|
Uranium Phoenix posted:This ice level may be just a brief anomaly because of El Nino, but we can expect that many of Earth's systems have tipping points they'll reach where they will suddenly and drastically change. The problem is that these systems are extremely complicated, and predicting when a tipping point will occur is difficult. That's really a key point. We can't predict when we reach a watershed moment and feedback processes start a runaway global warming effect, at least not with the kind of accuracy that gives us properly predictive knowledge as opposed to predictive assumption. That's the danger of all this: The scientists are really calculating risk without having a properly predicitve model to work from, because the system is too huge, too complex and too full of unknowns. There's a real possibility the science on global warming is wrong and the situation is much more dire than the models predict. The somewhat reacting governments are working from those assumptions. That is a real danger and it will only get worse as climate science is defunded.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
spankmeister posted:I don't quite understand what's different about this year. What threshold has been crossed to cause this? I would think that the decline would be a slow thing over many years, not a sudden drop. Can anyone explain this to me? The Earth system is changing much too fast even for our best scientists to even have a reasonable chance of predicting such things. As the previous poster suggested much of the natural world is non-linear, abrupt changes are expected. Here is a good description of antarctic sea increases, largely driven by winds. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/clarity-on-antarctic-sea-ice/ If I recall correctly (had a brief google but couldn't come up with anything) the global climate models are consistent in projecting a consistent decline in sea ice extent over this time period. The exact opposite that has been occurring. The models overall in this capacity are deficient, not capturing the appropriate mechanisms, or it might just be a computational cost issue. The dominate feature might be the interface between the air and the sea and it being insulated by ice. Or changes in ocean up welling. I attended a presentation where a strong correlation between ozone and antarctic sea ice was presented, arguing that there was a causal link between the stratosphere and ocean up welling currents. What I am really trying to get across is that there is a lot about this part of the world that we don't properly understand. Real world observations over the Southern Ocean are extremely sparse, no real human habitation and ships don't go there, excepting specific science missions which are really quiet rare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
Remember also that this is extent and not volume. A lot of this ice has been thinning for a while. The broader question is what this does as a feedback effect, whether the change in albedo trashes existing forecasts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
It would be nice if everyone treated this as the major problem it is... But no one cares. loving hell
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:It would be nice if everyone treated this as the major problem it is... But no one cares. Does it really matter with a climate denier holding the US presidency for at least the next 4 years? Progress was hard enough without the most powerful political actor in the game being obstructionist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Does it really matter with a climate denier holding the US presidency for at least the next 4 years? Progress was hard enough without the most powerful political actor in the game being obstructionist. From the standpoint of, "Can we avoid the consequences of climate change now?" it doesn't matter. Qualitatively, you can step back and watch the planet actually dying before your eyes in that Google Maps tool from a few pages back and see the rate at which the creation of wasteland is increasing. That kind of shocking, before-your-eyes scare tactic information being available now has permitted the political climate to regress on climate change, so I don't think we were really poised to engage in a Manhattan Project x10 for Climate Change like we seem to have needed to do be doing since the turn of the new millennium. From the standpoint of "going carbon neutral as fast as loving possible mitigates fallout" yes it does matter that there's a political regression right now, however small or inconsequential one may try to frame it. We stand to lose credibility after Trump leaves office Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
I'm meaning in the sense that the major changes that need to happen now won't and can't. Like keep pushing your regions to increase usage of public transit or whatnot but the structural problems inherit to the world economy that generate pollution are not changing while Trump is still in office. There won't be Paris or any variant of Paris without good faith between China and the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
The US under Trump is just the latest country to tear up previous commitments to the environment. Australia, Canada, and Germany have at various points over the past decade torn up carbon trading frameworks and emissions targets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I'm meaning in the sense that the major changes that need to happen now won't and can't. Like keep pushing your regions to increase usage of public transit or whatnot but the structural problems inherit to the world economy that generate pollution are not changing while Trump is still in office. There won't be Paris or any variant of Paris without good faith between China and the US. I think I agree. shrike82 posted:The US under Trump is just the latest country to tear up previous commitments to the environment. Australia, Canada, and Germany have at various points over the past decade torn up carbon trading frameworks and emissions targets. "Tear up" is disingenuous. Yes, Kyoto / Paris targets stand to be overshot by many nations. Others stand to undershoot, others are on track, others are going to barely overshoot.  