Tag Archives: climate change

best of best of 2014

Leave a reply

This time of year, you pretty much have to do a “best of” post. I’ll get to a review of some of my own posts eventually, but in the meantime here are a handful of “best of” posts. I actually don’t know if they are the best of the best of, but they are just a few that caught my eye.

  1. from Wired, The Best and Worst in a Tumultuous Year for Science: Despite the annoyingly un-reader-friendly slide show format, there are some serious eye openers here, such as synthesis of completely new, man-made DNA base pairs; custom-designed monkeys with a “gene-editing system”; a potentially huge breakthrough on diabetes; and a study concluding that the number – not the number of species, but the actual number of wild animals – has decreased by half in the last 40 years.
  2. Longreads Best of 2014: Business Writing: This links to some great articles on education reform, the status and future of Microsoft, and Airbnb. But be warned, these are some seriously long reads!
  3. Economist Money talks podcast, End of year edition. I would always rather read the transcript, but still this goes through some major trends from the year like oil prices, financial regulation, Uber and Lyft, and is worth a listen.
  4. from Wired again, The Best Science Visualizations of the Year. Some interesting ones depict “genetic activity of ocean bacteria”, loss of Arctic summertime sea ice, and the origin and early spread of AIDS.
  5. From Urbanful, Film’s 6 coolest (fictional) hydrid cities. Yes, the Los Angeles version of Blade Runner makes it. So do Gotham City and Metropolis, which are described as “New York by night” and “New York by day”. Finally, “Big Hero 6, the first collaboration between Disney and Marvel, takes place in the futuristic city of San Fransokyo, a fusion of San Francisco, California and Tokyo, Japan.”
  6. One more from Wired: The Craziest Sci-Fi Fantasies That Got Closer to Reality This Year. There’s plenty of Star Wars vs. Star Trek here, but my favorites are that you can now get your dog cloned in South Korea, and a “cheetah robot”.

Happy new year!

sea vs. land warming

Leave a reply

According to a guy named Ka-Kit Tung, we have seen less land surface warming than expected in the last 15 years because the heat has gone into the oceans instead. He thinks the trend of land surface warming will eventually resume. Is he worried about some sudden reversal where the heat trapped in the ocean would suddenly be released? No.

Nobody knows how long the current pause will last. Nonetheless, at some point, the natural cycles will shift; the oceans will cease to absorb the bulk of the planet’s warming; and surface temperatures will begin to climb again. When they do, we can expect the increase to resume the rapid pace observed during the late twentieth century, when surface temperature rose by about 0.17 degrees Celsius every ten years.

In the meantime, whether the overall risk to our environment has been reduced by the pause remains an open question. Some argue that what went down will eventually come back up. The sloshing back and forth of warm and cold waters – El Niño and La Niña – in the shallow layer of the equatorial Pacific Ocean will continue to produce fluctuations in surface temperatures every year. Over longer periods, however, the risk that the heat currently stored in the deep ocean will resurface is remote.

Who is this guy? He is “a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, is Professor of Applied Mathematics and an adjunct professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington.”

If we are saying some end of year thank yous, I would just like to say, thank you, ocean, for keeping our planet habitable for another year.

a 1200-year drought

1 Reply

How bad is the drought in California? So bad that based on historical data, you would only expect it to happen once in 1200 years, on average, according to Geophysical Research Letters.

For the past three years (2012-2014), California has experienced the most severe drought conditions in its last century. But how unusual is this event? Here we use two paleoclimate reconstructions of drought and precipitation for Central and Southern California to place this current event in the context of the last millennium. We demonstrate that while 3-year periods of persistent below-average soil moisture are not uncommon, the current event is the most severe drought in the last 1200 years, with single year (2014) and accumulated moisture deficits worse than any previous continuous span of dry years. Tree-ring chronologies extended through the 2014 growing season reveal that precipitation during the drought has been anomalously low but not outside the range of natural variability. The current California drought is exceptionally severe in the context of at least the last millennium and is driven by reduced though not unprecedented precipitation and record high temperatures.

There are some eye-opening pictures of dry farm fields here.

Jeffrey Sachs

Leave a reply

Jeffrey Sachs highlights three international conferences in 2015 that may be important:

In July 2015, world leaders will meet in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to chart reforms of the global financial system. In September 2015, they will meet again to approve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to guide national and global policies to 2030. And in December 2015, leaders will assemble in Paris to adopt a global agreement to head off the growing dangers of human-induced climate change.

The fundamental goal of these summits is to put the world on a course toward sustainable development, or inclusive and sustainable growth. This means growth that raises average living standards; benefits society across the income distribution, rather than just the rich; and protects, rather than wrecks, the natural environment.

