|
Salt Fish posted:To be fair this analogy would have us transforming into spores by building a protective layer around ourselves so that we can start up again once conditions are more favorable. Maybe biodomes and self contained breathing apparatuses will be in vogue in 2100.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Heard a quote from a guy named Farley Mowat today that pretty much hits that feeling like a nailhead: Time to start feeding on humans. Does anyone have a few good links to daily climate/ice data, ala http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/ ? I like watching temperatures go up and down on a daily basis but the sites are either borked like the AMSU, are WUWT style denialist sites or full of horrible data entry requirements. I just want to watch the numbers slowly creep up an easy and pretty way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Oh, that reminds me. Just last week was the so-called king tide (also known as a perigean spring tide). A month prior to that, there was also a king tide. Basically, it's a sun and moon alignment that makes for a very high and very low tide. Some folks in California even started an organization to photograph these annual events, so that there would be documented evidence of rising sea levels. Now, these are not rare occurrences - as mentioned, they typically happen a few times a year (and the timing somewhat depends on geographical location). They're basically the 'peak' of water levels; short of occurring with a storm, it's not that big of a deal. Hurricane Sandy was a problem in part because it occurred during a high tide - but that's not quite on the same scale as a king tide. If it had been during a king tide, it would have done more damage. Of course, that's also before you take into account rising sea levels. We know Miami is pretty hosed, and those of us who have been paying attention have known it for a long time. Very soon, it'll be an annual event to see parts of it flooded during these very high tides. Oh, wait, that's already happening. Even short-term floods will lead to infrastructure and property damage. Forget the arguments about ice extent, hurricanes, and the like. Sea level rise is the most demonstrable, blunt object to wield in an argument (though by this point, I'm not sure anyone even bothers anymore). Other than food and water scarcity, sea level rise is probably the greatest threat facing humankind as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
The only parts of Florida left after 10ft of sea level rise will be the shockingly racist swampy parts in the middle, with Disney World chilling there like the obviously plastic jewel in a crown made of poo poo. Fairly sure the Panhandle would be underwater.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Now, these are not rare occurrences - as mentioned, they typically happen a few times a year (and the timing somewhat depends on geographical location). They're basically the 'peak' of water levels; short of occurring with a storm, it's not that big of a deal. Hurricane Sandy was a problem in part because it occurred during a high tide - but that's not quite on the same scale as a king tide. If it had been during a king tide, it would have done more damage. Of course, that's also before you take into account rising sea levels. We know Miami is pretty hosed, and those of us who have been paying attention have known it for a long time. Very soon, it'll be an annual event to see parts of it flooded during these very high tides. Wait, what? At the high end, IPCC estimates 3,6 mm/yr of sea level rise. That's about a foot of water by 2100.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Struensee posted:Wait, what? At the high end, IPCC estimates 3,6 mm/yr of sea level rise. That's about a foot of water by 2100. quote:Here, you can see the problem," Obey says, pointing to the saltwater side of the gate. "The water is only 10 inches lower on this side than on the canal. When this structure was built in 1960, it was a foot and a half. We are reaching equilibrium." Here's another thing - sea level, as an altitude measurement, is the mean between high and low tides. So, if you're an average of 6 feet above sea level (Miami), and you get 2-3 foot high tides regularly (or 5-6 foot king tides once or twice a year)... Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:We are having around a foot of water rise every decade. Your estimate is way off. Here's another thing - sea level, as an altitude measurement, is the mean between high and low tides. Miami: America's Venice. As a tourist you'll be able to eat all the seafood and grits you want and be driven from place to place by the redneck version of gondoliers using flat-bottomed swamp boats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Miami: America's Venice. As a tourist you'll be able to eat all the seafood and grits you want and be driven from place to place by the redneck version of gondoliers using flat-bottomed swamp boats. Good to know Cubans are rednecks now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:
