Klima Abruptus (1): Introduction

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:16 AM GMT on December 16, 2013

Share this Blog
25
+

Klima Abruptus (1): Introduction

I have been waiting for some time for the new National Academy Report on abrupt climate change (Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises, there is a free PDF download). I am interested in how those most expert in the field would frame the problem. In 2007 I wrote a short blog on abrupt climate change, and in late 2012 I wrote a couple of long blogs about why I think climate change is moving fast rather than slowly and incrementally. A major difference between this and an earlier Academy Report is that this report discussed impacts on ecosystems services and built infrastructure more thoroughly. I expect to come back to this document several times in the next few months.

In this report abrupt means that the changes “come faster than expected, planned, or budgeted for, forcing more reactive, rather than proactive, modes of behavior” (old blog adaptive vs reactive). The length of time that is considered as abrupt is years to decades.

I am going to start with the table in the document’s summary, which you can page through starting with this link. The report lists a set of potential abrupt changes and a near-term outlook. The near-term outlook is whether or not there is likely to be an abrupt change in current trends that will need to be incorporated into planning and management during the next century. The likelihood is listed as low, moderate and high. The list of moderate includes, decrease in ocean oxygen; increase in intensity, frequency and duration of heat waves; increase in frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events (droughts / floods / hurricanes / major storms); and rapid state changes in ecosystems, species range shifts and species boundary changes. Listed as high likelihood are late-summer Arctic sea ice disappearance and increases in extinctions of marine and terrestrial ecosystems (earlier blog on extinction). In this short-term, 100 years, the panel has concluded that rapid destabilization of ice sheets leading to greatly accelerating sea level rise is of low likelihood.

I have seen the conclusion on ice sheets and sea level rise listed as “good news.” However, if you look at the time horizon beyond a hundred years, many of those abrupt changes that are listed as low, move to high. And, for things such as heat waves, abrupt means a rapid acceleration of current trends. There will be significant disruption from the present trends. Therefore, this report should not be viewed as one of good news allowing us to lessen our concern about climate change.

Ocean oxygen? I like seeing this in the report. The loss of ocean oxygen, leading to rapid ecosystem changes, comes from the combination of nitrogen pollution from runoff, ocean acidification and rising temperatures (a blog with nitrogen and acidification). Too often these environmental problems are treated separately and disconnected.

I was surprised that the “changes of patterns of climate variability (e.g., ENSO, annular modes)” was listed as low likelihood. Aside from the fact that I am currently intrigued by this particular form of climate change, the document lists a couple of other changes that might have significant impacts on circulation - notably all that is going on in the Arctic.

As a final piece of this introduction, at the American Geophysical Union there was a session introducing the National Academy Report. The abstracts are there now, and I think that the talks might show up there as well. I’ll pick out some highlights over the next few weeks.

r

Klima Abruptus: OK, In my family I would be accused of mixing my Greek and my Latin. I know. So I did it on purpose.

Glaciers and Global Warming by Jeremy Bassis. Give it some hits!

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1351 - 1301

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27Blog Index

1351. JohnLonergan
11:22 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1339. Naga5000:


I need to do some more research here, but the graph and article got me thinking about reanalyzing how climate change became a left right issue. Environmental conservatism was most definitely part of the conservative philosophy in the Nixon era, but how did it exactly morph into what it is now? (a distrust, maybe even hatred, for any concept on environmental preservation, with added use of "liberal" and "green" as bad words)


The shift started when Reagan appointed James Watt Secretary of the Interior, at least that's when they became open about it.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
1350. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:42 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
1349. cyclonebuster
5:02 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1348. no1der:
The Dec 28 JAXA Arctic sea ice extent numbers are out, and we are once again in record low territory, though just barely. 

12,287,927 km^2 is the lowest ever measured for the date, 10K km^2 less than the previous record low in 2012.

This is the first time extent has been at a record low since late 2012.


No not again say it isn't so..... More record lows in ice extent....Any chance the record global November temps have anything to do with this?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
1348. no1der
4:42 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
EDIT: Correction - I didn't look far enough back.

2013 is now second to 2010, which had 11,974,160km^2
****

Disregard:

The Dec 28 JAXA Arctic sea ice extent numbers are out, and we are once again in record low territory, though just barely. 

12,287,927 km^2 is the lowest ever measured for the date, 10K km^2 less than the previous record low in 2012.

