313 thoughts to “Open Thread, August 20, 2018”

    1. Yep, I have been following the comments thread on that post over at realclimate for the past two weeks or so. My take is, that very few people grasp either the actual science and the converging evidence from multiple and very diverse fields of study, let alone the consequences and the magnitude of the task ahead to avert disaster. Basically we are, all of us, fiddling while Rome burns. Time is not on our side!

      1. “Basically we are, all of us, fiddling while Rome burns. Time is not on our side!” Fiddling while Rome burns? Some of us are too busy adding fuel to the fire to do any fiddling.

        AUSTRALIA PULLS OUT OF CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS AGREED AT PARIS CONFERENCE

        “Mr Turnbull’s failure to win support for the emissions target, comes despite a recent history of worsening wildfires and searing temperatures. The bushfire season has typically begun during the country’s summer months, but Australia’s increasingly hotter, drier weather has seen the season brought two months earlier – well into winter.”

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-climate-change-malcolm-turnbull-prime-minister-leadership-a8499366.html

        NATIONALS CALL FOR MORE COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS AT PARTY MEETING

        “The resources minister, Matt Canavan, reinforced the case for coal, as conservative backbenchers agitated for its use to drive down power bills.”

        https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/18/nationals-call-for-more-coal-fired-power-plants-at-party-meeting

          1. Meanwhile,

            NEAR TWO MILLION ACRES ON FIRE IN THE UNITED STATES

            “Smoke from any type of wildfire is dangerous. The smoke released by any type of fire is a mixture of particles and chemicals produced by incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials. All smoke contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and particulate matter (PM or soot). Smoke can contain many different chemicals, including aldehydes, acid gases, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, toluene, styrene, metals and dioxins. The type and amount of particles and chemicals in smoke varies depending on what is burning, how much oxygen is available, and the burn temperature. Exposure to high levels of smoke should be avoided. Individuals are advised to limit their physical exertion if exposure to high levels of smoke cannot be avoided. Individuals with cardiovascular or respiratory conditions (e.g., asthma), fetuses, infants, young children, and the elderly may be more vulnerable to the health effects of smoke exposure.”

            Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-million-acres-states.html#jCp

            1. What kind of toxins are added, if you burn a few witches from Mueller’s witch hunt in that mix? 😉

            2. Don’t worry about the fires Doug, the floods will put them out! /sarc

              Unfortunately behind paywall but the abstract clearly lays out the main risks involved even at 2 °C.
              Keep in mind that, that’s the global mean temperature in a total fantasy world of an RCP2.6 scenario and we are still on our way to RCP8.5 !

              https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0257-z

              Letter | Published: 20 August 2018

              Increased human and economic losses from river flooding with anthropogenic warming
              Francesco Dottori, Wojciech Szewczyk, Juan-Carlos Ciscar, Fang Zhao, Lorenzo Alfieri, Yukiko Hirabayashi, Alessandra Bianchi, Ignazio Mongelli, Katja Frieler, Richard A. Betts & Luc Feyen
              Nature Climate Change (2018) | Download Citation

              Abstract
              River floods are among some of the costliest natural disasters1, but their socio-economic impacts under contrasting warming levels remain little explored2. Here, using a multi-model framework, we estimate human losses, direct economic damage and subsequent indirect impacts (welfare losses) under a range of temperature (1.5 °C, 2 °C and 3 °C warming)3 and socio-economic scenarios, assuming current vulnerability levels and in the absence of future adaptation. With temperature increases of 1.5 °C, depending on the socio-economic scenario, it is found that human losses from flooding could rise by 70–83%, direct flood damage by 160–240%, with a relative welfare reduction between 0.23 and 0.29%. In a 2 °C world, by contrast, the death toll is 50% higher, direct economic damage doubles and welfare losses grow to 0.4%. Impacts are notably higher under 3 C warming, but at the same time, variability between ensemble members also increases, leading to greater uncertainty regarding flood impacts at higher warming levels. Flood impacts are further shown to have an uneven regional distribution, with the greatest losses observed in the Asian continent at all analysed warming levels. It is clear that increased adaptation and mitigation efforts—perhaps through infrastructural investment4—are needed to offset increasing risk of river floods in the future.
              Bold mine.

              BTW, also keep in mind that an RCP2.6 depends on technologies such as BEECS.

              The concept of BECCS is drawn from the integration of trees and crops, which extract carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere as they grow, the use of this biomass in processing industries or power plants, and the application of carbon capture and storage via CO2 injection into geological formations

              OK! So here’s some CO2 plant food for thought. If high levels of atmospheric CO2 place a further limit on potential uptake of CO2 by plants?

              https://physicsworld.com/a/plants-may-absorb-less-carbon-under-climate-change/

              Current assessments of climate change could overestimate the amount of carbon that plants remove from the atmosphere. That’s because models of photosynthesis often leave out a poorly-understood limit on the process. Now US researchers have calculated that if its representation is doubled, climate models predict an additional 9 Gigatonnes of carbon will still be in the atmosphere by 2100, instead of being locked away inside plants.

              If anyone is interested the nitty gritty of the biophysics, biochemistry and plant physiology. Full paper available at link below.

              http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aacf68/meta

              Triose phosphate limitation in photosynthesis models reduces leaf photosynthesis and global terrestrial carbon storage

              Ya think we could get people like Trump and Australia’s Mr. Turnbull to ever understand the implications of some of the science?

        2. Essentially if we have any hopes of feeding the 9 or 10 billion people on the planet a few decades from now, we need global warming on our side so as to open up northern lands for agriculture that are currently too cold for growing anything. As far as building more coal plants, I could guarantee just a 5% rise in food prices combined with a 5% rise in fuel prices every year for a decade would have more governments than only Australia bringing coal back in huge ways.

          1. Essentially if we have any hopes of feeding the 9 or 10 billion people on the planet a few decades from now, we need global warming on our side so as to open up northern lands for agriculture that are currently too cold for growing anything.

            First, there is absolutely zero hope of feeding 9 or 10 billion people regardless of what we do and global warming only makes it worse.

            Second, I guess you didn’t read the paper I linked to above on:

            Triose phosphate limitation in photosynthesis models reduces leaf photosynthesis and global terrestrial carbon storage

          2. Diamond Joe- it is true that some land will open to agriculture further north, but it will be a very slow process and not all that much will be gained over the next 50 years.
            On the other hand, patchy but severe disruption of production in current breadbaskets has the potential for being huge.
            Chaos in the food system is far more likely than some orderly transition that will enable 9-10 B.

            1. Hickory, it’s NOT Diamond Joe! he is Dim Aond Joe, Dim Joe, for short. look at his handle again!

        1. Depressing. Depressing. Depressing.

          This is what I see and read as I hit my laptop trapline over breakfast.

          California is burning up and rednecks in flyover land cheer because it is California. They also cheer when a black area is flooded out. I read/hear people taking delight in other people’s misfortune if they are in the wrong (other) political camp. I also read that the USA has only be united twice in its history; right after Pearl Harbour attack and right after 9/11.

          There is no way the Country will come together over GW. It is impossible with the divisions of culture, geography, politics, religion, demographics, wealth, and everything else you can think of. there will be no united effort. There will be no ‘cutting back’, and there won’t be any change.

          That is why I am depressed about it. We are doing our own efforts at home, but let me explain it this way. The forest fire smoke is so bad around here today I can’t see the mountain 2 miles away. The sun is a red dot. I just did some wash and will hang it out on the clothesline. Being a good boy scout type I have my fire pump ready to go and it is gas powered. I am going fishing tomorrow in a gas powered boat. I am a guilty part of the problem as much as anyone is.

          1. Yeah, if there is no way ‘The Country’ will come together over GW, than what are the chances the entire world will?!

            We are faced with a global emergency!
            Good Luck everyone!

            BTW: The Hajj, the five-day annual pilgrimage undertaken by Muslims to the holy city of Mecca, is currently underway.

            The journey to Saudi Arabia results in the world’s largest single gathering of people and this year began on the evening of Sunday 19 August and ends on Friday 24 August.

            https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2018/aug/19/hajj-2018-the-annual-islamic-pilgrimage-in-pictures

            Now, imagine Trump supporters working together with all those Muslims to prevent the consequences of Global Warming, because that is exactly what needs to happen. The US will need to make peace with the Iranians and Syrians, too.

            Imagine Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans, all the people from African Nations, South Americans, People from the South Pacific, Indonesia, every single nation in the world will all have to agree on changing how humanity has been doing things these last two hundred or so years!

            I’m sure we can do that, right? Because that is precisely what 195 nations agreed to do at the Paris Climate Accords! Now get to work everybody!

          2. Smoke here in Bend Oregon—-
            Need to keep slow—
            I have two houses in Maui— things are starting to look very interesting there.
            Things have been interesting lately.

          3. 2 thoughts:

            1) There’s no need to “cut back”. There’s no need to sacrifice to eliminate CO2 emissions: EVs are cheaper and better. Solar and wind are cheaper as well. The only ones who will be hurt by a transition away from fossil fuels are fossil fuel industry investors and employees.

            2) Personal change isn’t what’s needed. If 60% of the population were to switch to EVs and electrify their houses, that would only reduce CO2 emissions by maybe 30% or less. If that same 60% were to vote in politicians with the right policies we could get to 100%.

            So, that should lead to another conversation: what’s the best ROI on efforts towards political change? What works best?

            1. what’s the best ROI on efforts towards political change? What works best?

              In America? Good luck with that. America is so far past screwed that the light from screwed won’t reach it for 1.3 billion years. Trump will probably get four more years.

            2. What are thoughts of those here about Montana’s governor as the D candidate in 2020? Supposedly he polls well against Trump in battleground states, better than both Sanders and Warren.

              I do not know much about him. It appears he is likely too moderate in this era of US “extreme” politics.

            3. I saw him interviewed on CNN yesterday. I hope he gets traction. I expect no one to be perfect, but someone reasonable towards the middle is needed so that the adult discussions on policy can resume.

            4. I live in what is described as “Trump Country”. Very rural in the middle of the lower 48.

              However, the majority of people are not super political. You’d think the local Republican Party would be very active, but it is isn’t really.

              I think a moderate Democratic candidate would get a lot of support here, especially from labor.

              As long as there is an electoral college, it needs to be remembered that winning NY or CA by 70-30 instead of 60-40 makes zero difference. What matters is getting at least one more vote in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

              Three Democrats have been President in the last 50 years. All three were moderate, new to the national political scene and “outsiders”.

              I am sorry, but Bernie, Joe and Elizabeth do not fit the previous paragraph. Besides, Bernie and Joe are both older than The Donald.

            5. Well, this paper might explain why we are stuck in our current political morass. It certainly explains a lot of the support for Trump but also does the same, for why large swathes of people on both extremes of the political spectrum are unable to tell truth and reality from fake news! So yeah, we are pretty much fucked!

              https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30863-7?

              Current Biology

              Creationism and conspiracism share a common teleological bias
              Pascal Wagner-EggerSylvain DelouvéeNicolas GauvritSebastian Dieguez
              DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.072
              PlumX Metrics

              Summary

              Teleological thinking — the attribution of purpose and a final cause to natural events and entities — has long been identified as a cognitive hindrance to the acceptance of evolution, yet its association to beliefs other than creationism has not been investigated. Here, we show that conspiracism — the proneness to explain socio-historical events in terms of secret and malevolent conspiracies — is also associated to a teleological bias. Across three correlational studies (N > 2000), we found robust evidence of a teleological link between conspiracism and creationism, which was partly independent from religion, politics, age, education, agency detection, analytical thinking and perception of randomness. As a resilient ‘default’ component of early cognition, teleological thinking is thus associated with creationist as well as conspiracist beliefs, which both entail the distant and hidden involvement of a purposeful and final cause to explain complex worldly events.

              …Because teleological and animist thinking are part of children’s earliest intuitions about the world and are resilient in adulthood [8, 9], they thus could be causally involved in the acquisition of creationist and conspiracist beliefs. However, our results do not rule out the possibility that acceptance of such beliefs could, conversely, favor a teleological bias. Yet, in both cases, the ‘everything happens for a reason’ or ‘it was meant to be’ intuition at the heart of teleological thinking not only remains an obstacle to the acceptance of evolutionary theory, but could also be a more general gateway to the acceptance of anti-scientific views and conspiracy theories

              Bold mine

              The question that I have, is, is there a vaccine for this disease and how can it be applied to people who need it most, before they completely destroy the world as we know it?

            6. We are in Late Stage Capitalism—
              I’m afraid, the survivors, if any, will need to sort this out on the other side of the wall we are about to crash into.

            7. I’ve been thinking about debt and late stage capitalism. Maybe its main problem is that it represents a key way that the rentier class can get richer while being less and less productive or caring about the common good, and the wealth gap gets wider. Empires – and ours is one ruled by the big company CEOs and hedge fund managers – and don’t they just love it whatever their professed political hue – generally have accelerating wealth gaps before they collapse, the way that happens may be different for each one but the result is generally consistent. They usually need something to trigger the collapse but I don’t think we want for choices for that what with resource limits, climate change, overpopulation, religious and ethnic tensions etc.

            8. They usually need something to trigger the collapse but I don’t think we want for choices for that what with resource limits, climate change, overpopulation, religious and ethnic tensions etc.

              Well perhaps we may finally be reaching a tipping point of sorts!

              https://www.ecowatch.com/researchers-predict-anomalously-warm-2018-2022-2597486954.html

              ‘We Are Climbing Rapidly Out of Humankind’s Safe Zone’: New Report Warns Dire Climate Warnings Not Dire Enough

              “Climate change is now reaching the end-game,” reads the forward to the report by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, “where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action, or accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences.”

              Should be interesting to see what happens!

