- Oct 12, 2019 at 2:04 pm #3613729
I think in 10 years it will still be barely noticeable
Natural weather variation is bigger than any increase from CO2. For example, the 1935 labor day hurricane in Florida is still the biggest hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. Maybe within 10 years there’ll be a bigger hurricane, we’ll see.
People in the arctic are already noticing change because change in the arctic and antarctic is bigger.
People in low lying areas that experience flooding pre global warming will get a little worse. Maybe that’ll be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and some areas will have to be abandoned.
If the problem is over hyped, in 10 years when most people don’t notice any major change they might discount the whole problem. It’s like over hyping the risk of marijuana.
Like I said, this is the problem with global warming. The big effects are 100 or 1000 years from now. Hard to get people off their phones to worry about this.
“Sea levels could rise as much as 19 inches by 2050, according to what the report calls “mid-range projections.”
So, in 10 years, maybe sea level will increase 6 inches. Storm surge in hurricanes can be 10 feet. Katrina was 28 feet. An extra 6 inches would be hardly noticeable.Oct 12, 2019 at 11:52 pm #3613783
I disagree concerning the pace of change. For example, Japan is currently experiencing its worst typhoon in 60 years. But over the last year or two, and I rather think much longer, flooding events have been worsening, as have extreme heat events. These events have very serious effects and costs.Oct 13, 2019 at 12:05 am #3613785
The thing to remember is that a lot of big cities are very close to sea level – often within not many inches. They were built where it was ‘convenient’ at the time. Sometimes, parts were built on reclaimed marshland (that’s how you get rid of all the community rubbish). There was no incentive to go much above sea level with them.
Now, if you only have (or rather, HAD, 50 years ago) a few inches of freeboard, then a 6″ rise in AVERAGE sea level is going to be very significant. If the weather also gets worse, as we are seeing, then storm surges are going to add to this problem.
Of course, if half your State is built on a very low-lying sand bar and the water level is rising, then you have an even bigger problem. Sea walls will not help you, as the sea water will just infiltrate underground. The next big rain storm is going to be … wet. Hello Florida (or should that be Goodbye?).
CheersOct 13, 2019 at 12:20 am #3613788
Typhoon Hagibis makes landfall in Japan, leaving at least two dead
Chie Kobayashi, Yoko Wakatsuki and Carly Walsh : CNN News :
October 12, 2019
Takeshita street, one of the most crowded and well-known shopping areas in the city, is pictured completely deserted in the Harajuku district of Tokyo.
Evacuation advisories affect tens of millions
Evacuation advisories have been issued throughout much of the Tokyo region, affecting tens of millions of people. The Japanese capital is in lockdown, with usually busy streets abandoned amid torrential rain.
At least eight prefectures have ordered evacuations totaling 936,113 people, the FDMA said, and 292,770 households are without power, according to Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and Chub Electric Power Company…
… All flights to and from Tokyo and nearby airports have been canceled until at least Sunday morning. All bullet trains between Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka are also canceled, as are most non high-speed trains….Oct 13, 2019 at 12:37 am #3613792
Typhoon Hagibis: four dead in Japan as ‘worst storm in 60 years’ roars through
Threat of widespread flooding and landslides compounded by earthquake in Chiba prefecture
Gavin Blair in Tokyo and Jamie Doward with Agencies : The Guardian : Sun 13 Oct.
Damage caused by typhoon Hagibis in Chiba Prefecture, east of Tokyo. Photograph: Jiji Press/EPA
A firefighter makes his way through a flooded residential street in in Tokyo. Photograph: AP
… Evacuation orders had been issued to more than 800,000 households in Tokyo on Saturday as Hagibis threatened power cuts and widespread flooding.
Storm surges and high waves raised sea levels by more than a metre along some stretches of the coast, and waters in Tokyo Bay were up by 50cm, increasing the danger of severe flooding in the city centre.
The heavy rain caused a river in Nagano prefecture, north-west of Tokyo, to flood its banks. Some houses along the Chikuma river were nearly fully submerged in water and at least one person was rescued from the roof of a house by helicopter, NHK said. Part of a road was swept away in flooding.
