The invasion of the Pacific Northwest: California’s birds expand north with warmer winters

Birds, because of their mobility, are considered to be fairly adaptable to climate change. They evolved in the aftermath of two of the world’s most catastrophic warming events (the K-T extinction and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), spreading to the Arctic, crossing continents, and evolving along the way. While those warming events took place over tens of thousands of years, the current warming is happening in the space of a couple hundred, with noticeable changes in climate within the lifespan of a single bird.

There will be winners and losers. Generalists, and species that enjoy warmer weather, are likely to be winners. Those with narrow food or habitat requirements, especially those dependent on the ocean or the Arctic/Antarctic, will likely be losers. Although counter-intuitive, it is primarily non-migratory resident species that seem to be more adaptable to a changing climate.

Recent studies

Studies of climate impacts on western North American birds using past data are limited, but some focusing on California were recently published. Iknayan and Beissinger (2018) showed that, over the last 50 years, “bird communities in the Mojave Desert have collapsed to a new, lower baseline” due to climate change, with significant declines in 39 species. Only Common Raven has increased. Furnas (2020) examined data from northern California’s mountains, showing that some species have shifted their breeding areas upslope in recent years. Hampton (myself) (2020) showed increases in many insectivores, both residents and migrants (from House Wrens to Western Tanagers), in winter in part of the Sacramento Valley over the last 45 years. These changes, particularly range shifting north and out of Southwest deserts, is predicted for a wide number of species.

The invasion of the Pacific Northwest

Here I use Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data to illustrate that some of California’s most common resident birds have expanded their ranges hundreds of miles north into Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia in recent years. The increases are dramatic, highly correlated with each other across a wide range of species, and coincide with rapid climate change. They illustrate the ability of some species to respond in real time.

In parts of Oregon and Washington, it is now not unusual to encounter Great Egret, Turkey Vulture, Red-shouldered Hawk, Anna’s Hummingbird, Black Phoebe, and California Scrub-Jay on a single morning—in winter. A few decades ago, this would have been unimaginable. Some short-distance migrants, such as Townsend’s Warbler, are also spending the winter in the Pacific Northwest in larger numbers.

The following graphs, showing the total number of individuals of each species seen on all CBCs in Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and (in one case) Alaska, illustrate the range expansions. Adjusting for party hours scarcely changes the graphs; thus, actual numbers of individuals are shown to better illustrate the degree of change. The graphs are accompanied by maps showing predicted range expansions by the National Audubon Society, and recent winter observations (Dec-Feb) from eBird for 2015-2020.

These range expansions were predicted, though in some cases the recent trends exceed even projected scenarios under 3.0C increases in temperature.

Let’s begin with the climate. Canada as a whole has experienced 3.0C in temperature increases in winter. British Columbia has experienced an average of 3.7C increase in Dec-Feb temperatures since 1948. The greatest increases have been in the far north; increases in southern British Columbia, Washington and Oregon have been closer to 1.5C.

winter temps in Canada.jpg

Average nationwide winter temperatures deviation from average.

Great Egret

Great Egrets on Oregon CBCs have increased from near zero to nearly 900 on the 119th count (December 2018 – January 2019).

CLICK ON GRAPHS TO ENLARGE

GREG OR graph.jpg

But their expansion, which took off in the early 1990s into Oregon, is now continuing in Washington, with a significant rise beginning in the mid-2000s. Great Egrets occur regularly in southern British Columbia, but so far have eluded all CBCs.

GREG WA graph.jpg

They have not quite fulfilled the full range predicted for a 1.5C increase, but are quickly on their way there.

GREG maps.jpg

Turkey Vulture

Turkey Vultures began increasing dramatically in winter in the Sacramento Valley of California in the mid-1980s, correlated with warmer winters and a decrease in fog. Prior to that, they were absent. Now, over 300 are counted on some CBCs. That pattern has been repeated in the Pacific Northwest, though about 20 years later. Both Oregon and British Columbia can now expect 100 Turkey Vultures on their CBCs. Curiously, Puget Sound is apparently still too cloudy for them, who prefer clear skies for soaring, though small numbers are regular in winter on the Columbia Plateau.

TUVU CBC graph.jpg

TUVU maps.jpg

Red-shouldered Hawk

Red-shouldered Hawks have increased from zero to over 250 inviduals on Oregon CBCs, taking off in the mid-1990s.

RSHA OR graph.jpgTwenty years later, they began their surge into Washington. It’s a matter of time before the first one is recorded on a British Columbia CBC.

RSHA WA graph.jpg

While their expansion in western Washington is less than predicted, their expansion on the east slope, in both Oregon and Washington, is greater than predicted. This latter unanticipated expansion into the drier, colder regions of the Columbia Plateau is occurring with several species.

RSHA maps.jpg

Anna’s Hummingbird

If this invasion has a poster child, it’s the Anna’s Hummingbird, which, in the last 20 years, have become a common feature of the winter birdlife of the Pacific Northwest. Their numbers are still increasing. While much has been written about their affiliation to human habitation with hummingbird feeders and flowering ornamentals, the timing of their expansion is consistent with climate change and shows no sign of abating. Anna’s Hummingbirds are not expanding similarly in the southern portions of their range. The sudden rate of expansion, which is evidenced in most of the species shown here, exceeds the temperature increases, suggesting thresholds are being crossed and new opportunities rapidly filled.

ANHU CBC graph.jpg

The expansion of the Anna’s Hummingbird has now reached Alaska, where they can be found reliably in winter in ever-increasing numbers.

ANHU AK graph.jpg

The range expansion of the Anna’s Hummingbird has vastly outpaced even predictions under 3.0C. In addition to extensive inland spread into central Oregon and eastern Washington, they now occur across the Gulf of Alaska to Kodiak Island in winter.

ANHU maps.jpg

Black Phoebe 

Non-migratory insectivores seem to be among the most prevalent species pushing north with warmer winters. The Black Phoebe fits that description perfectly. Oregon has seen an increase from zero to over 500 individuals on their CBCs.

BLPH OR graph.jpg

With the same 20-year lag of the Red-shouldered Hawk, the Black Phoebe began its invasion of Washington.

BLPH WA graph.jpg

The figure below illustrates two different climate change predictions, using 1.5C and 3.0C warming scenarios. While nearly a third of the Pacific Northwest’s Black Phoebes are in a few locations in southwest Oregon, they are increasingly populating the areas predicted under the 3.0C scenario.

BLPH maps.jpg

Townsend’s Warbler

Migrant species tend not to show the dramatic range expansions of more resident species – and short-distance migrants show more range changes than do long-distance migrants. Townsend’s Warblers, which winter in large numbers in southern Mexico and Central America, also winter along the California coast. Increasingly, they are over-wintering in Oregon and, to a lesser degree, Washington. This mirrors evidence from northern California, where House Wren, Cassin’s Vireo, and Western Tanager are over-wintering in increasing numbers. These may be next for Oregon.

TOWA WA OR graph.jpg

Townsend’s Warblers are already filling much of the map under the 1.5C warming scenario, though their numbers on CBCs in Washington and British Columbia have yet to take off.

TOWA maps.jpg

California Scrub-Jay

Due to problems with CBC data-availability, I have no graph for the California Scrub-Jay. Their northward expansion is similar to many of the species above. Their numbers on Washington CBCs have increased from less than 100 in 1998 to 1,125 on the 2018-19 count. eBird data shows they have filled the range predicted under the 3.0C scenario and then some, expanding into eastern Oregon, the Columbia Plateau, and even Idaho.

CASJ maps.jpg

Other species

Other species which can be expected to follow these trends include Northern Mockingbird and Lesser Goldfinch. White-tailed Kite showed a marked increased in the mid-1990s before retracting, which seems to be part of a range-wide decline in the past two decades, perhaps related to other factors.

Curiously, three of the Northwest’s most common resident insectivores, Hutton’s Vireo, Bushtit, and Bewick’s Wren, already established in much of the range shown on the maps above, show little sign of northward expansion or increase within these ranges. The wren is moving up the Okanogan River, and the vireo just began making forays onto the Columbia Plateau. Both of these expansions are predicted.

