|
The IPCC has ignored methane release and feedback mechanisms to such a completely irresponsible degree that I wonder if they know that we're completely hosed and are just doing policymaking as BAU.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:The IPCC has ignored methane release and feedback mechanisms to such a completely irresponsible degree that I wonder if they know that we're completely hosed and are just doing policymaking as BAU. They might simply not believe it. Normalcy bias is one hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
All the data points to unavoidable, rapid-onset, planet-wide catastrophe within at least the next few decades. Nobody except climate scientists are talking about it. I guess its only a matter of time.
Telephones fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Pretty neat overall
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:The IPCC has ignored methane release and feedback mechanisms to such a completely irresponsible degree that I wonder if they know that we're completely hosed and are just doing policymaking as BAU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJO0n6kvPRU&t=240s
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:The IPCC has ignored methane release and feedback mechanisms to such a completely irresponsible degree that I wonder if they know that we're completely hosed and are just doing policymaking as BAU.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
TACD posted:I was under the impression that when the scope for AR5 was agreed (2009?) permafrost melting / feedback was less of a concern and less well understood. Is it not going to be included in the next report? The approved outline doesn't specifically say so, but it does include the topic broadly: http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session46/AR6_WGI_outlines_P46.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
TACD posted:I was under the impression that when the scope for AR5 was agreed (2009?) permafrost melting / feedback was less of a concern and less well understood. Is it not going to be included in the next report? It has not been less of a concern, it has just been less understood yielding higher uncertainty. We've chosen to assume that the variance is manageable, not existential. Soil respiration feedbacks due to warming and land degradation, and permafrost CO2 / CH4 release feedbacks both above and below water are well beyond what IPCC AR5 considers. Our current methane emissions pathway is most closely following RCP 8.5. We have known that cascading permafrost feedbacks may become likely around the 1.5 - 2C range. But we've allowed ourselves to eat enough variance with lax emissions demands for 2016/2017 literature to indicate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of around 3.5C already with a real risk of reaching 2.5C around 2040 - 2050. Oops. This would bring accelerated West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse with warming and sea level rise both continuing to occur faster than expectations. Maybe we could worry about methane less if we were concerned with a centennial timescale. We would sincerely like to believe that by drawing the emission pathways out to 2100. In reality, we're more concerned with a decadal timescale, and the feedback effects of methane are both possibly extremely large and not well understood. We can't even agree on the GWP100 potential without a large amount of variance, and some warming effects, like methane generating polar stratospheric clouds, aren't well quantified. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:Don't let yourself wallow in misery. Take solace in the fact that you got free tickets to one of the biggest events in the history of the universe. God bless! I understand the mentality and would agree if I was somehow unaware that as all of this is happening, I would be either starving, tortured and/or raped to death along with everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I understand the mentality and would agree if I was somehow unaware that as all of this is happening, I would be either starving, tortured and/or raped to death along with everyone else. You are severely ill. It is the time of year SAD begins affecting people's mood, please be sure you are adhering to a treatment plan for your depression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You are severely ill. It is the time of year SAD begins affecting people's mood, please be sure you are adhering to a treatment plan for your depression. Agreed. Look Ace, you need to stop reading these forums for a while. Hell, just take a break from your computer in general for even just a few days. Go for a walk, go running in the mornings, get out the house. Put your headphones on and get some fresh air away from tech and news. Right, need some forums advice. After 2 years of battling it out, I've finally landed a job that I like and that pays me enough to not live hand to mouth here in London UK. As I'm about to move here over the next month, I'd like to do some conservation or disaster relief work 2-4 times a month, mainly at the weekends. Failing that, anything else similarly climate related. Any reputable or recommended companies anyone can think of or are they all much of a muchness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I understand the mentality and would agree if I was somehow unaware that as all of this is happening, I would be either starving, tortured and/or raped to death along with everyone else. You're in a depression spiral. Stop wallowing in information that feeds the spiral. It's the only way out. Watch some happy stuff about puppy's and kittens, go outside for a walk and chitchat with someone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