This is the first time extent has been at a record low since late 2012.
Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 535
1347. Naga5000
2:28 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1344. bappit:
Oreskes also relates it to bi-partisan promotion of neo-liberalism. She suggests reading a 1962 book by Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom.


Now this is more of where I was going initially, neo-liberalism. Thanks for the suggestion! :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3625
1346. Naga5000
2:27 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1341. bappit:

"Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt

How a small group of scientists exploited scientific uncertainty and promoted doubt about a set of environmental issues.

Not for money, but in defense of an ideology of laissez-faire governance, opposition to government regulation."

From a slide used in a talk she gave in 2010.

"Doubt is our product," ran the infamous memo written by one tobacco industry executive in 1969, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public" Smoking and Health Proposal 1969, BN:680561778, Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.

She relates that this activity started in the 1950's with tobacco.

Edit: Another video of her speaking.


A couple of points. I am familiar with this, and I have my doubts.
"How a small group of scientists exploited scientific uncertainty and promoted doubt about a set of environmental issues.

Not for money, but in defense of an ideology of laissez-faire governance, opposition to government regulation."

Money and anti-regulation go hand in hand. No regulation leads to higher profit margins. While the original concept may have been in defense of laissez-faire ideology, the current ideological iteration of the right has more to do with pure profit and selfishness than textbook capitalism (and as Birthmark mentions, fascism may be the better overall descriptor for the ideological perspective)

"She relates that this activity started in the 1950's with tobacco."

Well considering the EPA created by executive order was December 1970, that still leaves a gap in time. It makes sense to argue the power behind politics was moving towards anti-environmentalism during the time and that the players themselves weren't on board yet, but I think there is some other action at work here to make the republicans take the hard turn against environmental conservatism.

Thanks for the links. :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3625
1345. overwash12
1:52 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1343. Birthmark:

There's plenty of Republicans. They are calling themselves "Democrats" now. Those calling themselves Republicans are actually fascist.
Really?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
1344. bappit
1:51 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Oreskes also relates it to bi-partisan promotion of neo-liberalism. She suggests reading a 1962 book by Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6096
1343. Birthmark
1:47 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1340. overwash12:
I didn't think there were any Republicans left.

There's plenty of Republicans. They are calling themselves "Democrats" now. Those calling themselves Republicans are actually fascist.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1342. Birthmark
1:46 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1339. Naga5000:


I need to do some more research here, but the graph and article got me thinking about reanalyzing how climate change became a left right issue. Environmental conservatism was most definitely part of the conservative philosophy in the Nixon era, but how did it exactly morph into what it is now? (a distrust, maybe even hatred, for any concept on environmental preservation, with added use of "liberal" and "green" as bad words)

I think you'll find that environmentalism became the "other" to conservatives around the time that the left began protesting nuclear power.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1341. bappit
1:27 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1339. Naga5000:

"Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt

How a small group of scientists exploited scientific uncertainty and promoted doubt about a set of environmental issues.

Not for money, but in defense of an ideology of laissez-faire governance, opposition to government regulation."

From a slide used in a talk she gave in 2010.

"Doubt is our product," ran the infamous memo written by one tobacco industry executive in 1969, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public" Smoking and Health Proposal 1969, BN:680561778, Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.

She relates that this activity started in the 1950's with tobacco.

Edit: Another video of her speaking.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6096
1340. overwash12
12:20 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1338. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Looking at that graphic, I actually wish that very conservative, strong Republican affiliation opinions could produce the reality concerning climate change. Unfortunately, reality prevents this.
I didn't think there were any Republicans left.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
1339. Naga5000
12:07 AM GMT on December 29, 2013
Quoting 1338. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Looking at that graphic, I actually wish that very conservative, strong Republican affiliation opinions could produce the reality concerning climate change. Unfortunately, reality prevents this.


I need to do some more research here, but the graph and article got me thinking about reanalyzing how climate change became a left right issue. Environmental conservatism was most definitely part of the conservative philosophy in the Nixon era, but how did it exactly morph into what it is now? (a distrust, maybe even hatred, for any concept on environmental preservation, with added use of "liberal" and "green" as bad words)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3625
1338. Some1Has2BtheRookie
11:49 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1330. JohnLonergan:
From Don Kahan at The Cultural Recognition Project at Yale Law School:

What does a valid climate-change risk-perception measure *look* like?




