[GHung]

Pops wrote (w clog quote):

LOL, "stop diverting rivers to the ocean" was the ina[n]e pronouncement from the Whitehouse when granting emergency aid

More on that here:

Even the White House can't explain President Donald Trump's tweets suggesting California environmental laws have worsened wildfires raging in that state.

On Tuesday, administration officials declined to offer any clarity on Trump's series of tweets claiming environmental laws and water regulations in California are hampering the state's ability to fight the wildfires. Wildfire experts and local officials say the President's claims simply don't hold up.

And yet certain...characters...around here just recite every inane word that drops from the Twitler in Chiefs tweets as if they are gospel...sad, really...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics ... index.html

Trump's tweets aren't designed to make sense or address any reality. They are designed to fuel Cog's reactionary anger. Funny how well that's working.

[Plantagenet]

All major nations are failing to meet their CO2 pledges under the Paris Accords

prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises

When you add up all the CO2 pledges in the Paris Accords, it amounted to an agreement to INCREASE CO2 emissions. And if that wasn't bad enough, countries are increasing their CO2 emissions even more then they promised to increase them in the Paris Accords.


Hothouse Earth here we come!


Scientists are now indistinguishable from doomers, and predictions of imminent global catastrophe and population collapse are no longer just the stuff of internet sites---- a prediction of climate catastrophe and die-off in decades just got though peer review in a major scientific journal.

Cheers!

[onlooker]

http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/irreve ... s_here_now
A bit puzzling the claim of CC irreversible for at least 50 more years
It is irreversible period now.
And this:

Worst-case scenarios look increasingly likely
The most alarming projections for global warming this century also seem to be the most reliable, according to a December study in Nature that compared climate models against what’s already happening in the atmosphere (see “Global Warming’s Worst-Case Projections Look Increasingly Likely”).

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6096 ... f-control/

[dissident]

@ Diss .....not sure the researchers are worried whether you buy it or not

You are a clown for trying to wave "researcher" authority at me. You instantly dismiss my point without offering a shred of a rebuttal.

A Hothouse planet is unlikely to have 3.5 billion humans living on it ......the estimates I have seen are generally 1 billion or less

My opinion , based on 30 years experience in agricultural systems , is that 1 billion is being extremely optimistic

The point which you are utterly missing is that population control does not equal to a solution to global warming. Let that sink in.

The solution at 7 billion or 3.5 billion is to take the necessary measures that apply to everyone and to do it fast.

[kiwichick]

@ dohboi.......30 years farming / consulting in New Zealand and Australia .....mainly dairy....some cropping ....has convinced me how vulnerable our ag systems are to variations in climate/ weather extremes

In my experience both NZ and Aus are vulnerable ... Aus probably more so on the mainland ... Tasmania is in a better relative position....cooler and wetter.

If you look at the grain belt in both South west and South east Aus , both rain and temperatures are critical ...minor increases in temp . , particularly when rain has been below normal levels can ....and does ... drastically reduce crop yields.

The long term trend in rainfall in both areas ( SW Western Aus and NSW / Vic ) are declining .... about 10 % so far....and temperatures have risen by approx. 0.9 degrees C over the last century

In NZ we are particularly vulnerable to disruption of fertilizer imports ....Phosphate and Potash mainly ...but also Sulpher and Magnesium .....most NZ soils are relatively recent and not very fertile in their natural state. Most of our fert is imported from the middle East and North Africa .....not the most stable of areas. Our climate is more temperate than Aus ...but the east coast of both North and south Islands will be increasingly susceptible to drought in a warming climate ....and the West coasts could be subject to more extreme rainfall events in the future

Effectively we are like everywhere else.....adapted to the current .....or cooler ....conditions .....not hotter ones.

[Tanada]

Yes SOUTH Australia is getting drier, but TROPICAL Australia is expanding southward at the same rate. For every degree of latitude that shifts from dry to desert another degree of desert shifts to wet and dry tropical climate patterns.

When you focus on just one spot while talking about a place as big as Australia you miss a great deal of the picture.

Since 1979, the planet’s waistline been expanding poleward by 56km to 111km per decade in both hemispheres. Future climate projections suggest this expansion is likely to continue, driven largely by human activities – most notably emissions of greenhouse gases and black carbon, as well as warming in the lower atmosphere and the oceans.

Rounding that to 50-110 km a decade or 5-11 km a year what does that mean for Australia? Well sediment studies logging the last 50 million years or so of data strongly suggest that north Australia will not only continue to be tropical jungle, but also that the jungle will spread a long way to the south as the global climate warms. On the other hand the same study shows south Australia and eventually Tasmania will have their moderate climate replaced with a desert climate.
So if you are a smart person in Australia what do you do? My recommendation. if you live in the south sell while your land is still valued and invest the money you get in new land as close to the climate zone line on the dry side of the convergence in the north. With an advancing rate of 5-11 km a year and skill in picking your location you should end up in a wet/dry tropical zone soon after you invest and then you can grow any of the crops typically grown in the wet and dry tropical climate zone for the foreseeable future.
Here is a link to a lengthy study confirming these paleoclimate reconstructions.