Growth that protects the natural environment – I think it’s theoretically possible, but we’re a long way from that and it’s easy to be pessimistic. But at least some leaders recognize that there is a problem worth discussing. His vision is essentially one of technological progress allowing decarbonization of the energy supply:

Back in 2009 and 2010, the world’s governments agreed to keep the rise in global temperature to below 2° Celsius relative to the pre-industrial era. Yet warming is currently on course to reach 4-6 degrees by the end of the century – high enough to devastate global food production and dramatically increase the frequency of extreme weather events.

To stay below the two-degree limit, the world’s governments must embrace a core concept: “deep decarbonization” of the world’s energy system. That means a decisive shift from carbon-emitting energy sources like coal, oil, and gas, toward wind, solar, nuclear, and hydroelectric power, as well as the adoption of carbon capture and storage technologies when fossil fuels continue to be used. Dirty high-carbon energy must give way to clean low- and zero-carbon energy, and all energy must be used much more efficiently.

Clean energy would be an enormous breakthrough. But would it end all our problems, allowing us to grow indefinitely from that point without consequences? In their book Limits to Growth: The Thirty Year Update, Donella Meadows et al. explain why that might not necessarily be the case:

in a complex, finite world, if you remove or raise one limit and go on growing, you encounter another limit. Especially if the growth is exponential, the next limit will show up surprisingly soon. There are layers of limits.

What might the next limit be? maybe depletion of the phosphorus supply, loss of fertile soil, collapse of the oceans, a catastrophic plague affecting crops or people, etc. The point is just not to think that solving the carbon emissions problem would end all the problems caused by our enormous footprint on the natural world.

November 2014 in Review

Leave a reply

At the end of October, my Hope for the Future Index stood at -2.  I’ll give November posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.

Negative trends and predictions (-6):

  • There is mounting evidence that the world economy is slowing, financial corporations are still engaged in all sorts of dirty tricks, and overall investment may be dropping. Financial authorities are trying to respond through financial means, but the connections are not being made to the right kinds of investments in infrastructure, skills, and protection of natural capital that would set the stage for long-term sustainable growth in the future. (-2)
  • Public apathy over climate change in the U.S. may have been manufactured by a cynical, immoral corporate disinformation campaign over climate change taken right out of the tobacco companies’ playbook. It’s true that the tobacco companies ultimately were called to account, but not until millions of lives were lost. Will it be billions this time? (-2)
  • Glenn Beck has gone even further off his rocker, producing a video suggesting the U.N. is going to ration food and burn old people alive while playing vaguely middle eastern music. One negative point because some people out there might not laugh. (-1)
  • The new IPCC report predicts generally negative effects of climate change on crops and fisheries. The good news is it doesn’t seem to predict catastrophic collapse, but we need to remember that the food supply needs to grow substantially in the coming decades, not just hold steady, so any headwinds making that more difficult are potentially threatening. (-1)

Positive trends and predictions (+6):

  • A lot is known about how to grow healthy trees in the most urbanized environments. But only a few cities really take advantage of this readily available knowledge. (+0)
  • As manufacturing becomes increasingly high-tech, automation vs. employment is emerging as a big theme for the future. The balance may swing back and forth over time, but in the long term I think automation has to win. New wealth will be created, but the question is how broadly it will be shared. The question is not just an economic one – it depends on the kind of social and political systems people will live under in various places. This might be why the field of economics was originally called “political economy”. So I’m putting this in the positive column but giving it no points because the jury is out. (+0)
  • Google is working on nanobots that can swim around in your blood and give an early diagnosis of cancer and other diseases. (+1)
  • Economic slowing is probably the main reason why oil prices are way down. Increased supply capacity from the U.S. also probably plays a role, although there are dissenting voices how long that is going to last. I find it hard to say whether cheaper oil is good or bad. I tend to think it is just meaningless noise on the longer time scale, but you won’t hear me complain if it brings down the price of transportation and groceries for a year or two. (+0)
  • Millennials aren’t buying cars in large numbers. I don’t believe for a second that this means they are less materialistic than past generations, but I think a shift in consumption from cars to almost anything else is a net gain for sustainability. (+2)
  • I discovered the FRAGSTATS package for comprehensive spatial analysis of ecosystems and habitats. This gives us quantitative tools to design green webs that work well for both people and wildlife. Bringing land back into our economic framework in an explicit way might also help. (+1)
  • “Perennial polyculture” gardens may be able to provide food year round on small urban footprints in temperate climates. (+1)
  • A vision for smart, sustainable infrastructure involves walkable communities, closing water and material loops, and using energy wisely. Pretty much the same points I made in my book, which I don’t actively promote on this site;) (+1)

Hope for the Future Index (end of October 2014): -2

change during November 2014: -6 + 6 = 0

Hope for the Future Index (end of November 2014): -2 + 0 = -2

extreme climate pessimists

Leave a reply

On the opposite end of the spectrum from climate deniers are voices predicting that abrupt and irreversible climate change will cause collapse or even human extinction in the relatively near future:

First, James Lovelock, who is best known for the Gaia Hypothesis:

Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem – the bigger challenge will be food. “Maybe they’ll synthesise food. I don’t know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco’s, in the form of Quorn. It’s not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it.” But he fears we won’t invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects “about 80%” of the world’s population to be wiped out by 2100.

