More info about how this weather event came about and the misattribution to climate change from an atmospheric science professor who is the foremost expert on northwest climate: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-ca... https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/flawed-heatwave-repor...
Because forests provides cooling.
I agree that misinformation is endemic, but I also agree that liberals love to fall on their swords for tiny missteps which is then used as ammo by real deniers which erroneously puts the two on equal footing. We're at the point where yes, maybe misinformative fear is necessary? Eh, maybe not. I dunno. But I hate how scientists nitpick themselves to death while Trumpers trash reality.
Wheat yields are doing fine, despite the alarmism, and you can see for yourself (scroll to wheat and view the PNG graphs by year):
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/index....
Climate change is going to make things weird. Not everyone is going to get warmer. Some models show Europe entering an Ice Age due to a slow down of the gulf stream.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/how-the-w...
For example, I was told from a young age, global warming is going to cause the ice caps to melt, and yet:
The arctic sea ice volume is at 30 year median this summer:
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickn...
And Greenland is having an anamolously cold summer, gaining in ice instead of losing ice as it normally does to summer melt:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
And Antarctic sea ice is above average:
https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/antarctic-sea-ice-extentconcentr...
And regrading your concerns about the modeling. I agree, the uncertainty is real and quite frankly that should scare you and everyone else. There is simply no way for humans to fully understand all of the different mechanisms at play. We are entering uncharted territory. We might get lucky and some dampening feedback emerges that we did not account for that moderates the climate impacts. Or we might get very unlucky and kick off a mechanism that results in our oceans boiling off killing all life. Most likely, we will end up somewhere in the middle of those two extremes and it will take quite a while before we get there. But once again, the uncertainty is massive. So we are essentially rolling the dice on the future of humanity all so a handful of fossil fuel executives can continue to line their pockets.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/PolarPortal/status/14112805173166...
There is no scenario where 400ppm CO2 has ever led to any of the extreme events you are casually throwing out there as realistic possibilities. We have geological evidence of Earth's CO2 concentration and climate history going back 500 million years. We know it was close to 7000 ppm during the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago. We know it was in the thousands of ppm for most of life's existence on this planet. We know the oceans didn't boil off.
What we know from geology is that not only is the planet extremely antifragile, life itself is as well and always adapts to the always changing climate. Nature has thrown many curve balls, including Laschamp events that caused the Earth's magnetic field to flip for a few hundred years, which led to mass extinctions in the southern hemisphere and some say, the end of the Neanderthals [2]. Or more recently, the Younger Dryas 12 thousand years ago, where temps returned to ice age levels before rapidly warming to above modern day levels [3], and also caused mass extinctions of many animals including wooly mammoths, American lions, saber tooth cats, giant ground sloths, and so much more [3].
And those two events happened with CO2 levels at less than half of what they are today. Of course, we wouldn't ever want CO2 levels to go below 150ppm, because at that level photosynthesis is not possible and all plant life chokes and dies (happens much earlier than that for higher elevation).
Thankfully that Younger Dryas episode, whatever caused it, we still don't fully understand it...subsided, CO2 levels rose back up with the warming temps to the Holocene optimum levels, that led to favorable conditions for civilization to flourish and for agriculture to take off.
We're still in an ice age, and we'll return to a glacial period once again, because volcanoes are ultimately in control of that process. We got a preview of that in 1816, the famous "year without a summer". Our job as humans is to adapt to whatever nature throws at us.
[1] https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs&r... [2] https://techthoroughfare.com/earth/laschamps-excursion-mass-... [3] https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/historictemperat... [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
I'm really unclear on the point here. A rapid transition to the climate of the Cambrian period would annihilate most civilization - The globe was entirely free of ice at the end of the Cambrian and temperatures were 7 degrees celsius higher than today.
While it's plausible for humans to adapt to significantly colder temperatures, it's difficult for Human's to adapt to higher temperatures in a short period. There are limits to what A/C systems can handle, and I'd doubt that people would enjoy required bathing times per day for temperature reasons.
And if you think our geological history provides the answers to what our future with climate change will look like, I implore you to get familiar with the anthropic principle[1]. We have never significantly altered our atmosphere this fast before, there is no precedent. And using our geological past as a dataset is inherently flawed. In order for us to observe that data, we necessarily would have had to survive/emerge from that history. How many other planets had similar geological records but then took a different turn? If you can show me that data, I will re-consider you anti-fragile position.
Humans are adapted to Holocene, so it seems best to not poke the bear. However, 100 years of pollution need to be undone for that.
Regarding sea ice: I think a temporary increase is not unexpected. As ice melts the salinity of the ocean goes down, which makes it freeze a bit easier.
Your source to support that claim provides 1 year of historical data. The article of this discussion says that since the 1960s, total U.S. agricultural production has dropped by 1/5th due to climate change, negating 7 years of improved yields. Due to increased temperatures and decreased moisture, this will lead to greater diminishment of yields, and it’s possible that agricultural innovation will be unable to keep up.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/swmap.... shows that yields per state vary, but anywhere from 22% down in ID to 46.8%.
The spring wheat crops are doing very poorly, and is very alarming.
Here's the production charts. We had 1.83 billion bushels last year and 1.75 billion this year.
Its only Spring Wheat which was affected but Winter Wheat is at all time highs. See this chart, for example:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/swyld....
2021 is anamolously bad for spring wheat. 2018 through 2020 were record high years for spring wheat on the contrary. Trend for yield is up and to the right. Weather disasters happen, like the droughts we had in the 1930s that caused the Dust Bowl. At any rate, don't forget to zoom out.
120 degree dry air temperatures produce desert conditions. I can’t imagine that the temperate rainforest of the PNW would last a decade with that kind of weather.