Can you explain the mechanics of this? Will areas of equal altitudes see different rises depending on other factors?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
bpower posted:Can you explain the mechanics of this? Will areas of equal altitudes see different rises depending on other factors? Sea levels have undergone some extremes in past history - cooling periods create more ice accumulation on land than is transferred to the oceans. Warmer periods diminish ice on land, leading to higher sea levels. During the peak of the last ice age, sea levels were 120 meters below today's sea levels. Sea levels have also been up to 20 meters higher than today's sea levels. This leads to another factor - Earth's rotation and gravitational forces can make sea levels unevenly distributed across the planet. Even time has a role here; recall how it takes hours for a tsunami to travel across the Pacific Ocean. This is at least a factor in the short term for distribution of changes in water level. This may also be a factor in the Alaska tidal gauge case, where less glacial mass means less water runoff locally, and this in turn could suggest lower local sea levels. So yes, two different sites can see two different sea levels. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:
So you didn't bother to check the IPCC report. IPCC summary for policy makers posted:It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2010, and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010. Also, the kind of sea level rise you're talking about pretty much requires melting the ice sheet on Greenland. Time scale: 1000 years. Struensee fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
I'm not here to debate the IPCC. Here's a bit of math - the high end of the IPCC is 3.6mm/yr in the last few decades. Over 53 years (1960 to 2013), that's 7.5 inches. That's really not far off from 8 inches. Also, as I mentioned, sea level rise can be different at different places because of several different factors. There's model prediction, and there's observation. One of them actually happened, if it were to be believed. One of them has yet to happen but will, if it is to be believed. Whether you believe an offhand remark from a guy intimately familiar with the infrastructure involved is up to you. My point is that parts of Miami were flooded by a king tide less than three months ago. This will get worse, every year, until even high tide is flooding parts of Miami. By the way, windy, stormy weather can increase a normal high tide to the height of a king tide. Even worse is if a hurricane happens to come in - especially so if it happens during a high tide. That's certainly a possible scenario. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
A friend linked me here: http://www.takeourworldback.com/globalwarming.htm This is a "paper" (random non-peer-reviewed website) that "proves" that global warming is a hoax because of Mars. Anyone want to take a stab at it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:A friend linked me here: Your dimwitted friend (and the paper's author) doesn't appear to understand that Mars is a dead planet. The composition of Mars's atmosphere isn't changing and hasn't changed in quite some time. No greenhouse gasses are being added nor removed, so the average global temperature doesn't move from where it currently is. e: I mean seriously, this should have been blatantly obvious. Greenhouse gasses aren't some magical source of infinite heat. e2: VVVV Oh, hah. The author's a 9/11 truther of some sort and a Holocaust denier. You should find a new friend who doesn't bring you every little piece of bullshit he finds on the internet. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:A friend linked me here: Overall - I'd guess that the page was written by someone with some analytical skill (engineer? programmer?) and access to an online physics calculator, but without actual background in atmospheric science or planetology. Or maybe he's just nuts: "9/11 was conceived and masterminded by Jewish terrorists."