Likewise, some of California’s oak-dependent species, which would otherwise meet the criteria of resident insectivores (e.g. Oak Titmouse), show little sign of expansion. Oaks are slow-growing trees, which probably limits their ability to move north quickly. Similarly, the Wrentit remains constrained by a barrier it cannot cross—the Columbia River.

Call it the invasion of the Northwest. Call it Californication. Call it climate change or global warming. Regardless, the birds of California are moving north, as predicted and, in some cases, more dramatically than predicted.

 

ANHU CBC graph.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California’s plan for net-zero by 2045 and net-negative after that

Getting to Neutral cover.jpgIn January 2020, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory released their detailed report Getting to Neutral: Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California. It provides a detailed plan, with estimated costs, to reach California’s goal of net-zero by 2045, and net-negative thereafter, thus reducing carbon in the atmosphere and potentially returning it to pre-industrial levels.

The plan’s focus is carbon sequestration. For a plan on carbon emissions reductions, see California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

[Note: “ton” always refers to tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e).]

The plan relies on three main pillars:

  1. Natural sequestration thru improved land management (sequesters 25 million tons/yr);
  2. Biomass fuels made from forestry and agricultural waste, and garbage, with capture and storage of CO2 (sequesters 83 million tons/yr) (and also displaces the use of fossil fuels);
  3. Direct air capture of carbon, sucking carbon out of the air with large machines (sequesters 17 million tons/yr).
  • Natural sequestration

Chapter 2 focuses on natural solutions, which are among the cheapest options for sequestering carbon. However, they are also all limited by the number of acres upon which we can apply them. There are only so many acres of forests, wetlands, etc. By far, the largest (and cheapest) option in this category is changes in forest management.

Changes in forest management

The easiest way to increase carbon sequestration is to change to the way forests are managed. Specifically, those changes include increasing harvest rotation length, maintaining stocks at a high level, and increasing productivity by removing diseased or suppressed trees. Negative emissions are based on ongoing sequestration of carbon, which may include the transfer of harvested carbon to durable wood products. These practices would sequester 15.5 million tons/yr at a cost of $0.80/ton.

Other natural solutions

Other natural options, in order of the maximum amount of carbon they can sequester, are reforestation, tidal marsh restoration, freshwater wetland restoration, and grassland restoration. These are smaller players—more limited and more expensive. The habitat restoration options are especially limited in their potential contributions and very expensive per ton of CO2 sequestered (although restoration provides other benefits, of course). Together, these options can sequester another 10 million tons/yr at costs that range from $16.4/ton (for reforestation) to $440/ton (freshwater wetland restoration).

  • Biomass fuels

Analogous to current ethanol production, Chapters 3 and 4 call for turning leaves, branches, almond hulls, and human garbage into biofuels, but then also capturing the CO2 and burying it in old oil fields. A small part of the plan includes sequestering, rather than releasing, the CO2 produced during ethanol production. In terms of sequestration, this is the largest plank of the plan. It envisions a massive shift from fossil fuels to plant-based fuels, complete with new pipelines to transport and bury the CO2. It relies heavily on the Central Valley’s agricultural sector and old oil fields. The plan assumes existing crops and does not consider planting crops purely to create biofuels; thus, it does not displace food production.

Because biofuels would displace fossil fuels, it would also result in massive reductions of carbon emissions. However, that is not the focus of the report; the focus of the report is to sequester carbon.

Here is where the biomass would come from:

Forest biomass

Slag from logging, sawdust from sawmills, cleared shrub and chaparral. This would sequester 24 million tons/yr.

Municipal solid waste (household garbage)

This would sequester 13 million tons/yr.

Ag residue

  1. Almond hulls and shells (41% of total ag residue biomass)
  2. orchard and vineyard clippings (30%)
  3. other above-ground plant parts after harvesting from other crops (29%).

These would sequester 13 million tons/yr.

Other

Landfill and anaerobic digester gas. This would sequester 6 million tons/yr.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Fig11.jpg

All this biomass would be converted, thru various processes (gasification, combustion, fast pyrolysis, hydrothermal liquefaction, and biogas utilization) into various products: hydrogen, grid electricity, liquid fuels (e.g. “gasoline”), biochar, and renewable natural gas.

The cost depends on the biomass collection, transport, biofuel conversion process, and CO2 transport for sequestration. All of these will vary in order to provide a suite of biofuel energy needs (e.g. electricity, transport fuel, etc.). Overall, this biomass fuel network would sequester 83 million tons/yr at an average cost of about $60/ton (ranging from $29-96/ton).

  • Direct Air Capture

Chapter 5 of the report goes into detail about direct air capture (DAC) technology, machines that would suck carbon out of the air and store it in underground (primarily around oil and gas fields in the Central Valley). The report highlights DAC’s unlimited potential in sequestering carbon, but also its high energy demands (and thus expensive cost). In the end, they focus on two main options:

  1. Natural gas-based plants located near underground storage sites. These would still be net-negative.
  2. Geothermal plants (primarily around the Salton Sea), which would require the captured CO2 to be transported a long distance to underground storage sites.

They reject solar and wind-powered DAC as requiring too much land for the energy needed. They do not explore nuclear-powered DAC, such as fourth generation thorium reactors.

All of Chapter 6 is dedicated to long-term geologic storage. They conclude that oil and gas fields in the Central Valley offer the greatest promise, and that “these areas will be safe and effective storage sites. At depths below 3,000 feet, CO2 converts to a liquid-like form that has about the same density and viscosity as oil.”

Their initial cost estimates for DAC exceed $200/ton, though they assume, with learning, an eventual cost of $190/ton.

The Whole System

Fig60.jpgChapter 7 dives into the logistical details and infrastructure needed to connect the gathered biomass to the biomass fuel plants and the DAC plants to underground storage reservoirs. Among their main conclusions:

  • Transportation is a relatively small portion of total system cost, between $10 and $20/ton of CO2 removed.
  • Preexisting rail would the most efficient way to move collected biomass to biomass fuel plants, though some short spur lines would need to be constructed, depending on plant location.
  • A CO2 pipeline would need to be constructed along existing pipeline corridors in the Central Valley and to the Salton Sea, but not elsewhere.

Chapter 8 explores technology learning curves and cost reductions over time, mostly with respect to DAC.

Chapter 9 explores total system cost under several scenarios. They note there is “considerable flexibility among the technology pathways and scenario options.” Table 40 offers the optimum combination of technologies, sequestering 125 million tons per year (and avoiding another 62 million tons in emissions avoided) for a total of $8.1 billion/year, which is an a total average cost of about $65/ton.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Fig77.jpg

The Role of State Government

There is a plan for California; will it be implemented?

The report does not go into specific policy initiatives or economic incentives necessary to jump start, implement, or transition to this plan. I will address that in another post. Their only mention of public policy is with regard to the CO2 pipeline, where the report notes: “industry experts have expressed concern about the costs and legal difficulties of obtaining rights-of-way for new pipelines in California. One power company shared that running CO2 pipelines on existing natural gas rights-of-way requires renegotiating with the landowners because CO2 pipelines are higher pressure and thus are not covered by existing agreements.”

Direct Air Capture: How the fight against climate change will be won or lost

Fifteen years from now, when the Great Barrier Reef is a thing of the past, when downtown Atlantic City, Bangkok, Boston, Charleston, Dhaka, Galveston, Honolulu, Jakarta, Lagos, Manhattan, Miami, Mumbai, New Orleans, Newark, Rotterdam, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, and Venice relocate, and when Australia and California burn, everyone — from farmers to stock brokers, peasants to politicians– will be asking the same question: Are the machines working?

DAC.jpg

Those machines will be sucking carbon out of the air and burying it deep in the ground or under the sea. We don’t know exactly where they will be, what they will look like, or even how well they will work. All we know is that we need them (Lackner et al 2013).

Reducing our carbon emissions, which humans have proved incapable of, is not enough now. Even reducing to zero emissions tomorrow is insufficient. We are too far gone in the wrong direction. What’s more, like a ship heading for the end of the world where the water falls off the edge, our foot is still on the accelerator. Slowing down is good, but insufficient to avert disaster; we must turn the ship around and head the other way. We need to not just reduce emissions, we need to reduce the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere. That means negative emissions– sucking carbon out of the air.

