Climate Change acronym memory aid challenge - how to sum up risks to people and planet?

[eclipsenow]

OK - I wasn't entirely happy with the way AI will say "Loss of Biodiversity" for L - when really I kind of want (where possible) to have the first word itself be the memory trigger word. Once you start putting other verbs or adjectives in - the acronym soon becomes less effective.

So I'm still after any help and suggestions on developing "Wastelands" as a memory aid for the largest effects of climate change. I've locked in the first 3 letters now - as they unfold in a nice logical fashion with the first one explaining the basic mechanics of how warming messes up the weather system. And I've put sea-level rise at the end - because it's a really slow motion effect and does not seem as serious until 2100.

I would love to hear your thoughts on where I can fit in the following subjects:-

• Refugees / Immigration / Displaced people
• Economic disruption / Recessions / L for Lifestyle impacts maybe?

Rules: Top 3 letters are staying fixed - and unless I see Ocean / Sea level rise fit somewhere else really well - I like it at the end.
The available letters are T and L
If you knock out an existing allocated letter (like D which is for Disease) - you'll need to rename "Disease" as something else and reallocate that

WASTELANDS =

Wrecked Water Cycle
Agricultural Collapse
Shifting climate zones
T
Extinction / Ecosystems
Lifestyle (for economy?)
Acid Oceans
Natural Disasters: (Bushfires, cyclones, droughts and deluges, blizzards)
Disease vectors or Displaced people? (But I like D for Diseased - is there somewhere above we could put Refugees / Immigrants / displaced people under T or L somehow?)
Sea-Level Rises

 

[sjastro]

OK - I wasn't entirely happy with the way AI will say "Loss of Biodiversity" for L - when really I kind of want (where possible) to have the first word itself be the memory trigger word. Once you start putting other verbs or adjectives in - the acronym soon becomes less effective.

So I'm still after any help and suggestions on developing "Wastelands" as a memory aid for the largest effects of climate change. I've locked in the first 3 letters now - as they unfold in a nice logical fashion with the first one explaining the basic mechanics of how warming messes up the weather system. And I've put sea-level rise at the end - because it's a really slow motion effect and does not seem as serious until 2100.

I would love to hear your thoughts on where I can fit in the following subjects:-

• Refugees / Immigration / Displaced people
• Economic disruption / Recessions / L for Lifestyle impacts maybe?

Rules: Top 3 letters are staying fixed - and unless I see Ocean / Sea level rise fit somewhere else really well - I like it at the end.
The available letters are T and L
If you knock out an existing allocated letter (like D which is for Disease) - you'll need to rename "Disease" as something else and reallocate that

WASTELANDS =

Wrecked Water Cycle
Agricultural Collapse
Shifting climate zones
T
Extinction / Ecosystems
Lifestyle (for economy?)
Acid Oceans
Natural Disasters: (Bushfires, cyclones, droughts and deluges, blizzards)
Disease vectors or Displaced people? (But I like D for Diseased - is there somewhere above we could put Refugees / Immigrants / displaced people under T or L somehow?)
Sea-Level Rises

L = Land Degradation
T = Tidal surges (associated with rising sea levels.)

 

[Astrid]

OK - I wasn't entirely happy with the way AI will say "Loss of Biodiversity" for L - when really I kind of want (where possible) to have the first word itself be the memory trigger word. Once you start putting other verbs or adjectives in - the acronym soon becomes less effective.

So I'm still after any help and suggestions on developing "Wastelands" as a memory aid for the largest effects of climate change. I've locked in the first 3 letters now - as they unfold in a nice logical fashion with the first one explaining the basic mechanics of how warming messes up the weather system. And I've put sea-level rise at the end - because it's a really slow motion effect and does not seem as serious until 2100.

I would love to hear your thoughts on where I can fit in the following subjects:-

• Refugees / Immigration / Displaced people
• Economic disruption / Recessions / L for Lifestyle impacts maybe?

Rules: Top 3 letters are staying fixed - and unless I see Ocean / Sea level rise fit somewhere else really well - I like it at the end.
The available letters are T and L
If you knock out an existing allocated letter (like D which is for Disease) - you'll need to rename "Disease" as something else and reallocate that

WASTELANDS =

Wrecked Water Cycle
Agricultural Collapse
Shifting climate zones
T
Extinction / Ecosystems
Lifestyle (for economy?)
Acid Oceans
Natural Disasters: (Bushfires, cyclones, droughts and deluges, blizzards)
Disease vectors or Displaced people? (But I like D for Diseased - is there somewhere above we could put Refugees / Immigrants / displaced people under T or L somehow?)
Sea-Level Rises

Why agricultural collapse?