This graphic is a scatterplot of subjects from a nationally representative panel recruited last summer to be subjects in CCP studies.

The y-axis is a seven-point climate-change risk-perception measure. Subjects are "color-coded" consistent with the response they selected.

The x-axis arrays the subjects along a 1-dimensional measure of left-right political outlooks formed by aggregating their responses to a five-point "liberal-conservative" ideology measure and a seven-point party-identification one (α = 0.82).

I can tell you "r = -0.65, p < 0.01," but I think you'll get the point better if you can see it! (Here's a good guideline, actually: don't credit statistics-derived conclusions that you can't actually see in the data!)

BTW, you'll see exactly this same thing -- this same pattern -- if you ask people "has the temperature of the earth increased in recent decades," "has human activity caused the temperature of the earth to increase," "is the arctic ice melting," "will climate change have x, y, or z bad effect for people," etc.

Members of the general public have a general affective orientation toward climate change that shapes all of their more particular beliefs about it. That's what most of the public's perceptions of the risks and benefits of any technology or form of behavior or public policy consist in -- if people actually have perceptions that it even makes sense to try to measure and analyze (they don't on things they haven't heard of, like nanotechnology, e.g.).

Read more:


Looking at that graphic, I actually wish that very conservative, strong Republican affiliation opinions could produce the reality concerning climate change. Unfortunately, reality prevents this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
1337. Patrap
11:32 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
The best thing about the ignore feature, is that you don't have to minus nuttin'



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
1336. overwash12
11:30 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Everytime I almost believe in AWG ,Another sign from God appears, in the form of a brutal cold -front!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
1335. PedleyCA
10:36 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1331. Birthmark:

To you as well, sir.

I realize that my responses to the nonsense add to the clutter.


In order to help alleviate that, I put responses to previously rebutted garbage in red text. So, if you see red text, just skip ahead. "-" the garbage and skip the red text. That should streamline your reading and improve your experience on this blog.

Now, all I need to do is figure out how to make red text. A little help someone?




Sure is quiet up in here.
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6003
1334. Birthmark
8:52 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1332. Neapolitan:
I'm not sure...
;-)

Thanks.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1333. JohnLonergan
8:50 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
The ice-age U-turn that set the stage for the climate debate

On 13 July 1971, world-leading researchers gathered in Stockholm, Sweden, concluded their presentations about human influence on climate, and opened the meeting to questions from the press. But rather than asking about the most important climate meeting yet, the assembled reporters first looked to the meeting’s 26-year old secretary. “Where is Dr. Schneider? When is the ice age coming?” they asked.

The journalists sought out Stephen Schneider about a paper by him and his NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) boss, S. Ichtiaque Rasool, published just four days before. Using early computer models, they warned of a scenario where enough dusty aerosol pollution could be ‘sufficient to trigger an ice age’. For Steve, this would be the first encounter of many with the media’s interest in climate, leading him ultimately to help define how scientists influence the wider world.

Read More ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
1332. Neapolitan
8:50 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1331. Birthmark:

To you as well, sir.

I realize that my responses to the nonsense add to the clutter. In order to help alleviate that, I put responses to previously rebutted garbage in red text. So, if you see red text, just skip ahead. "-" the garbage and skip the red text. That should streamline your reading and improve your experience on this blog.

Now, all I need to do is figure out how to make red text. A little help someone?
I'm not sure...
;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13611
1331. Birthmark
8:33 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1316. indianrivguy:
...

Happy New Years to you all.

To you as well, sir.

I realize that my responses to the nonsense add to the clutter. In order to help alleviate that, I put responses to previously rebutted garbage in red text. So, if you see red text, just skip ahead. "-" the garbage and skip the red text. That should streamline your reading and improve your experience on this blog.

Now, all I need to do is figure out how to make red text. A little help someone?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1330. JohnLonergan
8:18 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
From Don Kahan at The Cultural Recognition Project at Yale Law School:

What does a valid climate-change risk-perception measure *look* like?




This graphic is a scatterplot of subjects from a nationally representative panel recruited last summer to be subjects in CCP studies.

The y-axis is a seven-point climate-change risk-perception measure. Subjects are "color-coded" consistent with the response they selected.

The x-axis arrays the subjects along a 1-dimensional measure of left-right political outlooks formed by aggregating their responses to a five-point "liberal-conservative" ideology measure and a seven-point party-identification one (α = 0.82).