Direct Air Capture vs Flue Capture; Sequestration vs Re-Use

Carbon capture from ambient air, also called Direct Air Capture (DAC), is different from conventional carbon capture at factory chimney flues (i.e. point source carbon capture). First, it’s a lot easier to capture carbon from flues because the CO2 is concentrated. Second, typically the goal of flue carbon capture is to minimize CO2 emissions and often to re-use the CO2 in a process that reduces the need for fossil fuels. If it is re-purposed, you’ve reduced CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but the CO2 is still released into the atmosphere. This is a process to reduce emissions; it is not net-negative.

There are also plans to capture carbon, from the air or from flues, and use it in a variety of other industrial processes, from putting bubbles in soda to (wait for it)… extracting more oil. These plans are merely meant to reduce emissions and also to incentivize the private sector to capture carbon. But it’s not net-negative.

Feasibility

Back to direct air capture. Here’s the catch: we don’t know if we can do it at the scale needed. Fortunately, humans have been much better at finding technological solutions than political ones. There are more than a dozen pilot projects in Iceland, Switzerland, and elsewhere showing it can be done– on a very small scale. There are a host of questions, but the biggest challenge is sucking it out of the air in an efficient and cost-effective way.

Funding

Feasibility aside, there’s the question of how to pay for it. Suppose we wanted to capture and sequester 7 billion metric tons of CO2 annually, which is the IPCC goal by 2050. Currently we emit 43 billion. Early estimates are that it would cost $700 billion/year (at $100/ton) and require an enormous amount of energy, up to a 12% of annual worldwide energy use. But those are early estimates. Technology gets better and cheaper with time. The Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at Arizona State University thinks it can be done for $210 billion/yr (using $30/ton) and require only 1% of worldwide energy use.

For context, worldwide military spending is $1.8 trillion/yr (or $1,800 billion), nearly half of which is by the US. If the armies of the world ever wanted to save a city, let alone a village, they have the money to do it.

Ultimately, governments will have to pay for carbon capture and sequestration. There is no way to incentivize the private sector to bury a product rather than re-use it. In the near term, we can benefit from private sector carbon capture and re-use because, although it is not net-negative, it can incentivize research into DAC technology. And it does reduce emissions.

DAC on a meaningful level requires international coordination and, of course, cost sharing. The two most obvious models would be to apportion cost share based on current or past CO2 emissions.

Each nation will likely be up to its own to develop their own funding mechanism. A carbon tax is an obvious solution. If DAC costs $100/ton, that translates to 88 cents/gallon at the pump. Other fossil fuel uses would also have to be taxed as well. While this sounds affordable, there are two complicating factors: 1) we can’t just address the gallons of gas we are buying now; we have to address all the gas we have ever bought and all our parents have ever bought; and 2) carbon taxes are regressive, hitting the poor more than the rich (as a percentage of their income). There are ways around that, a subject for another blog post.

The enormity of the task means that technological innovations to lower the cost are critical. This should not be left to small policy initiatives like research grants and tax incentives. This requires the full weight of all the major governments and universities in the world. Progressive governments in Europe and California (where Democrats have super-majorities in both houses of the legislature) could and should embark on DAC projects immediately.

The Free Rider and Moral Hazard Problems

CO2 released anywhere in the world spreads everywhere, and DAC done anywhere reduces CO2 everywhere. This is both good and bad. It means that DAC can be done anywhere, allowing us to select the most expedient locations. For example, a DAC pilot study in Iceland uses clean geothermal energy to capture carbon and inject it into porous volcanic rocks.

But it also means there’s a potential free rider problem, where countries will shirk their obligations in the hopes that others will take care of it for them. One can imagine rogue nations that refuse to pay their fair share and free ride on the public service provided by other countries. The US, whose share would be large by any measure, is a candidate for such recalcitrant behavior. Public support for DAC could overcome this.

It is possible that Republicans would support DAC. The US Congress recently passed a $50/ton tax credit for DAC removal, the most ambitious such incentive in the world. Republican support, however, probably came from the associated $35/ton tax credit for carbon captured from the air and used for enhanced oil extraction. Regardless, Republicans could see DAC as an opportunity to extend fossil fuel use into the future. And therein lies the moral hazard problem. If we’re doing DAC, one could argue that we don’t need to reduce emissions as much. And if DAC became cheap and easy, fossil fuel use (aside from the spill risks and air quality impacts) could arguably continue.

But, like with a penny saved rather than earned, carbon not emitted is carbon you don’t have to capture and sequester. There are two more reasons why reducing emissions must still happen: 1) at the moment, it’s still cheaper to reduce CO2 emissions than to capture it; and 2) we are nearing the edge of the world, when it’s too late even to capture carbon.

Positive Feedback Loops

This brings us to the gremlins in the room– positive feedback loops. These are additional sources of global warming that are caused by the current global warming. They are force multipliers, accelerators, that can make global warming much worse very fast. It’s hard to predict when they will kick in. If they do, our job will become much much harder. We will lose ground, a lot more ground (read human suffering) before we win. They put victory in doubt.

Some positive feedback loops, such as increased water vapor in the air and dark seas and mountains exposed from melting ice and glaciers, have been accounted for in climate models. More pernicious are the more unpredictable “time bombs”, such as permafrost melt and massive wildfires.

Melting permafrost is the proverbial elephant of the gremlins in the room. Research suggests that rapid methane releases from melting permafrost may have been the final driver in runaway climate change that led to past mass extinction events, including the End-Permian Extinction in which 97% of all life on earth perished. This effect is already happening. NOAA recently reported that melting permafrost now contributes as much as net 0.6 billion tons of carbon (equivalent to 2.2 billion tons of CO2) to the atmosphere each year; “the feedback to accelerating climate change may already be underway.”

Forests are normally carbon sinks, taking in CO2. However, in 2006 Westerling et al warned that “forests of the western United States may become a source of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide rather than a sink, even under a relatively modest temperature-increase scenario.” Since then, wildfires have increased dramatically.

These positive feedback loops are like an increasing current threatening to pull the ship over the falls. If we are waiting for technology to save us, we may have waited too long.

Controlling the Climate

In the long run, Homo sapiens might eventually hopefully maybe win the climate battle and be able to capture and sequester enough carbon to return the earth’s atmosphere to normal conditions. But there will be suffering in the short-term, for the next two hundred years, thru sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, powerful hurricanes, and agricultural disruption. The poor will suffer most. Turning the climate around is like turning a cruise ship. There’s a lot of lag time between cause and effect. That’s why humans have found themselves in the current crisis. Only the scientists saw it coming. Nobody felt the impacts until now, and now it’s too late to avoid them. The same is true regarding corrective measures. A lot of sea level rise, caused by ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica, is already built into the system. It is coming and coming at an increasing and exponential rate. We may have to actually cool the planet beyond the recent historic level to stop it. And that may take 150 years. In the meantime, hundreds of coastal cities will go under water. This appears inevitable, even under the most optimistic scenarios.

The graphs below present the most wildly optimistic scenario, achieving the Paris goal’s peak emission in 2020 (this year), DAC of 7 billion tons of CO2 per year by 2050, plus optimistic net removal thru reforestation and new soil management practices, all of which help to get us to net-zero emissions by 2050, another Paris goal. After that, we remove more than we emit; we are net-negative, returning the earth to under 400 ppm.

It would be great to just use natural approaches to sequester carbon (e.g. reforestation and soil management). But the numbers just don’t add up fast enough. During past global warming events (e.g. the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum), it took the earth’s natural processes tens of thousands of years to restore balance. We have put so much carbon up so fast thru industrial processes that we need the same kind of speed sucking it back in. Nevertheless, looking at the graph below, reduced carbon emissions are still the biggest player, followed by DAC and the natural processes. We need it all to the maximum extent possible as soon as possible.

But this wildly optimistic scenario still has us peaking at 510 ppm in 2050, high enough to hit 2.0 Celsius warming, which is perilously close to unleashing enough carbon and methane from permafrost and other positive feedback loops to launch us toward 3 or 4 or 5 C warming and create another mass extinction event  (which we know from the past the world will recover from, re-evolving new life forms, in a few million years).

DAC chart1.jpg

The graph of CO2 levels below is derived from the assumptions regarding CO2 emissions and removal above. This is a best case scenario.