              “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

              ― Winston S. Churchill

            9. I’m still not sure this nails the problem “Late Stage Capitalism”. I call the problem more like un-managed or poorly managed capatalism.
              Late stage Socialism is better? Perhaps, but once again, it depends how its managed.

              What would probably work best is a combination of the two, well managed.
              I ain’t holding my breathe for that. It would take signs of widespread intelligence and discipline for me to have any hope accumulated.

            10. Yes there is a vaccine- its called education.
              But for it to be effective that education must be well designed- training the young mind to be savy of history and science, well-exercised at mindful practice and compassion, respectful of the of environment and other living creatures.
              Overall, the world does do all that well at any of this.

            12. Umm, I think you just destroyed your own arguments about change not being needed. We need radical change in our thinking, our personal value systems our political systems, our economic systems, you name it, we absolutely need change! However to get that change we also have to work within the current paradigm since we don’t have time to change it! A dilemma wrapped up in multiple predicaments, if ever there was one.

              Johan Rockström explains it quite succintly in this 3 and a half minute clip.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqlh8NNC1EM
              We Cannot Wait for the Next Generation

            13. Nick, I must stop saying, ‘How stupid can you be?’, because I think you’ve started taking it as a challenge. Before it was just the Hare Krishna EV mantra but now you have extended it to assuming by simply installing a bunch of wind farms and solar cells Earth can happily accommodate ten plus billion humans scooting about in EVs. No consideration to how other species will fare, and all the other problems associated with an already grossly overpopulated planet: dead ocean, waves of refugees, melting Greenland, etc. You do realize we’re already committed to a hotter planet, don’t you? You do realize that as you preach the EV mantra, fossil fuel production continues to increase every day, Ford keeps selling more-and-more pickup trucks, international air traffic grows exponentially? Maybe its time you Googled ‘climate feedback loops’ or ‘planned thermal coal projects’ and did some quite reading. BTW, how do you feed 10 billion people?

            14. “I think you’ve started taking it as a challenge”

              I apply the 90% rule to Nick’s posts and find him more actuate than 90% who post here. Nick has been the leader here at POB expressing for nearly 5 years the possibilities of EV’s and has been a head of the curve than everyone else.

              Humans can reduce CO2 90% and maintain 90% of their of their lifestyle if they apply themselves. Nick hasn’t started any new change to his comments of late. He just has more vision than you Doug.

            15. “Humans can reduce CO2 90% and maintain 90% of their of their lifestyle if they apply themselves.”

              Source? Data set? Name of orifice you pulled that statement out of?

              The techno-cornucopians are strong on this blog?

            16. It’s not about new technology. The fact is that current society is massively wasteful, and you are too blind to see it.

            17. Humans can reduce CO2 90% and maintain 90% of their of their lifestyle if they apply themselves.

              While I’m very much in favor of transitioning off fossil fuels by using clean alternative energy and I think that solar, wind, EVs and battery storage are going to necessarily be a big part that.

              However, I’m not sure that we are on the same page with regards what maintaining ‘90% of their lifestyle’ really means.

              I think a more meaningful metric and goal might be what some may consider to be a less sharply defined concept and a more elusive goal, of maintaining something that I would prefer to call, a ‘High Quality of Life’!

              I’m going to side with Doug here, no disrespct to Nick intended, but I do not see any possibility for what I think are the necessary prerequisites for what I envision to be a ‘High Quality of Life’. If humanity does not begin to deal seriously with population and ecological overshoot, i.e. fantasizing about feeding a population of 10 billion humans and maintaining prosperity for all of them.

              Granted, I may be bringing in my personal biases to bear when I read that we can continue to maintain ‘90% of their lifestyle’.
              Basically I take that to mean a continuation of BAU by just substituting say EVs and alternative energy for ICE based transport and fossil fuel powered energy generation. I don’t think that is what will happen.

            18. “if they apply themselves”

              If there is 10,000 items that humans need to do to reduce CO2 poisoning, there are 100,000. Transferring our transportation system to solar electric just maybe the largest. Can’t is just an excuse. Smoking will kill you.

            19. Fred,

              I agree that systemic social change would be very desirable. But…I think that’s a separate discussion – for this discussion I’m thinking just about a transition away from fossil fuels, and along the lines of a simple carbon tax. Please see my comment below.

            21. Doug,

              I’m baffled by your comment. Where did I talk about population problems, or how other species are doing?? I responded to Paulo, who was depressed because: “There will be no ‘cutting back’, and there won’t be any change.” and ” I am going fishing tomorrow in a gas powered boat. I am a guilty part of the problem as much as anyone is.”

              So…he’s talking about a lack of “cutting back”, and his being guilty of the problem. In other words, the transition away from gas requires sacrifice, which neither he nor anyone else is willing to make.

              I argued that a transition away from fossil fuels does NOT require sacrifice, and that it will require overall change by society rather than the accumulation of everyone’s individual efforts.

              Sacrifice is the “drill, baby, drill” message, and it’s unrealistic. Driving a Prius is not a big sacrifice. Driving a Volt is a big step up. Talk to somone like Wimbi – he would have told you that his family is thrilled with their Leaf. Heat pumps produce nice HVAC. Passive Houses are very comfortable.

              So, consumers don’t have to sacrifice. But producers of fossil fuels, and producers of FF-based products will have to suffer losses on old, obsolete investments. This will be very, very painful for them, but not that hard on the overall business community. Sell your coal stocks now!

              Why is this important? Because the Fossil Fuel interest WANT us to believe that fossil fuels are better for us and that change would be painful; and that we need to make isolated individual changes rather than working for social change. Why do they want individual change? Because it’s ineffective, and they know it!

              Do we need to do more than transition away from fossil fuels? Do we have other, large problems, like population levels, wildlife diversity, income equity, pandemics, AI, etc., etc.? Of course. But what does that have to do with my comment to Paulo??

              So…I think we agree that a transition away from fossil fuels is essential, even if it’s not happening fast enough. Especially if it’s not happening fast enough. I was dealing with some of the myths that tend to stop that transition. Isn’t it a good idea to debunk those myths?

            22. I think the only social change that propels a reduction of FF use is collapse and starvation. BAU lite using just alternatives is about as likely as increased leisure time and full ‘fridges for working folk.

              I, (an optimistic person by nature), fear this apparent and obvious climate change and expect see great effect on crops and food security going forward. In turn this will force rapid migration from south to north and create much unrest and disruption.

              In our home we grow much of our own food and are quite resilient with our situation. Nevertheless, a few crop failures and job losses will make the ’30s look like a warm up for all of us.

              Mad Max? Snowpiercer? Lord of the Flies? Maybe not. Grapes of Wrath? Maybe. Anything is possible. Pol Pot and Adolf arose from circumstances more benign than Climate Change.

            23. Well, it could be – we will only overcome the resistance to change by the FF industry with a long and serious struggle.

              On the other hand, there’s lots of precedents. Tried to buy a mercury thermometer lately, or leaded paint? They were discontinued by social consensus, because they were poisonous. I think the same thing is happening with FF.

              Lots of countries are planning to outlaw the sale of ICEs in a couple of decades, and China is certainly very very serious about EVs and wind/solar.

              Look at wind/solar in California: http://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/CleanGrid/default.aspx

              http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx

            24. Reality is all about context. Ignoring it is not recommended.
              Industrial manufacture’s far more poisonous than isolated elements of it, like lead paint. Everything has context as much as some might attempt to isolate things and promote them as such, such as electric cars.

              Lead paint and electric cars.

              And new waste streams… amid supposedly unforeseen problems… we should have seen coming…

    1. Daily CO2

      50 million years ago: 1000 ppm

      100 million years ago: 1500 ppm

      1. Human population:
        50 million years ago: 0
        100 million years ago: 0

      2. Hmmm. It took 50 million years to change by 500 ppm? That’s 1oo,ooo years per 1 ppm. Now we’re seeing the same change in 5 months.

        I sense a difference.

          1. TK,

            Thanks.

            Berner’s work was the state of the field back then, about two decades ago, and further work has generally supported his approach; a general trend in results has been narrowing the abundances down to lower levels, though. It’s worth going online to study the various approaches being used that have led to newer determinations of CO2 abundance and the related effects on planetary temperature.

            I took a geochemistry course with Berner my first year of grad school. He was an excellent teacher and a really likable person but one of his grad students said that it was impossible to match the fertility of his research because he couldn’t explain where his ideas came from. A born researcher, was Bob Berner.

  3. Maize crop down 75% this year in Germany. Potatoes down by over half.

    1. Yep!
      https://www.agriculture.com/markets/newswire/update-1-germany-s-grains-crop-lowest-in-24-years-after-drought

      UPDATE 1-GERMANY’S GRAINS CROP LOWEST IN 24 YEARS AFTER DROUGHT
      8/8/2018
      * Germany’s grain harvest hit by drought and heatwave

      * Usually an exporter, Germany may need imports
      HAMBURG, Aug 8 (Reuters) – Germany’s 2018 grain harvest will be the lowest in 24 years after a drought and heatwave heavily damaged crops, the association of German farm cooperatives DRV said on Wednesday.

      The grain crop will fall 20.3 percent to some 36.3 million tonnes, the smallest since 1994, the association said in a harvest report.

      “The German grain harvest will in this year for the first time in many years be below domestic requirements,” the association said, signalling an import need in Germany which is usually a major grain exporter.

      What will happen to civil society if that becomes the new normal in most of the current breadbaskets in the northern hemisphere.

      Go read that paper I’ve linked up thread…

        1. If climate change threatens our food supply, the top priority is to do something about climate change.

          The first step in doing something about climate change is reducing and then eliminating GHG emissions from fossil fuels.

          The main route to in eliminating GHG emissions from FF is moving to EVs and wind & solar.

    2. Apparently not a problem according to DemonJoe.
      The Germans will just go north.
      Move over Swedens.

  5. And some bad news, just to keep things balanced /sarc
    https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/nevada-california-desert-half-empty-of-birds-after-population-collapse/
    Nevada-California desert ‘half empty’ of birds after population collapse

    Bird populations have collapsed in the desert along the Nevada-California border, and climate change could be to blame, according to a new study by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley.

    Over the past century, the number of bird species has fallen by an average of 43 percent at survey sites across an area larger than New York state. Almost a third of species are less common and widespread now than they once were throughout the region.

    The study’s authors, Steven Beissinger and Kelly Iknayan, point to less hospitable conditions in the Mojave as the probable cause.

  6. A compelling result:

    LIGHT FROM ANCIENT QUASARS HELPS CONFIRM QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

    “Last February, the MIT team and their colleagues significantly constrained the freedom-of-choice loophole, by using 600-year-old starlight to decide what properties of two entangled photons to measure. Their experiment proved that, if a classical mechanism caused the correlations they observed, it would have to have been set in motion more than 600 years ago, before the stars’ light was first emitted and long before the actual experiment was even conceived. Now, in a paper published today in Physical Review Letters, the same team has vastly extended the case for quantum entanglement and further restricted the options for the freedom-of-choice loophole. The researchers used distant quasars, one of which emitted its light 7.8 billion years ago and the other 12.2 billion years ago, to determine the measurements to be made on pairs of entangled photons. They found correlations among more than 30,000 pairs of photons, to a degree that far exceeded the limit that Bell originally calculated for a classically based mechanism.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-ancient-quasars-quantum-entanglement.html#jCp

  7. ARCTIC’S STRONGEST SEA ICE BREAKS UP FOR FIRST TIME ON RECORD

    “The oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic has started to break up, opening waters north of Greenland that are normally frozen, even in summer. This phenomenon – which has never been recorded before – has occurred twice this year due to warm winds and a climate-change driven heatwave in the northern hemisphere. One meteorologist described the loss of ice as “scary”. Others said it could force scientists to revise their theories about which part of the Arctic will withstand warming the longest.”

    https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/08/21/news/arctics-strongest-sea-ice-breaks-first-time-record

  8. Whoopee.

    EPA MOVES TO DRAMATICALLY CUT REGULATION OF COAL POWER

    The Trump administration moved to dismantle another major piece of President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy on Tuesday, proposing to dramatically scale back restrictions on climate-changing emissions from coal-fired power plants even as it acknowledged that could lead to more premature deaths and serious illnesses. The Trump plan broadly increases the authority given states to decide how and how much to regulate coal power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency said the move “empowers states, promotes energy independence and facilitates economic growth and job creation.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-epa-coal-power.html#jCp

    1. If anyone in the Trump WH could read, I might be tempted to send them this report.

      New report—titled What Lies Beneath: The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk—
      https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a0d7c18a1bf64e698a9c8c8f18a42889.pdf

      …Climate change is an existential risk to human
      civilisation: that is, an adverse outcome that would
      either annihilate intelligent life or permanently and
      drastically curtail its potential.
      Temperature rises that are now in prospect, after
      the Paris Agreement, are in the range of 3–5°C. At
      present, the Paris Agreement voluntary emission
      reduction commitments, if implemented, would
      result in planetary warming of 3.4°C by 2100,30
      without taking into account “long-term” carboncycle
      feedbacks. With a higher climate sensitivity
      figure of 4.5°C, for example, which would
      account for such feedbacks, the Paris path would
      result in around 5°C of warming, according to
      a MIT study.31 A study by Schroder Investment
      Management published in June 2017 found — after
      taking into account indicators across a wide range
      of the political, financial, energy and regulatory
      sectors — the average temperature increase implied
      for the Paris Agreement across all sectors was 4.1°C

      To be fair, I think there is really no need to worry at all!
      Because, despite their claim, there is absolutely no sign of any intelligent life whatsoever, to annihilate!

      Cheers!

      1. Sounds like the feedbacks are underrated and intelligence is highly overrated. I think as fear sets in at the top a Hail Mary Attempt will be made. We can call this the HMA Event, designed to fail while causing further weather and economic chaos.