I can tell you "r = -0.65, p < 0.01," but I think you'll get the point better if you can see it! (Here's a good guideline, actually: don't credit statistics-derived conclusions that you can't actually see in the data!)

BTW, you'll see exactly this same thing -- this same pattern -- if you ask people "has the temperature of the earth increased in recent decades," "has human activity caused the temperature of the earth to increase," "is the arctic ice melting," "will climate change have x, y, or z bad effect for people," etc.

Members of the general public have a general affective orientation toward climate change that shapes all of their more particular beliefs about it. That's what most of the public's perceptions of the risks and benefits of any technology or form of behavior or public policy consist in -- if people actually have perceptions that it even makes sense to try to measure and analyze (they don't on things they haven't heard of, like nanotechnology, e.g.).

Read more:
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
1329. cyclonebuster
8:16 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1328. ColoradoBob1:


The one floating in the middle of the bay :
The iceberg is estimated to be 21 miles by 12 miles (35 km by 20 km) in size, roughly the size of Singapore.
Link


Geo-engineering can put that jigsaw puzzle back together again...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
1327. cyclonebuster
7:43 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1324. Daisyworld:


Agreed. The same complexity that makes it difficult for the general public to understand how anthropogenic global warming operates is the same complexity that prevents the process from being reversed through means other than CO2 emission control.

P.S.: Profound thanks to the moderator/admin/blog owner who cleaned up the comments section in the past 24 hours.


Geo-engineering caused it Geo-engineering will solve it...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
1326. cyclonebuster
7:41 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1323. ColoradoBob1:
More calving of the ice shelf in Pine Island Bay -

Link




Disturbing jigsaw puzzle...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
1324. Daisyworld
7:39 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1310. JohnLonergan:
Here is a critical look at geoengineering and some possible bad consequences:




No Undo for Climate Change: Potential Pitfalls of Geoengineering
5. December 2013

Global warming alters the intensity of the water cycle, and the magnitude of these changes has now been explained by scientists of the Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany. Using a simple physical approach, the study explains how the water cycle reacts to surface warming and that it responds differently to heating by sunlight or by a stronger atmospheric greenhouse effect. This has important consequences for potential interventions that aim to undo global warming by reflecting sunlight by geoengineering: While such interventions may cool down temperatures, simultaneous changes in the water cycle and the atmosphere cannot be compensated at the same time.

More ...


Agreed. The same complexity that makes it difficult for the general public to understand how anthropogenic global warming operates is the same complexity that prevents the process from being reversed through means other than CO2 emission control.

P.S.: Profound thanks to the moderator/admin/blog owner who cleaned up the comments section in the past 24 hours.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
1322. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:50 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1297. DaveFive:
Here in Central California, it looks as though we are having (or going to have) a serious drought, I have not experience a dry autumn in this area before. We usually have moderate droughts but, not quite as serious as this. Is this related to climate change? So far many cities and towns around here have only received a little over an inch of rainfall, no snow in the Sierras. Has our rainy season ended?


I did a cursory search and it appears that the lack of an established El Nino is the likely culprit in your rain deficits now. Sources: El Nio Information and El Nio and its impact on California and Nevada

We have been under strong La Nina conditions to neutral conditions for about 4 years now. Source: El Nio and La Nia Years and Intensities

Based on this information alone, California is likely to stay under conditions that favors less than normal precipitation (added - until El Nino conditions become established). ENSO forecast

It looks like what California needs right now is an established El Nino.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
1321. cyclonebuster
5:32 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1319. etxwx:
Re: post #1316. indianrivguy
You nailed it. This forum should have the same standards as a classroom or seminar.


Correct the debate is over and the issue is settled...We don't need class disruption it disturbs the other students....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
1320. cyclonebuster
5:29 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1315. Creideiki:


Yeah, oil is a fungible commodity. Tar sands oil and Bakken shale oil are not pre-allocated to the American market. They go to the global market, and by and large, we don't get "first dibs" or anything like that. (I was under the impression that the tar sands oil is not the type of oil we generally want, anyway.)