 

[Astrid]

L = Land Degradation
T = Tidal surges (associated with rising sea levels.)

Soil degradation on a massive scale began with
herding and cultivation.

How much higher are tidal surges now
than say 100 yrs ago?

 

[sjastro]

Soil degradation on a massive scale began with
herding and cultivation.

How much higher are tidal surges now
than say 100 yrs ago?

Floods are a major cause of soil degradation in the form of erosion.
Climate change has exacerbated the frequency of floods, in Australia 'once in a century' major floods now occur at frequencies corresponding to La Nina weather events.

Seawalls constructed decades ago are becoming less effective in holding back tidal and wave surges due to rising sea levels.
Once again using Australia as an example, new and reinforced seawalls have been constructed on the Torres Strait islands to counter tidal and wave surges.

 

[Astrid]

Floods are a major cause of soil degradation in the form of erosion.
Climate change has exacerbated the frequency of floods, in Australia 'once in a century' major floods now occur at frequencies corresponding to La Nina weather events.

Seawalls constructed decades ago are becoming less effective in holding back tidal and wave surges due to rising sea levels.
Once again using Australia as an example, new and reinforced seawalls have been constructed on the Torres Strait islands to counter tidal and wave surges.

A major cause of erosion.

Local climate change resulting from deforestation,
and other bad land management practices are vastly
more destructive.

The aboriginal people of Oz, like those in the America's
did not put out first fires, could not.

But they did routinely do controlled burns, which- of course-the Euros stopped.

Of course there's sea level rise, higher temps.

It's unfortunate though that "climate change"
is auto- attached to Everything, feeding the doubts of
denialarianistas who gleefully point to absurdities.

 

[sjastro]

A major cause of erosion.

Local climate change resulting from deforestation,
and other bad land management practices are vastly
more destructive.

The aboriginal people of Oz, like those in the America's
did not put out first fires, could not.

But they did routinely do controlled burns, which- of course-the Euros stopped.

What point are you trying to make, land degradation due to climate change is trivial?

Erosion is an effect of climate change which is the cause, but deforestation is the cause where climate change becomes the effect, which in turn becomes the cause for further erosion through extreme weather events.
This is an example of positive feedback.

Large scale deforestation does not result in local climate change but is global and contributes 11% to total CO₂ emissions since it creates carbon sources while at the same time destroying carbon sinks.

Of course there's sea level rise, higher temps.

Which is manifested in events such increased frequency of tidal and wave surges.

It's unfortunate though that "climate change"
is auto- attached to Everything, feeding the doubts of
denialarianistas who gleefully point to absurdities.

One should listen to the climate scientists who are generally restrained when it comes to alarmism, but more recent IPCC reports have an alarmist tone as the physical effects of climate change which were not evident in the past are now obvious such as low lying islands being submerged due to rising sea levels.

One of the tricks of the trade amongst climate change denier organizations is there is no climate alarmism by claiming AGW is beneficial.
A disgusting piece of dishonesty which exploits this tactic is found on the Answers in Genesis site Climate Alarmism

 

[Astrid]

What point are you trying to make, land degradation due to climate change is trivial?

Erosion is an effect of climate change which is the cause, but deforestation is the cause where climate change becomes the effect, which in turn becomes the cause for further erosion through extreme weather events.
This is an example of positive feedback.

Large scale deforestation does not result in local climate change but is global and contributes 11% to total CO₂ emissions since it creates carbon sources while at the same time destroying carbon sinks.

Which is manifested in events such increased frequency of tidal and wave surges.


One should listen to the climate scientists who are generally restrained when it comes to alarmism, but more recent IPCC reports have an alarmist tone as the physical effects of climate change which were not evident in the past are now obvious such as low lying islands being submerged due to rising sea levels.

One of the tricks of the trade amongst climate change denier organizations is there is no climate alarmism by claiming AGW is beneficial.
A disgusting piece of dishonesty which exploits this tactic is found on the Answers in Genesis site Climate Alarmism

Perhaps you'd benefit from
a little study of any of the many
scholarly papers on local climate effects
of deforestation.

I lost interest in your post after your denial
of that though on the way down i noted
' tricks" , "AiG", and, "disgusting".

 

[eclipsenow]

L = Land Degradation
T = Tidal surges (associated with rising sea levels.)

Ooooo! I like "Tidal Surges" as it opens up the S for something else!

CONCEPTS I NEED TO ADD TO the WASTELANDS acronym.