Authorities issued evacuation advisories and orders for more than 6 million people across Japan as the storm unleashed the heaviest rain and winds in years. Some 80 injuries were reported while more than 270,000 households lost power, NHK said…Oct 13, 2019 at 12:44 am #3613793
Jerry, there’s also frequency of violent storms, intensity of storms, frequency of fires, flooding, heat waves, etc. We’re already seeing this. You suggest that things will average out. I’m skeptical. We keep seeing 100 year storms–that’s an average–every ten years or so. Moreover, I think that people are noticing changes, and they’re all for the worse.
I think these changes are already upon us and will only ramp up, probably faster than we think. There’s no re-freezing permafrost and all that trapped carbon.
Wait ’till ocean currents start getting weird.
That said, we’re having a respite from really horrible fires here in Northern California so far this year, after three (#more?) years of hell in a row. I wonder if you’re in a sweet spot in the PNW that hasn’t experienced all this–all of Wa. state has.
and again, I’ll be glad to be wrong.Oct 13, 2019 at 1:17 am #3613796
I have to agr… aaaarrrrrggghhhh help!
But no-one disputes that the effects of climate change will vary from place to place. I presume that some areas are being less affected than others, or conditions are such that the changes are not particularly onerous, or can be easily tolerated.
I think also it is quite legitimate to dispute some of the assumptions and rhetoric that we are using. e.g., this last summer, both my wife and I considered it easier to bear the extreme heat than the previous summer. The change is not simply linear.
I get particularly concerned with the effects in Japan having seen some of the erosion there that has occurred through slips, and some of the devastation wrought on citizens and the infrastructure, though admittedly some of that is the effects of earthquakes – but even those effects are compounded later by extreme rain events. Torrential rainfall has to be experienced first-hand. 12 hour blocks of constant steady downpour stuck in a small tent certainly affects my opinion.
It really is difficult trying to sustain objectivity.Oct 13, 2019 at 1:42 am #3613798
It really is difficult trying to sustain objectivity.
You just have to accept reality.
Nature WILL happen whether anyone accepts it or not of course. :)
CheersOct 13, 2019 at 1:52 am #3613799
Actually I’m agreeing with Robert all the time. He does the heavy lifting; I just opine.
I just learned about sockpuppets: one person logs on to a site under two or more names and agrees with his alter egos to make it look like there’s a groundswell of support for his (women are too honest to do this) opinion.
(unless I’m actually Katt in disguise).Oct 13, 2019 at 2:36 am #3613803
Which in the forthcoming US election, I’m guessing will likely be substantial, thanks to Russian troll factories…
I wonder whether we can any longer separate human from nature, given our impact on the ecosphere. More like the human~nature dialectic.Oct 13, 2019 at 1:24 pm #3613878
yeah, that’s what I was going to say – sock puppets – Russians
now that that’s been shown to be so effective and well known, the Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians,… will be doing the same thing. And anyone else that wants to influence public opinion – political parties, companies,…
Hillary made a funny joke – Trump could enlist the support of the Russians, Hillary could enlist the support of the Chinese. This is what it’s come to.Oct 13, 2019 at 2:36 pm #3613884
if you plot number of hurricanes per year, or number of cat 4 or 5 hurricanes per year it’s hard to see an increase in recent times.
It does seem like there are an unusual number of “100 year” floods. Houston keeps getting huge floods for example. One problem is that we keep paving land so the water runs off faster causing bigger floods. And people keep building in low lying land so its affected more. It does seem like hurricanes are slowing down but there’s no well established science that explains this very well, this could be an effect of global warming.
Another change is the “polar vortex” seems loopier so colder air from the arctic gets down to the middle of the U.S. where it’s actually colder. Warmer and drier in Portland though. Again, not well understood scientifically and how global warming is causing this.
If you look at articles they often talk about what will happen by the year 2100.
My point isn’t “Rog” – this is all made up, it’s just that it’s a slow process and very complicated and not well understood. Where is Rog anyway?Oct 13, 2019 at 8:31 pm #3613913
it’s a slow process and very complicated and not well understood.
Well, modelling the entire planet at high resolution is not for the weak-hearted! But the models are steadily getting better, and they are all headed in one direction. Sadly, the direction seems to be that it is worse than we had hoped.
CheersOct 13, 2019 at 9:40 pm #3613918
yeah, I agree, often worse than predicted. Scientists are usually conservative.Oct 13, 2019 at 11:00 pm #3613921
an example of things being worse than previously thought.
global warming causes methane to evaporate into atmosphere which will increase global warming. None of their climate models include this. If there is significant methane release things will be much worse.