Correct we do not want nor can the planet afford ANY carbon based fuel to be burned for thousands of years......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
1319. etxwx
5:27 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Re: post #1316. indianrivguy
You nailed it. This forum should have the same standards as a classroom or seminar.
Member Since: September 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1516
1318. cyclonebuster
5:24 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1316. indianrivguy:
So, given that it appears that Dr. Rood does not care about the quality of his blog, nor that his reputation is attached to it, can anyone recommend a blog that we can all enjoy together that DOES care about facts and quality? Somewhere that we don't have to sift through hundreds of worthless, refuted numerous times posts? I like and respect most of the regulars here and would happily migrate if there was a place where most of you were posting.

I appreciate and respect greatly Skye's defense of our good Doctor, but it has a hollow ring to it given the Dr's lack of support and ANY comments from himself to us. He seems content to allow others to make excuses and defend his policy.

I wonder if he allows this kind of disruptive behavior in his classroom? Does he defend the right of deliberate disruption and continuous unsupported, non-peer reviewed straw-men over and over there too. Does he provide a platform that produces a complete cessation of learning and education on the CHANCE that one of them will "see the light" while they are actively disrupting honest, peer reviewed science? Has anyone here taken any of his classes?

For myself, I firmly believe that if NO ONE responded in any manner other than a minus most disruptors would migrate elsewhere.. but no matter how many times this solution is mentioned EVERY time someone posts to disrupt the blog y'all fall all over yourselves to respond, thus giving them a platform for further garbage. He also interacts quite well with the members...

/rant.

Happy New Years to you all.


Dr. Micheal E. Mann's Facebook climate change blog is good and he doesn't put up with the naysayers...Before you know it they get Red Winged booted out... So if you have the brain size of a Pine Beetle you probably get to stay.... He also interacts with the members quite well....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
1317. cyclonebuster
5:12 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1310. JohnLonergan:
Here is a critical look at geoengineering and some possible bad consequences:




No Undo for Climate Change: Potential Pitfalls of Geoengineering
5. December 2013

Global warming alters the intensity of the water cycle, and the magnitude of these changes has now been explained by scientists of the Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany. Using a simple physical approach, the study explains how the water cycle reacts to surface warming and that it responds differently to heating by sunlight or by a stronger atmospheric greenhouse effect. This has important consequences for potential interventions that aim to undo global warming by reflecting sunlight by geoengineering: While such interventions may cool down temperatures, simultaneous changes in the water cycle and the atmosphere cannot be compensated at the same time.

More ...


LOL..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
1316. indianrivguy
4:36 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
So, given that it appears that Dr. Rood does not care about the quality of his blog, nor that his reputation is attached to it, can anyone recommend a blog that we can all enjoy together that DOES care about facts and quality? Somewhere that we don't have to sift through hundreds of worthless, refuted numerous times posts? I like and respect most of the regulars here and would happily migrate if there was a place where most of you were posting.

I appreciate and respect greatly Skye's defense of our good Doctor, but it has a hollow ring to it given the Dr's lack of support and ANY comments from himself to us. He seems content to allow others to make excuses and defend his policy.

I wonder if he allows this kind of disruptive behavior in his classroom? Does he defend the right of deliberate disruption and continuous unsupported, non-peer reviewed straw-men over and over there too. Does he provide a platform that produces a complete cessation of learning and education on the CHANCE that one of them will "see the light" while they are actively disrupting honest, peer reviewed science? Has anyone here taken any of his classes?

For myself, I firmly believe that if NO ONE responded in any manner other than a minus most disruptors would migrate elsewhere.. but no matter how many times this solution is mentioned EVERY time someone posts to disrupt the blog y'all fall all over yourselves to respond, thus giving them a platform for further garbage.

/rant.

Happy New Years to you all.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2587
1315. Creideiki
2:34 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1313. AlwaysThinkin:


One of the consequences too was higher gas prices in the western world due to instability fears in the region and the total collapse of Lybian oil production from the civil war there. And that's cheap easy to access oil which is keeping down oil prices (in fact tar sands oil prices shot up faster than than the price of conventional oil, something the boosters of are loathe to tell people). Sadly the only thing that will get us away from oil use is the brute force of world events like that occurring a few more times making our way of life untenable.

Patrick


Yeah, oil is a fungible commodity. Tar sands oil and Bakken shale oil are not pre-allocated to the American market. They go to the global market, and by and large, we don't get "first dibs" or anything like that. (I was under the impression that the tar sands oil is not the type of oil we generally want, anyway.)
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 166
1314. Creideiki
2:07 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1309. yoboi:



just think ya could be in Louisiana and already burned most of your firewood or green pellets berrrrrrrrrr it's been cold here....but have a good night BM......