DAC chart2.jpg

But suppose humanity gets past this. Successful implementation of carbon capture and sequestration would mean that Homo sapiens can control the earth’s climate. That brings with it a host of other questions. At what level do we set atmospheric CO2? Do we return to 300 ppm or lower? Who decides? Because carbon released or captured anywhere affects everywhere, who will police it? These are questions for our children, if they are fortunate.

Modern climate change is 10x faster than historic global warming mass extinction events

There have been several mass extinction events in the history of the earth, most of them caused by global warming due to “sudden” releases of carbon into the atmosphere, and it only took an increase of 4 to 5 degrees Celsius to cause the cataclysm. The current carbon emissions rate is 10 to 100x faster than during those events. And we’re already a quarter of the way there in terms of warming.

CLICK TO ENLARGEemissions rate

The current warming trends, RCP 8.5 and RCP 4.5, refer to estimates of carbon emissions under high and moderately low projections by the International Panel on Climate Change. The straight lines on the extinction events are approximate; there may have been episodic spurts and stops as different thresholds, positive feedback loops, and other natural events occurred. But these lines connect the dots we have.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Land animals with backbones didn’t really evolve until 300 million years ago (mya), so we’ll start there.

The most massive mass extinction event in the history of the earth was the End-Permian extinction event (also known as the Permian-Triassic extinction event or the Great Dying) 252 mya. It was caused by a massive release of carbon. The equatorial regions, both on land and in the ocean, were too hot for most life forms, including plants. The cause of the warming event is debated, but was most likely due to a series of volcanic eruptions from the Siberian Traps that lasted two million years. The extinction occurred during an initial 60,000 year period, which is “sudden” in geologic terms. Recovery of the ecosystem, basically a whole new evolutionary period to create new animals, took 2 to 10 million years.

The End-Triassic extinction event came next, 201 mya. It was also associated with volcanic activity and the massive release of carbon, this time from the mid-Atlantic ridge. It probably triggered a positive feedback loop, with melting permafrost releasing tons of methane. The extinction period, affecting plants and animals, lasted about 10,000 years and paved the way for the rise of the dinosaurs.

The dinosaurs dominated after that, until all but the avian dinosaurs (the ones that evolved into birds) were wiped out by another mass extinction event 66 mya. This may have been caused by a comet or asteroid striking the earth, or by extreme volcanic activity creating global warming similar to the other events here (8 degrees Celsius over 40,000 years). This one is not shown on the graph.

Finally, there was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) and associated extinction event 56 mya. Likely caused by a combination of carbon and methane releases, this global warming event is the most recent, offers the most evidence and information, and is most analogous to climate change today. The continents were in roughly similar positions as today. The warming, 5 degrees Celsius in about 5,000 years, wiped out much benthic marine life, pushed the tropics to Wyoming and alligators to the Arctic Circle, warmed oceans to 97 degrees, and made the equatorial regions too hot for many species. The PETM is well-studied, with hundreds of papers available on-line, plus quite a bit of media coverage.

The high temperatures lasted for about 20,000 years. Eventually, the Arctic Ocean became covered with algae. These algae slowly absorbed CO2. When it died, it sank, taking the carbon with it to the bottom of the sea, lowering the carbon in the atmosphere and cooling the earth back to normal. This process took 200,000 years.

Climate change during these past events, considered rapid in geologic time, would have scarcely been noticed by animals on the ground. Animals didn’t go extinct by dropping dead; they just had a lower reproductive rate such that their populations slowly declined until none were left. Also, they evolved. In fact, there was a pulse of evolution during the PETM, producing, among other things, the first primates.

The current warming is 10 times faster than during the PETM. It is noticeable within the lifespan of an individual animal. Adaption thru evolution is not an option. Scientists mince no words:

“We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.”  – Zeebe (2016)

The PETM raised average earth surface temperatures 5 C. We’re at 1.1 C now, with probably up to 2 C already built into the system, meaning we’ll reach that even if we stop all carbon emissions tomorrow. We’re likely to reach 2 C even if we dramatically reduce emissions and successfully implement Direct Air Capture of ambient CO2 in the atmosphere. Assuming business as usual, we may reach PETM levels in 140 years.

Note: See hyperlinks for sources.

A dysfunctional conversation about climate change among evangelical Christians, annotated

This is taken from a real Facebook conversation. I’ve changed the names to protect the innocent and the guilty. My comments are in italics.

Curious Jane is a young evangelical, on the progressive side of the spectrum. But she’s a progressive fish in a conservative sea. Here she tries to swim against the current.

jane

ORIGINAL POST

Curious Jane: For people who don’t believe in climate change… help me understand why? I am genuinely curious. I just can’t wrap my brain around denying the fact that our presence here has an effect on the environment and why wouldn’t we want to decrease our negative impact.

Kudos to Curious Jane! She knows her Facebook Friends include lots of evangelicals (from conservative to openly gay) and she’s going right at them. She’s concerned about climate change and she seems honest in her question.

COMMENTS

Biz Karen:  What’s now referred to as Climate Change used to be called Global Warming. The article below may help to shed some light for you. Call it whatever we like to suit politics & agendas, the fact remains we’ve been charged by God to care for the Earth (Genesis), so yes, we should take an interest in doing what we can, as best we can.
That said, Revelation also tells us there will be a new Earth, all things will be made new. The Earth is included in the Fall, and in a state of decay – this does not abdicate our responsibility, however. Just as grace does not give us leave to behave in whatever way we like.

https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/21/how-margaret-thatcher-came-sound-climate-alarm?fbclid=IwAR2YokSk_Txc6olUpJmdoZ6d0r5L8lem0icoliqvIMl_-2vLaXHefextQys

Whoa, we open with the classic evangelical theological roller coaster. We should behave morally, but it’s irrelevant, but we really should, ish. Biz Karen then provides a link. The link is strange—having nothing to do with Christian beliefs and hardly the kind of thing one would share to “shed light” on this issue. It’s from a fringe publication—a poorly-written piece about Margaret Thatcher promoting climate change as a tool to promote nuclear power plants. I think it’s supposed to be an example of people promoting climate change to advance a personal agenda. Who knows where Karen got this from.

Curious Jane: I am not really sure I understand the article, or what it’s point is. I agree with both of the latter points though. The idea of that we will have a new earth is an interesting concept, one i hadn’t considered, but that makes sense. But as you say, that doesn’t give us a right to do what we want. And I think historically Christians have used the idea of “dominion over the earth” as a way to justify their lack of consideration for it.

Jane is on point here, 3 for 3: the article is bizarre; the “new earth” shouldn’t affect our behavior; and the “dominion” notion has been a grossly abused concept in the past. Go Jane!

Biz Karen:  Yup. Re the article – it’s basically that the concept of GW was not scientifically supported, and in large part created to aid Margaret Thatcher’s election as a woman in a man’s world…. Simply put.

Wow, Karen is 0 for 2 here. Her strange summary doesn’t match the bizarre article.

Curious Jane: Gotcha! Thanks for the breakdown!

Oh oh.  Jane is slipping, yielding to niceties instead of holding Karen’s feet to the fire. Maybe she’s giving up on Karen’s ability to answer her question in the first place.

Biz Karen: Curious Jane ya know, that’s what Auntie’s are for.

Well, you can’t choose your relatives.

Walter: I think why people shut off to this topic on the right is because every proposal to help curb emissions is just a way to push socialism. If you read the Green New Deal that’s what it’s core is. Now if they expanded their view to include nuclear and carbon capture tech I think they would get a lot more people who don’t turn off immediately at the very thought of changing away from fossil fuels.

Walter coming in with the Fox News talking point: socialism. It’s how Republicans seek to demonize every possible government intervention. It’s how conservative American dis more developed societies in Europe. And it’s also a massive generalization. Seriously, the police department, the military, agricultural subsidies, clean water regulations, the roads, the aqueducts, education—all could be called “socialism”. But not really. Government programs and regulations do not a socialist country make.

Let’s make the case for government intervention in this case. Econ 101 tells us that climate change is a classic negative externality problem. The true consequences of using oil are not reflected in the price at the pump. The market is not sending us the right signals, so we have no incentive to change. This is why we tax cigarettes or outlaw child labor—the government is intervening to fix the market, to stop the free market from doing something we don’t want. AOC only calls it the Green New Deal (echoing Roosevelt’s “New Deal”) because she recognizes our whole economy is built around carbon fuels and must change. That’s a big lift. To do that, we need a whole lot of intervention, so that the cost of CO2 emissions is reflected in the marketplace, so that alternatives are developed, and so that the poor don’t get screwed during the transition to alternative energies. Rather than demonize this transition (because Big Oil feels threatened), the GOP should help craft it. At least they should debate alternatives, rather than demonize any proposed solution.