“The team studied more than 60 sites known to have had methane emissions at the water’s surface in the past.
Each emission site varies in size. Some spread across 100 square meters of sea surface. Others can cover a square kilometer. When the plumes of methane reach the surface, the water looks like it’s boiling. The researchers take samples of the air above the bubbling columns to determine how much methane is coming out of the sea, and its potential to alter the atmosphere.
In previous trips, Semiletov said he found methane at 3, 4 or 5 parts per million at these sites, well above the average atmospheric methane concentration of 1.7 parts per million. On this trip, some of the measurements were up to 16 parts per million.
Semiletov said he embarked on 30 to 35 expeditions over the past 15 years, but on this one there were some surprises.
He said the methane emissions, which look like torches or flares, are “all increasing.””Oct 13, 2019 at 11:35 pm #3613924
Well, it’s more than that. as Roger saysm, this is a highly complex series of events. A lot of unexpected eventualities have occurred. Earlier predictions didn’t take into account feedback loops for example. Melting permafrost is another wild card, although models are emerging that take that into account. Ocean warming is not entirely understood. And what if huge wildfires start occurring on an even more massive basis–and why won’t they? and what’s occurring on the south pole? Etc, etc.
so scientific models can’t keep up with what’s going on, Marvin.
In all of this there’s no imaginable emergence of a countervailing tendency–more co2 turns out to benefit plant life and the world turns incredibly lush for example. Or Co2 blocks sunlight and temps fall. No. So we continue the uninterrupted downward spiral.
although: maybe changed ocean currents will bring tropical weather patterns to the west coast of the U.s. and rains will douse all the fires. That’s just my wishful thinking by the way. Not gonna happen in any helpful time frame.Oct 14, 2019 at 3:04 am #3613943
I understand that the typhoon that raced through Tokyo last weekend included rain events exceeding 1 meter in 24 hours in some places, and its severity is regarded as “unprecedented”.
IN PICTURES: The chaotic aftermath of Typhoon Hagibis
An aerial photo shows a shinkansen rail yard in Nagano partially submerged following flooding caused by Typhoon Hagibis. |
Ten Hokuriku Shinkansen Line trains worth ¥32.8 billion sustain damage after yard is flooded in Typhoon Hagibis
Hokuriku Shinkansen trains stand in flood waters in the city of Nagano on Sunday after the Chikuma River overflowed and flooded nearby areas. | KYODOOct 14, 2019 at 4:13 am #3613957
“In all of this there’s no imaginable emergence of a countervailing tendency”
if it’s warmer more water will evaporate from the ocean
water vapor in the atmosphere can both amplify warming (positive feedback – it’s a potent greenhouse gas) and reduce it (clouds can reflect light back to space)
how much of each is a subject for researchers, not well understood
the reflecting back to space part is a countervailing tendency (negative feedback)
another negative feedback is when CO2 goes into the atmosphere, some of it goes back into the ocean. Otherwise there’d be more in the atmosphere and there’d be more warming. Of course, CO2 in the ocean creates other problems, like in interferes with the chemistry of forming shells from calcium
more positive and negative feedbacks than we’re aware of or understand
this is a very interesting science experiment we’re livingOct 16, 2019 at 1:59 pm #3614243
‘It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters
A short glossary of the changes we’ve made to the Guardian’s style guide, for use by our journalists and editors when writing about the environment
Sophie Zeldin-O’Neill : The Guardian : Wed 16 Oct 2019
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense e.g. “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”.
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.
4.) “greenhouse gas emissions” is preferred to “carbon emissions” or “carbon dioxide emissions”.
Although carbon emissions is not inaccurate, if we’re talking about all gases that warm the atmosphere, this term recognises all of the climate-damaging gases, including methane, nitrogen oxides, CFCs etc.
5.) Use “wildlife”, not “biodiversity”
We felt that ‘wildlife’ is a much more accessible word and is fair to use in many stories, and is a bit less clinical when talking about all the creatures with whom we share the planet.