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This is kinda the environmental thread for D&D so I'll post this here. Apparently (among other things) the ocean is still full of debris from the tsunami. If its a trend, its a trend thats been around since newspaper barons in monocles. Its been taught in journalism since forever. If you look at newspaper columns, any longer paragraphs become unreadable. Arguably its one that deserves revising in the online age with wider columns, but its certainly nothing new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Struensee posted:Also, the kind of sea level rise you're talking about pretty much requires melting the ice sheet on Greenland. Time scale: 1000 years. Or terrifyingly shorter than that if we manage to melt the siberian traps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I'm not here to debate the IPCC. That's the danger with discussing the issue in terms of global average increases for water and temperature rises alike. Things cna get hell of a lot nastier on a local and shorter time frame scale (not to be confused with "weather" but... yeah).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, it's not actually worthwhile trying stop idling in cars or anything because tl;dr we're screwed, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Anatharon posted:Out of curiosity, it's not actually worthwhile trying stop idling in cars or anything because tl;dr we're screwed, right? A lot of new cars include start/stop features that make idling redundant (over in the UK at least, can't speak for anywhere else); climate change might not motivate people, but saving on fuel certainly does. Doctor_Fruitbat fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
Well, what do you know? Turns out that the recent 'pause' in rising global temperatures may not have been living up to the hype! How about that?quote:There never was a "pause" in global warming or climate change. For practical purposes, the so-called "pause" in global warming is not even a thing. About those UK floods - that's thanks to the most severe period of rainfall in almost 250 years. And high groundwater levels mean that the floods could stick around for months. As usual, the objections of climate deniers essentially boil down to "You can't go blaming this change in the climate on 'climate change'. There's just no evidence for it." Meanwhile, California is in the midst of what could be the worst drought in 500 years: quote:How bad is it? According to the United States Drought Monitor, most of the state is experiencing "extreme drought," the second highest of six rankings. About 10 percent of the state is experiencing "exceptional drought," the highest possible level. As of this week, 17 communities are in danger of running out of water, forcing some to buy it or run pipes from other districts. And with the Winter Olympics well underway, a new analysis (PDF) shows how the Winter Olympics have been adapting to climate change for some time, and suggests that of all the cities that have hosted the Games, only six will likely still be able to do so by the end of the century. Warm temperatures are already causing puddles and changes to the snow that are affecting competing athletes in Sochi. You can pretty much pick any country you like and with very little effort find a recent story about how climate change is affecting it. This is just the start of what our future looks like. Honestly, climate deniers should be regarded as on a par with flat-earthers or holocaust deniers and treated with as much derision and dismissal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Were scientists ever talking about a "pause" to begin with? I only ever saw WSJ scum and the like running with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
I was reading Twitter search results for "global warming" today, just to hear reactions about the ice storm in the southern states. How depressing. So much bad information floating around, so many people being smart asses in a knee-jerk way. Anti-science memes for climate change ("if global warming is real, why is it so cold?", "the climate always changes and there's nothing we can do about it", etc.) have solidified into our culture just as they did for evolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
TACD posted:About those UK floods - that's thanks to the most severe period of rainfall in almost 250 years. And high groundwater levels mean that the floods could stick around for months. As usual, the objections of climate deniers essentially boil down to "You can't go blaming this change in the climate on 'climate change'. There's just no evidence for it." The most depressing thing for me about this has been that although there is a general consensus here that the flooding is linked to global warming, we even had Cameron say so in Parliament, it's generated virtually no public discourse on actually fighting it. I mean there's plenty of talk about flood defences and relief plans and so on, but nobody is saying "oh, well maybe we should actually work towards cutting our emissions".
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:I was reading Twitter search results for "global warming" today, just to hear reactions about the ice storm in the southern states. How depressing. So much bad information floating around, so many people being smart asses in a knee-jerk way. I live in South Carolina and it's been precipitating since 3am yesterday morning, this storm has been really terrifying not because of being unable to leave the house or the lovely drivers or whatever but just because of how bizarre it is to have 36 straight hours of snow/sleet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:I live in South Carolina and it's been precipitating since 3am yesterday morning, this storm has been really terrifying not because of being unable to leave the house or the lovely drivers or whatever but just because of how bizarre it is to have 36 straight hours of snow/sleet. Meanwhile in Texas, we're supposed to have >70 degree weather until at least Wednesday. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