Curious Jane: In what ways does it push socialism? (I don’t know anything about it, so again a genuinely curious question)

Jane should probably redirect Walter back to Christianity and Jesus here—the radical Jesus that openly suggested massive land reform and the forgiveness of debts every 50 years (talk about socialism!). But instead she calls him out on the socialism claim. Okay.

Curious Jane: Also, people completely deny its existence or that the climate is changing at all. Most of these people are Christian, or Christian affiliated

Ah, here we go! Back to signal! It’s like Jane listened to me. Why are Christians, who are supposed to love and especially care for the vulnerable, holding this position that contributes to real harm? And let me remind everyone that this is a conversation that could only happen in America (and Australia) among white conservative Christians. Nowhere else in the world is this even a debate. That’s how far down a fucked-up road Jane is on here. But she’s trying to turn the car around.

Walter:  Jane, it covers housing for all, jobs for all, focuses on “historically marginalized” communities and social justice etc. I’m just saying that if the politics were removed from the argument you would see a lot more people finding common cause. People on the right feel like admitting global warming is a threat means they have to sign onto leftist resolutions to that problem. I believe we are having a huge affect on the climate, but I don’t believe wind and solar fix it.

Okay, so Walter is a bit of a conservative troller, fishing with baited hooks on multiple issues. Look Walter, forget social justice if that irks you (as a Christian). No one is stopping the GOP from running on a platform committed to developing carbon capture technology. In fact, that would be a far more legitimate position than denying the problem exists. And that’s the main reason this problem is “political”. Denial. Which is a political strategy developed by Big Oil, embraced by James Baker and the GOP in the 1990s, and funded by the Koch Bros and others now.

But the real truth, the real answer to Jane’s question why Christians deny climate change, goes back a few years before she was born. I lived thru it. In the the 1970s there were many conservative Christians who were Democrats- like most of the South. Jimmy Carter was the first candidate to say he was “born again”. But since the 1980s conservative evangelicals have been in bed with the Republican Party (largely due to one issue, abortion), and the Republican Party has been in bed with Big Oil, and Big Oil has pursued promoting climate change denial since the 1990s (even though they very much believe in it and accurately modeled it decades ago). So that’s why conservative evangelicals now deny climate change. Because they are told to.

Curious Jane: But maybe wind and solar may help? Being aware of the issue may help? What are the republicans doing to address the issue?

Go Jane! #FightingSpirit

Walter:  Jane, I think it’s definitely a big piece. And I don’t think the republicans are doing much at all. Sadly. But we have seen US emissions drop by 15% in the last 20 years because of the clean tech in natural gas plants. Nuclear plants have zero emissions. Sadly no one wants to come together and compromise. So it’s all gonna get worse 😕

Walter is caving in; he’s coming across the aisle, now supporting solar and throwing shade on the GOP. Fact check on the 15% decline in emissions: Walter is correct. Emissions have declined about that much, entirely because of the switch from coal to natural gas by electricity generating plants (really a bit of luck there for all of us—it was driven by new discoveries and economics and could just as easily have gone the other way). However, CO2 emissions from transportation (e.g. cars and planes) hasn’t changed at all—and it’s now the biggest piece of the pie. I’m not sure what compromise Walter has in mind. The current Dem proposals are insufficient to address climate change, and the GOP wants to roll them back. Seems to me we need a Green New Deal (of some kind); compromise between the current Dems and current GOP is insufficient to address the problem.

Curious Jane: It just seems like people and/or politicians feel like they can’t compromise because they would be compromising their values, or “giving in” to the other side. And they rather get nothing done then give in

Oh oh. Walter caved so now Jane is caving. Jane, there is no compromise on the table. In fact, there’s precious little on the table at all because the GOP officially denies the problem exists. They are probably the ONLY major political party in the world that takes that position.

Walter:  Jane exactly!

Oh oh. Love fest now. Walter has lured her in, a strategic psychological masterpiece. Jane has caved to the “two sides to every story” religion (aka “bias towards fairness”) and now Walter is tying the noose.

Big Dan: Jane I think it’s a mistake to say nothing is being done. There have been great strides in improving our environmental impact in the United States over the last 30 years or so. But the radical propaganda does not include this because it doesn’t fit the narrative. The United States is much less polluting than almost all other industrialized nations. The socialist controlled nations are much worse. Frankly the most environmentally horrible places in our own country are the most socialist as well.

Here comes Big Dan to shake things up. He sounds like Trump on Facebook, with a fully-automatic blast of inaccuracies to overwhelm the reader. Fact checks: All wrong. Clearly this guy has never been to Europe, which generally has stricter environmental laws. CO2 emissions per capita in Europe are about half those in the US.

Big Dan: to finish my thought (got distracted-sorry) some of us on the right are opposed to the leftists solutions precisely because we care deeply about the environment and are certain they will result in making it much worse.

An unsupported and bizarre statement.

Big Dan: I do not deny climate change. I am extremely skeptical that is it man made or that we could stop it if we tried.

I understand when people live in the cities it can seem like we have an affect. And we can locally. But the world is a very big place and nature is so powerful. The effects of solar energy absorbed by the ocean water alone is mathematically exponentially larger than all of manmade energy use.

The idea that we’ve not even explored the ocean, but we think we can steer the climate is just beyond me.

In my profession we use temperature monitoring devices all the time. And the numbers we are told on climate change are still less than 5% of the factor of error in measurement devices. I’ve literally sent guys out to read gauges, write them down, and then compare them. 5 guys will vary 3 degrees F off of the same gauge.

If you were to watch the way I live out in the country, I think you would be able to see that I am conservation minded. But I don’t see the political solutions as being effective in anything but tyranny. You will find the most socialist nations are also the most polluting.

Wow, basically Fox News diarrhea here, with mentions of “tyranny” and “socialist” and a stunning disregard for science (and with that, a stunning disregard for human life). Also, the hubris of “I know more than the scientists do” is also stunning. But don’t forget, many of these people have been primed for taking on scientists via their “creation science” battles. This is just an extension. Trump v National Weather Service is just another manifestation.

Crazy Amy: New world Order= old world
+ 💀. A very few people I know who are fervent evangelicals or witnesses are
EXCITED about the end of the world as they believe that this is according to the Book of Revelations and they are anticipating the rapture etc. It’s a piece to the Armageddon puzzle and they can’t wait to finish it. They help it along, believing it is part of the grand design.

…  um… speechless… so people are idling their Ford F150s in their driveways to bring Jesus back? And the human misery and starvation?  We’ve entered a dark cult here.

Curious Jane: I don’t think they have anything to do with finishing it 🤔🙄

Thank you Jane—and nice emojis with “blegh” and “rolling your eyes”

Crazy Amy: Jane, tell them that 😂

So, does Amy really know people like this? We haven’t heard from them directly. I’m thinking the Fox ditto-heads speak for most conservative Christians and Amy is referring to a lunatic fringe beyond the usual repulsive perimeter.

Douglas: Jane, I think mankind has evolved into man-unkind. Very un kind to the invironment thus affecting the ecology. It’s not ignorance but rather ‘arrogance’ that’s responsive for the degradation of our environment. The industrial revolution, dangerous weapons of war, paradoxically the elite are the perpetrators! Does this make sense?

Okay, Douglas is enough on-point that we think he might not be a Christian, certainly not a conservative one.

Curious Jane: Yes it does! Thanks for your thoughts Douglas.

And Jane is once again at home with her core values.

Dude Guy: Apparently Facebook only lets me post one picture per comment. So we’ll start here:  It should be noted that nobody of note denies “climate change”. As we understand it – the earth’s climate has been changing since the Earth was created. It has been in a constant stage of flux for a few billion years now, and humans are but a blip on the timeline, with our carbon footprint being an even smaller part of that. This chart demonstrates CO2 levels across various epochs in the Earth’s history. As you can see, it rises and falls irrespective of human interaction

[There’s a graph showing ups and downs over the last 4 million years, well beyond the period of Homo sapiens.]