everyone ITT is now a god drat expert on depression you can tell because the advice is "go outside" and "watch clips of puppies and kittens" and it has been proven those things really help deal with depression Here's an idea: how about you motherfuckers stop putting that label on everyone who has a rightfully pessimistic outlook on how things are going? It's rude and demeaning and unfunny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:everyone ITT is now a god drat expert on depression maybe take a gander at ace's post history before you shoot your mouth off there, champ
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You are severely ill. It is the time of year SAD begins affecting people's mood, please be sure you are adhering to a treatment plan for your depression. I have been spending the past few months going through a LONG diagnostic process despite having explicitly told the doctors that I didn't mind if I dropped dead. You'd think the process would be speedier in these cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Between this thread, the trump thread, and the Syrian war thread it does help to stop gazing into the abyss every once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:maybe take a gander at ace's post history before you shoot your mouth off there, champ oh so you can diagnose someone based on their post history? no, you can't. you're just an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:oh so you can diagnose someone based on their post history? More that the post history mentions their mental health issues rather frequently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:oh so you can diagnose someone based on their post history? Ace has admitted to be on meds/therapy for his sadbrains. He's got real issues that we irresponsibly enable by engaging with him. Alternatively he's a troll and all his posting is in bad faith, but the same treatment works in that case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:oh so you can diagnose someone based on their post history? I can get behind the idea of what you're saying because people always call me depressed on this site due to having realistic expectations about the future of the planet, but AoF has genuine problems outside of climate change anxiety, he'd be miserable if climate change didn't exist. Not to say that he should still be reading this thread, it clearly exacerbates the problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
When Trump starts a nuclear war with North Korea, and North Korea demolishes Seoul before becoming a crater, and when Russia and China jump in on the action, will all that affect the climate positively or negatively?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
negatively, it'll cause a brief delay in warming followed by a huge spike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
We can worry about the spike later. For now we have an easy short term fix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:negatively, it'll cause a brief delay in warming followed by a huge spike. Give me some juicy details, please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:Give me some juicy details, please. Clouding /dust reduces temp for a while. Not sure where the spike after comes in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:Give me some juicy details, please. Global warming caused by the greenhouse effect is partly mitigated by global dimming caused by all the particulate "dirty carbon" we release on the atmosphere along with our emissions. Its up time in the atmosphere is short before it inevitably falls back down (notably, this leads to the 'darkening' of glaciers and mountaintops, reducing their albedo and causing them to melt faster), but since we keep pumping out more and more it keeps accumulating up there. Ever heard of nuclear winter? It's like that, except not as dramatic and it's going on all the time. But, in the event there was a massive emissions reduction caused by say, the destruction of civilization as we know it, all that particulates causing the dimming will finish falling and there will be a warming spike. So, let's combine them both! Global thermonuclear war leads to a nuclear winter caused by all the particulate matter now released onto the atmosphere, so we're cool for a while, but after a few months/years that settles down and we've got a warming spike compared to pre-war levels, since a huge chunk of the human industry that was keeping a layer of grime on our skies is now also gone. Tangent: our skies, globally, are less blue than they were 300 years ago. The air is also harder to breathe, but that's harder to detect for humans since our sensitivity to elevated CO2 levels doesn't kick in until around >1000ppm (but cognitive impairment does start before that). Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Tl;dr: Pollution from industrial society is keeping the earth 2 or more degrees cooler than it would be otherwise. We are currently boiling frogs, rather than flash-baked frogs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Dropping bombs is a net cooling effect due to dimming. Not sure where the later spike is, it doesn't work like sulfates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Dropping bombs is a net cooling effect due to dimming. Not sure where the later spike is, it doesn't work like sulfates. Can you explain this? Isn't the dimming effect of a nuclear winter produced by particulates that will mostly be gone within a decade?