[evilgenius]

Thinking in terms of survival, I wonder if this means that there will be places where, just like in winter with cold, it won't be possible to live exposed to the elements for very long? People do live in these places. They use structures to do so, and they travel about inside of their cars. They don't stay outside in the cold very long. But is it harder to defend against heat than against cold? Is there anything about surviving in heat that people will have trouble with? I can see more people living in earth homes, perhaps. In Southern France I saw close building techniques that gave people a lot of shade in some of the small towns I visited when I was there. Maybe the spread out way of suburban building won't make it past the next half degree in various places, like Phoenix? That'd be a huge shock to some people. In some cases, it would mean changing almost everything about their lives, down to their ideals and beliefs.

[Pops]

The earth is a heat sink. Down a ways, say 10', there is a lot of "coolth." Earth mass is a flywheel so needs cooler temps in the winter to "recharge" and it gets warmer as summer wears on. Too, the soil plays a part I'd guess, tighter soils holding more heat, maybe?

I'd almost say the better place is the currently warmer places as they are longer adapted. I'm now in Washington state, NW US, just inland from the coast on the Columbia river. This area gets 48" rain avg but has the typical Mediterranean dry summer that I'd guess will get longer and longer. Tho it is moderated by proximity of the ocean I assume drought conditions here will increase. Moderate drought ATM.

[GHung]

Perhaps you folks are unaware of this stuff? Really? I posted it a bunch of time in appropriate threads. Increased CO2 emissions have triggered an equal or greater CO2 uptake response by the planets vegetation, ie Gaia has saved the day with his/her negative feedback. It removes CO2.

35 years of NASA satellite data (below) was analyzed by an international team of scientists as reported in Nature Magazine (following article)

Official NASA web site: "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds"

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Nature Journal of Climate Change: Greening of the Earth and its drivers

We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend. – Zhu et al.

This new trapped trapped carbon dwarfs all the carbon ever previously locked up (and recently combusted) in all the coal and oil produced over the last 150 million years. Petroleum science instructs us that anaerobic decomposition and deposition of organic matter was an extremely rare event. Not so global greening.

The NASA data doesn't even include additional growth of sea/freshwater algae. Land and sea plants use identical photosynthetic process, so the additional uptake CO2 in additional growth of algae of atmosphere carbon dwarfs the land-based/measured uptake.

Yes. That's why atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing. Because increased greening is dwarfing "all the carbon ever previously locked up (and recently combusted)".

Pstar's Increased Greening/Dwarfing Graph




I'm sure you can explain that, P.

[drwater]

Explain what? I did already. Again: incredible, huge, record amounts of CO2 are now being removed from the atmosphere. In amounts that dwarf what we burn.

I think Ghung was explaining basic math. If the total CO2 removal rate exceeds total CO2 production, then CO2 concentration would be decreasing. But it's actually increasing - quite rapidly on a geologic time scale. Go back and look at your 7th grade math book.

[Cid_Yama]

Atmospheric CO2 increases have leveled out in recent years.

What kind of nonsense is that? We touched 400 ppm in 2013, crossed that threshold permanently in 2016, never to return, and breached 410 ppm just one year later. Shortly we will pass 410 ppm permanently.

pbrain more like it.

[Pops]

I'm not big on models, I like this one tho

but even if correct the story ends the same:

Without effective reduction of global CO2 emissions, however, future climate change remains a stark reality.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428

“Unfortunately, this increase is nowhere near enough to stop climate change,” says Keenan, adding that their results answer questions and pose new ones. “We’ve shown the increase in terrestrial carbon uptake is happening, and with a plausible explanation why. But we don’t know exactly where the carbon sink is increasing the most, how long this increase will last, or what it means for the future of Earth’s climate.”

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/11/08/at ... co2-pause/

[GHung]

From my friend pstar:



ghung, your charts are dishonest and incomplete. 1200 ppm is actually historically low 300ppm or less is unhealthy. Current levels are great for people, plants and the planet.

A number of things could have produced that growth rate curve, like a big fat recession in the middle of it. But NOAA and the EPA may be trying to pull our legs, eh? Anyway, with our locally cooler temps and above normal rainfall this summer, things are sucking up a lot of carbon as I type.

[drwater]

PStarr,

Apologies for getting snarky. There is already too much snarkiness on this site. Here where I live because the nights have been so warm and we have had continuous smoke and ash for about 30 days, it kinda makes one grumpy. Things are so different than 40 years ago, it's hard to believe anyone around here doubts global warming. California average nighttime summer temperatures are up 6 degrees F over the last 40 years.

Look at the chart drwater. Read the link drwater. Atmospheric CO2 increases have leveled out in recent years, as the effects of CO2 fertilization upon earth's plants has begun to ramp up. Just the beginning of GAIA's happy nuturing love for us. It will be wonderful

Yes, that's a good thing, BUT "increases have levelled out" in the article you quote only means that the rate of increase has levelled out. Concentrations are still increasing, which means total CO2 emitted (from people, bacteria, everything) still exceeds CO2 sinks. The large amounts of anthropogenic CO2 added still exceed any increase in uptake by sinks such as plants and oceans despite your previous posts stating the contrary.

[Plantagenet]

The ratio of CO2 entombed in fossil fuels to free CO2 and CO2 already in the planets vegetation is minuscule. We could burn many orders of magnitude more coal and oil then exists in total on the planet, and the released carbon would be a tiny fraction of the carbon sunk in the planets oceans, grasslands and forests.

True enough.

But the greenhouse effect is a direct function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And that value is clearly going up, increasing the greenhouse effect and causing global warming.

You do get that the concentration of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, don't you?

Cheers!