above shamelessly ripped from wikipedia I don't think anyone walked into this expecting 100% compliance. That would have been a moment of of naiveté, and so too is throwing out all incremental progress on the basis of "well, some of these gently caress-o countries missed it, throw it all out  " International agreements on climate change have still garnered necessity for improved emissions regulations within even the countries that presently stand to overshoot goals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think I agree. Using percentages seems disingenuous here. Like, this graph leads a casual observer to believe that Australia and Estonia would cancel each other out when that's... not how things work. You got a graph of absolutes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think I agree. That's a great chart. Almost every single country that drastically decreased emissions post-1990 did so only because of economic collapse following the breakup of the Soviet union. The single best hope to significantly reduce carbon emissions over the next few years is for the Chinese debt crisis to blow up and drag the world into a depression. That's not even hyperbole. edit: Instead of joining local environmental initiatives like the OP suggested, I propose we find ways to induce another global financial crisis. I'll do my part by becoming a derivatives trader. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:Using percentages seems disingenuous here. Like, this graph leads a casual observer to believe that Australia and Estonia would cancel each other out when that's... not how things work. You got a graph of absolutes? Don't read into my writing a single step further than what I write. Percentages would have been disingenuous if I was making a point about absolute harm. Really I was only looking for something to back up the following: Potato Salad posted:Others stand to undershoot, others are on track, others are going to barely overshoot. I didn't want to include that sentence without including something to clearly and quickly indicate that, in fact, there is some variegation on fulfillment of commitments. I think the existence of undershooters, on-target nations, and overshooters in the chart supports that sentence. Too often will someone like Arkane charge in here, make a bunch of assertions, and just post a link to a website without any data taken from it or any short analysis on his part. All he ends up doing is citing the sense of how things are going he got from the article. Note that I don't say anywhere that Shrike's comment is invalid. It's totally correct. Noted high-population absent nations include China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil, on and on. Shrike82 made a good point about the US being only one in a long line of nations that stand to turn a blind eye to past obligations on climate change, and I wanted to nitpick a little on the degree to which the international agreements are still useful. After letting him and others post a little more, my next step was going to be domestic emissions policy that has emerged in Kyoto signatories and even non-signatories that have done some good as a result of at least paying lip service to international commitments and the will of even a minority of environmentally-conscious voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:That's a great chart. Almost every single country that drastically decreased emissions post-1990 did so only because of economic collapse following the breakup of the Soviet union. The single best hope to significantly reduce carbon emissions over the next few years is for the Chinese debt crisis to blow up and drag the world into a depression. That's not even hyperbole. Ha, Jesus Christ that's amazing. I think it's been mentioned before Kyoto was little more than a thought exercise given the nations that were absent. I'm not even sure it can be categorized as a precedent for future international agreements -- I do not know enough on the details on what it stipulated versus what what stronger programs like the EU ETS system stipulates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
That chart is really misleading if you don't include the original caption: "Kyoto Parties with first period (2008–12) greenhouse gas emissions limitations targets, and the percentage change in their carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2009." In other words it doesn't measure attainment of targets at all. It shows historical emission statistics and the targets for a *different* period. EDIT: Actual cuts in emissions by ratifiers going into 2012 managed to blow way past what was agreed in 1997 and entered into force in 2005. Though this probably means the targets were far too lax. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
I'm all for including the caption in the future. Aaaah, I see what you're saying, The chart is displaying emission growth/reduction in the 1990-2009 period and comparing that what sort of growth/reduction they need to meet targets in the 2008-2012 period. For the 1990-2009 performance data to actually be useful without taking logical leaps, the target needs to be in the same time window. I'll see if I can find either that range or a similar one -- mostly because of being bitten by a curiosity to see how Kyoto signatories really did perform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
pidan posted:It's an el nino year. The next couple of years will be colder than this and people will start going "where's your global warming now?!" El Nino was last year, this year is La Nina which is characterized by colder than usual temperatures. Such as how Vancouver BC is -11c today, with a foot of snow on the ground and a blizzard forecast to last the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Got one from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emission-trends/greenhouse-gas-emission-trends-assessment-2 quote:Fig. 3: Change in greenhouse gas emissions in Europe between the base years and 2005, compared to Kyoto targets for 2008-2012 So, base-to-2005 performance compared to targets for the relevant performance period for change against each nation's base year if I'm understanding this correctly. In support of Nocturtle's point, of the -25% change in emissions or more nations, Bulgaria, (Czecho)slovak Republic, Poland, Romania, Hungary were all Warsaw states and Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all ex-Soviet Baltic Sea states. Eyeballing it based on just this little picture, turning off industry seems to be a great way to meet climate change goals. Corollary: Donald J Trump is in fact likelier than any other candidate this year to help the US and China reduce emissions. [insert  here but the pistol is replaced with nuclear launch gold codes].