6.) Use “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”
This change emphasises that fish do not exist solely to be harvested by humans – they play a vital role in the natural health of the oceans…
In order to keep below 1.5C of warming, the aspiration of the world’s nations, we need to halve emissions by 2030 and reach zero by mid century. It is also likely we will need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, perhaps by the large-scale restoration of nature. It is a huge task, but we hope that tracking the daily rise of CO2 will help to maintain focus on it…
“People need reminding that the climate crisis is no longer a future problem – we need to tackle it now, and every day matters.”Oct 21, 2019 at 2:01 am #3614954
Oh no, wine makers are now part of the global warming conspiracy, with climate change researchers, China, and Robert
They claim it’s starting to be too warm to grow the best cabernet sauvignon grapes. They’re trying to figure out what type of grapes will be able to grow in the warmer climate.
They’re willing to sacrifice the entire wine industry all just to go along with the global warming conspiracy </sarcasm>
“producers are struggling to ripen their grapes as they lose the conditions that once gave their wines a flavorful edge. As the planet trends warmer, a number of researchers predict that, at some point in the next two to three decades, cabernet will stop thriving in Napa.”
this is consistent with my claim this is not a problem in the next 10 years. any climate change then will be barely noticeable. The problem will be in decades and centuries.
This makes it difficult to convince people to make changes, especially ones that impact our quality of life. Even though it shouldn’t matter, we should still address this problem even though it won’t be until decades away.
In the case of Napa grapes, they’re doing research on which type of grapes will do well when it’s warmer. This is an example of how it will be possible to mitigate the effect of warming. Don’t freak out, we can solve this problem.Oct 24, 2019 at 1:09 pm #3615460
Stopping Climate Change Is Hopeless. Let’s Do It.
It begins with how we live our lives every moment of every day.
Auden Schendler and Andrew P. Jones : The New York Times : Oct. 6 2018
On Monday, the world’s leading climate scientists are expected to release a report on how to protect civilization by limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Given the rise already in the global temperature average, this critical goal is 50 percent more stringent than the current target of 2 degrees Celsius, which many scientists were already skeptical we could meet. So we’re going to have to really want it, and even then it will be tough.
The world would need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions faster than has ever been achieved, and do it everywhere, for 50 years. Northern European countries reduced emissions about 4 to 5 percent per year in the 1970s. We’d need reductions of 6 to 9 percent. Every year, in every country, for half a century.
We’d need to spread the world’s best climate practices globally — like electric cars in Norway, energy efficiency in California, land protection in Costa Rica, solar and wind power in China, vegetarianism in India, bicycle use in the Netherlands.
We’d face opposition the whole way. To have a prayer of 1.5 degrees Celsius, we would need to leave most of the remaining coal, oil and gas underground, compelling the Exxon Mobils and Saudi Aramcos to forgo anticipated revenues of over $33 trillion over the next 25 years.
And while the air would almost immediately be cleaner and people healthier, the heartbreaking impacts of climate change — flooding in London, New York and Shanghai, as well as in Mumbai, India; Hanoi, Vietnam; Alexandria, Egypt; and Jakarta, Indonesia, to touch on just one consequence — would continue for decades, regardless of emissions cuts, because of the long life of man-made greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.
Some cynical news headlines will certainly follow the report: “Scientists Agree — We’re Cooked!” The headline writers would have a point. Solving climate is going to be harder, and more improbable, than winning World War II, achieving civil rights, defeating bacterial infection and sending a man to the moon all together…Oct 25, 2019 at 8:36 am #3615631
Trump Administration to Begin Official Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord
Lisa Friedman : The New York Times : Oct. 23, 2019
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing the formal withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change, according to three people briefed on the matter, a long expected move that nevertheless remains a powerful signal to the world.
The official action sets in motion a withdrawal that still would take a year to complete under the rules of the accord. Abandoning the landmark 2015 agreement in which nearly 200 nations vowed to reduce planet warming emissions would fulfill one of President Trump’s key campaign promises while placing the world’s largest economy at odds with the rest of the globe on a top international policy priority.
“I withdrew the United States from the terrible, one-sided climate accord, was a total disaster for our country,” he told a crowd of cheering men and women in hard hats on Wednesday at a natural gas conference in Pittsburgh.