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Can you explain this? Isn't the dimming effect of a nuclear winter produced by particulates that will mostly be gone within a decade? Yes it will clear and go back to neutral. The negative energy flux from this dimming effect will become more irrelevant the further after dimming subsides as we return back to the equilibrium climate sensitivity. However, I think the other poster was arguing that there would be a subsequent increase in incoming radiation compared to baseline after dimming subsides. Sulfates for example have a near-term dimming effect but are postulated to lead to polar amplification on longer timescales. We just need to leverage our different feedbacks correctly to make sure we don't cause too abrupt changes. Like after we stop using coal we need to start dropping a lot more bombs to keep net dimming the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure they meant nuclear war, not using bombs as a mechanism of creating dimming. And I'm pretty sure that all the poo poo that got burned up into CO2 in the nuclear war would be a net positive in temperature once the participants stopped blowing each other up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Yes. Instead of +3 degrees over the course of 80 years and then slow ecosystem collapse, you'd get +5 degrees over the course of 10-20 years and pretty much all life on earth being eradicated. Much better to engineer a plague for generating our carbon-cutting corpses, keep the wheels of industry greased with the fat of billions if you will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I'm pretty sure they meant nuclear war, not using bombs as a mechanism of creating dimming. And I'm pretty sure that all the poo poo that got burned up into CO2 in the nuclear war would be a net positive in temperature once the participants stopped blowing each other up. The blast radius of a few hundred nukes is smaller than the amount of acreage lost to wildfires per year by more than an order of magnitude. I imagine nukes probably hit a less carbonaceous area on average as well. So sure some CO2 would combust for a positive forcing, but we're talking about the energy budget of the Earth here. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Oct 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Hey now, the Earth has very deep reserves of life and the 300 million year figure for the cutoff when the sun will be too hot for liquid water on earth has been disputed by more recent solar astronomy papers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Yes it will clear and go back to neutral. The negative energy flux from this dimming effect will become more irrelevant the further after dimming subsides as we return back to the equilibrium climate sensitivity. However, I think the other poster was arguing that there would be a subsequent increase in incoming radiation compared to baseline after dimming subsides. Sulfates for example have a near-term dimming effect but are postulated to lead to polar amplification on longer timescales. Ah, ok. Usually when I see people talk about temperatures "spiking" after something like sulfate aerosol injection I just assume that they mean temperatures will rapidly return to the previous equilibrium (or worse, if we've still been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
If the research ends up showing we have already passed or are very near a point of no return in terms of methane leaks did we even ever stand a chance? I mean really considering global dimming will shoot things up quite a bit how far back do we have to go to really have had any chance of stopping this calamity? Hell would the 90s have been too late? I really would like to see a study, if all this methane stuff ends up going the way it seemingly is, answer the the question "roughly what was the last year we could have emitted CO2 and saved everything?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Xeom posted:If the research ends up showing we have already passed or are very near a point of no return in terms of methane leaks did we even ever stand a chance? Honestly if permafrost cap degradation -> methane is as huge of a feedback as it may be, the answer is over 8000 years ago before the East Siberian Arctic Shelf was inundated. There's a good chance this would have been the last interglacial in the quaternary even without the invention of the combustion engine. Humans simply turned it from a millennial feedback to a decadal feedback.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Honestly if permafrost cap degradation -> methane is as huge of a feedback as it may be, the answer is over 8000 years ago before the East Siberian Arctic Shelf was inundated. There's a good chance this would have been the last interglacial in the quaternary even without the invention of the combustion engine. So we were all loving dead anyway, that's reassuring.  We just might have gotten another couple thousand years if we'd stuck to hitting each other with sharpened metal sticks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Honestly if permafrost cap degradation -> methane is as huge of a feedback as it may be, the answer is over 8000 years ago before the East Siberian Arctic Shelf was inundated. There's a good chance this would have been the last interglacial in the quaternary even without the invention of the combustion engine. Do you have more info on this? Sounds pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:So we were all loving dead anyway, that's reassuring. We also don't really know how far we're forcing the permafrost->methane feedback past where it usually is. We may not be dead at all, we may be blowing full steam ahead into a runaway greenhouse effect, or we may be somewhere in between. That's the fun part of uncertainty in an exponential feedback where you have hundreds of gigatonnes of warming potential buried under your surface. You can get more details about where we may be going on a decadal timescale by looking at two previous interglacials where the ESAS was inundated for some duration. These are MIS 5e (Eemian) and MIS 11 (Holsteinian). Eemian climate in particular gets wild at its optimum at ~2C above climatology. Hansen et al discuss weather phenomena including ice sheet collapse and meltwater pulse scenarios from these interglacials (source). One conclusion is that we'll get to see some baroclinic superstorms that make all of our current weather phenomena look tame. We'll also probably blow right by this optimum and move into weirder more uncharted territory shortly thereafter. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Oct 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:34
|
|