TACD posted:Well, what do you know? Turns out that the recent 'pause' in rising global temperatures may not have been living up to the hype! How about that? And meanwhile in São Paulo, Brazil, we are having the worst drought in 84 years and the strongest (registered) summer in 20 http://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2014/02/11/politica/1392156791_436377.html Its in in portuguese, but I will transalate the most important bit: "It is without a doubt a summer of records. São Paulo had 48 days of temperatures above 30º (celsius), more than the historical medium for these months in the last 20 years, when the reports of the Center of Emergy Management started. The reservoir of Cantereira, responsible for the supply of water to 14 million people in São Paulo and 62 cities in the state, have the lowest levels since created, in 1983. A consequence of the worst drought faced by the state in 80 years"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Unfortunately Brazil is forecast to become increasingly dry as the world warms. This represents yet another positive feedback loop in the climate; when tropical forests dry they emit more carbon than they sequester, and this effect increase when roads and development penetrate previously contiguous canopies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Every time I come into this thread it feels like my only response could be the title over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Speaking of the thread title... I know that Meet the Press is total garbage, but just when it seems like mainstream media can't be any worse on climate change... well, I guess it keeps on doing what it does. How is any of this acceptable? I mean, I know why, but HOW?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Speaking of the thread title... Well, at least Nye did unexpectedly well in revealing how poor the arguments for creationism were. Maybe he can pull it off again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Well, at least Nye did unexpectedly well in revealing how poor the arguments for creationism were. Maybe he can pull it off again. I can flat out guarantee that, barring a miracle, neither side of this issue will gain the upper hand from one interview. sitchensis posted:Every time I come into this thread it feels like my only response could be the title over and over again. You and me both, friend.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:I can flat out guarantee that, barring a miracle, neither side of this issue will gain the upper hand from one interview. That was true for the creationism debate, but the goal isn't to "gain the upper hand," it's to convince the people on the fence, or who have never heard actual climate science, and hopefully show just how weak the climate-denier's "evidence" is. Combating climate change means we need a million steps in the right direction. No one thing is or was ever going to fix any of the problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:That was true for the creationism debate, but the goal isn't to "gain the upper hand," it's to convince the people on the fence, or who have never heard actual climate science, and hopefully show just how weak the climate-denier's "evidence" is. Combating climate change means we need a million steps in the right direction. No one thing is or was ever going to fix any of the problems. And that would be good if we had time for a million baby steps in the right direction, or indeed if we were actually taking those baby steps at all. As it is, we don't and we're not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:And that would be good if we had time for a million baby steps in the right direction, or indeed if we were actually taking those baby steps at all. As it is, we don't and we're not. I'm under no delusions; I've read plenty about how bad poo poo is and how much worse it's going to get. However, no matter what, we need to start shifting momentum towards combating climate change, because it can always get even worse. Like, okay, we're for sure going to miss the 2C mark, but let's not give up and say "gently caress it" because there's always the 6C mark and the 8C mark and so on and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:And that would be good if we had time for a million baby steps in the right direction, or indeed if we were actually taking those baby steps at all. As it is, we don't and we're not. Okay, so are you proposing (a) that we should do nothing at all, (b) that we should only pursue "magic bullet" solutions, or (c) some third option?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Bill Nye has done these exact kinds of news appearances numerous times in the last few years and nothing changes. Its just a ratings gimmick and nothing else. Outside of a massive, informative ad campaign, no one is going to suddenly go, in February 2014, "hmmm maybe this science guy has a point about all this science and the weather!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Okay, so are you proposing (a) that we should do nothing at all, (b) that we should only pursue "magic bullet" solutions, or (c) some third option? Dammit, stop confronting me with my own lack of logic. It's making me feel stupid. You are, of course, correct. I'm not stupid enough to say you're wrong. C is the right answer, but if I'm feeling relatively emotional, A and B are going to seem pretty attractive because C doesn't feel like it's going to do anything at this point. That's the situation we're in, though, so I guess I'll do my best to do my part, and so will everyone else. Uranium Phoenix posted:I'm under no delusions; I've read plenty about how bad poo poo is and how much worse it's going to get. However, no matter what, we need to start shifting momentum towards combating climate change, because it can always get even worse. Like, okay, we're for sure going to miss the 2C mark, but let's not give up and say "gently caress it" because there's always the 6C mark and the 8C mark and so on and so forth. I was under the impression that if things got to >4C, we're all dead anyhow, so how can it get much worse than that? Inglonias fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
Inglonias posted:I was under the impression that if things got to >4C, we're all dead anyhow, so how can it get much worse than that? 4C isn't going to kill everyone. It will be horrific, but "we're all literally dead" is hyperbole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:48
|
|