Mr. Trump gave no indication that he understood the intricacies of withdrawal or what his administration has planned for the coming days. Instead, he sounded as if the United States was already out of the accord…
[This decision is both stupid and tragic. The completely unreal world that Trump lives in as a consequence of his extreme wealth and single-minded obsession with his own interests at the expense of others shields him from the reality of the global crisis. The consequences of his decision will negatively affect humanity, and substantially further degrade our planet and ecosystem. -RM]Oct 25, 2019 at 9:56 am #3615632
On the other hand, it could be argued that Trump’s actions simply won’t matter, as very few other countries are doing much to meet the planet’s needs. America: you voted for Trump, and you got him. Granted, the Australian politicians are being every bit as obnoxious as Trump, but they don’t care either.
We may expect to live in ‘interesting times’ – only steadily more so as the clock ticks down. I watch with detached interest.
The only thing left for me to worry about is what do we do when the full extent of the disaster unfolds – and the politicians try to blame the Science Community for ‘not warning them’. Rather like the Italian Volcanologists who were blamed for not predicting an eruption some years ago. (They were eventually exonerated as it became publicly clear that their warnings had been suppressed by the bureaucrats who “didn’t want to scare the horses”.)
CheersOct 26, 2019 at 12:50 pm #3615855
Nevertheless, we must fight to our dying breath.
Toyota is building very, very tiny electric vehicles for the next Olympics
Michael J. Core : Quartz: October 25, 2019
Japan is preparing for what it says will be the world’s greenest Olympics next summer in Tokyo. Toyota, the official fleet provider for the 2020 Games and the nation’s flagship car company, announced in August that 90% of the vehicles it provides will be “electrified.” While many will be shuttle buses, this week it debuted some of the more unusual vehicles at the Tokyo Motor Show, ranging from enclosed motorcycles to wheelchair attachments. It foresees these as the (less flashy) future for electric vehicles.
Toyota is playing catch up in the EV game after pioneering the mass-produced hybrid electric vehicles in 1997. While the Prius soon become a garage regular around the world, the company has been slow to swap out combustion engines for batteries. Tesla dominates global EV sales (outside of China), but Toyota says it now has 10 new EV models ready to come out in 2020, and all of its models should have electric versions by around 2025.
For Toyota, it’s part of a strategy to transition from an automobile company to a mobility company. It’s testing new business models featuring modular EV parts and repurposed batteries for less demanding applications such as compact, short-distance battery-electric vehicles. Down the line, it envisions an interchangeable ecosystem of batteries, motors, and structural components that can be resized and recombined across different vehicles.
It also sees the demographic for its vehicles expanding. Rather than targeting the conventional car crowd, Toyota wants to build vehicles for grandparents, fleet operators, and young drivers who don’t need premium or full-sized vehicles. “We want to create a mobility solution that can support Japan’s aging society and provide freedom of movement to people at all stages of life,” said Akihiro Yanaka, head of development, in a statement…Oct 26, 2019 at 1:08 pm #3615856
The Green New Deal is the perfect retort to trickle-down fear-mongers: Finally, progressives have the game-changing argument that can swing a majority of Americans toward a better future
Jessyn Farrell : businessinsider.com : 17 hours ago
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stands in front of a ‘Green New Deal’ sign at the Women’s March in January 2019. Ira L. Black/Corbis via Getty Images
The debate is over. Every reasonable person now understands that climate change is a human-made problem and a crisis that must be averted. In some parts of the country, like my home state of Washington, the debate has been over for some time. Our governor, Jay Inslee, heroically inserted climate change as a topic into the Democratic presidential campaign earlier this year, and our voters roundly prefer climate-friendly candidates on the national, statewide, and local levels.
Though all that is true, in 2016 and in 2018 Washington state voters decisively rejected carbon tax initiatives that would have strengthened our environmental credentials. Stranger still, some internal polling indicated that the carbon tax was popular with the electorate before support largely evaporated.
What happened? Why did arguably the most climate-friendly electorate in the US turn its back on positive environmental policy? As soon as Big Oil and other opponents started using the familiar framing of trickle-down economics — warning voters, falsely, that more responsible regulation would result in higher costs for them and fewer jobs for everyone — voters turned on the carbon tax. It’s a textbook example of how trickle-down economics coaxes the middle class into voting against its own interests.
That’s why I’m so inspired by the success of the Green New Deal as a policy — it flips the trickle-down narrative on its head. Instead of the tired argument that environmental regulations kill jobs, the Green New Deal promises to create millions of good-paying jobs. Rather than arguing that the fight against climate change will require sacrifice and austerity, the Green New Deal promises a prosperous new clean economy, built from the middle out…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.