Climate Nearing “Point of No Return”

[Phoenixmgs]

View attachment 12917

No, bad source.

There are still large uncertainties regarding observed global-scale trends in
droughts. The AR4 reported based on analyses using PDSI (see Box 3-3)
that very dry areas had more than doubled in extent since 1970 at the
global scale (Trenberth et al., 2007). This assessment was, however,
largely based on the study by Dai et al. (2004) only. These trends in the
PDSI proxy were found to be largely affected by changes in temperature,
not precipitation (Dai et al., 2004). On the other hand, based on soil
moisture simulations with an observation-driven land surface model for
the time period 1950-2000, Sheffield and Wood (2008a) have inferred
trends in drought duration, intensity, and severity predominantly
decreasing, but with strong regional variation and including increases in
some regions. They concluded that there was an overall moistening trend
over the considered time period, but also a switch since the 1970s to a
drying trend, globally and in many regions, especially in high northern
latitudes.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

Just because someone you don't like says something, it doesn't mean they are wrong.

Also, literally from your source that I literally got from my source as they both cited the same paper...

In summary, there is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced trends toward more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America and northwestern Australia.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Just because someone you don't like says something, it doesn't mean they are wrong.

Yeah, but the default assumption is that PragerU is wrong. It's on the same level as Project Veritas, literal trash.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah, but the default assumption is that PragerU is wrong. It's on the same level as Project Veritas, literal trash.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. PragerU has doesn't try to entrap people on boats or bring evidence of election vote fruad that was so easily debunked no one now can remember it.

It's still trash

 

[Trunkage]

Just because someone you don't like says something, it doesn't mean they are wrong.

Also, literally from your source that I literally got from my source as they both cited the same paper...

In summary, there is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced trends toward more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America and northwestern Australia.

Is this supposed to be a good thing?

 

[Agema]

View attachment 12917

No, bad source.

Genuinely awful source. Despite the implication of that "U" in its name, it's not an accredited HE institition.

snip

Whether the world is getting drier or wetter on average sort of isn't the issue. It's more about where it's getting drier and where it's getting wetter, plus all the other shit that's going on. A dry area that gets more rain could be good... it could also be storms and floods which make it on balance no better or potentially worse off. It might have more rain on average, despite at the same time experiencing periods of even worse heat and dryness that make it less livable and less productive.

Plus there are transition issues. An area might become more productive... but how long is that going to take, and is it going to be faster than places which are important now becoming less productive? We could experience extremely serious decreases in food production, and losses in other sectors too.

 

[Kwak]

The Crisis Report - 104

It’s hard to see right now, and impossible for most people to mentally accept.

richardcrim.substack.com

Abstract: The CO2 level was 430ppm on March 7th. The highest level ever recorded and higher than it has been in about 12 MILLION years. In the paleoclimate record this results in +4°C of warming over our 1850 baseline.

This is just the beginning.

In 2023 the Terrestrial Land Sinks failed. The planetary biosphere only absorbed about 0.44Gt of our CO2 emissions, instead of the roughly 9Gt it had been absorbing. As a result of that, atmospheric CO2 levels increased by MORE THAN +3ppm in a single year.

In 2024, the atmospheric CO2 level also increased by more than +3ppm.

This rate of increase will cause CO2 levels to reach 530ppm in just 30 years.

How you view that information determines if you are a “Crisis Denier” or a “Collapse Realist”.

We have increased the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) enough, the changes to the Climate System have degraded the biosphere to the point that it is loosing its ability to absorb and sequester CO2.

If the +3ppm yearly increase in the atmospheric CO2 level continues the consequences are very clear.

Starting at a CO2 level of 430ppm(CO2) in 2025.

The GHGs CO2 equivalent = +100ppm(CO2) (CH4 is at +1900ppb)

Albedo dimming forcing since 2014 = +100ppm(CO2) (per Hansen)

Our Current CO2(e) level = approximately +630ppm(CO2e)

Rate of CO2 Increase (RoCI) now approximately +3ppm per year.

A CO2(e) level of about 720ppm could be hit as early as 2050.
Paleoclimate data indicate that each 2XCO2 causes +8°C of warming.
180ppm to 360ppm caused +8°C of warming (we perceived it as +2°C of warming over our 1850 baseline of 280ppm).

Going from 360ppm to 720ppm seems increasingly likely to cause +8°C of additional warming. We will perceive that as +10°C of warming over our 1850 baseline of 280ppm(CO2).

NOW

We won’t get to +10°C by 2050, but it’s likely that amount of warming will be “locked in” at that point. A LOT of feedbacks will come into play pushing global temperatures up rapidly.

While Hansen thinks that “Global Warming in the Pipeline” could see temperatures of +10°C to +12°C as a result of these feedbacks. He also thinks this warming will take hundreds of years to play out.

I think we could see +10°C of warming before 2150.

 

[Gergar12]

Genuinely awful source. Despite the implication of that "U" in its name, it's not an accredited HE institition.



Whether the world is getting drier or wetter on average sort of isn't the issue. It's more about where it's getting drier and where it's getting wetter, plus all the other shit that's going on. A dry area that gets more rain could be good... it could also be storms and floods which make it on balance no better or potentially worse off. It might have more rain on average, despite at the same time experiencing periods of even worse heat and dryness that make it less livable and less productive.

Plus there are transition issues. An area might become more productive... but how long is that going to take, and is it going to be faster than places which are important now becoming less productive? We could experience extremely serious decreases in food production, and losses in other sectors too.

Both are issues. Dry means food shortages, and that kills people. Don't even get me started on my fears of wet-bulb temperature. Also kills people.

Hottest Survivable Temperatures Are Lower Than Expected

Researchers say the primary “wet-bulb temperature” method for measuring dangerous heat underestimates deaths, particularly among elderly and health-compromised individuals

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Chimpzy]

US banks predict climate goals will fail – but air conditioning firms will thrive

Reports predict global heating will bring catastrophes and that air conditioning market could grow by 41%

www.theguardian.com

Ah, ok, so it's not all bad. Thank goodness, I was getting worried. Also, lol, predict. I can make predictions too, you know. I predict the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. See?