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Rime posted:El Nino was last year, this year is La Nina which is characterized by colder than usual temperatures. Happened to run across this today: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Overview La Niña no longer likely in the coming months posted:The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the tropical Pacific Ocean remains neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña). Although some very weak La Niña-like patterns continue (such as cooler than normal ocean temperatures and reduced cloudiness in the central and eastern Pacific), La Niña thresholds have not been met. Climate models and current observations suggest these patterns will not persist. The likelihood of La Niña developing in the coming months is now low, and hence the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook has shifted from La Niña WATCH to INACTIVE. The current low temperatures over Canada (and soon to sweep across the continental US) are due to the polar vortex being displaced from the Arctic. And if anyone remembers that hullaballoo last month about truly abnormal Arctic temperatures, here is the current forecast:  2017 is shaping up to be a historically interesting year. Edit: And in case you were wondering how it was going down South: 
Mozi fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
I stumbled upon an interesting perspective on the developing cataclysm. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/07/the-holocene-hangover-it-is-time-for-humanity-to-make-fundamental-changes
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:It would be nice if everyone treated this as the major problem it is... But no one cares. This will always be a minor problem compared to economy to most people, just saying
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Descar posted:This will always be a minor problem compared to economy to most people, just saying Hell it's not like i don't know how that is - - I work around 60 hours a week and take classes too. I just also recognize that my struggle will be meaningless eventually if the world burns up 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Just in case, somehow, you were having a good day - here are some things to consider... less certainty but as a thought exercise. You probably know that India and Pakistan don't much like each other. You likely also know that India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. You might also reason that Pakistan is a much less conventionally powerful country than India; its only real power in comparison is nuclear. You might also know that the Indus River flows from China through India into Pakistan, before finally reaching the ocean. You may also know that Pakistan and that area of India rely pretty heavily on the Indus River. You perhaps know that the Indus River is fed by primarily by glaciers in the Himalayas. You may have heard that these glaciers are melting, which will diminish the flow of the Indus River. So, what do you suppose might happen when the Indus River provides less water? In other news, Arctic sea ice extent and area are both up for December 6th. Less than +40,000 sq km for extent, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Descar posted:This will always be a minor problem compared to economy to most people, just saying The irony is that it's an economic problem. Though to be fair, being wealthy is, and has always been, the best way to survive social/natural/economic upheavals. It isn't rich people who will starve when the fish run out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The irony is that it's an economic problem. Just make sure you don't live webstream your location during the apocalypse because that's how they'll getcha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Who's ready for more good news from the political front?Trump to name Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change, to head the EPA posted:Pruitt, who has written that the debate on climate change is “far from settled,” joined a coalition of state attorneys general in suing the agency’s Clean Power Plan, the principal Obama-era policy aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector. He has also sued, with fellow state attorneys general, over the EPA’s recently announced regulations seeking to curtail the emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from the oil and gas sector. From here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.fcaf1cce036e
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Do people like that actually believe climate change is some hoax or over-blown alarmism, or are they just full out horrible evil captain planet villains trying to get them and their supporters as much hay while the sun shines as possible? I imagine a ton of rich and powerful people just want to stock up on as much wealth as they possibly can so they can survive the coming doom of their own making. Then again I've known plenty of rich people that are absolutely stupid so I could totally believe either being true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Do people like that actually believe climate change is some hoax or over-blown alarmism, or are they just full out horrible evil captain planet villains trying to get them and their supporters as much hay while the sun shines as possible? I imagine a ton of rich and powerful people just want to stock up on as much wealth as they possibly can so they can survive the coming doom of their own making. Then again I've known plenty of rich people that are absolutely stupid so I could totally believe either being true. Just read the comments, people are wholly sold on the belief that it's all a scam by liberals to steal their money, and it's going to take unending disaster to convince them otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