This is the global mean temperature … [Another graph, see below.]

Carbon dioxide makes up about .0004% of our atmosphere, or about 405 parts per MILLION molecules in the atmosphere. Climate.gov reports that this is a record high… but that’s actually a lie…

Oh jeez, cut!  This is all a shitload of faux science built on the main conservative talking point: the climate is always changing. Fact check 1: climate usually changes at a geologic snail’s pace—and human civilization evolved in a very narrow window of it and we have evidence it’s prone to collapse outside of that window—and we’re outside that window now. Fact check 2: his “science” is all wrong and ludicrous and at odds with the scientific community. I spared you most of it. But here’s one of his graphs (left) next to one from a reputable source (right).

And don’t forget, climate change is many times more intense in the Arctic. Native communities across Alaska are suffering from massive climate change and conservative white Christians in America are acting as shills for Big Oil. This is really repulsive—there’s no other word for it. Ten years ago I told my conservative Christian friends that climate change was the biggest crisis facing the church. They are failing miserably.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

dys climate graphs.jpgCurious Jane: Thanks for all the info! I appreciate a scientific response 🙂

Whaaaaaat?  Jane, say it ain’t so. Are you just being nice?

Crazy Amy: Jane….not scientific….it’s called marketing.

I think Amy is critiquing Dude Guy here.

Curious Jane: That’s what all this is… marketing! It’s all political. Everyone just wants what they want.

That’s all i have learned from this. People have taken this issue and made it political.

Jane’s Dorothy-back-in-Kansas moment, but she’s mistaken. Again, Jane is caving in here to the “two sides to every story” thing, the go-to for Americans in uncomfortable situations. This is dysfunction. Jane, it’s political because one side not only doesn’t want a solution, they deny there’s a problem. Because they are selling oil. Plain and simple. When the earth’s climate really is changing in ways that will devastate life as we know it, when a truck is bearing down on you at full speed and you’re stuck in the middle of the road, there aren’t two legitimate sides. Wake up, Jane!

Curious Jane: Also, Dude Guy, regardless of your science, we should still take care of this earth and try to reduce our negative impact.

Ah, Jane is skeptical of his “science”. Curious Jane remains curious. This is good. Dude Guy never replies.

Biz Karen: Read: Climate Gate by Brian Sussman, Meteorologist!

LOL, vomit. I’ll let the readers look this one up themselves.

 ____________________________________________________________

We’ve come to the end. It’s no longer a question of whether Jane can shine light in the darkness of the church; it’s clear she won’t convert them. The question is, how long can she last?

Good luck, Jane. With friends like these, you’ll need better allies if you really want to follow Jesus.

In addition to Bill McKibben and Al Gore (both climate leaders motivated by their Christian faith), here are some organizations I suggest:

Sojourners          

Evangelicals for Social Action

 Young Evangelicals for Climate Action

 

Finally, Jane, check this out:  The Evangelical Climate Initiative. Climate Change: A Call to Action

Buying Greenland: Destroying the planet to make some money

Trump’s apparently serious bid to buy Greenland seemed like something out of The Simpson’s or SNL. It is not. It reveals something far more treacherous, like a ploy concocted by the villain in a superhero comic.

villian.jpg

Setting aside the massive hubris of white privilege, that land and indigenous people can be bought and sold by colonial powers (and Trump has mentioned trading some US land away to make the deal), and setting aside the question of how to pay for it (perhaps by ignoring Congress and diverting funds from another source, like he did for his wall), his proposal means he believes in climate change and wants to profit from it—from the suffering of billions and the destruction of earth as we know it.

It’s not hard to understand the mastermind of Trump. His strategies are as transparent as a third grader’s plotting to steal cookies. At the Arctic Council meeting in May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dismissed climate concerns and instead highlighted “new opportunities for trade” created by the melting ice, the “opportunities and abundance” created by an ice-free Arctic. In preparation for the Arctic summit, Pompeo was probably briefed about the economic opportunities of an ice-free Arctic Ocean—not just the shipping lanes but also the massive reserves of oil under the seabed. And perhaps that briefing mentioned Greenland, with massive reserves of coal and uranium and an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves.

Pompeo shares the information with Trump. Trump offers to buy Greenland. Ca-ching.

They’ve also figured out that Greenland is melting. And it is melting much faster than climate scientists predicted. A new report by NASA revised its estimate of sea level rise from Greenland alone from 3 feet to 5 feet over the next 200 years. During a heat wave last month, it melted at a rate that it was not predicted to reach until 2070. While billions will be underwater, Trump sees opportunity and abundance.

greenlandice.jpg

A dramatic photo of pooling meltwater on sea ice off Greenland. July, 2019.

In the same way he has hijacked the Republican Party and wed it to a small and diminishing demographic (rural white men), he has wedded his personal investment strategy to “disaster capitalism”, a plan to make money off the destruction of the earth. Along with all of Big Oil and the Republican Party, he has a financial conflict of interest with curtailing CO2 emissions. If Greenland was part of his investment portfolio, he’d also have a conflict with solutions to climate change. He’d even have a conflict with a magic technological breakthrough that sequesters carbon. He’d need the ice to melt.

He has become the diabolical villain of superhero cartoons. The desire to make money off the destruction of the earth is not only an impeachable offense, it disqualifies him from any responsible role on the planet. He is a threat to all humanity and the world.

The only superhero to thwart him is us, the unorganized millions. It’s time to stop tweeting about his hair and his wife and his rudeness and his gaffes. It’s time to think strategically and take to the streets. It’s time to make his life a living hell before he does that to the planet.

Hell in Paradise: Why the Camp Fire was the largest climate-induced mass mortality event in modern history

fires Paradise

The Camp Fire was started by downed power lines, spread from a forest, and then became a structure-to-structure urban fire in which houses burned but many trees did not.

I grew up in southern California on the edge of the San Fernando Valley. Fires, usually fueled by Santa Ana winds on dry grasses in the hills, were a fact of life. I evacuated. I ran the pump to squirt water from the pool onto the roof. I helped neighbors on the edge of the hills water their roofs. Back in those days, in the 1970s, fires over 100,000 acres (~150 square miles) were rare. The worst fires destroyed 200 to 300 homes. Rarely, someone died. That was then.

fires infographic

Infographic prepared in 2013, before most of the recent mega-fires.

Twelve years ago, four researchers examined a comprehensive database of all large wildfires in western United States forests since 1970. They detected a signal and concluded that “large wildlife activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s.” Looking at weather data and land-use history, they concluded the driving factor was “increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt”. Forest management, on the other hand, had “relatively little effect”. Published in the journal Science in 2006, they had found the “force multiplier” that climate change brings to the West. We all knew that forests had been mismanaged for nearly a century, and that too many homes and towns had been built up against wildlands.  But now there was a new factor driving fires—longer hotter drier summers. If you’re looking for numbers, the data show that fires really ramped up in 1987.  The so-called “force multiplier” of climate change was big—about 3 or 4. That is, wildfire frequency was triple in dry years when compared to moderate years, and quadruple that in wet years. Ominously, they noted the effect was non-linear, meaning that, in warmer years, fires really increased. Thus, the multiplier was not just a constant number—it increased with temperature and lack of rain. The Berkeley Tunnel fire, which was exceptional because it killed 24 people trying to evacuate and was the first fire in California history to burn over a thousand homes (it actually burned over 2,000 homes), occurred in 1991.

In the twelve years since the Science article, mega-fires, in terms of acres burned, structures destroyed, and people killed, have gone off the charts—literally. When it comes to fires that burn more than 200,000 acres (~300 square miles), destroy more than a thousand homes, and kill dozens, if not hundreds of people, climate change is not really a “force multiplier”, it’s an on-off switch. Such fires were very rare or non-existent before the year 2000. Now, they appear to be annual.

