---------- Forwarded message ---------
A friend asked just who is most at risk near term. That's complicated because there are different aspects of climate change. Still, I owe you a response for the H2S aspect, the most serious aspect neglected by mass media.
There are three streams of major damage due to H2S production in water and the ocean changes leading to them: (1) the Pacific Ocean stream, the most serious; (2) the Arctic/NorthAtlantic/Gulf stream; (3) local issues in places like the Black Sea and the Chesapeake.
From the first two color figures I copied into www.werbos.com/Atacama.pdf, it seems that the Pacific stream causes no damage until 2050 or so, after which it kills all humans. But I left out an important aspect there. As the oxygen content of the deep Pacific decreases, the oxygen content of the Humboldt current which cools Peru and Chile also decreases. Since it is a complex system, I do not know the curve by which it gets to zero, but it might well be a linear decrease by 3 percent by year by now. Since fishing is a huge part of this economy, that is serious. There is a natural cycle of about 20 years related to the natural El Nino cycle, but people tell me that problems have continued and grown even after the last 2014-2016 cycle ended. It may be possible to understand better via satellite data and such even without a need for US government support. (Again, important resources popped up when I googled on ocean oxygen satellite).
After 2050 or so, when O2 in that stream hits zero, the stream will at some point convey H2S instead of O2.
The Arctic/../Gulf stream is more immediate, and also goes well beyond what we see in most of the media. The Economist did run a cover story "Will Britain freeze over?" a some years ago, based on the weather of Broyden (sp?) of Southhampton. The usual official fake news plscebo folks did their best to discredit this but (1) a few years later, he won a major prize for best o ean inputs to climateocels; (2) it only accounted for sputtering due to erratic salinity inputs, and not the effect of temperature direct on currents, which was zero in the past but will certainly be huge when the 0 degrees C line us crossed. As I mentioned before, Norway and Scotland freeze before England, but lots of other impacts occur, including straight H3S poison. The sheer stench may affect tourist industry in places like Peru before the more fatal effects.
The Black Sea is ALREADY a great reservoir of poison, but effects more limited because of no massive Coriolis currents like Humboldt. Still, it was interesting last week to read of a dispute between Ukraine and Russia about who gets the blame for a small cloud of poison gas in that area. The chemocline (the line between poison and more normal water) has risen a lot,and there may be more to come. I do wonder at times about Sevastopol and what might happen there, especially given Russian government positions on such things.
Other aspects of climate damage are well publicized, some more than what is publicized, some less. Scott's comments about damage to fishing are correct to the best of what I know. Hurricanes hitting the Gulf may be far worse when warming Gulf stream current weakens, because heat which now warms Norway will get hurricanes, relatively soon, but I stopped tracking the zero degrees C transition in Arctic when I shifted to Antarctic and other things in retirement. The importance of acid ocean has been vastly overstated in some places; many things attributed to it are more caused by agricultural and industrial runoffs, which are also central to the H2S streams.
Best of luck, Paul