These powerful state actors are comic book supervillians. The entire world is literally going to be destroyed because of their blind drive for capitalism. It just seems so bizarre to me that the I am going to live to see the world fall apart. I feel so loving helpless. I'm usually such a strong person, but every time I think about climate change I feel so much pain. It's loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Do people like that actually believe climate change is some hoax or over-blown alarmism, or are they just full out horrible evil captain planet villains trying to get them and their supporters as much hay while the sun shines as possible? I imagine a ton of rich and powerful people just want to stock up on as much wealth as they possibly can so they can survive the coming doom of their own making. Then again I've known plenty of rich people that are absolutely stupid so I could totally believe either being true. it is unquestionable that the various oil magnates and coal barons of the modern era and their numerous flunkies have an intimate understanding of how this process works and will affect the world, likely before anyone else even considered it. a successful business has to make projections like these to understand how it will affect their profit margin. make no mistake, they have made the decision to suppress, deny, and obstruct with a sound mind in rational self interest. the koch brothers of the world know that their children will be fantastically rich enough to build a compound in new zealand and live their lives in luxury while the planet turns to cinder around them,. they personally will never have to deal with the consequences of their overwhelming greed unless that leech the blood from young people to live forever project pans out. the trump voters and the pollyannas probably believe it's just a hoax sincerely, because they're loving dumb as poo poo, but they don't really have any meaningful control over this process to begin with. useful idiots, i think the term is. i suppose there may be a few legislators and political figures that might genuinely believe that this is all an overblown green energy conspiracy, but they're firmly attached by string to their wealthy energy conglomerate overlords anyway so it's a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
tbf Trump voters live in areas less likely to be hit by the short/mid-term fallout from GCC. Dems are going to get their poo poo kicked in
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Just read the comments, people are wholly sold on the belief that it's all a scam by liberals to steal their money, and it's going to take unending disaster to convince them otherwise. Remember when Michael Crichton started losing his mind? https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/stateoffear.asp (I just now learned that wunderground hosts book reviews  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Do people like that actually believe climate change is some hoax or over-blown alarmism, or are they just full out horrible evil captain planet villains trying to get them and their supporters as much hay while the sun shines as possible? I imagine a ton of rich and powerful people just want to stock up on as much wealth as they possibly can so they can survive the coming doom of their own making. Then again I've known plenty of rich people that are absolutely stupid so I could totally believe either being true. There's true evil in the world, but most of it is probably due to powerlessness in the face of the capitalist machine that seeks profits at all cost. Even if the CEO of Exxon saw the light tomorrow, he couldn't do anything, and if he tried, he would be quickly replaced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Just read the comments, people are wholly sold on the belief that it's all a scam by liberals to steal their money, and it's going to take unending disaster to convince them otherwise. A red tide will roll over Florida and conservatives will just say "yup that's the SEC for ya"
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
I'm increasingly wondering if 2017 might be the first year that Arctic ice is mostly MIA during the summer. To be fair, December through March is the depths of winter, so it might recover. Thing is, there's this thing called Freezing Degree Days. It's calculated not by singular days that are below freezing, but by temperature below freezing multiplied by days; a day of -4C is thus 4 FDD (technically, seawater freezes at a lower temperature, so it's really -5.8C = 4 FDD). FDD is thought to coincide well with sea ice growth... and 2016's freezing season is rather lacking in them: Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Obviously predicting specific events in the future is impossible, but what would be considered an optimistic projection vs. a pessimistic projection? If even the most optimistic projection has half of Southern Florida underwater along with the massive refugee crisis that implies by ~2060, then I'm going to need to make very different life plans starting right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Obviously predicting specific events in the future is impossible, but what would be considered an optimistic projection vs. a pessimistic projection? If even the most optimistic projection has half of Southern Florida underwater along with the massive refugee crisis that implies by ~2060, then I'm going to need to make very different life plans starting right now. I don't know when you were born, but in 2060 I'll be 70 years old if I'm even still alive. The fact is that climate change won't impact most anyone currently posting on these forums in a Road-esque fashion, and if it did we'll be so old that we can smoke a shotgun guilt free after having had a decent life. Rime fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:tbf Trump voters live in areas less likely to be hit by the short/mid-term fallout from GCC. They're draining the aquifers at a record rate though so they'll wind up facing issues with water scarcity all the same
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
We'll just annex Canada
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Stop thinking of it like cataclysmic change, and start thinking of it as our Shock and Awe campaign against the next glacial age. So far we're doing Awesome, gently caress you ice!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Rime posted:I don't know when you were born, but in 2060 I'll be 87 years old if I'm even still alive. The fact is that climate change won't impact most anyone currently posting on these forums in a Road-esque fashion, and if it did we'll be so old that we can smoke a shotgun guilt free after having had a decent life. In 2060 I'd be near retirement age, so I'm way younger than you. On top of that, what about children and grandchildren? I'm nowhere near rich so there's no fancy mob-proof bunker I could pass on to them. If anything we'd probably be part of the mob.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:22
|
|