      2. Fred, from your excellent link –What Lies Beneath: The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk.

        “It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”

        Elizabeth Kolbert, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, 2006

        1. Doug, as I’m sure you know, there is not a whole lot in that report that some of us here have not discussed many times over already. Yet somehow to see it in stark black and white is still the kind of outside confirmation one does not not really want to see. Case in point:

          At the 2017 climate policy conference in Bonn,
          Phil Duffy, the Director of the Woods Hole
          Institute, explained that “the best example of
          reticence is permafrost… It’s absolutely essential
          that this feedback loop not get going seriously, if it
          does there is simply no way to control it.”           He says
          the scientific failure occurs because “none of this
          is in climate models and none of this is considered
          in the climate policy discussion… climate
          models simply omit emissions from the warming
          permafrost, but we know that is the wrong answer
          because that tacitly assumes that these emissions
          are zero and we know that’s not right”.51
          Bold mine.

          There are plenty of other examples like that in the report. I think this report does raise the stakes a notch above the orange alert to full blown red! But I doubt it will be discussed much in the MSM news and even if it is, it will be dismissed as just more climate alarmism.

          2. That’s what bugs me about the reports, they only consider know knowns. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns are completely ignored despite the devastating effect they will have. Nothing gets a look in until it is measured to n decimal places even though it may be estimated to a reasonable degree. By the time all the data is in it will be far too late.

            NAOM

          3. What does “get going seriously” exactly mean I wonder. It’s obvious the permafrost is melting and the rate is accelerating now, and every time a closer look is taken it shows up worse.

            1. What does “get going seriously” exactly mean I wonder.

              George, in the midst of one of the greatest clown shows ever witnessed on the global stage throughout the history of humankind, you can’t really be serious,eh? I suggest you pop open a cold one, get yourself a fresh bag of popcorn, sit back and enjoy the show!

              https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-the-latest-epa-to-reveal-rule-changes-on-coal-fired-plants-2018-8?yptr=yahoo&r=UK&IR=T

              The Latest: EPA to reveal rule changes on coal-fired plants

              The Trump administration is set to announce plans to roll back the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s efforts to slow global warming…

              …The plan is expected to let states relax pollution rules for power plants that need upgrades. That would stall an Obama-era push to shift away from coal and toward less-polluting energy sources…

              …Combined with a planned rollback of car-mileage standards, the plan represents a significant retreat from Obama-era efforts to fight climate change. President Donald Trump has already vowed to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement as he pushes to revive the coal industry.
              Cheers!
              .

    2. Each day a step closer to making more of the US into a third world nation. Much of the US has been sacrificed already, now it’s a fire sale.

      1. It’s a really weird ambition, but it’s exactly what the Republicans have been pursuing since 1980.

    2. If anyone thinks that algal toxins are not that dangerous, take a good long read of this site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanotoxin
      These also occur in freshwater areas, sometimes associated with agricultural runoff disturbances. Merely contacting the water can cause damage and both short and long term health risks.

        1. Can’t get too mad at the cyanobacters though, since thats where all the chloroplasts come from.

          Oh yeah! That’s easy for you to say. You weren’t among the victims of the anaerobe holocaust, back in the day, when the cyanos pumped all the O2 into the atmosphere, were you?! 😉

          1. I’m pretty sure I (we) was on the winning end of that whole escapade.

  10. Hawaii is about to get smacked—–
    As a former resident, and house owner, it has caught my attention—–

    1. Me too. Some of my family live there. I worked 3 weeks cleanup after Iniki on Kauai.

    2. Is Hawaii part of the US? /sarc
      Seriously, I hope everyone in the path of the storm comes through safely!

  11. Dateline May 2021- NOAA held an unprecedented briefing on the steps of the nations capital today, sanctioned by both the President and the Senate leadership. In brief, the head of the agency spoke to inform the public “that recent data collection over the second six month period of 2020 has lead to new scientific conclusions regarding the rate of global warming. Simply, it is accelerating rapidly, significantly beyond what the conservative and mid-range models have forecast up to this point. The nation and the world are entering a crisis time, which is just starting to gather steam. We have urged the executive and legislative branches of government to act quickly and with the utmost urgency on this matter.”
    She also announced that simultaneous declarations to this effect were being delivered to government s and the public across the world….
    In related news, the crop failures in southern

    1. Hickory, why do you keep digging up these old reports?! Are you still nostalgic for the good old days?!
      June 14th, 2028

  12. In the Times today (paywalled):

    Caesar’s famous dying words, “Et tu, Brute?”, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar mark the dictator’s gruesome end. In the years that followed, about 20 per cent of ancient Rome’s emperors met violent ends — and the weather was at least partly to blame, according to new research.

    Researchers at St Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia found a fascinating link between this high rate of regicide and severe drought. The assassinations often happened during years of low rainfall that led to poor harvests, leaving Roman soldiers hungry and more likely to mutiny. A mutinous army invariably led to a catastrophic loss of support for the emperor, who was far more likely to be murdered, according to the study published in the journal Economics Letters.

  14. We are certainly having our wildfire issues (again). If this is the “new normal” life for all creatures, whether they have two or four legs, has begun a downward spiral.

    SMOKE FROM WILDFIRES TRIGGERS ALERT IN VANCOUVER

    “Thick smoke blanketed Vancouver on Tuesday, triggering warnings about dangerous particulate matter in the air and comparisons with cities in China and India ranked by the WTO as the worst polluted. It blew in more than a week ago from hundreds of wildfires burning across Canada’s westernmost province of British Columbia as well as US states to the south, and according to officials was expected to linger for several more days—marking the longest air quality alert in the picturesque coastal city’s history.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-wildfires-triggers-vancouver.html#jCp

    1. Meanwhile,

      Premier John Horgan says successive B.C. governments have budgeted “laughable” amounts of money to fight wildfires that are becoming all too common through the ravages of climate change. Horgan said Tuesday during a visit to Prince George that the sky in the northern city turned jet black one morning last week from fires burning in nearby communities. “We have serious challenges for public health and we need to adapt our policy making, working with all levels of government to make sure that as we go forward we’re better prepared,”

      “Clearly, we are going to overshoot the budget again this year, which has happened repeatedly,” Horgan said, adding both federal and provincial governments must ensure adequate resources are available to safeguard communities.

  15. A SIMPLER APPROACH TO BLACK HOLE DESCRIPTION DEVELOPED BY RUDN ASTROPHYSICISTS

    “The laws governing black holes differ from what we know about classical or quantum physics. Moreover, it is still unclear if we understand them correctly. Studying black holes will help researchers detect universal development patterns and predict the fate of the universe.”

    PHYSICS IS NOT DEAD 🙂

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-simpler-approach-black-hole-description.html#jCp

  16. Synapsid —

    CRYSTALLINE SILICA IN METEORITE BRINGS SCIENTISTS CLOSER TO UNDERSTANDING SOLAR EVOLUTION

    “A team of researchers from Waseda University, the Graduate University for Advanced Studies, the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Harvard University, and the National Institute for Polar Research discovered silica mineral quartz in a primitive meteorite, becoming the first in the world to present direct evidence of silica condensation within the solar protoplanetary disk and coming a step closer to understanding solar formation and evolution.”

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/wu-csi082218.php

    1. DougL,

      We looked at one of the meteorites with high silica content last week I think it was. Silicate condensation in the solar nebula is old hat since the early meteorites are made largely of silicate minerals but pure silica is a surprise because there were all those metals around, calcium being one of the earliest to show in combined form. (An early researcher in this field pointed to what he named Calicium-Rich Achondrite Particles: CRAP.) The research approach of using the presence of minerals that formed over a wide range of temperatures to rule out metamorphism, looks convincing to me and I was tickled to see the interpretation of the silica forming toward the end of a condensation sequence that progressively used up the cations in the nebula because that’s the same mechanism that operates in the formation of the pegmatites I mentioned last week.

      I’m going to have to start checking EurekAlert earlier in the day to stay up with you, pardner.

  17. I’m not sure who to believe any more in this era of “alternative facts”! Do I believe the reports highlighted by Doug and others about the increasing use of coal in the developing world, India and China or do I believe this?


    India coal project cancellations snowballing

    Back in 2010, India’s coal pipeline stood at well over 600GW, a number to have every coal industry executive and ideologically-inclined Coalition backbencher drooling.

    Unfortunately for them, it’s no longer true.

    Between 2010 and June 2018 India’s coal-fired power station pipeline saw shelved and cancelled projects totalling a staggering 573GW.

    According to the article above, like in the US, coal power plants in India are facing extreme competitive pressure but, unlike the US where most of the pressure has come from lower cost NG fired plants, the Indian coal generators are facing lower costs from renewables. I want to believe that this is in fact the case but, in this era of “alternative facts”, the situation is as clear as mud!

    1. Isn’t it obvious? You believe me. 🙂

      Q: What’s the definition of a pessimist?
      A: A pessimist is a well-informed optimist.

      1. “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” ~ William Arthur Ward

        1. “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” ― Oscar Wilde

    2. Keep track of the data, and do your best to leave hope, policy, faith and belief out of it.

      Here is India electrical generation by source for the first 6 of 2018.
      Coal is dropping, but that is due to hydroelectricity from the current monsoon season.
      Yr-over Yr data will be interesting. I don’t think story is pretty, but lets watch the data.

      https://indiapowerreview.com/how-india-generated-power-each-day-first-seven-months-of-2018/

      Also, consider the source of the article you cited- they are renewable proponents. And that is their audience, so they try to tell them a compatible story, no matter the data. Lets just feel good.

    3. I’m not sure who to believe any more in this era of “alternative facts”! Do I believe the reports highlighted by Doug and others about the increasing use of coal in the developing world, India and China or do I believe this?

      Indeed!

      I think the’REAL’truth can only be discerned by carefully reading between the lines of anything reported in the media and then extensively applying Occam’s Razor!

      Here’s a possible start:
      https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/business/article/2156742/why-modis-clean-energy-india-bankrolling-dirty-coal

      WHY IS MODI’S ‘CLEAN ENERGY’ INDIA BANKROLLING DIRTY COAL?
      Even with the cost of renewables dropping 50 per cent in recent years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government still pressures banks to loan money to the coal industry

      “Usage of coal will not see a decrease but will certainly plateau out in the near future. The cost of renewables has reduced as much as 50 per cent in the past few years,” said Vaibhav Chaturvedi of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, a New Delhi-based non-profit. “The government has done a lot to aid the renewables; not sure how funding the coal sector will help,” he said.

      Occams Razor Says: Special interests on coal’s side still have strong influence and are in control of the political system and the media. They continue to suck money out of the economy despite the obvious harm to the population and the environment. This is very shortsighted and cannot be sustained long term.

      In 2017, coal received close to US$10 billion in lending from government banks, whereas renewable energy received about US$3.5 billion. In contrast to coal lending that thrived on government lending, half of the top 10 sources of funding for 60 renewable power projects were private lenders
      Bold mine.

      Occams Razor Says:Private enterprise will bypass government lending as it becomes obvious that it makes financial sense to do so! The government will eventually have to follow suit changing policy because the coal barons will no longer continue to have the economic clout they once had and the politicians will line up behind their new financial benefactors. Dog eats dog, there’s a new Sheriff in town.

      In the past four years, state-run banks in India have written off bad debts worth US$40 billion. “That is US$40 billion that could be spent on the welfare of citizens that we will never see again,” said E.A.S. Sarma, an activist and scientist.

      Occams Razor Says:Sooner or later pressure from the citizens will hold the government accountable and force it to change its policies.

      So at the end of the day my money lies strongly on the demise of coal on a much shorter timeframe than that predicted by the so called experts and since the only viable and cost effective alternative is the implementation of renewables, I see more and more coal being phased out and renewables coming on strong!

      Disinformation campaigns notwithstanding! I’m also going to go way out on a limb and say that the realities of climate change, (Especially in India) are going to become so obvious that no one will be able to continue to deny them. Coal will die rather quickly in this brave new world. Well, assuming that the world as we know it, doesn’t die first!
      Cheers!

    4. islandboy,

      As DougL says, believe him.

      There’s more to the topic than your source and the following comments pay attention to because the emphasis on what the government is doing overlooks the actions of what have been called captive users of coal who import it, that is, use coal from outside India, because of the difficulties of obtaining it from India’s own production. Big ones are the electric grid, aluminum producers, and the cement industry. They’ve been behind the increase in India’s coal imports the last couple of years.

      One of the reasons to believe DougL, since you ask, is that he is not subject to enthusiasms as long as you steer the topic away from pulsars.

      1. Coal plants in India may be cancelled, but that was due to far too many being planned.
        They are still building new plants but far fewer than before.

        https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/coal/coal-power-projects-worldwide-including-india-see-steep-drop/63423360

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

        India’s coal consumption has gone from around 330 million tonnes 10 years ago to around 600 million tonnes last year. As a comparison the United Kingdom burns about 20 million tonnes. I think the trend is quite clear.

        https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf

        1. India’s coal consumption has gone from around 330 million tonnes 10 years ago to around 600 million tonnes last year. As a comparison the United Kingdom burns about 20 million tonnes.

          What kind of a comparison is that? You do realize that just during the period you mention, India’s population has increased by about 125 million inhabitants, that’s roughly twice the current population of the UK.

          Anyways, regardless of the apples to oranges comparison, this article from that left wing, tree hugging, green washing publication, otherwise know as Forbes, made this prediction recently:

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/01/30/india-coal-power-is-about-to-crash-65-of-existing-coal-costs-more-than-new-wind-and-solar/#1df831da4c0f

          India Coal Power Is About To Crash: 65% Of Existing Coal Costs More Than New Wind And Solar

          Occam’s Razor says: Coal is doomed! BTW, if India and every other country in the world, don’t completely get off coal within the next decade, even the UK will become uninhabitable!

          A hothouse earth with 10 billion humans on it? What could possibly go wrong?