• Refugees / Immigration / Displaced people
• Economic disruption / Recessions

Rules:
Top 3 letters fixed (in red)
The available letters are T and L
If you knock out an existing letter (like D which is for Disease) - it would be great to rename "Disease" as something else and reallocate that - but at this stage - I'm taking any suggestions.

WASTELANDS =

W = Water (How warmer atmosphere and oceans speeds up a wetter atmosphere and moves and intensifies weather)
A = Agricultural Collapse
S = Shifting climate zones
T = Tidal Surges (could open up the S by moving Sea-Level Rise)
E = Extinction / Ecosystems
L = Lifestyle (for economy?)
A = Acid Oceans
N = Natural Disasters: (Bushfires, cyclones, droughts and deluges, blizzards)
D = Disease vectors or Displaced people? (But I like D for Diseased - is there somewhere above we could put Refugees / Immigrants / displaced people under T or L somehow?)
S = Spreading ickness (opens up D from Disease) Sea-Level Rise (But could go under Tidal Surges)

It's unfortunate though that "climate change"
is auto- attached to Everything, feeding the doubts of
denialarianistas who gleefully point to absurdities.

I hear you! I'm no scientist (but have a Social Sciences background instead) but from what I hear - there are many, many issues impacting crop yields this century. Poor land management, industrial petro-chemical weed killers that destroy the soil, deep-soil tillage that nukes the soil with exposure to oxygen and sunlight, over-grazing once forested areas that changes local micro-climate conditions so rains no longer fall, the flooding issues raised above, etc.

But here's where climate change kicks in.

We're going back to W for Water cycle for a moment.

W is for WATER CYCLE WARPED by warming water and atmosphere: Global warming should be called ocean warming as it is where 91% of the heat goes. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heeat-content The extra heat accelerates prevailing wind conditions - moving some weather systems so that rain that used to irrigate a coast now falls out at sea. The physics of warmer air means it can carry 7% more water for every extra degree Celsius. Hotter air means continents heat and dry FASTER - and being warmer - the air can CARRY more water. Combine all of this with a stronger El Nino - when the Pacific burps up some of that extra heat - and you can get super-droughts and mega-fires - like Australia's crazy fires of 2019. Even without El Nino the trend is towards droughts and deluges, more famines and floods. It means water insecurity - and maybe even water wars.

A is for AGRICULTURAL CUTS. This warped water cycle obviously is not good for farming if the rain is now missing the world’s bread baskets.
But how serious could it get? Here is 2 minute animation by NASA showing the crop impacts till the end of the century. The bottom line? We could lose a quarter of the crops we produce today.

Another study confirms this:
“1.5C or 2C above pre-industrial levels, then only about 5%–8% of global food production would be at risk… …Livestock farming would be affected, as well as the risks to crop production, he said, and many areas were likely to suffer large increases in water scarcity. The researchers examined the impacts of climatic changes on 27 of the most important food crops and seven types of livestock.”
That does sound so bad? But if we let business as usual continue… “Many of the world’s most important food-growing areas will see temperatures increase and rainfall patterns alter drastically if temperatures rise by about 3.7C, the forecast increase if emissions stay high.
Still not so bad. The punchline?
“A third of global food production will be at risk by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their current rate, new research suggests.“
The Guardian May 2021 Third of global food production at risk from climate crisis
Two questions emerge from this. How fast will the water cycles actually hurt crops - as actual climate change of the last decade has shown many IPCC models to be a bit conservative? And will we enact the right welfare policies to stabilise population growth before 2050 so that by 2100 there are not as many people at risk?

 

[sjastro]

Perhaps you'd benefit from
a little study of any of the many
scholarly papers on local climate effects
of deforestation.

You either misunderstood my post, I wasn’t clear enough, or you have taken me out of context.

This what you wrote,
Local climate change resulting from deforestation,
and other bad land management practices are vastly
more destructive.

To which I responded,
Large scale deforestation does not result in local climate change but is global and contributes 11% to total CO₂ emissions since it creates carbon sources while at the same time destroying carbon sinks.

No one is suggesting local climate change does not occur, the issue I had is your glaring omission of the global effects for large scale deforestation which is the collective contribution of CO₂ emissions and is the overriding factor.
If local climate change was the only result for deforestation, then it is a rather pointless exercise of using forestation as a countermeasure for reducing global CO₂ emissions.
The facts are deforestation is the second most common source for global CO₂ emissions after the burning of fossil fuels.