Again--that's why it's called "Anthropogenic Global Warming", not "Anthropogenic Louisiana Warming. Here in Denver, we've been above average on temps aside from that one nasty cold snap. Mid 60s here yesterday. The problem for us is that we're not getting the snow we're used to. I understand that other people are getting snow (and at least the mountains are getting snow), but it's not fallen here during the early part of the year.
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 166
1313. AlwaysThinkin
1:50 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1312. Creideiki:


So far, there have only been regionally bad cereal grain harvests, but they have been playing out dramatically on the international stage:

Egypt needs this harvest to be a good one, because it has just 500,000 metric tons of imported wheat left in storage. This is only sufficient for less than two months of consumption.

Egyptian consumers, as do the rest of consumers in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), prefer to buy a soft variety of wheat to make unleavened bread. This is typically grown in Russia, the Ukraine and the surrounding region.

That is why the terrific drought that struck that entire region in 2010 had global ramifications. It was especially disastrous for Egypt. The drought caused Russia and other exporters to end wheat exports.

That not only, predictably, drove global wheat prices higher. Somewhat unexpected, it also made a major contribution to the blossoming of the Arab Spring in MENA.

As was the case centuries earlier with the French Revolution, the key cause for the Arab Spring was a rapidly deteriorating economic %u2014 and especially food %u2014 situation in the non-energy exporting nations in MENA.


Link


One of the consequences too was higher gas prices in the western world due to instability fears in the region and the total collapse of Lybian oil production from the civil war there. And that's cheap easy to access oil which is keeping down oil prices (in fact tar sands oil prices shot up faster than than the price of conventional oil, something the boosters of are loathe to tell people). Sadly the only thing that will get us away from oil use is the brute force of world events like that occurring a few more times making our way of life untenable.

Patrick
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
1312. Creideiki
1:46 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1273. no1der:
You're such an optimist :)

Why do you think 2030's?

I've got two things in mind:
- economic crisis from coastal infrastructure write-down. 
- one globally bad cereal grain harvest

but I fear those will come sooner than that.


So far, there have only been regionally bad cereal grain harvests, but they have been playing out dramatically on the international stage:

Egypt needs this harvest to be a good one, because it has just 500,000 metric tons of imported wheat left in storage. This is only sufficient for less than two months of consumption.

Egyptian consumers, as do the rest of consumers in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), prefer to buy a soft variety of wheat to make unleavened bread. This is typically grown in Russia, the Ukraine and the surrounding region.

That is why the terrific drought that struck that entire region in 2010 had global ramifications. It was especially disastrous for Egypt. The drought caused Russia and other exporters to end wheat exports.

That not only, predictably, drove global wheat prices higher. Somewhat unexpected, it also made a major contribution to the blossoming of the Arab Spring in MENA.

As was the case centuries earlier with the French Revolution, the key cause for the Arab Spring was a rapidly deteriorating economic — and especially food — situation in the non-energy exporting nations in MENA.


Link
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 166
1311. JohnLonergan
1:24 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
The Entire IPCC Report in 19 Illustrated Haiku>

From Planet3.0
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
1310. JohnLonergan
12:33 PM GMT on December 28, 2013
Here is a critical look at geoengineering and some possible bad consequences:




No Undo for Climate Change: Potential Pitfalls of Geoengineering
5. December 2013

Global warming alters the intensity of the water cycle, and the magnitude of these changes has now been explained by scientists of the Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany. Using a simple physical approach, the study explains how the water cycle reacts to surface warming and that it responds differently to heating by sunlight or by a stronger atmospheric greenhouse effect. This has important consequences for potential interventions that aim to undo global warming by reflecting sunlight by geoengineering: While such interventions may cool down temperatures, simultaneous changes in the water cycle and the atmosphere cannot be compensated at the same time.

More ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
1303. Birthmark
6:15 AM GMT on December 28, 2013
Quoting 1297. DaveFive:
Here in Central California, it looks as though we are having (or going to have) a serious drought, I have not experience a dry autumn in this area before. We usually have moderate droughts but, not quite as serious as this. Is this related to climate change? So far many cities and towns around here have only received a little over an inch of rainfall, no snow in the Sierras. Has our rainy season ended?

It is doubtful that anyone can answer either of your questions based on evidence at this point.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 1351 - 1301

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
48 °F
Mostly Cloudy