          1. “A hothouse earth with 10 billion humans on it? What could possibly go wrong?”

            Happiness is not knowing.

            Considering the increasing load upon the natural earth system, the extreme likelihood of falling crop production around the world, and the increasing effects of GW over just the next 10 to 15 years; I think any simple extrapolation of population or energy demand in 2050 is more than sheer fantasy.
            The likelihood of global human population doubling again is negligible. The strong likelihood of global population quickly falling during the 2030’s onward is becoming more apparent by the day, to those who are willing to look at the circumstances.
            Energy, food and material demand my fall dramatically through natural processes this century, or should I say will? Therefore long range planning is pointless, merely carrying through an energy/material transistion will be extremely difficult as global trade breaks down.

            As far as energy goes, the US is about 32 percent efficient. We now have the technology to move that toward 80 percent efficiency or more and at the same time remove a huge amount of pollution and wasted material mining/processing/shipping.

            How much energy, food and material humans will need in the future is indeterminate due to a variety of social and natural factors in play at the global level.

          2. Fred

            The comparison would be obvious if you knew some basic facts.

            Like the GDP of India and the United Kingdom are about the same.

            Yet to produce the same amount of wealth India consumes 30 times as much coal. I find it ironic that I point out how much coal India and China burn and left wing morons go and defend them. Yet at the same time they claim to care about the environment.
            Long live President Trump who represents the push back against the far left who are thankfully in the decline.

  18. Doug,

    Doug, here’s my comment from above, in case you missed it:

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-august-20-2018/#comment-649579

    Another random thought:

    It’s far simpler to eliminate your daily fuel consumption by driving an EV, versus moving or finding some other complex way to cut back on travel. Faster, easier.

    This urge to sacrifice, and give up everything seems to be a kind of Puritan thing. There’s a great quote: “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

    H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

    1. “It’s far simpler to eliminate your daily fuel consumption by driving an EV…” ~ Nick G

      It’s even simpler (and cheaper) to simply drive less and not invest in yet another car, whether it’s fueled remotely by, say, a coal plant, like a so-called electric car might be, or fueled directly, like an internal combustion engine car.

      “In IEEE Spectrum, Ozzie Zehner… writes: ‘Perhaps we should expand our horizons to measure the virtues of electric cars against those of walkable neighborhoods, and the costs of generating more energy against the savings from using less.’ ” ~ Wikipedia

      Of course, everyone has an ‘agenda’, so to speak. Nick G has one, as do the Koch brothers.
      And often, agendas have little to do with a benefit to society in general, even if they are peddled as such.

  19. The numbers cited in this article are quite Interesting!

    https://www.ecowatch.com/koch-fueled-attack-on-electric-buses-2598163369.html

    A Koch-Fueled Attack on Electric Buses Picks Up Speed

    Despite these efforts by Koch affiliates and oil industry consultants, the electrification of bus transit is firmly underway. These high tech buses are already being widely deployed throughout China, which, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), is adding about 9,500 electric buses every five weeks. As China leads the way and North American and European municipalities follow suit, analysts expect this momentum to accelerate and predict 80 percent of the global municipal bus fleet to be electric by 2040.

    That is bad news for the oil industry. Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasts that switching from internal combustion engine transport to electric vehicles will displace 7.3 million barrels of oil a day.

    According to Bloomberg, this year electric buses already will lower diesel consumption by 233,000 barrels a day.

  20. “Oh, never mind, your excerpt and the cherry picked comment were both from another anti renewables post courtesy of climate change science denier and pro fossil fuel lobbyist, Euan Mearns.” ~ Fred Magyar“

    “Thanks for bringing this scurrilous bull shit to my attention.” ~ Euan Mearns

    “Dictionary
    scur·ril·ous
    ˈskərələs/
    adjective
    adjective: scurrilous

    making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation.” ~ Google

    “He is a Euan Mearns groupie. I think they get paid by the fossil industry.” ~ Hickory

    “Interesting to me how desperate many of you appear as you search for needles in the haystack in your effort to find a truth that is convenient to you.” ~ Hickory

    “This kind of bilge will no longer appear on Energy Matters.” ~ Euan Mearns

    1. LOL! are you denying that Mearns is, for all intents and purposes, anti renewables, pro fossil fuels and has a history of climate change denial? Those are all confirmable facts! You can Google: ‘Climate Change and Euan Mearns’. Either you’re to stupid to understand what he has been saying for a long time or you yourself are somehow complicit in the Koch lobby anti renewables obfuscation campaign.

      Now run along and send Mr. Mearns an email, telling him I said that, I’m sure he will thank you and give you cookie!
      Edit: While you’re at it maybe include a copy of that new report:
      What Lies Beneath The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk.

      1. You may wish to re-read that, since where am I denying anything?
        Also, go ‘run along’ and Google what you suggested and report back and we’ll see if yours is not scurrilous bullshit.

        “LOL!” ~ Fred Magyar

        Did you actually laugh out loud or just added that for effect? If you did, awesome! And good morning in the Americas! =D

        1. Also, go Google what you suggested and report back and we’ll take a look at it.

          I have!
          51,000 hits. If you read only the first ten or so they are all blatant climate denialism. Go do your own googling.

          But I’ll give you one example:

          http://euanmearns.com/the-terrifying-risk-of-climate-change-in-scotland/

          The Terrifying Risk of Climate Change in Scotland

          “Major parts of Scotland’s vital infrastructure are under threat from coastal erosion and flooding, according to the latest government assessments of the dangers of climate change.

          Thousands of homes and businesses and long stretches of roads and railway lines are also at risk. So are power stations, wind farms, sewers, bridges, and farmland, as well as many other crucial facilities and even golf courses.

          Seabirds, fish and plants are endangered, as well as butterflies, food crops and peat bogs. Scotland can expect more rain, more droughts, more storms, more wild fires, more landslides, more pests and more diseases – and snow is disappearing from the mountains.”

          Here’s Euans’ take on the matter:

          I don’t know if its my imagination, but the media seem to have gone into overdrive reporting the terrifying risks of climate change alongside too-cheap-to-meter solar and wind power that is to be our salvation. Last week, the Sunday Herald carried one of the worst pieces of climate change doomer porn I’ve ever seen: Revealed: climate change and the terrifying risk to Scotland.

          Now please go read that report on the understatement of existential climate risk in its entirety and contrast what it says with Euan’s head in the sand approach!

          Here’s a link:

          New report—titled What Lies Beneath: The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk—
          https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a0d7c18a1bf64e698a9c8c8f18a42889.pdf

          1. Nowhere in that article you pulled suggests to me Euan as, to put it in your own wacky words, a ‘climate change science denier’.
            And in fact, in the article, he definitely acknowledges some effects of climate change.

            Better luck next time.

            1. Peter, I’m fairly sure Euan acknowledges the anthropogenic kind, apparently lost on Fred.

            2. Peter,

              To comment on this Blog you’ve somehow acquired delusions of adequacy but all you’ve done is deprive a village somewhere of an idiot.

            3. Doug

              I bet any money that if an analysis of your lifestyle were done. You would be seen to consume as much or more non renewable resources than the average.
              It is always the case with people like you, you think talking a a good job makes up for incompetence and hypocrisy.

              Here is a story of your chief hypocrite

              http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=70164

            4. “Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

            5. I always find it pathetic when deniers have to go on the attack against poor Al Gore. Here’s a guy who apparently quite innocently discovered that global warming was a problem while living a typical life style of someone in his elevated income bracket. I don’t know of a single student of climate science who takes Gore seriously except as an early discoverer of the political implications of warming. His hypocrisy doesn’t affect the science.

            6. Peter, several of the posters here are on record acknowledging their own hypocrisy. Being very well informed in the matters of catastrophic climate change isn’t enough of a pull to curtail lavish lifestyle choices which further contribute to the problem. Likely there some psychological conditions at play here.

            7. No, that’s not true.

              The oil industry would like us to believe that life without oil is painful. It’s not true. If we want big houses and powerful cars, we can have them without oil (or coal, or gas). Actually, EVs are more powerful, and well designed zero-fossil fuel houses are more comfortable.

              Al Gore never said we had to live a poor lifestyle, and he isn’t a hypocrite for traveling or having a big house.

            8. Peter the denier, did you even bother to read the link you posted? Here is an excerpt:

              Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause—rising levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from fossil fuel burning, cutting down forests and other human activities. And, in the past rising CO2 levels at the very least magnified global warming, ushering in the relatively balmy, stable climate sometimes called the “long summer” that has allowed human civilization to flourish. Humanity has now raised global CO2 levels by more than the rise from roughly 180 to 260 ppm at the end of the last ice age, albeit in a few hundred years rather than over more than a few thousand years. “The end of an ice age, you have a sense in your bones what that means: a big, significant change for the planet,” Shakun says. “It’s a tangible example of what rising CO2 can mean for the planet over the long-term.”

              The article theorizes on what caused the last ice age and what caused its eventual end. But it states very clearly that this period of global warming is caused by human-induced CO2 into the atmosphere.

              Only a climate change denier would be so stupid as to post a link that they believe supports their point of view when it actually repudiates it.

            9. Ron

              What i said was, climate changed in dramatic ways before man. In many scientific articles the scientists admit that they do not know where the additional CO2 came from.
              If the CO2 came from sea warming what caused the seas to warm? If it came from plants dying, what caused the plants to die?

            10. If it were as simple as man made CO2 release, then tell us, what caused the ice age in the first place?

              Umm, it got really really cold?

              Then tell us why all that ice melted.

              I know, I know! It got really really warm again!

              We could do with a laugh

              Sorry, I don’t think I could come up with anything funnier that your comment to me up thread!

              Long live President Trump who represents the push back against the far left who are thankfully in the decline.
              Peter

              Note to Doug: There’s an available pool of about 60 plus million village idiots to chose from, I doubt Peter will be missed all that much!
              MAGA! My Attorney Got Arrested!

            11. Fred

              You have just displayed how freighted you are of being seen to not knowing something. I have worked with people like you, never asking questions but always making mistakes.
              continually reinforcing their ignorance, with what they think are clever little remarks.

            12. Fred knows this but his time is better spent with the comic put downs so I’ll summarise glaciation cycles:
              1) the sun energy reaching the earth gets a bit less because of the orbital cycles etc.
              2) the earth cools a tint bit (more exactly only the northern hemisphere needs to), permafrost expands and locks in a bit of CO2, plus there’s a bit more ice so the albedo reduces a tiny bit.
              3) the earth cools a bit more.
              4) go to (2) and repeat.
              5) equilibrium is reached with ice sheets at maximum.
              6) a bit more energy reaches the earth from changes in orbit etc.
              7) the earth warms a bit, some ice and permafrost melts, the albedo falls and CO2 in the atmosphere rises a bit.
              8) the earth warms a bit more.
              9) go to 7 and repeat, equilibrium is reached, then go to 1 and repeat a few time.
              10) a stable climate, only a couple of relatively small localised ice sheets remain but still a large proportion of the earth is covered in permafrost locking up CO2, homo sapiens think it’s time to settle down, discover agriculture, discover religion, temporarily tame nature, cities and civilizations grow, climate still remains stable, population grows unfettered.
              10) industrial revolution starts, human kind dumps a whole lot of previously locked away CO2 into the atmosphere.
              11) climate no longer stable, warming accelerates, weather chaos ensues, dumbass deniers start commenting on blogs.
              12) remaining permfrost melts, all sea ice melts, land and ocean CO2 sinks become sources, earth trips into stable hothouse conditions not seen for several million years, conditions are no longer conducive to large human populations and civilizations.
              13) dumbass deniers stop commenting on blogs.

            14. George

              Thanks for replying for your boyfriend x x

              But the scientific study said the last ice age ending had nothing to do with orbital changes since it was much smaller than previous changes that had no effect.

            15. You really are a self important piece of worthless, ignorant trash aren’t you. You get intellectually stuffed and your bloated ego just can’t handle it – no come back telling more how much cleverer you are than me, how you’ve been telling everybody how they sure do things for years and been ignored? You’re ignored because you are smug, fucking idiot – look in the mirror.

            17. My God, what a simplistic view of things. The kind of answer I would expect from a third grader who thinks the ice grew, stayed and finally receded. Not the case at all.
              Do you know how many times the ice sheets receded between the Eemian and the Holocene maximum? Look it up and then equate it to the multiple major orbital forcings of between 50 and 75 w/m2 in the NH during that period.

              Maybe this will let you visualize the last glaciation better.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USIAcXfv39k

            18. Peter.
              Peter. Peter.
              Should have taken some courses in critical thinking and scientific analysis.
              It is an inconvenient truth that we face.
              And we all sense that it scares the shit out you.
              If you are young, I don’t blame you.
              If you are older, at least try to keep caring about the young.

              In the short run (100 yrs) its getting hotter quick, very quick. And it is primarily due to actions of humans.
              Almost 8 Billion.
              Have you looked around. So many places look like crap compared to before we had fire and metal.
              And it is getting hot. Quick.

        2. Did you actually laugh out loud or just added that for effect?

          Yep! I laugh out loud at just about every comment of yours. Kudos for the entertainment value!

          1. I’m envious… I’d laugh out loud more if I didn’t find your comments so asinine sometimes, scurrilous bullshit aside.

            1. Hey! Go ahead, read the report and then come back and tell us exactly how much asinine, scurrilous bullshit it contains. It’s only 40 pages long.
              Cheers!

            2. Euan was referring to your scurrilous bullshit, Fred, which you have so far failed to disprove, and now appear to be asking for help with that. 40 pages, ay? Well, get a move on then. Oh and don’t forget those other supposed hits you mentioned. 51 000? Wow. Should be easy to find something yes?

              It’s really quite simple. If you can’t support your claim despite your contortions, then maybe you should consider manning up and offering Euan an apology.