I lost interest in your post after your denial
of that though on the way down i noted
' tricks" , "AiG", and, "disgusting".

In order to be argumentative, you have decided to give AiG a free pass despite your obsession of labelling creationists as being intellectually dishonest at every opportunity.
Enough of this charade are you a climate change denier?

 

[eclipsenow]

To which I responded,
Large scale deforestation does not result in local climate change but is global and contributes 11% to total CO₂ emissions since it creates carbon sources while at the same time destroying carbon sinks.

Please calm down both of you!
You both raise some interesting and valid points.
I don't know how it got so heated but I'm hearing you both.
We'll look at global then local.

GLOBAL - ENERGY IS 75%, EVERYTHING ELSE THE OTHER 25%!​

​

LOCAL - building a forest can RETURN THE RAIN!​

There are definitely micro-climate weather impacts from land clearing.​

 

[sjastro]

Please calm down both of you!
You both raise some interesting and valid points.
I don't know how it got so heated but I'm hearing you both.
We'll look at global then local.

GLOBAL - ENERGY IS 75%, EVERYTHING ELSE THE OTHER 25%!​

​

LOCAL - building a forest can RETURN THE RAIN!​

There are definitely micro-climate weather impacts from land clearing.​

Unfortunately you quoted only part of my post in italics which doesn't convey the full story.
You should also have quoted the next paragraph which puts my post into the correct perspective.

Large scale deforestation does not result in local climate change but is global and contributes 11% to total CO₂ emissions since it creates carbon sources while at the same time destroying carbon sinks.

No one is suggesting local climate change does not occur, the issue I had is your glaring omission of the global effects for large scale deforestation which is the collective contribution of CO₂ emissions and is the overriding factor.
If local climate change was the only result for deforestation, then it is a rather pointless exercise of using forestation as a countermeasure for reducing global CO₂ emissions.
The facts are deforestation is the second most common source for global CO₂ emissions after the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[ozso]

Do you mean acronyms, instead of anagrams?

Why not both?

 

[eclipsenow]

Why not both?

If you can come up with another of either - I'm happy to have a look. Your approach might stimulate some brainstorming etc.

 

[eclipsenow]

L = Land Degradation
T = Tidal surges (associated with rising sea levels.)

Thanks JSASTRO! Your suggestion for T won a spot on the acronym. It actually pulled it together for me. These things are always a compromise - and maybe one day I'll wake up and hate the whole idea of this cliché little acronym. But because I'm not a climate scientist myself but an all-round eco-blogger - I've got to have some gimmick to hang my Climate Effects blog page on! Cheers.

W = Water cycle accelerated. (How warmer atmosphere and oceans speeds up a wetter atmosphere and moves and intensifies weather)
A = Acid Oceans
S = Shifting climate zones
T = Tidal Surges
E = Extinction / Ecosystems
L = Lifestyle - our economic prosperity will be severely hampered - and many luxury items like chocolate, coffee etc all threatened.
A = Agriculture cuts (further down the list means we can also include "Tidal Surges" kindly suggested above - which obviously threatens rice farming in Bangladesh etc).
N = Natural Disasters: (Bushfires, cyclones, droughts and deluges, blizzards)
D = Displaced people
S = SICKNESS spreads through new climate disease vectors

However - this is not over.

If anyone finds an excellent source quote, reference, or even youtube video on any of these points - please bookmark this as your "Climate EFFECTS" page and you can feel welcome to suggest it here (and which letter it goes under).

For example - under Shifting Climate Zones I just saw Climate Adam (pronouns they / them if you're trying to understand their 'vibe') just did a youtube on the Amazon.)

The Amazon is a real concern!

 

[dlamberth]

Thanks JSASTRO! Your suggestion for T won a spot on the acronym. It actually pulled it together for me. These things are always a compromise - and maybe one day I'll wake up and hate the whole idea of this cliché little acronym. But because I'm not a climate scientist myself but an all-round eco-blogger - I've got to have some gimmick to hang my Climate Effects blog page on! Cheers.

W = Water cycle accelerated. (How warmer atmosphere and oceans speeds up a wetter atmosphere and moves and intensifies weather)
A = Acid Oceans
S = Shifting climate zones
T = Tidal Surges
E = Extinction / Ecosystems
L = Lifestyle - our economic prosperity will be severely hampered - and many luxury items like chocolate, coffee etc all threatened.
A = Agriculture cuts (further down the list means we can also include "Tidal Surges" kindly suggested above - which obviously threatens rice farming in Bangladesh etc).
N = Natural Disasters: (Bushfires, cyclones, droughts and deluges, blizzards)
D = Displaced people
S = SICKNESS spreads through new climate disease vectors

However - this is not over.