CA fires 2b

We’ve crossed a threshold, tripped a wire.  In 2017, after the astounding loss of 6,000 homes in Santa Rosa, we hoped that was an outlier, a blip in the data. A few months later, in December, when fires were previously unheard of, the Thomas Fire became the largest in state history. Barely six months later, the Carr Fire made Redding “the new Santa Rosa”. After that fire I posted a chart showing that 16 of the state’s largest 20 fires had all occurred in the past 20 years. We had a reached a “new abnormal”. Then, a few months after that, in November, when by all historical standards the fire season should be over, the Camp Fire literally wiped out the entire town of Paradise, population 26,000. Hospitals, high schools, stores, and houses, all gone. The death toll is without historical precedent. While that was burning, the Woolsey Fire became the largest and most destructive fire in the history of the Los Angeles area. At the present rate, next year the Paradise inferno will be surpassed by some hell unimaginable.

CA fires 2a

When I say the Camp Fire is the largest climate-induced mass mortality event in modern history, I’m not counting hurricanes. Hurricanes, even large hurricanes, have always occurred and always will. A Category 5 hurricane striking a major city is an inevitability. Yes, climate change has made hurricanes larger and more numerous, thus increasing the risk, but nothing like the change we’ve seen with fires in the West. Thus, attributing any one hurricane to climate change is like attributing a single specific cancer case to an environmental contaminant causing a cluster of cases.

CA fires 2c

When I say the Camp Fire was caused by climate change, I’m not saying that future destructive fires are inevitable. The fires will come, but we can do things to mitigate the

science-fires-1

Graphic from fivethirtyeight.com

destructive aspects. A full post-mortem on the Camp Fire and other recent mega-fires is of course required. Such analysis should look beyond the political rhetoric of Trump, exclusively blaming management practices in national forests. Most of these fires in these graphs, spreading across dry grass and oak woodland, had nothing to do with forests. Furthermore, in the face of massive tree death from drought, simply removing dead trees from forests has serious feasibility limitations. To quote a forest fire expert colleague, “Yes, fuels reduction is needed same as 30 years ago, but the mills are all full from the tree mortality supply, much of the fuels are not merchantable, and we are not going to cut our way out of longer fire seasons and deadly MegaFires.”

In the short run, we can’t stop the changing climate, the record low humidity and record high dry vegetation, or the longer summers. We can’t shorten the fire season, now 80 days longer than in 1970s. But we can modify power lines, conduct preventative burns, revise urban fire perimeter requirements, and re-evaluate evacuation routes. Those things won’t turn off the switch we’ve triggered, but they might at least save some homes and lives in the coming years.

CalFiredamage

The CalFire damage inspection map of Paradise. The latest interactive map can be found here

The international climate report in three diagrams: The world at a crossroads

On October 6, 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (known at “SR15”), looking at the benefits of keeping global warming under 1.5 °C, as compared to 2.0 °C, and the potential pathways to get there. The report was commissioned after the Paris Agreement of 2015, which subjected nearly every nation in the world to voluntary goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are already at 1.0 °C and climbing, so this is a late-in-the-game analysis.

The results, based on the latest science, are sobering. While past IPCC reports were known for being rather conservative, largely due to political pressure, this one is more direct, practically screaming for a radical reduction in fossil fuel use (which must fall to near zero by 2060 even with a technological breakthrough in carbon sequestration). When it was approved, participating scientists cried tears of joy that their report, dire as it is, was allowed to be published as it was.

The full report, a little over 1,000 pages, is available in chapters here.  It provides important details regarding the effects of climate change from region to region.

A 34-page summary for policy-makers is available here.

But even that summary is full of technical jargon that most politicians and members of the public would find cumbersome. Here I’ve taken some of the most important diagrams from the summary and modified and annotated them.  Here is the report in three diagrams:

[CLICK TO ENLARGE]

IPCC1

 

IPCC2

 

IPCC3

 

California apocalypse again: Large wildfires increasing with climate change

smoke

Sunset from the Central Valley, looking toward the Coast Range through the smoke of a million trees.

As I write this, helicopters are passing overhead in a dim gray-brown sky. The sun is a pink orb over the western horizon. It is 97 degrees at 7pm. The people of California sit like frogs in a slowly boiling pot.

Average temperature for July and August, here in Davis, is 93 degrees. But in the past 34 days, it was only below that six times. July 2018 was the hottest month in the history of the state.

Such climate change was predicted, with great accuracy, by both oil companies and government scientists back in the 1980s, and even earlier.  The consequences of this included more extreme weather, more drought, shorter rainy seasons, earlier snow melt, longer fire seasons, and larger fires. All that is coming to pass in such dramatic fashion that new records are set each year.

[CLICK TO ENLARGE GRAPHS]

Note: There were more mega-fires in November, 2018, shortly after I wrote this. These graphs are updated in a more recent blog post “Hell in Paradise: Why the Camp Fire was the largest climate-induced mass mortality event in modern history”

CA fires1In 1988, scientists were excited– and alarmed– to see the first indications of a warming climate. Now, graphs illustrating climate change need no statistical analysis. They are obvious to a child, ramping steeply up with each passing year.

CA fires2

A conservative talking point seems to be that this dramatic increase in fires is not due to climate change, but to poor forest management. While this has been an issue for over a hundred years, this question was the prime focus of Westerling et al 2006 in Science, where he concluded that longer hotter summers and shorter drier winters were indeed to blame. There were increased fires even in areas without poor management– or any management at all. Where there has been poor forest management, climate warming has acted as a “force multiplier” to make fires even worse. One could only imagine how easy it would be to write that paper now, twelve years later, with plenty of new eye-popping data points.  Thirteen of California’s 20 largest fires have occurred since Westerling sent his paper to the publisher.

Perhaps the best illustration of the combined effect of poor forest management and climate change comes from this 14-minute Ted talk given by Paul Hessburg in 2017.

Using a useful forest diagram, he explains how Native Americans regularly burned underbrush and maintained an open forest/meadow ecosystem that effectively prevented large wildfires. In the late 1800s, with the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, the advent of cattle that ate the grass, and the US Forest Service suppressing fires and logging the largest trees, our forests changed from a mosaic of tough old trees surrounded by natural fire breaks to a solid crop of young growth. Add drought, heat, and an ignition source, and you see the results above.

CA fires3

The solution, regardless of how much you attribute large fires to climate change or management, is the same. We need to re-create the balance of the past thru the protection of large trees and prescribed burns. We need to create meadows and healthy forests. Some Native communities in northern California are planning to do this.

This all assumes that we get enough rain in winter and cool temps in summer to allow re-growth. Otherwise, the current fires may be transforming California’s mountain habitats into something resembling the mountains of Nevada and Arizona in the span of a decade.

Oil companies have researched climate change for 50 years– accurately

Long before climate change was controversial, before Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, before the public was even aware of greenhouse gases and sea level rise, the oil industry Oaklandtimelineknew pretty much what we now know today. They have been studying, researching, and modeling climate change as a result of their greenhouse gas emissions for over 50 years. Their research was in concert with the scientific community and decades ahead of public knowledge of the problem. Their predictions were typically exactly in line with the rest of the scientific world, and actually more aggressive than predictions by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The evidence is all laid out in the First Amended Complaint by the City of Oakland and State of California in their climate change lawsuit against BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell.

The case was recently dismissed, but more like it are sure to come. The full complaint, which also includes a nice summary of climate change and its future impacts on the City of Oakland, is available at this webpage (scroll down to 04/03/2018 Complaint).

A recent piece in the New York Times Magazine lays out how the government knew all this too, back in the 1980s, when Republicans and the oil industry agreed it was a problem, but then did nothing.

Here I re-post from Oakland’s First Amended Complaint the section on Big Oil’s knowledge and research of climate change:

DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOSSIL FUELS DESPITE HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE FROM THEIR IN-HOUSE SCIENTIFIC STAFF, OR FROM API, THAT FOSSIL FUELS WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.

For decades, Defendants have known that their fossil fuel products pose risks of “severe” and even “catastrophic” impacts on the global climate through the work and warnings of their own scientists and/or through their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute (“API”). Defendants, large and sophisticated companies devoted to researching significant issues relevant to fossil fuels, also were aware of significant scientific reports on climate change science and impacts at the time they were issued. Yet each Defendant decided to continue its conduct and commit itself to massive fossil fuel production. This was a deliberate decision to place company profits ahead of human safety and well-being and property, and to foist onto the public the costs of abating and adapting to the public nuisance of global warming.

