4219-2016 Anna K. Liljedahl et al. Pan-Arctic ice-wedge degradation in warming permafrost and its influence on tundra hydrology, Nature Geoscience (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2674 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-biologist-comments-startling-climate.html
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:21:20 +0000I think these two psychological states, outlined in below studies are connected, and relate to the climate crisis. For example, inaction in face of an acute emergency situation, and lack of motivation to discuss an emerging abstract threat. Any comments on this thought? Why People 'Freeze' in an Emergency: Temporal and Cognitive Constraints on Survival Responses http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.9523&rep=rep1&type=pdf THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE http://www.popsci.com/six-charts-show-why-no-one-is-talking-about-climate-change Example video footage of inaction https://youtu.be/VRS6wcz0xxM?t=1m53s
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:46:13 +0000#271, Chris Dudley-- Thanks for that link. Yes, it would be a mistake to disregard this paper, or previous work by this team, for that matter. They've toiled diligently & tirelessly to provide a plan to transform the global energy economy. They have their critics, of course. "Adequate policy response" is the main driver of the difference between Gavin and Jacobson et al. There are 3 curves given in JD et al., 100% 'wind-water-solar' (WWS) by 2015; 80% by 2030; 80% by 2050. The first is 'unobtainable' and presumably given for reference purposes; the third doesn't get us below 400 til something like 2070. (For many of us, that will be 'never' from a personal perspective, as we'll be dead by then.) So the case you are referring to must be the second (which further assumes 100% WWS by 2050). It does indeed dip below 400 around 2040, which would be great. But 80% WWS by 2030 looks like a big reach--sad, to get to 'adequate'. I've cribbed their graph, which those interested can see here: http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h402/brassdoc/JacobsonampDeLucchiGlobalRoadmapCO2Graph.png
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:25:21 +0000Some thinking, well, not long term, but at least a few decades ahead: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Mission-Bay-may-need-tidal-barriers-huge-levees-9289734.php
San Francisco's Mission Bay neighborhood might need large levees or a tidal barrier to help protect it from the impacts of sea level rise in coming decades, a study released Monday and done with the city's participation concludes. The 80-page study is billed as "an imaginative exercise" and consists of design concepts rather than formal recommendations. Still, the emphasis on eventually altering the shoreline — one concept would turn Mission Creek into a lake — is a strong signal that local government sees the tidal aspects of climate change not as a distant possibility, but as a likelihood that needs to be planned for now. "We want to help the public understand what protecting us from sea level rise might look like," said Laura Tam of the planning advocacy nonprofit SPUR, which managed the project for the city.