            3. Fred- they have this nice little button called ‘ignore’. I use it very sparingly, but effectively. I gave someone a second chance once, but he’s performed miserably and lost the privilege for good.

            4. Yeah! I did the same. I just put him back on ignore. There is only so much stupidity I can stomach. I’ve gone way over my allotted quota this time.

            6. Gentlemen.

              About 1 year ago I quit viewing PO.Com because of the bickering. Please don’t do this to the Barrel. I would really miss the support of knowing you are ‘out there’. (No pun intended).

              Seriously, don’t waste the time and energy. (arh arh).

              Want some good news? The wind has picked up and the jet stream has graced us with an onshore flow. The smoke is gone for coastal BC. Too windy to fish and the air is beyond bad just east of us, but I can feel my spirits lift by the minute. Now, if it would only rain……

  21. Fred/Fish – Looks like we have a (big) problem.

    PARTS OF THE ARCTIC ARE NOT FREEZING IN WINTER ‘INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT EARTH’S PERMAFROST WILL MELT AND RELEASE HUGE AMOUNTS OF GREENHOUSE GAS’

    • Soil in a remote region of northern Siberia did not freeze over during winter for the first time
    • This suggests much of the Arctic’s soil now remains soft all year round
    • During winter the ground normally freezes to form a protective layer, stopping the permafrost from melting

    ‘This is a big deal,’ Professor Ted Schuur, a permafrost expert at Northern Arizona University, said. ‘In the permafrost world, this is a significant milestone in a disturbing trend – like carbon in the atmosphere reaching 400 parts per million.’ Permafrost is found beneath nearly a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s landmass.

    Vladimir Romanovsky, permafrost expert at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, said: ‘For all years before 2014, the complete freeze-up of the active layer would happen in mid-January. ‘Since 2014, the freeze-up date has shifted to late February and even March.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6083151/Parts-Arctic-no-longer-freezing-winter-scientists-find.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490

    1. Great! Unfortunately not surprising or unexpected…
      As I recently quoted up thread:

      At the 2017 climate policy conference in Bonn,
      Phil Duffy, the Director of the Woods Hole
      Institute, explained that “the best example of
      reticence is permafrost… It’s absolutely essential
      that this feedback loop not get going seriously, if it
      does there is simply no way to control it.”       He says
      the scientific failure occurs because “none of this
      is in climate models and none of this is considered
      in the climate policy discussion… climate
      models simply omit emissions from the warming
      permafrost, but we know that is the wrong answer
      because that tacitly assumes that these emissions
      are zero and we know that’s not right”.51
      Bold mine.

      Where I’m at, it’s been too hot to go outside during most of the day, since April and I expect that to continue at least till October…. Perhaps that has been affecting my outlook on life in general.

      Cheers!

      1. So are we at seriously yet, or still at something between casually and mildly concerning?

    2. Eventually the permafrost will melt out but it is a bit soon for far northern permafrost to be muddy a few feet down in mid-winter. The freeze line here gets down to 3 to 4 feet even this far south with snow cover.
      Without a broader study, I suspect it is a local phenomenon due to the increasingly chaotic weather. The distributions of many phenomena are both shifting and broadening. When this type of event starts to happen on a regular basis it’s time to tighten the sphincters.
      Still, the warning shots are coming out of Siberia and other northern areas indicating future collapse of the permafrost and shallow ocean floor sections.
      No way to predict this one, just highlight it, it’s already on the list.
      Gives us all a nice warm feeling, when the Arctic blast is not freezing us to death.

      1. Fear of the ground and especially it’s opening up under us or being trapped underground is one of the primal fears of mankind. Now the ground itself is coming awake, oozing and gassing where is should be solid. The very earth is bringing out it’s form of ancient atmosphere trapped there long ago. Out of the stygian darkness, out of the pit …

        Thawing Alaska Permafrost Sends Autumn CO2 Emissions Surging

        Even into early winter, when the ground would have been frozen 40 years ago, microbes in the permafrost are continuing to release heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide emissions are now outpacing the uptake of CO2 during the spring and summer growing season, the study suggests.

        The study’s authors, researchers from Harvard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other institutions, measured atmospheric CO2 in Alaska and found that emissions from October through December have increased by 73 percent since 1975 and that the increase correlates with rising summer temperatures.

        The findings suggest that global climate models are underestimating how much greenhouse gas pollution will be unleashed as the Arctic continues to warm at twice the global average rate, said lead author Roisin Commane of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

        A recent report from the Arctic Council found that near-surface permafrost has warmed by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius in the last 10 years, and that summer thawing has deepened at most monitoring locations.

        “In some places in Alaska, it’s taking nearly 100 days until the entire layer, about 1 meter down, gets frozen hard through,” she said.

        https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08052017/arctic-permafrost-thawing-alaska-temperatures-co2-emissions

      1. This is a systemic problem across efforts involving the environment, a wide divergence of thought and agenda that nullifies unified action.
        Can no one keep their eyes on the target other than the sociopaths and their minions?

        1. What if the intention is to depopulate most of the earth and then start over?

            1. Or something like a genetically engineered virus that kills almost everyone who hasn’t been specifically immunized against it…

    1. Damn, 20 billion today, would’ve paid for a lot of solar panels and battery storage if they hadn’t gone and blown it on an obsolete and uneconomic nuclear power plant design.
      The only nuclear energy too cheap to meter is from that fusion reactor some 8 light mins away at the center of our solar system…

      Still it does underscore the problems we will face with all kinds of stranded assets upon which so many aspects of our current industrial civilization depend. Not to mention the costs of maintaining crumbling infrastructure such as the recent bridge collapse in Genoa Italy.

      1. “Damn, 20 billion today, would’ve paid for a lot of solar panels and battery storage”

        Yup! I did some back of the envelope calculations in a comment I posted on the August 7 Open Thread, linking to an article about the latest 1.1 billion in cost overruns. Here’s how I broke it down:

        “If they had used half of $27 billion and started construction of solar farms starting in about 2013, when construction of the nuclear units began, they might have been able to build about 3 GW of solar PV at $4.00 per watt construction costs and would have been able to complete construction easily within two years. If they then took the escalation in costs of the nuclear facility up to the present they could have maybe financed another 2 GW of PV at $2.50 per watt. Taking the expected 8.4 billion in expected escalation until scheduled completion in 2021 and 2022, they could have built another 5 GW at more than $1.50 per watt. So they could have ended up with 10 GW of solar PV over a ten year period for a similar amount of money they are paying for a problem plagued 2.234 GW nuclear expansion.”

        I also pointed out that 10 GW of solar PV in Georgia might generate a roughly similar amount of electricity as the problem plagued expansion of the nuclear plant might generate over the course of the average year.

        1. I agree. Combined with some night-time/winter Nat gas plants this would have a been a winning scenario by a long shot.
          And a nice boost for the PV industry.
          And no spent fuel rods.

    1. Maybe that melting permafrost feed back, will start to get serious soon…
      But Trump is winning the trade war with China and there’s no more need to regulate CO2 emissions. Yeeehaa!

    1. Yeah, That was written back when India had a population of only 600 million. Today, a mere 40 or so years later, it has a population of over 1.3 billion! I suspect our little life boat earth, is going to be swamped no matter what we do at this point.

      What always gets me, is those eternally delusional individuals who hold up the ‘Green revolution’ and the fruits of industrial civilization in general, as shining examples of human ingenuity and definitive proof that humanity has always found a way in the past and therefore it always will. Well, Good Luck, with that kind of thinking, Folks!

      “The definition of Insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!”
      Albert Einstein

      1. Bioethics, in the broad Potter sense of the term, as opposed to the narrow Georgetown sense of the term, is going to become a topic of increasing importance as the objective scarcity and Hobbesian scramble begins. Perhaps those toilet trained in economics, and the techno-cornicopians, will remain optimistic, but they two will eventually succumb to the realization that there are no good options, just some least bad ones. Given the American population’s current preference for ignorance over wisdom, I’d suggest the options will not be understood very well, and foolish choices will be made.

          1. Rats need a more positive rebranding. I suggest Taco Squirrels.

  26. Here is a grandly depressing article from Australia concerning The End of the Oceans .

    In June this year, scientists from the University of Tasmania and the University of Technology Sydney published research showing that over the past decade the biomass of large fish in Australian waters has declined by more than a third.

    Even more disturbingly, these falls mirror similar declines in marine life around the world. According to a 2015 report by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, populations of marine vertebrates including fish, turtles, birds, whales, dolphins and seals fell by half between 1970 and 2010. And although the drops in numbers were most extreme during the 1970s and early 1980s, in recent years they have accelerated again, suggesting a similar study conducted today would find an even greater decline.

    https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2018/august/1533045600/james-bradley/end-oceans

      1. If you’d like, I can also link to about a dozen or so recent papers documenting the increasing rates of ocean acidification to add to that already depressing scenario.

        Instead I’ll just link to the Smithsonian’s Ocean Portal page that addresses this issue in an educational format that can be perused at one’s leisure and specific level of interest.
        https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

        The double whammy of warming and acidification combined with all the other anthropogenic stressors, such as micro plastic pollution that corals ingest, coupled with agricultural runoff, pesticides, oil slicks, etc… etc… which is rapidly killing off all the world’s coral reefs.

  27. ARCTIC PERMAFROST

    Using a combination of computer models and field measurements, an international team of U.S. and German researchers found that abrupt thawing more than doubles previous estimates of permafrost-derived greenhouse warming. They found that the abrupt thaw process increases the release of ancient carbon stored in the soil 125 to 190 percent compared to gradual thawing alone. What’s more, they found that in future warming scenarios defined by the IPCC, abrupt thawing was as important under the moderate reduction of emissions scenario as it was under the extreme business-as-usual scenario. THIS MEANS THAT EVEN IN THE SCENARIO WHERE HUMANS REDUCED THEIR GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS, LARGE METHANE RELEASES FROM ABRUPT THAWING ARE STILL LIKELY TO OCCUR.

    Putting this in perspective, human fossil fuel emissions are the number one source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and in comparison, methane emissions from thawing permafrost make up only one percent of the global methane budget. But by the middle to end of the century the permafrost-carbon feedback should be about equivalent to the second strongest anthropogenic source of greenhouse gases, which is land use change.

    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Unexpected_Future_Boost_of_Methane_Possible_from_Arctic_Permafrost_999.html

    1. Aye, the burning lumps and bubbling cauldrons have unleashed upon us a ghastly brew.
      Shutter the windows and bar the doors oh beasts of Mordor.
      Something wicked this way comes.

      1. from the article

        “We don’t have to wait 200 or 300 years to get these large releases of permafrost carbon. Within my lifetime, my children’s lifetime, it should be ramping up. It’s already happening but it’s not happening at a really fast rate right now, but within a few decades, it should peak.”

    1. That is horrible. My deepest condolences for you and your family.

    3. Ron,

      I am so sorry. That’s practically in my back yard. My condolences to you and all family.

      Stanley

    4. My deepest condolences to you and your family in this time of tragedy and sorrow.

    5. Hard to imagine anything worse. Death is supposed to be for us — not kids.

    7. I am putting your family in my thoughts and prayers. Please stay strong in this difficult time.

    10. I am so sorry to hear that Ron. It is horrible. Condolences to you and your family.

    11. I’m sorry for your loss, Ron. I will keep you in my prayers.

      Regards,
      Ralph
      Cass Tech ’64

    1. Hi Ron,

      I feel your pain.

      Two funerals in my family within the last six weeks, and another one expected within a few weeks.

      Lurking, seldom posting, can’t afford the time anymore.

  31. Is this the new normal? It’s our second summer bathed in smoke. I live in the mountains but looking out my windows you wouldn’t know it. Thick gray smoke in every direction. You smell it, you taste it, you worry the next lightning strike will start a wildfire that will have you tossing a few heirlooms into your car and looking for a safe place to shelter.

    ‘THE LOST SUMMER’: THE EMOTIONAL AND SPIRITUAL TOLL OF THE SMOKE APOCALYPSE

    “Residents of the western provinces have been choking on smoke in recent weeks, as smoke from the more than 550 wildfires burning in B.C. drifts around the country. Special air quality alerts have been issued in Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George, Salmon Arm, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, the Battlefords and even Manitoba — and the list goes on. Air quality alerts are issued to warn residents about the dangers of fine particulate matter present in wildfire smoke, which can cause numerous health effects including everything from sinus irritation to heart attacks.

    But it’s not just breathing difficulties and watery eyes that impact people living in smoke-affected areas. For many, it’s the unsettling feeling of living under a thick cloak of smoke, one that obscures the sun, wipes out the blue sky and hides the landscape in a disconcerting brown-grey veil.”

    https://thenarwhal.ca/the-lost-summer-the-emotional-and-spiritual-toll-of-the-smoke-apocalypse/

    1. I can see a business opportunity for a fireproof annex/shed where a family can stuff a load of stuff in case of fire, like a nuclear shelter.

      NAOM

    2. Has there been a large organized climate change movement in BC and are they pressuring the federal government to drastically cut carbon emissions and keep the stuff in the ground? Or are they just watching the burn hoping it will stop?

      1. Our provincial government says it is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 2007 levels by 2050. That’s over thirty years from now. Provincial elections are held every four years so, call me a cynic but I’d say that’s just kicking the can down the road. There IS a lot of private pressure to stop pipeline expansions here, enough that the Federal Government may be defeated in next election on this issue. Again, call me a cynic but I don’t see these same people making lifestyle changes, more just jumping on a bandwagon while more-and-more mile long trans move oil from Alberta to the Coast on tracks running beside major Salmon spawning rivers. Maybe islandboy has a different take on this? I’d say most of us are just watching the smoke, hoping it will go away.

        1. Our provincial government says it’s is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 2007 levels by 2050. That’s over thirty years from now.