Second, former University of Arizona ecology professor Guy McPherson. This is part of a long, rambling article that cites a lot of evidence, although most of it is newspaper and magazine articles, lecture notes and videos, rather than published peer reviewed articles:

On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction (from Oliver Tickell’s 2008 synthesis in the Guardian). Tickell is taking a conservative approach, considering humans have not been present at 3.5 C above baseline (i.e., the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, commonly accepted as 1750). I cannot imagine a scenario involving a rapid rise in global-average temperature and also habitat for humans. Neither can Australian climate scientist Clive Hamilton, based on his 17 June 2014 response to Andrew Revkin’s fantasy-based hopium. According to the World Bank’s 2012 report, “Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided” and an informed assessment of “BP Energy Outlook 2030” put together by Barry Saxifrage for the Vancouver Observer, our path leads directly to the 4 C mark. The conservative International Energy Agency throws in the towel on avoiding 4 C in this video from June 2014 (check the 25-minute mark). The 19th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 19), held in November 2013 in Warsaw, Poland, was warned by professor of climatology Mark Maslin: “We are already planning for a 4°C world because that is where we are heading. I do not know of any scientists who do not believe that.” Among well-regarded climate scientists who think a 4 C world is unavoidable, based solely on atmospheric carbon dioxide, is Cambridge University’s Professor of Ocean Physics and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics, Dr. Peter Wadhams (check the 51-second mark in this 8 August 2014 video), who says: “…the carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere, which now exceeded 400 parts per million, is sufficient, if you don’t add any more, to actually raise global temperatures in the end by about four degrees.” Adding to planetary misery is a paper in the 16 December 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluding that 4 C terminates the ability of Earth’s vegetation to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.

I’m not sure what it means to plan for 4 C (aka extinction). I’m not impressed that civilized scientists claim to be planning for it, either. But I know we’re human animals, and I know animals require habitat to survive. When there is no ability to grow food or secure water, humans will exit the planetary stage.

IPCC AR5

1 Reply

IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report is out. It’s a long, exhausting document that I will probably slog my way through little by little. I’ve pulled out just a couple passages here about food production and fisheries, which are two risks I tend to think about. I think humans can generally deal with higher temperatures and more frequent storms and coastal flooding, because there is such a wide range of these things now and we deal with them. Food production is the intersection of water, energy, and ecosystems.

Assessment of many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops shows that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence). The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with a median change of zero across all available data, which are fewer for soy compared to the other crops. (See Figure 1.11C) Observed impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather than access or other components of food security. Since AR4, several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence)…

Global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions, under climate change, will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services, especially at low latitudes (high confidence). By the mid-21st century, under 2 °C global warming relative to pre-industrial temperatures, shifts in the geographical range of marine species will cause species richness and fisheries catch potential to increase, on average, at mid and high latitudes (high confidence) and to decrease at tropical latitudes and in semi-enclosed seas (Figure 2.6A) (medium confidence). The progressive expansion of Oxygen Minimum Zones and anoxic ‘dead zones’ in the oceans will further constrain fish habitats (medium confidence). Open-ocean net primary production is projected to redistribute and to decrease globally, by 2100, under all RCP scenarios (medium confidence). Climate change adds to the threats of over-fishing and other non-climatic stressors (high confidence).

We talk so much about the atmosphere, but our oceans, forests, and soils are absorbing a lot of the carbon emissions, and are the reason our planet and current civilization are as resilient as they are. We better take care of them.

October 2014 in Review

Leave a reply

At the end of September, my Hope for the Future Index stood at +1.  As I did last month, I’ll sort selected posts that talk about positive trends and ideas vs. negative trends, predictions, and risks. Just for fun, I’ll keep a score card and pretend my posts are some kind of indicator of whether things are getting better or worse. I’ll give posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.