The API is a national trade association that represents the interests of America’s oil and natural gas industry. At all relevant times, Defendants, their corporate predecessors and/or their operating subsidiaries over which they exercise substantial control, have been members of the API. On information and belief, the API has acted as Defendants’ agent with respect to global warming, received funding from Defendants for the API’s global warming initiatives, and shared with Defendants the information on global warming described herein.

Beginning in the 1950s, the API repeatedly warned its members that fossil fuels posed a grave threat to the global climate. These warnings have included, for example, an admission in 1968 in an API report predicting that carbon dioxide emissions were “almost certain” to produce “significant” temperature increases by 2000, and that these emissions were almost certainly attributable to fossil fuels. The report warned of “major changes in the earth’s environment” and a “rise in sea levels,” and concluded: “there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.” Similar warnings followed in the ensuing decades, including reports commissioned by the API in the 1980s that there was “scientific consensus” that catastrophic climate change would ensue unless API members changed their business models, and predictions that sea levels would rise considerably, with grave consequences, if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 continued to increase.

The API’s warnings to Defendants included:

  • a) In 1951, the API launched a project to research air pollution from petroleum products, and attributed atmospheric carbon to fossil fuel sources. By 1968, the API’s scientific consultant reported to the API that carbon dioxide emissions were “almost certain” to produce “significant” temperature increases by 2000, and that these emissions were almost certainly attributable to fossil fuels. The report warned of “major changes in the earth’s environment” and a “rise in sea levels,” and concluded: “there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.”
  • b) Between 1979 and 1983, the API and Defendants, their predecessors, and/or agents formed a task force to monitor and share climate research, initially called the “CO2 and Climate Task Force” and later renamed the “Climate and Energy Task Force” (“Task Force”). The API kept and distributed meeting minutes to Task Force members. Task Force members included, in addition to API representatives, scientists from Amoco (a predecessor to BP); Standard Oil of California, Texaco, and Gulf Oil Corp. (predecessors to Chevron); Exxon Research and Engineering and Mobil (predecessors to or subsidiaries of current Exxon); Shell; and others. In 1980, the Task Force invited Dr. J.A. Laurman, a “recognized expert in the field of CO2 and climate,” to make a presentation. Attendees to the presentation included scientists and executives from Texaco (a predecessor to Chevron), Exxon, and SOHIO (a predecessor to BP). Dr. Laurman’s written presentation informed the Task Force that there was a “Scientific Consensus on the Potential for Large Future Climatic Response to Increased CO2 Levels.” He further informed the Task Force in his presentation that, though the exact temperature increases were difficult to predict, the “physical facts agree on the probability of large effects 50 years away.” He warned the Task Force of a 2.5 ºC [4.5 ºF] global temperature rise by 2038, which would likely have “MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES,” and a 5 ºC [9 ºF] rise by 2067, which would likely produce “GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS.” He also suggested that, despite uncertainty, “THERE IS NO LEEWAY” in the time for acting. API minutes show that the Task Force discussed topics including “the technical implications of energy source changeover,” “ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” and researching “the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.” The Task Force even asked the question “what is the 50 year future of fossil fuels?”
  • (c) In March 1982, an API-commissioned report showed the average increase in global temperature from a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and projected, based upon computer modeling, global warming of between 2 and 3.5 ºC [3.6 to 6.3 ºF]. The report projected potentially “serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival,” and noted that “the height of the sea level can increase considerably.”

On information and belief, Defendants were aware of the industry Task Force and API findings described above, which were distributed by the API to its members. Each Defendant (or its predecessor) was a member of the API at relevant times, or had a subsidiary that was a member of the API at relevant times. Each subsidiary passed on information it learned from the API on climate change to its parent Defendant (or Defendant’s predecessor) and acted as the agent for its parent company, which remained in charge of setting overall production levels in light of climate change and other factors.

On information and belief, each Defendant was also actually aware (at the time they were made) of public statements on climate change described above, including the 1979 National Academy of Science findings and Dr. Hansen’s 1988 testimony. Because these statements were centrally relevant to Defendants’ ongoing investment of billions of dollars in fossil fuel production and billions of dollars in profits, and because Defendants employed experts charged with evaluating climate change and other energy and regulatory trends, Defendants were in a superior position to appreciate the threat described in these statements. Defendants’ representatives attended congressional hearings on climate change beginning as early as the late 1970s.

In addition to the API information, some of the Defendants produced their own internal analyses of global warming. For example, newly disclosed documents demonstrate that Exxon internally acknowledged in the late 1970s and early 1980s that its products posed a “catastrophic” threat to the global climate, and that fossil fuel use would have to be strictly limited to avoid severe harm:

  • a) Exxon management was informed by its scientists in 1977 that there was an “overwhelming” consensus that fossil fuels were responsible for atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. The presentation summarized a warning from a recent international scientific conference that “IT IS PREMATURE TO LIMIT USE OF FOSSIL FUELS BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED.” The scientist warned management in a summary of his talk: “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
  • b) In a 1979 Exxon internal memo, an Exxon scientist calculated that 80% of fossil fuel reserves would need to remain in the ground and unburned to avoid greater than a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  • c) In a 1981 internal Exxon memo, a scientist and director at the Exxon Research and Engineering Company warned that “it is distinctly possible” that CO2 emissions “will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population).”
  • d) A year later, the same scientist wrote another memo to Exxon headquarters, which reported on a “clear scientific consensus” that “a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its preindustrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5) ºC [2.7 ºF to 8.1 ºF].” The clear scientific consensus was based upon computer modeling, which Exxon would later attack as unreliable and uncertain in an effort to undermine public confidence in climate science. The memo continued: “There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.”
  • e) In November 1982, an Exxon internal report to management warned that “substantial climatic changes” could occur if the average global temperature rose “at least 1ºC [1.8 ºF] above [1982] levels,” and that “[m]itigation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.” The report then warns Exxon management that “there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered,” including the risk that “if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, then this could cause a rise in sea level on the order of 5 meters.” The report includes a graph demonstrating the expected future global warming from the “CO2 effect” demonstrating a sharp departure from the “[r]ange of natural fluctuations.” This graph is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
  • oakland1
  • f) By 1983, Exxon had created its own climate models, which confirmed the main conclusions from the earlier memos. Starting by at least the mid-1980s, Exxon used its own climate models, and governmental ones to gauge the impact that climate change would have on its own business operations and subsequently took actions to protect its own business assets based upon these modeling results.

Exxon’s early research and understanding of the global warming impacts of its business was not unique among Defendants. For example, at least as far back as 1970, Defendants Shell and BP began funding scientific research in England to examine the possible future climate changes from greenhouse gas emissions. Shell produced a film on global warming in 1991, in which it admitted that there had been a “marked increase [in global temperatures] in the 1980s” and that the increase “does accord with computer models based on the known atmospheric processes and predicted buildup of greenhouse gases.” It acknowledged a “serious warning” that had been “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists” in 1990. In the film, Shell further admits that by 2050 continued emissions of greenhouse gases at high levels would cause a global average temperature increase of 1.5 to 4º C (2.7 to 7.2º F); that one meter of sea level rise was likely in the next century; that “this could be disastrous;” and that there is a “possibility of change faster than at any time since the end of the ice age, change too fast, perhaps, for life to adapt without severe dislocation.”

The next section is entitled,

DESPITE THEIR EARLY KNOWLEDGE THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL AND POSED GRAVE THREATS, DEFENDANTS PROMOTED FOSSIL FUELS FOR PERVASIVE USE WHILE DOWNPLAYING THE REALITY AND RISKS OF GLOBAL WARMING.

The document also includes this graph:

oakland2

The graph compares the greenhouse gas emissions trajectory necessary to prevent global warming from exceeding a 2º C increase over the pre-industrial temperature (IEA 450 from International Energy Agency) to BP, Exxon and Shell’s projections of total worldwide future emissions that they use to make long-term business plans.

Wikipedia provides a nice history of climate change research. Global warming as a result of CO2 emissions was first described in 1896. The theory attracted more attention in the 1950s. The term “greenhouse” was used in a government report in 1965. However, it was not until the mid-1970s that a scientific consensus began to emerge on the level of global warming associated with CO2 emissions. The oil companies not only followed it closely, but developed their own models that corroborated the science. The dangers of global warming did not attract public attention until 1988, long after Big Oil had thoroughly studied it and knew of its impacts.