          Yeah, sigh! Quite typical of what most supposedly progressive and enlightened governments are all saying. Ignoring the rapidly mounting evidence that, that is probably way too little, way too late!

          Unfortunately the majority of the human population doesn’t understand the gravity of our planetary situation. Most are both mathematically and scientifically challenged. They don’t have the tools to understand risk assesment. The deniers have swallowed the no scientific consensus disinformation campaign outright, while the others still think that 2 °C is a safe limit and that we can actually achieve it. Personally I don’t know which is worse.

          From the Understatement of Existential Climate Risk paper

          Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam
          University says that:
          ““ The magnitude of the fat-tail risks of global
          warming is not widely appreciated and must
          be discussed more. For over two decades I have
          argued that the risk of a collapse of the Atlantic
          meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) in
          this century is perhaps five per cent or so, but
          that this is far too great a risk to take, given what
          is at stake. Nobody would board an aircraft with
          a five per cent risk of crashing.”

          Actually it might not be a bad idea for people to understand how the airline industry deals with risk.
          I recently watched this video about the complete maintenance teardown and rebuild of a British Airways Boeing 747. You would think that humans would pay at least as much attention to our planetary safety systems and their limits as we do to making flying as safe as possible. How many people would ignore a tiny hairline fracture in the fuselage, or doubt the engineers or mechanics opinions? Yet we ignore far greater risks with climate change and doubt our climate scientists.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_yHtfGH0nI
          British Airways Boeing 747-400 in D-Check
          Just under 1 hour long.

          1. Some added thoughts:

            I suspect, if one were to conduct a random poll of the population at large, only a very tiny minority would be able to grasp the implications of this graph.

            <I<Figure 2: Schema of climate-related risk. (a) Event likelihood and (b) Impacts produce (c) Risk.

            Lower likelihood events at the high end of the probability distribution have the highest risk (Credit: RT Sutton/E Hawkins).

            If we use the airliner safety analogy: A minuscule hairline crack in the fuselage might only have a 5% likelihood of propagating any further during the next flight and causing a catastrophic breach, leading to a sudden cabin depressurization at an altitude of 35,000 ft. Which, to put it in layperson’s terms, would be considered, HIGHLY RISKY!
            .

        2. Blame for lack of appropriate reaction is spread across all levels from scientists, governments, citizens, and corporations. The result is bringing a garden hose to a five alarm fire.

          But amidst all the confusion and huge amount of tasks that are needed just to survive daily in modern times as well as get through the next few months, the true dangers get ignored or diminished to the point of total unpreparedness.
          Here is an amazing old film showing what transistion looks like in a famous city. A cacophony of action and modern insanity from over one hundred years ago, which just a short time later was 80 percent destroyed. A model of how civilization collapses in the face of unexpected natural forces, low level of preparedness and poor design.
          Things look so “normal” in the film, the residents busy about their daily tasks with no clue as to what would follow. Very much as today.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q5Nur642BU&t=576s

          Will the poor design of “global civilization” merely amplify the effects of global warming and overpopulation? When nature takes the reigns, the result can be omnipresent and unstoppable.

          1. Here’s another possible analogy to think about. The Hindenburg on final approach to landing in New Jersey on Thursday, May 6, 1937.

            You could call it a text book exercise on how not to do risk management.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fURATK5Yt30
            Hindenburg Disaster – Real Footage (1937) | British Pathé

          2. BTW, the chaos of the traffic on that street is truly amazing to watch! Aside from the trolleys on tracks, No specified lanes for cars and horse drawn carriages. No traffic signs or traffic lights. No specified cross walks for pedestrians. Everyone just seems to be going every which way they please. This is a glimpse into the exact historical moment that Tony Seba talks about when the disruptive technology of the automobile was displacing the horse drawn carriage.

            1. Methinks you worry too much. Before we know it, the smoke will be gone, blue skies will be back, and Donald Trump will be chomping at the bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – starting in 2050.

            2. The apparent chaos seems to work, everyone getting to their destinations, due to the similar low relative speeds. I wonder how AI would deal with this situation.

  32. And they’re talking about first-year biology students for fucks sake. How can ANY university student believe in creationism?

    32-YEAR AUSTRALIAN STUDY REVEALS STEEP DECLINE IN STUDENT BELIEF THAT GOD CREATED HUMANS

    “Given that the creationist view (that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years, rather than evolved naturally over millions of years without the involvement of God) is common among American students, we wanted to know how much of a challenge introducing the evidence for evolution to first-year students would be for us in Australia.”

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/uons-3as081618.php

    1. The brainwashing (religious instruction) starts very young.
      Imagine if you tried to start when people became 18.
      I don’t think too many would believe in Santa Claus or virgins in Paradise.

    2. And they’re talking about first-year biology students for fucks sake. How can ANY university student believe in creationism?

      I wish I could say: ‘I’m shocked shocked’, but I’m not!

      Ironically, here’s a paper from Current Biology:
      https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30863-7
      CORRESPONDENCE| VOLUME 28, ISSUE 16, PR867-R868, AUGUST 20, 2018
      Creationism and conspiracism share a common teleological bias

      Summary
      Teleological thinking — the attribution of purpose and a final cause to natural events and entities — has long been identified as a cognitive hindrance to the acceptance of evolution, yet its association to beliefs other than creationism has not been investigated. Here, we show that conspiracism — the proneness to explain socio-historical events in terms of secret and malevolent conspiracies — is also associated to a teleological bias. Across three correlational studies (N > 2000), we found robust evidence of a teleological link between conspiracism and creationism, which was partly independent from religion, politics, age, education, agency detection, analytical thinking and perception of randomness. As a resilient ‘default’ component of early cognition, teleological thinking is thus associated with creationist as well as conspiracist beliefs, which both entail the distant and hidden involvement of a purposeful and final cause to explain complex worldly events.

      Note: this probably does not bode all too well for dealing with global issues like climate change either…

      Cheers!

      1. And from the paper:
        “In the USA, belief in creationism, while slowly declining, appears to have remained in the 40% range, four times that seen in our Australian survey,” Professor Archer says.

        I’d be willing to bet that it is no coincidence that roughly 40% of the electorate support Trump. His base is the Evangelical Christian Right.

        These are the same people who listen to Faux News and Alex Jones and believe every conspiracy theory out there!

        1. It would be very interesting to see a survey designed to hammer out that correlation between creationism and Trump voting, Fox listening and church going.

          1. Even though it doesn’t specifically mention Trump Supporters, I think that paper already pretty much does it.

        2. Note that strong belief in creationism isn’t one of the things on this long list.

          24 things that are considered ‘normal’ in the US but the rest of the world finds weird
          Jessica Booth

          https://www.businessinsider.com/things-normal-in-the-us-but-considered-weird-2018-8

          Sometimes people in the US forget that the way we do things isn’t necessarily the way it’s done everywhere else.

          That doesn’t necessarily mean these American customs are bad, it just means that they aren’t the norm throughout the world. Here are some regular things we do in the US that people from other cultures might think is a bit abnormal.

          Using money that is all the same color.
          Putting a lot of ice in our drinks.
          Using “America” or “Americans” to describes ourselves, our customs, and our country.
          Writing the date beginning with the month.
          Advertising prescription drugs all over the place.
          Hanging American flags everywhere.
          The fact that our pharmacies sell so many things.
          Eating bread that almost always tastes sweet.
          Using the imperial system of measurement instead of the metric system.
          The constant commercials on TV.
          Expecting free refills everywhere we get a drink.
          Using a lot of water in the toilet bowls.
          Putting giant gaps in between bathroom stalls.
          Drinking huge coffees while we walk around.
          Taking leftover food home from a restaurant.
          Eating giant portions.
          Paying sales tax on pretty much everything we buy.
          Tipping waiters and waitresses and other service professionals.
          Chatting with strangers and making small talk.
          Using red cups to drink alcohol out of.
          Wearing swimsuits to the beach.
          Going into debt in order to go to college.
          Throwing baby showers.
          Working constantly with very little vacation time.

          1. Note that strong belief in creationism isn’t one of the things on this long list.

            Note that this list is a humour piece, not a statistical study….of course, Fox viewers can’t tell the difference.

      2. I find many people who come to reject the religion of their parents try desperately to replace it with another belief system. From Buddhism to Pyramids, Gaia to Kabalah.

        1. Good point—
          One superstition for another.
          Buddhism, for many, is about the culture experience
          The work, etc is beyond most.
          Most monks don’t meditate.

          1. “Buddhism, for many, is about the culture experience”
            Indeed, as it is for a majority of Jewish people I have known.

            What is needed for people is a way to share spirituality and culture, without the interference of a medieval belief system, and a structure of authority and power.

  33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:UN_DESA_continent_population_1950_to_2100.svg

    The lower end of the range on global population projections from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs puts the peak at about 2045 in the low 8 Billions, and back down to where we are now at 2070. Thats 51 yrs. I can’t imagine the damage that over 7.7 B will do to the ecosystem over 50 yrs.
    By that time will have burned through a massive slug of additional coal, crude oil, and methane ( and every other type of -thane we can capture), as well as the equivalent of every single tree now standing.
    Coral and large land and sea creatures will be museum rare, dead zones will be hundreds of miles wide, and on.
    And that is the low end of the projection. The high end is north of 12 B.
    At that point, slugs will be a delicacy and be sorted by cubic millimeter [cml3]
    840 bitbit for those weighing 500-600 cml3

  34. 1968 — US: Yippie!: Pigasus, a true porker, wins Yippie nomination for US President, Chicago. A worthier candidate than most, he makes no pledges, refuses to claim “I am not a crook,” refuses to endorse the Vietnam War, refuses to claim he will end the war, nor espouse other lies other candidates make. Waves no flags, licks babies rather than kiss them. Like most, however, he is born to squeal like a stuck pig.
    “Today’s Candidate, Tomorrow’s Bacon.”

  35. A professor of meteorology no less! One would think a professor of meteorology would be conversant with climatology.

    WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE NOMINEE DUCKS CHANCE TO REFUTE CLIMATE SKEPTIC AT SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING

    Kelvin Droegemeier got exactly one hardball question at today’s Senate hearing on his nomination to be director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). It came from Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX), who believes the planet is not warming and that climate change has been fabricated by those “who want to expand government control over the economy.”

    “Are you familiar with the empirical data from satellite measurements that show no statistically significant warming over the past 18 years?” Cruz asked. And Droegemeier, a professor of meteorology at The University of Oklahoma in Norman and an expert on severe storm prediction, chose to sidestep the question.

    “I’m familiar with some of those studies,” he replied. “But I don’t study climate.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/white-house-science-nominee-ducks-chance-refute-climate-skeptic-senate-confirmation

    1. Given that the only correct response other than sidestepping the question completely as he did, would have been:

      “Senator Cruz, are you a complete fucking moron?! Those studies have been shown to be wrong!” They have been thoroughly debunked and anyone who still thinks they are valid can be considered to be a delusional climate change denier, with either a political or personal economic agenda! Next Question!

      In which case he definitely would not be getting that position… 😉

    2. Why would you expect a professor who studies meteorites to also study climate? So typical of you people in the matrix.

      1. Meteorology is a branch of atmospheric sciences which includes atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric physics, with a focus on weather forecasting.

        Meteoritics is the science (or study) of meteorites. The serious meteoriticist must have a working knowledge of astronomy, astrophysics, geology, mineralogy, petrology, chemistry, metallurgy and even biology. If interested, talk to Synapsid.

        1. Meteorology is a branch of atmospheric sciences which includes atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric physics, with a focus on weather forecasting.

          Obviously Hickory knew that. I took his post to be pure sarcasm. I laughed my ass off. Perhaps he should have put a smiley face after his comment.

          1. Indeed, comment was in jest. Glad to offer a laugh.
            I wish the voting public was smart enough that this joke would have been irrelevant.

            btw- I don’t know how to add emojis

            1. That’s ok! Despite my etymology explanation I was pretty sure your comment was in jest. But sometimes sarcasm does get lost on us, especially when posting text only.

              As for emojis, if you are posting from a smartphone you can add whatever is available from there.

              A simple winking emoji can be created by typing a semicolon, followed by a dash or minus sign and then using the close parenthesis symbol ; – ) but without the spaces 😉

      2. Meteorology: It’s mostly Greek to me!

        Etymology and meaning: “Science of the atmosphere, weather forecasting,” 1610s, from French météorologie and directly from the Greek ‘Meteorologia’.

        Metéōros (meaning “lofty” or “in the sky”) and -logia (meaning to speak, to explain) … so Meteorology means to speak or explain what is going on in the sky.

        While Doug gave a great explanation about the difference between Meteorology and Meteoritics, both words derive from the Greek root ‘Meteor’!

        The original meaning of “meteor” wasn’t “space rock.” In the Middle Ages in England it meant “any atmospheric phenomenon,” as did all the words in its family, including ‘Meteorites’…

        Disclaimer: I did have to learn some Greek and Latin to be able to understand biological nomenclature at one time but I Googled most of the above just to be on the safe side, after all this is the 21st century. 😉

        1. “I did have to learn some Greek and Latin to be able to understand biological nomenclature at one time.”

          Yeah, we had to be able to read Greek and Latin and have fluency in (any) two European languages (English didn’t count). This was a real bitch for some of the guys, they were all guys then. At least the Greek alphabet was handy when learning math, otherwise it all seemed like a cruel joke, especially when the people in Arts didn’t have to take ANY (serious) math or science courses.

          1. Yep, While I really do love the English language, I’ve never quite been able to understand the whole ‘English Only’ mentality. Granted I grew up in an environment where fluency in three or four languages was the norm and being a polyglot was not all that unusual.

            BTW, Google Translate currently has 106 languages available. I enjoy translating President Trump’s tweets to Mongolian and then back again to English, they make so much more sense that way! 😉

            Here’s an example: Original Trump tweet:

            Over 90% approval rating for your all time favorite (I hope) President within the Republican Party and 52% overall. This despite all of the made up stories by the Fake News Media trying endlessly to make me look as bad and evil as possible. Look at the real villains please!