If anyone finds an excellent source quote, reference, or even youtube video on any of these points - please bookmark this as your "Climate EFFECTS" page and you can feel welcome to suggest it here (and which letter it goes under).

For example - under Shifting Climate Zones I just saw Climate Adam (pronouns they / them if you're trying to understand their 'vibe') just did a youtube on the Amazon.)

The Amazon is a real concern!

I feel that a better and more accurate words for Displaced People is "Climate Refugees". It's people who in the end is the focus in everyone of the suggested topics.

Protecting climate refugees

 

[eclipsenow]

Just refugees. Otherwise everything could be "Climate Natural Disasters" and "Climate Water Cycle accelerated" etc.

And there is no R - but ideally - maybe I should wait a bit and play with more letter combinations and options in an Anagram generator?

 

[Dan1988]

Hi all,

I was trying to cover the various extreme weather phenomenon and sea level rise etc. But then I thought of actual effects on people and ecosystems - and grouping the different climate phenomenon that way.

I had FIRES - Famines, Instability - threat multiplier (war), Refugees, Extinctions, Sea level rise (and city damage).

But if you've seen another good climate impacts memory aid or acronyms, I'd love to consider it for my blog. I'm doing a bit of a rewrite of my summary threats page.

Climate Change is the latest term used to cause a false alarm. There is no evidence of climate change at all, we have always had floods, storms, heatwaves, earthquakes etc. There's nothing new or unusual happening with the climate, it's just more of the same as it ever was.

The naturally goes through cycles of cooling and warming, records show we had much hotter weather in the 1930's than we have today. There is no consensus in the scientific community about climate change. Half tend to think that something is changing and the other half deny it as quackery and bumkin.

How is the ordinary man on the street supposes to believe these climate alarmists when the experts don't agree with each other.

So the jury is still out on this, and we should be patient and wait for the verdict before we panic and go back to the neanderthal mans ways. We all love to drive large gas sucking vehicles and use air conditioning and single use coffee cups etc. we shouldn't give up our luxuries until we find out what the truth of the matter is.

 

[eclipsenow]

Climate Change is the latest term used to cause a false alarm. There is no evidence of climate change at all, we have always had floods, storms, heatwaves, earthquakes etc. There's nothing new or unusual happening with the climate, it's just more of the same as it ever was.

The naturally goes through cycles of cooling and warming, records show we had much hotter weather in the 1930's than we have today. There is no consensus in the scientific community about climate change. Half tend to think that something is changing and the other half deny it as quackery and bumkin.

How is the ordinary man on the street supposes to believe these climate alarmists when the experts don't agree with each other.

So the jury is still out on this, and we should be patient and wait for the verdict before we panic and go back to the neanderthal mans ways. We all love to drive large gas sucking vehicles and use air conditioning and single use coffee cups etc. we shouldn't give up our luxuries until we find out what the truth of the matter is.

Oh boy. Again with the denial? Let me guess - are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

This is a science forum - not a theology forum. Wild assertions of 'opinion' just don't cut it here. Got some sort of scientific source to back your wild claims there? What kind of 'experts don't agree with each other' - where you been living?

Here's NASA

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science...

science.nasa.gov

Watch how CO2 heats!

What CO2 does is old science. Joseph Fourier figured out something in the atmosphere kept the earth warmer than the moon 200 years ago - Eunice Foote then narrowed it down to CO2 in 1856. you look up in a text book, like the boiling point of water at sea-level. Good luck to any conspiracy theorists trying to debunk this!

Variations of this next test can be replicated in any decent physics lab on the planet.

Mythbusters even ran a backyard test that confirmed it.

Do a little maths - and the CO2 is trapping 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat every second - but spread out across the entire planet. The basic physics of how CO2 traps heat is known. Where that extra heat goes and what it does to our atmosphere and oceans has been modelled and looks pretty dire.

 

[Dan1988]

Oh boy. Again with the denial? Let me guess - are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

I just stick to the facts, I don't trust any Carleton's or their doomsday theories. I don't drink the cool aid just because the majority of sheep do. I'm a practical and rational person, who needs to see evidence and proof of something before I swallow the cool aid.

We have zero evidence to support climate change and we have zero evidence to support an old earth. All the evidence shows there is no climate change and the earth is only six thousand years old.

I'm not interested in theories, as everybody has different ones so I'll just stick to the proven facts and leave that fantasy stuff for sci fi fans.