Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[erfalf]

Is your list of hurricanes just ones that you can pronounce and spell?   (This sounds in type much snarkier than I really mean it to be.)

I am trying to grasp the selective listing and understand the criteria you are using to weed out the ones you don't like.

I suppose he is choosing those that effect the US. Because the presence of severe weather is an indication of climate change. And so is the absence. I can never tell what time frame to use when I am trying to cherry pick data points.

[TeeDub]

That makes sense.   Since the US is the center of the world, no other hurricanes would matter.

[RecycleMichael]

I think the problem got worse when they started naming hurricanes after men. That happened in 1978.

In the 20 years prior to 1978, there were 15 hurricanes of category 4 or higher make landfall in America. Then they changed the naming process.
In 1978 alone, five hurricanes of Category 4 strength or more hit America. In the 39 years since, there have been 105.

Naming causes bigger hurricanes.

[TeeDub]

I think the problem got worse when they started naming hurricanes after men. That happened in 1978.

I believe this could be considered sexist.  

Making the correlation that men are bigger than women could be offensive and trigger sensitive individuals (most likely those who are not actually bigger than women) to a nervous and tender state.


I would also like to point out that the hurricane rating scale was developed in the early 1970s...   That may also help to account for the lack of "category 4" hurricanes prior to that period. 

[TheArtist]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012114839.htm  

n Bermuda and the Bahamas, the geology of the last interglacial (LIG; approximately 120,000 years ago) is exquisitely preserved in nearly pure carbonate sedimentary rocks. A record of superstorms and changing sea levels is exposed in subtidal, beach, storm, and dune deposits on multiple islands...


During the last interglacial, sea levels were about 3-9 meters higher than they are now. The geologic evidence indicates that the higher sea-levels were accompanied by intense "superstorms," which deposited giant wave-transported boulders at the top of cliffed coastlines, formed chevron-shaped, storm beach ridges in lowland areas, and left wave runup deposits on older dunes more than 30 meters above sea level.  (Thats about 98 feet above sea level)

These events occurred at a time of only slightly warmer global climate and CO2 (about 275 ppm) was much lower than today.

The authors emphasize "the LIG record reveals that strong climate forcing is not required to yield major impacts on the ocean and ice caps." In our industrial world, rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 has surpassed 400 ppm, levels not achieved since the Pliocene era about 3 million years ago...


Drs. Hearty and Tormey conclude that with the greatly increased anthropogenic CO2 forcing at rates unmatched in nature, except perhaps during global extinction events, dramatic change is certain. They caution that, "Our global society is producing a climate system that is racing forward out of humanity's control into an uncertain future.

[TeeDub]

98 foot waves?    Wow.   We are screwed.

[heironymouspasparagus]

98 foot waves?    Wow.   We are screwed.

Glued, screwed, and tattooed.

Fried, dried, and laid to the side...

[Conan71]

For you tech nerds out there, here's an interesting concept in the war on carbon emissions, "negative emissions" power plants.  Looks like a pretty expensive proposition.  P

Unfortunately, it's no longer enough to cut CO2 emissions to avoid further global temperature increases. We need to remove some of the CO2 that's already there. Thankfully, that reversal is one step closer to becoming reality. Climeworks and Reykjavik Energy have started running the first power plant confirmed to produce "negative emissions" -- that is, it's removing more CO2 than it puts out. The geothermal station in Hellsheidi, Iceland is using a Climeworks module and the plant's own heat to snatch CO2 directly from the air via filters, bind it to water and send it underground where it will mineralize into harmless carbonates.

Just like naturally forming carbon deposits, the captured CO2 should remain locked away for many millions of years, if not billions. And because the basalt layers you need to house the CO2 are relatively common, it might be relatively easy to set up negative emissions plants in many places around the world.

As always, there are catches. The Hellsheidi plant capture system is still an experiment, and the 50 metric tonnes of CO2 it'll capture per year (49.2 imperial tons) isn't about to offset many decades of fossil fuel abuse. There's also the matter of reducing the cost of capturing CO2. Even if Climeworks improves the efficiency of its system to spend $100 for every metric ton of CO2 it removes, you're still looking at hundreds of billions of dollars (if not over a trillion) spent every year to achieve the scale needed to make a difference. That will require countries to not only respect climate science, but care about it enough to spend significant chunks of their budgets on capture technology.

It could be a long while before you see systems like this implemented on a global scale as a result. With that said, the very fact that CO2 capture prices are falling so sharply (they were estimated to cost several hundred dollars per ton in 2011) is important. It's now realistic enough to use capture technology that it's being used at a real-world power plant, and it's easy to see countries like China adopting this to tackle smog and the other immediate short-term effects of runaway CO2 emissions.

Climeworks

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-ever-apos-negative-emissions-222900756.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11

This article originally appeared on Engadget.

[heironymouspasparagus]

For you tech nerds out there, here's an interesting concept in the war on carbon emissions, "negative emissions" power plants.  Looks like a pretty expensive proposition.  P

Very expensive.  As compared to just NOT cutting the rainforests and other large tracks of trees.

[TeeDub]

I have a low cost way to help emissions carbon sequestration.....  

Plant trees.

[Red Arrow]

I have a low cost way to help emissions carbon sequestration.....  

Plant trees.

Be careful which ones:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-paradox-of-pollution-producing-trees/

[heironymouspasparagus]

Be careful which ones:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-paradox-of-pollution-producing-trees/

I wonder which Poplar they are talking about?   There are only a few dozen of them...

[patric]

Andrew Wheeler has recently been nominated to have the second-in-command slot at EPA, deputy administrator. He formerly worked for Senator James Inhofe and has been lobbying for coal companies.

EPA Cancels Scientist Discussion Of Climate Change
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/28/560554685/epa-cancels-scientist-discussion-of-climate-change

[Ed W]

EPA Cancels Scientist Discussion Of Climate Change
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/28/560554685/epa-cancels-scientist-discussion-of-climate-change

...because if you don't talk about pesky ideas, they simply go away, like women's sufferage, civil rights, and that whole Protestantism thing.

[cannon_fodder]

A huge amount of data has disappeared from government websites.  From climate change to health data to civil rights policies.  It was so widespread several groups set out to backup all government websites to protect public data.