            Google to Mongolian

            Бїгд Найрамдах намын доторхи Ерєнхийлєгчийн сонгуульд 90% -ийг баталсан бїх зєвлємж, нийт 52% Энэ нь Файлын Мэдээний Телевизийн бүх өгүүллэгүүдээс үл хамааран, намайг аль болох муу, муухай харагдуулахыг хичээдэг. Бодит бузар хүмүүсийг хараарай!

            Google from Mongolian back to English:

            All the recommendations of the presidential elections within 90% of the Republican elections, total 52% This is despite the fact that all news articles from the News Television show me as bad as possible. Look at the real bad people!

  36. Now here is a good article explaining why those in the news media aren’t able to cover the wildfires this year in the ways the people posting here would like.

    Fire Coverage Not Consumed With Climate Change
    by Michael Depp

    https://tvnewscheck.com/article/220680/fire-coverage-not-consumed-climate-change/

    Even by California’s standards, the summer of 2018 has been a scorcher for wildfires. Three major fires — the Mendocino Complex Fire, Carr Fire and Holy Fire — have consumed almost 600,000 acres as of this writing and have remained fixed on the radar of broadcast meteorologists across the state.

    But as those meteorologists continue their reporting on the fires, politically charged discussion of climate change is staying at the periphery of their coverage.

    Meteorologists say that isn’t necessarily because they don’t believe in climate change or its potential man-made acceleration.

    Rather, they say, it’s because they are far more focused on where the fire and smoke are and where they are going than on what’s causing them.

    “Our first obligation is the next 24 hours — tonight, tomorrow and the next seven days,” says Fritz Coleman, chief meteorologist at KNBC Los Angeles. “The problem with daily local weathercasting is it doesn’t have an opportunity, mainly for time and clarity, to get into the macro.”

    The on-air time constraints of 15-90-second hits inevitably curtail longer explanations, agrees Elaina Rusk, chief meteorologist at Scripps’ KERO Bakersfield. “I cover almanac data and how we are hotter than average every summer, but I don’t have the time to get into the scientific research on it on air.”

    On social media, however, it’s a different story, he says. She says she can include links and research that often draws from NASA or the National Weather Service.

    “I believe that the earth is warming. Whether that’s man-made or just a global warming pattern, I’m not completely confident in yet, but I share research from everything that I find to be trustworthy.”

    1. British Columbia: wildfires worse due to climate change

      You must have missed a few articles written by ‘those in the news’

      1. I’m referring to those on TV newscasts not being able to mention climate change. That is something Fred and Doug complain about often.

  38. I’m almost totally swamped these days with family responsibilities and my own personal affairs, including working on a website and book of my own.

    But I’m still lurking here and harvesting lots of useful information and great links.

    And I’m collecting info from lots of other places as well.

    Once in a while, I’ll post a link the regulars here will be interested in, such as this one.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/fracking-frack-master-chris-faulkner-parliament-texas-jail

  39. Fred – Beware, frisky dolphins at large. 😉

    BREST FRISKY DOLPHIN SPARKS FRENCH SWIMMING BAN

    “A mayor on the north-west coast of France has ordered a halt to swimming and diving on local beaches because of potential risks from a rutting bottlenose dolphin.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45319658

  40. On this date:
    1988 — US: George Bush says atheists should not be considered US citizens.

  41. Maybe it’s time to stop pretending humans are in control, that a few EVs and windmills will save the planet and get ready to face the music.

    ARCTIC METHANE EMISSIONS ‘CERTAIN TO TRIGGER WARMING’

    “As climate change melts Arctic permafrost and releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, it is creating a feedback loop that is “certain to trigger additional warming,” according to the lead scientist of a new study investigating Arctic methane emissions….

    Even if we ceased all human emissions, permafrost would continue to thaw and release carbon into the atmosphere. Instead of reducing emissions, we currently are on track with the most dire scenario considered by the IPCC. There is no way to capture emissions from thawing permafrost as this carbon is released from soils across large regions of land in very remote spaces.”

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-methane-emissions-certain-to-trigger-warming-17374

    1. Maybe it’s time to stop pretending humans are in control… and get ready to face the music.

      Murray (the coal miner) and Rex Tillerson would like that idea. Just stop complaining about fossil fuels, and get out the opioids.

      You foolish people who want to do something about climate change – just be quiet already…

      Seriously, Doug – that’s how the quoted comments above sound. Are you really suggesting that we just give up and do nothing??

      Would it make you feel better if anyone who was talking about solutions added a footnote that said “not guaranteed to prevent disaster”?

      1. Well Nick, do something. But it will not make one goddamn bit of difference what you do. We have passed the point of no return, not just on CO2 emissions but on population growth. We are destroying the earth in far more ways than just climate change.

        But please do something because it will make you feel a whole lot better. It won’t help any but at least you will feel good about it.

        1. Well, yeah.

          I know you feel that way very very strongly, and I don’t mind agreeing to disagree. I’m just puzzled about Doug, who seems to get quite mad at people who disagree with him.

            1. We are all going to die, so I guess with your thinking Doug. All the people who take life extending drugs are idiots.

              It’s people like you Doug who make it hard to correct the problem. You are your own worse enemy.

      2. Yup, 11.1 million light trucks sold in the US in 2016 with sales of light trucks accounting for about 65 percent of the 17.1 million vehicles sold in the United States. The International Air Transport Association expect 7.2 billion passengers to travel in 2035, a near doubling of the 3.8 billion air travelers in 2016. Strangely, no mention of electric planes. We’re certainly getting a grip on the emissions, aren’t we Nick? How many more people here by 2035 do you reckon? I’ll make it easy for you: add 83 million per year.

        1. Well, heck, you think I don’t know those stats? There are other stats that are more encouraging, but somehow I don’t think that it would help to remind you of them.

          So…why do you get so mad at anyone who suggests that there might be some helpful things to do about climate change, and that it would be a good idea to get about doing something about them?

          Now, I know that there are some people who say that there are solutions, and they don’t really mean it – they’re just arguing for passivity and inaction in the present, with the promise of action later. I understand getting mad at “passive deniers” like that.

          But…why get mad at people talking about solutions? You seem to be arguing for doing nothing…

          1. I get mad at self-righteous people, like you, inferring EVs and windmills are a solution to humanity’s problems as if we humans, and not ALL SPECIES, are part of the same package. Let’s forget fossil fuels and global warming and think about how the Earth’s creatures and ecosystems will fare with 10 billion humans fighting for food, fresh air, drinkable water, and a safe place to live — whether they have EVs or not. We’re not managing now! That’s 10 billion people chucking their garbage into the nearest ditch. You go on about recycling while the daily news reports an ever-increasing recycling crisis. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

            1. Hmm.. So, you’re saying that you’re mad because I’m not trying to tackle all of the world’s problems? You’re mad because I’m only talking about getting rid of fossil fuels?

              inferring EVs and windmills are a solution to humanity’s problems

              Who said that? Can you see that maybe that’s your assumption?? That maybe you’re reading that into the comments? Let me say it flatly – I’m not suggesting that. In fact, I’ve said the opposite a number of times: EVs will not cure cancer, eliminate war, or cure mental illness. EVs can cure oil consumption: that’s all.

              Would it help to footnote every comment with the warning: “Beware, proposals discussed do not solve all of the world’s problems simultaneously”??

            2. “Beware, proposals discussed do not solve all of the world’s problems simultaneously”??
              Good one Nick.

              I think that buildings that produce more energy than they use and vehicles that run on wind and sunlight are good start at changing the world. Everyone should have one.

              Now we need to focus and preserving as much of nature as possible.

            3. Gone fishing,

              Correct. I would add better access to birth control and education for women and girls Worldwide and equal right s for women. Educated women tend to have fewer children which might reduce the rate of population growth.

      3. Yes Nick the herd is starting to smell the meat packing plant so they will not act rationally or stay with their responsibilities to the larger group. When death is in the air you will get every range of emotional reaction with the maudlin/depressed group only being surpassed by the self-delusional group. All of them have found mental ways to give up and not fulfill their responsibilities. A true sign of decaying society, they give up before the battle is lost and turn over responsibility to the sociopaths and narcissists.

        1. Oh Fuck! Facing reality is not giving up. I have known for 40 years that the human population was destroying the ecosystem. It was obvious 40 years ago to everyone who was not stone fucking blind. Some people screamed, “we have to do something”. But the realist knew people will believe what they desire to believe and behave the way they desire to behave and dire warnings will have no effect whatsoever. People do not listen to warnings of coming catastrophe and act, they wait until the catastrophe is upon them and then react.

          A tiny minority of people will continue to believe they can prevent the collapse of our ecosystem and scream “do something, for God’s sake do something”, while the vast majority thinks everything is just fine because their religion or ideology says nothing really bad can ever happen to the world.

          I have heard it a thousand times before: “Science will think of something”, or “The government will not let that happen”. So they call us sociopaths, narcissists, or some other thing because we will not agree with them.

          I have thrashed this straw for half a century and I am now resigned to the fact that it is human nature that is the problem. We have developed brains that allow us to take over the niche of all other wild creatures and claim it for own. But we have evolved no adaptation that warns us of the disastrous consequences of what happens when we have gotten it all.

          1. I just wonder if these people would buy parachutes that open on impact? After all, that is their attitude to the environment.

            NAOM

    2. Methane is not easy to measure and come up with a single answer for its atmos concentration, since it varies by season, latitude and altitude.
      Nonetheless global measurements have been obtained, as the graphs in the attached wiki article show.
      By my reckoning the methane currently present contributes the equivalent global warming effect as about 50ppm of CO2 (now at 405 ppm). Correct me if I’m wrong.
      [1800ppb=1.8ppm times greenhouse factor of 28 = 50 ppm CO2 equivalent]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

      2. The greenhouse factor assumes a continuous rate of depletion in the future, as if the sources just disappeared and chemical decomposition was the only factor. In reality, methane has not only not been depleting but has continued to rise. It may continue that far into the future. But let’s deal with the known and the present.
        The only accurate measure of the greenhouse effect of methane is it’s actual instantaneous warming effect which is about 150 times that of CO2.
        1.8X150 = 270 ppm CO2 equivalent

        Basically, methane as it stands has replaced the baseline CO2 of pre-industrial times and CO2 is now totally above that.

        1. “Basically, methane as it stands has replaced the baseline CO2 of pre-industrial times and CO2 is now totally above that.”

          That’s a very interesting way to put it, one that should be widely expressed IMHO.

        2. The 28x’s factor is the appropriate one to use for this purpose. The 100 yr timeframe is not relevant for current effects. Regardless, none of it is good news, and it is catastrophic if arctic sources get liberated on a large scale. Proof will be in the (melted) pudding.

          1. Sure, if you believe that methane sources will diminish quickly, use the 28X factor. I prefer to deal in reality.

            1. Wow, its great to know we have such an expert on the reality of atmospheric chemistry among us. I stand corrected, and humbled.

              Perhaps you would consider going to the wikipedia article and correcting the mistake. They quoted a source which therefore should be replaced?-
              Myhre, Gunnar; et al. (2013), Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Tignor, M.; Allen, S.K.; Boschung, J.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V.; Midgley, P.M., eds., “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing” (PDF), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, retrieved 2016-12-22. See Table 8.7.

    3. Instead of reducing emissions, we currently are on track with the most dire scenario considered by the IPCC.

      Which would be RCP8.5
      BTW the RCP numbers represent 8.5 W/m^2
      This paper takes a look at what that might mean to humans and the planet.
      https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/global/climate
      In case there is anyone out there wondering, an RCP8.5 scenario is not even remotely survivable.

      Unfortunately as bad as that might be, due to understatement of the inherent risks as described in all the RCP scenarios, It seems that those scenarios don’t really come close to depicting how bad the conditions will be. So perhaps we should add an entirely new category of IPCC scenarios. Adding forcings, feedbacks and various tipping points…

      Perhaps we could call it RCP10.5 plus plus!

      Good Luck with that!

      1. Once we reach the +4 to +5C range the likelihood of a PETM type initiating is very high. What we do right now might not affect the very near term future much but it may affect the long term future of the planet quite dramatically.
        So to give up now is not only ignorant but horrendously immoral and irresponsible. Wresting control of civilization from the narcissists and sociopaths should be one of our major objectives.

        1. So to give up now is not only ignorant but horrendously immoral and irresponsible. Wresting control of civilization from the narcissists and sociopaths should be one of our major objectives.

          What exactly do you have in mind? I can’t even seem to convince my college educated siblings that we have a real problem! Let alone that we need to engage in massive paradigm change to all aspects of industrial civilization.

          1. And therein lies the problem! Even the Norwegians, a highly educated, environmentally conscious, and very wealthy bunch, plan to extract every last barrel of oil from their section of the North Sea.

          2. Don’t go getting all weak on me, you are a great communicator so get out locally or even further. Free library lectures with Drawdown book door prizes. Organize a small group of like minded individuals and get a radio station interview.
            Apparently young high school kids don’t wonder about what to do, they just do it.
            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/zero-hour-climate-march.html

            Even Austin Texas is in the battle.
            https://austineconetwork.com/climate-action/

            I am sure there are groups and organizations near you and if there are not, start one or connect to a larger one.

            1. And they have high hopes, high apple pie in the sky hopes.

              Yeah, they can convince 7.6 billion people to change their behavior. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

            3. I tried, in the 1970s, to tell people what was happening. I tried in the 1980s, and again in the 1990s, and again in the 2000s. Then it dawned on me, people do not hear warnings of coming disaster and act, they wait until disaster is upon them and react.

              But I have argued all along that there will be survivors. The best positive efforts you could possibly make is to try to be among the survivors. I have preached this to my children. They just think dad is a crazy old man.

              You cannot change the world but it is possible to change your own destiny.

              Oh well, I am not worried. I am 80 years old. I will be safely dead when the shit hits the fan.

            4. Humans simply don’t have the capability to deal with long-term “threats” (ie. decades into the future) because of our mobility and adaptability. We move. We rebuild. We believe we live on a static planet and not a dynamic one.

  42. Food for thought for the economics literate crowd – which doesn’t include me.

    THE ANTI-DOLLAR AWAKENING COULD BE RUDER AND SOONER THAN MOST ECONOMISTS PREDICT

    This month Russia was quick to recruit Turkey into the anti-dollar bloc, announcing it would back non-dollar trade with it, after a financial feud between Ankara and Washington broke out. China for its part is using its trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative as a tool to compel countries to transact in yuan terms instead of dollars. Pakistan, the number one recipient of Belt and Road money, and Iran have already announced their intention to do just that. Last month’s BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) summit in Johannesburg was a call to arms against the dollar hegemony with countries like Turkey, Jamaica, Indonesia, Argentina and Egypt invited to join in what is known as “BRICS plus” with the goal of creating a de-dollarized economy.

    https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/anti-dollar-awakening-could-ruder-071400820.html

    1. Forget Russia, it’s got half the GDP of California and is a bit player. The US needs to become very friendly with China and Europe.

      1. True, but last year, Russia produced a whopping 10.7 million b/d of oil, 23 Tcf of natural gas, and 365 Mt of coal. Maybe Russia is more important to Europe (and China) than California?

        1. If one wants to be held captive by the Russians and help wreck the world, then they will choose the petro-states.

            1. It’s their choice, not mine. I believe the Europeans and Chinese to have a lot of intelligent people. They are already leaders in renewable energy and the writing on the wall may be becoming clearer to many of them.

    1. Time to X you out Fred, you’re being ‘way too negative. It’s only 10:50 am Pacific Standard Time on a largely smoke free cloudless Monday morning.

      1. Please file your complaint with:

        NASA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
        Contact the Office of Inspector General
        Email: https://oig.nasa.gov/cyberhotline.html
        (202) 358-1220

        To report waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct contact NASA OIG Hotline
        Call: NASA OIG Hotline 1-800-424-9183

        Write: NASA Office of Inspector General
        P.O. Box 23089
        L’Enfant Plaza Station, Washington DC
        20026

        Cheers! 😉

  44. Sticking to my usual and ongoing Pollyanna-Cornucopian theme.

    AS CO2 LEVELS CLIMB, MILLIONS AT RISK OF NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES

    “Rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activity are making staple crops such as rice and wheat less nutritious and could result in 175 million people becoming zinc deficient and 122 million people becoming protein deficient by 2050, according to new research led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The study also found that more than 1 billion women and children could lose a large amount of their dietary iron intake, putting them at increased risk of anemia and other diseases.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-co2-climb-millions-nutritional-deficiencies.html#jCp

  45. Doesn’t sound good for us right now. One wonders how much of this is a “new reality” (climate feedback?) and how much is simply a couple of bad fire years in a row. Wonder also about where the El Niño prediction is coming from? If this is a “new reality”, rural living may not have much of a future here.

    2018 CANADA AUTUMN FORECAST: EXTENDED WILDFIRE SEASON IN STORE FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

    “Warmth will linger well into autumn across much of Canada, extending the already active wildfire season and delaying the first chill of the season. One reason for the widespread warmth is the anticipated development of El Niño.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/2018-canada-autumn-forecast-extended-121459482.html

    1. I am surprised that the fire seasons are so continuous from year to year. Usually these things start out as pulses since the occurrences increase as the “norm” shift. The western fires seem to have just turned on like a switch was thrown. More like a tipping point was crossed.

  47. Here is one for Ron
    The meme of growth that will not die and the false belief that democracy or the rule of law actually exist.

    In 30 years, if this scheme goes ahead, the county must build as many new houses, and the infrastructure, public services and businesses required to support them, as have been built in the past 1,000. A million new homes amounts, in effect, to an Oxford-Cambridge conurbation.
    But none of this is up for debate. By the time we are asked for our opinion, there will be little left to discuss but the colour of the road signs. The questions that count, such as whether the new infrastructure should be built, or even where it should be built, will have been made without us.
    https://www.monbiot.com/2018/08/24/my-way-or-the-highway/

    Of course a highway and one million homes over three decades is a mere drop in the bucket when over 80 million people are dropping onto the planet every year. That is not even elbow room.

    We are not in control, do not adjust the horizontal, do not adjust the vertical…

    1. We are not in control, do not adjust the horizontal, do not adjust the vertical…

      I am a little shocked GF. Are you starting to agree with me?

      1. Ron, I would never go so far as to actually agree with you. However, I am very aware of what has gone on with humans and nature, it’s a natural process of change.
        I have watched “democracy” and “freedom” be eroded away from the time I was a child. Just as I watched nature and older ways succumb to massive development, right in front of my eyes.
        But the current system is breaking down, which is both inevitable and necessary. It is nature’s way to get rid of the old to be replaced by the new. No one said it would be easy or pretty, but birth and change are painful.
        BTW that “We are not in control” blurb is from the TV show Outer Limits. 🙂

    2. “Can you think of
      any problem in any area of
      human endeavor on any scale,
      from microscopic to global,
      whose long-term solution
      is in any demonstrable way
      aided, assisted, or advanced by
      further increases in population,
      locally, nationally, or globally?”
      – Prof. Al Bartlett

      Row! Row! Row! your boat!
      Gently down the stream…
      If you see a CROCODILE,
      Don’t forget to SCREAM!

      1. Well, yeah. A larger population gives economies of scale. Beyond the basics, more people support some things like:

        Research in general, and medical research in particular. The human body is an extremely complex machine, so understanding it is an enormous project. OTOH, it’s a finite project, and the more people you have working to understand it, the sooner you have a cure for cancer, heart disease, disability, etc.

        The same applies to research into mental health, conflict resolution, ecosystems, energy – anything we care about that we want to make work better.

        That doesn’t say that our current population level is a good level…but it does answer Bartlett’s question.

        1. Sorry Nick, but our current population level is already fatal! Adding more people at this stage just speeds up ecological collapse and consequently our own demise. This is not something that is up for debate. That’s reality. You’re free to believe whatever you wish!

          1. That wasn’t the question that Bartlett asked, as I noted in my last paragraph.

            Jeez, people, read and respond to what people actually say!

            1. While Albert Bartlett was still alive I had the immense pleasure of exchanging correspondence with him personally on a few occasions.

              I can assure you that he would very strongly disagree with your apparent misunderstanding of his question, which was really posited as a challenge and he would disagree even more so with your response.

              Basically, his view in a nutshell, was that there is no such thing as sustainable growth and that we are already in ecological overshoot. With overpopulation being one of the biggest obstacles to the continuing survival of the human race.

              He also said this:
              “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

            2. Well, of course.

              He was presenting that question rhetorically, not really expecting that there was a real answer, because he felt so strongly about over population.

              But…he was wrong. There are real benefits to a larger population. Now…do they overcome the costs? No, I agree that they don’t. A lower population level would be better. But…let’s pay attention to details, and not make flaky arguments just because we’re passionate about the subject.

              And, let’s not assume, as I think Doug has in the past, that because someone disagrees about one thing, that they’re making a hidden argument for something else. Again, we should get our facts right, and our arguments right, and not jump on people because they don’t agree on every detail that seems to support one’s overall conclusion about something, no matter how important the “something” is.

            3. But…he was wrong. There are real benefits to a larger population. Now…do they overcome the costs? No, I agree that they don’t.

              No, he was right and BTW, if the benefits do not overcome the costs that eliminates the benefits, no?!.

              The last time we had a sustainable population not in overshoot was 1927 when the population was about 2 billion.

              This has nothing to with being passionate about something and I’m not interested in jumping on anyone because I disagree with them about an issue. We are in ecological overshoot and adding 80 million people a year at this point has no benefits whatsoever.

            4. if the benefits do not overcome the costs that eliminates the benefits, no?!.

              Ah. I think I see where our communication has broken down: in the approach to this kind of analysis.

              The usual procedure when doing a cost benefit analysis is to separate the benefits and costs. You break down the components of the benefits and costs, evaluate each one, and in the end you add them all up.

              I think it’s clear that Bartlett understood that. His argument was “The costs are overwhelming, and wow – there aren’t even any benefits at all on the other side of the ledger!”.

              As I think about it, I think any bio-ethicist worth his/her salt would point out another major benefit: the people themselves. Humans are an end in themselves, rather than just a means to an end. They are of value. So, all else being equal, more people is of value.

              Now, all else is not equal: if they displace other living things of value, or if they foul their own nest, then the picture is different. Again, just to be clear, I agree that our population level is too high. But…there are several definite components of value on the positive side of the ledger. That may create cognitive dissonance, but it should be recognized in a serious analysis.

            5. “advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”

              The United States would never be the Super Power it is today with the population count(approx. 120 million) it had in 1927. Let the rest of the world be America’s surfs and resources. Survival of the fittest will be the masters of the universe. You can’t build an army without soldiers.

            6. The United States would never be the Super Power it is today with the population count(approx. 120 million) it had in 1927.

              I’m afraid that by that logic India would have us beat by a mile at 1.3 billion to our 350 million and it would be on equal footing with China. Yet neither of those are true!

              If you read Yuval Noah Harari’s Homo Deus he explains that humans are becoming obsolete as laborers, farmers and soldiers because of technological disruption. So what may have worked in the past will not work in the future. Large populations are counter productive.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npfShBTNp3Q

              Will the Future Be Human? – Yuval Noah Harari at the WEF Annual Meeting 2018

            7. “I’m afraid that by that logic India would have us beat by a mile at 1.3 billion”

              Your moving the goal posts. I will stick to my original statement. The population increase of the United States over the last 91 years has improved it’s dominates in the world.

            8. Your moving the goal posts. I will stick to my original statement. The population increase of the United States over the last 91 years has improved it’s dominates in the world.

              Actually the reason the US has managed to dominate the rest of the world is because during a rather sizable chunk of that time period, it had access to plenty of cheap oil. That is also the reason it’s population grew. So you have that part backwards.

              Not having access to oil was one of the main reasons the Germans were finally defeated during WWII.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg
              The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 – OIL

              All of which does not change the fact that adding more people to this planet at this point in time, no longer confers any advantage to anyone!

            9. There are real benefits to a larger population.

              Yes, of course there are. In case of war, far more can be killed off and still have some left. But I can think of no other benefit other than that.

  49. Some wildfire trivia (if anyone cares):

    Apparently the average emissions from forest fires in the boreal plains, where the northern Alberta fires burned last year, were about 170 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare. If you multiply by the 239, 390 hectares, the area of the Fort McMurray fire had covered by May 11th, that fire had already released about 41 megatonnes of CO2 equivalents in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

    And this was from last summer in BC which we’ve now surpassed. Perhaps it’s time to move to Norway which I would have done already if it weren’t for my Grandson living here. BTW Insurance companies are making it more difficult every year to get coverage on rural properties. Which, I suppose, was inevitable.

    WILDFIRE EMISSIONS [in 2017] GROW TO TRIPLE B.C.’S ANNUAL CARBON FOOTPRINT

    “The largest B.C. wildfire season on record has emitted an estimated 190 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — a total that nearly triples B.C.’s annual carbon footprint. With climate change increasing, the risk of these emissions increasing in the future is very high. If we get more of these extreme summers in the future, the likelihood is that we get more of these large emissions — and they of course add to the atmospheric burden, and therefore accelerate climate change.”

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/it-s-alarming-wildfire-emissions-grow-to-triple-b-c-s-annual-carbon-footprint-1.4259306

    1. Global biomass burning is putting about 1/3 of the carbon into the atmosphere as compared to all fossil fuel burning. That means that biomass burning is putting significantly more carbon into the atmosphere than total global fossil fuel driven transport (15 to 20 percent as compared to 33 percent of fossil fuel carbon).
      The wildfires seem to be increasing and the use of biomass for energy is definitely on the increase.

  50. Fred might find this particularly interesting. This is something I have been curious about ever since the passage of Hurricanes Irma and Maria last year. IIRC at the time I said that these experiences should constitute a learning moment for the solar industry. Apparently there were others thinking the same thing!

    How to install solar power strong enough for a hurricane

    The 2017 hurricane season gave analysts at the Rocky Mountain Institute a broad dataset of storm-related solar power plant outcomes, from which they have delivered a list failures and specification for high wind speed survival.

    When a hurricane hits, its much more like a never-ending herd of elephants than the freight train feeling that tornados are said to resemble. South Florida has implemented wind speed requirements for construction of anything from houses to solar installations in excess of 155 mph, up to 185 mph. That speed is fitting as the multiple storms that hit the state and region in 2017 did have sustained wind speeds over 180 miles per hour.

    And it is this 2017 hurricane season that was the research body for the Rocky Mountain Institute‘s (RMI) Solar under storm: Select best practices for resilient ground-mount PV systems with hurricane exposure (PDF download).

    The big takeaway is that a solar installation, with just a few refinements in design, procurement and installation, either will or will not survive the exact same storm.

    I was particularly curious about a solar farm at Humacao at the eastern end of Puerto Rico. Phase one of the project was damaged somewhat but the still incomplete phase two was a total wreck. In th picture below the difference between the two phases is stark! Somebody must have learned something from that. IMHO this report should required reading for anyone involved in the planning, design, approval and installation anywhere in a hurricane affected zone!

    1. According to this it really is a question of being pound foolish and penny wise!

    2. Seeing some of the installations around here I expect to be able to pick up a few panels after the next storm. Tall (3m) supports with no cross bracing etc.

      NAOM

Comments are closed.