Negative trends and predictions (-11):

  • The Wall Street Journal prints an op-ed by a climate change skeptic. Wait, I thought there was a pure consensus among serious scientists about climate change. Or is it just serious climatologists, with a few lone dissenting physicists like this guy? Either way, there is an overwhelming near-consensus and by printing this the WSJ gives the idea that there is still a significant debate, thereby reducing the chances of action being taken. Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us where in the U.S. to move as the heat creeps up on us – Alaska, Seattle, and Detroit. Tidal flooding may also become a bigger problem in coastal cities. (-1)
  • Economists and economic journalists are buzzing about a worldwide slowdown and an even more severe financial crisis that may be on the horizon. Europe, and France in particular, seem to be getting into dangerous territory right now. (-2)
  • The new Living Planet Report says our ecological footprint has not ticked up from 1.5 planets since the last Living Planet Report. That is, no change given the rounding error of 0.1 planets. Before we get too happy, remember that a number over 1 is meant to measure the rate of decline. So these would be mean not that our situation has stabilized, but that the rate of decline has not accelerated. (-1)
  • Slavery is a good example of how amoral profit-seeking private enterprise can lead to evil consequences. (-3)
  • The drought in California and the U.S. desert southwest continues to get worse. Ours is not the first civilization to be impacted by drought in the U.S. desert southwest, and hopefully we will deal with it better than last time. (-1)
  • The U.S. medical system may not be prepared for Ebola, and if not it would be even less well prepared for something even more serious. (-1)
  • The American entrepreneurial spirit may have slowed down over the last generation. If this is true, it would be yet one more drag on the innovation pickup the world needs. (-1)
  • Energy prices are down. I’m not smart enough to tell you definitively if this is good or bad. If it reflected a breakthrough in renewable energy technology and cost-effectiveness, or low energy, sustainable food production, it would be great news. I hope renewable energy is starting to have an effect. But the bulk of the effect, most likely, reflects upward pressure on supply from hydraulic fracturing, and downward pressure on demand from economic slowing in Asia and Europe. High energy and food prices over the past decade quite likely have a hand in the economic slowing. Economic slowing can lower the world’s ecological footprint a bit, but it can also slow down innovation and, of course, lead to unemployment, hunger, unrest and conflict. (-0)
  • Echoes of the Cold War are rearing their ugly head, with Sweden out searching for Russian submarines in its territorial waters. (-1)

Positive trends and predictions (+8):

  • Maybe green consumer behavior can be scaled up through clever advertising. (+1)
  • Mosquitoes are being purposely infected with a naturally occurring bacteria, then released to control Dengue fever. (+1)
  • Automation (i.e. increasing computer control of nearly everything) is really taking hold of our economy and society, with potentially positive consequences for overall productivity and wealth, but potentially negative consequences for employment and distribution of wealth, depending on how it is handled. (+0)
  • There really are a lot of good examples and a lot of knowledge out there on how to have a lot of healthy trees in cities. This is known technology. Now cities in North America and the developing world just need to catch up and adopt the technology. (+1)
  • The old economy, for example dirty old fossil fueled electric utilities and sleazy taxi companies, are fighting the new, such as solar road materials and ride sharing. As they realize the technological and economic tide is turning against them, they are fighting in legislatures and courts for special laws that are unfair in their favor. They might win some battles and retard progress for a while, but I don’t see how they can win the long-term war. (+1)
  • LED light bulbs are now the overwhelming best household lighting choice, even in terms of purchase price. (+1)
  • Developing countries today are achieving much better health outcomes than developing countries of the past did at similar income levels. (+1)
  • People are waking up to fact that computer-controlled cars may free up large amounts of space in cities for new uses. (+2)
  • New technology for freezing human eggs may give women more flexibility on how and when to start a family, but muddle the historical meaning of biological relationships and generations. (+0)

Hope for the Future Index (September 2014): +1

October 2014 change: -11 + 8 = -3

Hope for the Future Index (October 2014): +1 – 3 = -2

shale bust?

Leave a reply

This article casts doubt on the U.S. government’s predictions of domestic oil and gas production. Granted, it is from something called the Post Carbon Institute which may have a point of view.

This report finds that tight oil production from major plays will peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Bakken or Eagle Ford, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Tight oil production from the two top plays, the Bakken and Eagle Ford, will underperform the EIA’s reference case oil recovery by 28% from 2013 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from the Bakken and Eagle Ford will be less than a tenth of that projected by the EIA. Tight oil production forecast by the EIA from plays other than the Bakken and Eagle Ford is in most cases highly optimistic and unlikely to be realized at the medium- and long-term rates projected.

Shale gas production from the top seven plays will also likely peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Marcellus, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Shale gas production from the top seven plays will underperform the EIA’s reference case forecast by 39% from 2014 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from these plays will be about one-third that of the EIA forecast. Production from shale gas plays other than the top seven will need to be four times that estimated by the EIA in order to meet its reference case forecast.

Naomi Oreskes

Leave a reply

From the New York Times, here are some attention grabbing quotes: