Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »

the old ceremony: Aug 1, 2017; by FactsAreUseless

china planted so many trees they hosed up their water table lol (it'll go back to normal)

# ? Oct 25, 2017 20:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 22:46

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Fojar38 posted:

Allow growth to tank to the degree that would actually be required to make a dent in industrial pollution instead of trying to sell the fantasy of both 6.8% growth and massive drops in pollution.

And what degree is that? Give us the largest percent growth that would convince you, so we can watch you backpedal if it happens.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 20:59

Car Hater: May 7, 2007; wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

Fojar38 posted:

I, too, believe vague reports from government officials in an autocratic state. Especially in the midst of a PR campaign being run by the guy who just declared himself dictator for life.

Isn't "guy who just declared himself dictator for life of an autocratic state is running a cleanup/PR campaign because his people want a cleaner environment" an equally valid interpretation though?

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:03

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Hello Sailor posted:

And what degree is that? Give us the largest percent growth that would convince you, so we can watch you backpedal if it happens.

Any number I provide would be arbitrary. It would depend on how fast it happens and China's pollution statistics from non-government sources, and how much debt is still being pumped into the Chinese economy at the time.

The Groper posted:

Isn't "guy who just declared himself dictator for life of an autocratic state is running a cleanup/PR campaign because his people want a cleaner environment" an equally valid interpretation though?

Only if you think dictators are cool and good and care about the common man.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:06

eNeMeE: Nov 26, 2012

The Groper posted:

Isn't "guy who just declared himself dictator for life of an autocratic state is running a cleanup/PR campaign because his people want a cleaner environment" an equally valid interpretation though?

No dictator for life would ever put the long term over the short. Especially not if doing stuff for the environment let him jail rich people and take their stuff and assign his friends to get profits from the efforts.

Argument defeated, qed

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:10

treerat: Oct 4, 2005; up here so high i start to shake up here so high the sky i scrape

the old ceremony posted:

china planted so many trees they hosed up their water table lol (it'll go back to normal)

dont worry, theyre all the same species of tree so as soon as a blight comes along everything will die lol

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:10

Car Hater: May 7, 2007; wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

Fojar38 posted:

Only if you think dictators are cool and good and care about the common man.

I don't think that, but I can clearly see the incentives for Xi to pull this off, soooo interpretation still valid I guess

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:11

treerat: Oct 4, 2005; up here so high i start to shake up here so high the sky i scrape

Fojar38 posted:

Any number I provide would be arbitrary. It would depend on how fast it happens and China's pollution statistics from non-government sources, and how much debt is still being pumped into the Chinese economy at the time.

Only if you think dictators are cool and good and care about the common man.

Smart ones care, happy drones are better than an angry mob.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:12

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Yeah, even a completely selfish dictator might do what from the outside seems altruistic, if it supports his own goals. Sure, if he was going for a pure "Let's just loot everything" approach he might be better off with some other plan, but he could also be looking out for his legacy. I mean, having people remember you as the "Glorious Leader who made China #1 again" might be worth the sacrifice of a few yachts. Assuming here that his current strategy can't be used to both make him more money, and make him look good, which is of course not certain either.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:23

Trainee PornStar: Jul 20, 2006; I'm just an inbetweener

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Yeah, even a completely selfish dictator might do what from the outside seems altruistic, if it supports his own goals. Sure, if he was going for a pure "Let's just loot everything" approach he might be better off with some other plan, but he could also be looking out for his legacy. I mean, having people remember you as the "Glorious Leader who made China #1 again" might be worth the sacrifice of a few yachts. Assuming here that his current strategy can't be used to both make him more money, and make him look good, which is of course not certain either.

If the guy gets rich while saving the world (hypothetically) I don't mind.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:35

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Fojar38 posted:

Any number I provide would be arbitrary. It would depend on how fast it happens and China's pollution statistics from non-government sources, and how much debt is still being pumped into the Chinese economy at the time.

So a function of the rate of change of percent GDP growth, the change in emissions (from which non-government sources?), and debt. What is that function, please?

Because I don't think you have one and the only action which would convince you is "China stops being a communist nation".

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:41

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Hello Sailor posted:

Because I don't think you have one and the only action which would convince you is "China stops being a communist nation".

This would definitely help a whole lot, it's true. The nature of China's political system is not going to stop being an obstacle.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 21:48

Notorious R.I.M.: Jan 27, 2004; up to my ass in alligators

We can easily see CO2, Sulfate, and CO emissions via satellite. If you want to see if China is actually serious then wait a bit and see what the net density of those particulates over a suitable time window is. e.g. https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/10/25/1800Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=78.40,32.54,360/loc=116.222,38.736

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:05

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

We can easily see CO2, Sulfate, and CO emissions via satellite. If you want to see if China is actually serious then wait a bit and see what the net density of those particulates over a suitable time window is. e.g. https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/10/25/1800Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=78.40,32.54,360/loc=116.222,38.736

Why are you listing sulfate as if it is a greenhouse gas?

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:09

Notorious R.I.M.: Jan 27, 2004; up to my ass in alligators

Trabisnikof posted:

Why are you listing sulfate as if it is a greenhouse gas?

Because China is also a known emitter of huge amounts of sulfate aerosols and we need to keep track of both positive and negative feedbacks?

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:15

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

Because China is also a known emitter of huge amounts of sulfate aerosols and we need to keep track of both positive and negative feedbacks?

That I understand, but you or I looking at some online map seems like an error prone way to do that versus you or I reading the abstracts of papers on China's net greenhouse gas emissions. Also CO2 is broken on that map anyway.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:20

Notorious R.I.M.: Jan 27, 2004; up to my ass in alligators

Trabisnikof posted:

That I understand, but you or I looking at some online map seems like an error prone way to do that versus you or I reading the abstracts of papers on China's net greenhouse gas emissions. Also CO2 is broken on that map anyway.

Yes I gave a quick little graph that shows China's approximate CO concentration. Clearly we should be using research that can estimate net changes of the volume of particulate matter over time. Not sure where the disagreement is or do you just endlessly nitpick as a hobby?

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:25

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

Yes I gave a quick little graph that shows China's approximate CO concentration. Clearly we should be using research that can estimate net changes of the volume of particulate matter over time. Not sure where the disagreement is or do you just endlessly nitpick as a hobby?

Its not really nitpicking to point out the tool you propose is completely useless at its supposed purpose.

Also you're mistaken if you think CO emissions are a major greenhouse gas. While they are a greenhouse gas they are a weak one. CO2 (currently broken on that map), Methane (not on that map at all) and N2O (also missing) are vastly larger contributors.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:29

Notorious R.I.M.: Jan 27, 2004; up to my ass in alligators

Trabisnikof posted:

Its not really nitpicking to point out the tool you propose is completely useless at its supposed purpose.

Also you're mistaken if you think CO emissions are a major greenhouse gas. While they are a greenhouse gas they are a weak one. CO2 (currently broken on that map), Methane (not on that map at all) and N2O (also missing) are vastly larger contributors.

You're sitting here trying to explain babby's 1st difference in GWP to someone who was talking about variance in the reported GWP100 for methane in 2017 studies just a few pages back.

Shut the gently caress up.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:32

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

You're sitting here trying to explain the difference in GWP to someone who was talking about variance in the reported GWP100 for methane in 2017 studies just a few pages back.

Shut the gently caress up.

Then you understand how useless looking at only CO and sulfate is for determining net emissions.

To add some content and from a source Fojar can't claim is just lies:

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2016-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2016-report-103425.pdf

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency posted:

China�s CO2 emissions, in 2015, decreased by about 0.7%, compared to 2014. This was mainly due to a 1.5% decline in coal consumption, partly compensated for by increases in oil consumption of 6.3% and natural gas of 4.7% (all percentages in energy units, e.g. in PJ) (BP, 2016). Coal is the dominant fossil fuel in the non-transport sectors: power generation, industry, residential and services (Table 2.1) (IEA, 2015b, 2016c).

China�s CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, which account for about 85% of total national CO2 emissions, originated in 2013 for 83% from coal, 14% from oil products and 3% from natural gas (Table 2.4). Although the shares of oil and natural gas are on the rise, the reliance of China on coal is one of the highest of all countries. To calculate the CO2 emissions for China from all fossil-fuel-related activities, we used IEA�s revised energy balance statistics on China (TJ with fuel consumed in each sector) for the 1990�2014 period (IEA, 2016c), which includes all detailed revisions published in May 2015 by the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS) for the 2000�2013 period on an aggregate level only (NBS, 2015c). For more information on how the IEA included the revised detailed energy balances of NBS, see IEA (IEA, 2016f). The very large share of coal combustion emissions in the national total was due to the large amount of coal used in the manufacturing industry (28% of the national total), whereas coal-fired power generation accounted for 48% of the national total (see Table 2.4).

Of the remaining 15% in CO2 emissions, 9% stemmed from cement clinker production and other carbonate consumption, 4% from other non-combustion processes in the manufacturing industry, such as the production of crude steel and chemicals, and the remaining 2% from cokes production, gas flaring and such. (EDGAR v4.3.2, EC-JRC/PBL, 2016). CO2 emissions from cement clinker production decreased by 4.5% in 2015, whereas total CO2 emissions from, for example, the global production of steel and chemicals, remained constant in 2015.

Table 2.1 shows that the annual growth in coal production (in tonnes and in PJ), thermal power production (almost all from coal) and cement and steel production all slowed down since 2012, compared to the growth levels in the previous decade. This is in line with the lower annual increases in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the past four years. In fact, several of the physical indicators � for coal, thermal power, cement and steel � showed negative growth in 2015. Coal production, in tonnes, already showed a negative growth rate in 2014. Many of these changes appear to continue into 2016, as the 6 and 8 month statistics show.

With 10.7 billion tonnes in CO2 emissions in 2015, China is by far the largest CO2 emitting country, with a share in total global CO2 emissions of almost 30%, followed by the United States, with 14% and the European Union with almost 10%. China�s share in total global emissions was estimated at 15% in 2001, and the country surpassed the United States in 2005 as the largest emitting country (IEA, 2014; IEA, 2016c). This high ranking is mainly due to the size of its population and current economy (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4), but also because of the large share of coal in its energy mix, as it is has far greater coal reserves than those of oil and gas.

Moreover, after China became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, its economy started to expand very rapidly. Although the share of value added (VA) of total industry in GDP decreased from 45% in 2001 to 41% in 2015, the share of its manufacturing industry in GDP remained at about 30% (World Bank, 2016), which together with South Korea�s share of 29%, is the highest among the G20 countries. In contrast, most OECD countries of the G20 have manufacturing shares in the range of 10% to 15%, with the exception of Germany with 23% and South Korea with 29%. Also most non-OECD countries of the G20 have manufacturing industry shares of less than 20% (apart from Indonesia with 21%): India (16%), Russia (6%), Turkey (18%), Brazil (11%). The share of services in total GDP increased from 40% in 2000, first slowly but in the last four years rapidly, to 50% in 2015. India and Saudi Arabia have similar service sector shares, whereas most OECD countries of the G20 have shares ranging from 70% to 75%. Although the share in GDP of China�s manufacturing industry did not change much, the amount of value added doubled from 2002 to 2010 and in 2015 it was even 2.5 times the value of 2002 (World Bank, 2016). In comparison, in 2002, the value added of China�s manufacturing industry was only half that of the United States and about 40% that of the European Union.

In 2014, China�s value added was on a par with that of the European Union, and 30% larger than that of the United States. Apart from the domestic demand for consumer goods, the products of China�s industrialisation served the rapid development of buildings and other domestic infrastructure as well as the export of goods.

With 7.7 tonnes of CO2 per person in 2015, the per capita emissions were somewhat (13%) higher than the EU-28 average and at about the same level of per capita emissions of Poland and South Africa (see Table 2.8). When comparing CO2 emissions per USD of GDP (in PPP units), although decreasing over time, in 2015, China still had one of highest values among the G20 countries, about 13% higher than that of the Russian Federation and 7% higher than South Africa. However, the emissions per unit of GDP at PPP basis of China are decreasing faster than in other countries (see Section 2.3 and Figures 2.13 and 2.14).

After many years of annual increases in CO2 emissions, on average, of 9.9% in the 2002�2011 period, the last four years showed a slowing down of annual emission increases, with consecutive growth rates of 2.1% in 2012, 4.4% in 2013, 2.0% in 2014 and a decrease of 0.7% in 2015 (IEA, 2016c; BP, 2016). The decrease in the annual trend of 2015 is unprecedented and is a sign of decoupling from economic growth. Annual GDP growth was also slowing down, but remained still positive (from 10% per year before 2012 to about 7% per year in 2013�2015). A key factor for this change in CO2 emissions was the decline in coal consumption (in energy units) in 2015 of 1.5%, as estimated by BP (2016) based on data from NBS China. Although the Chinese energy statistics are more uncertain compared to those of most OECD countries, the slow-down and shift from manufacturing to a more service-oriented economy is corroborated by the recent trends in other indicators, such as electricity generation, thermal power generation, cement and steel production, and aluminium production (see Table 2.2). For a more detailed analysis of these phenomena, see Qi et al. (2016) and Green and Stern (2016).

This emission decrease of 0.7% in 2015 is consistent with the decrease of 2.7% in fossil-fuel fired power generation (predominantly coal-fired power plants) reported by the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS, 2016b).

The decrease in the power generated by coal-fired power plants, which produce about three-quarters of total electricity (NBS, 2015b) and which contribute to about half of the country�s CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion (Table 2.4), was due to the still relatively �slow� growth rate of total electricity consumption of 0.3% in 2015, compared to the previous decade which showed double-digit growth figures (the lowest since 2000).

Moreover, for the 10th consecutive year, China added more newly installed hydropower capacity than the rest of the world combined. In 2015, China added 19,370 MW in new hydropower capacity, including 1,230 MW in pumped storage, resulting in a total installed capacity of 320 GW (IHA, 2016). Hydropower generation increased again in 2015 by 5% due an expansion of installed capacity. Hydropower accounted for 19.5% of total electricity generation, which is the largest share since 1990, while fossil-fuel power generation dropped by 2.7% in 2015 and accounted for 73% of total production. In addition, wind, solar and other renewable energy increased by more than 20% and together accounted for almost 5%. The�remaining 3% was generated by nuclear power, which saw an increase of 29% in 2015, compared to 2014.

The share of thermal (i.e. fossil-fuel-fired) electricity generation of 73% in 2015 was more than 2 percentage points lower than in 2014, and down from 80% in 2009. In particular the increases in hydropower and of other renewable power generation, since 2009, by 3 percentage points each, have reduced the reliance on coal-fired power generation, not only in percentages but, for the first time, also in absolute amounts. Also, the absence of growth in electricity demand helped to reduce coal-fired power generation. Expansion of nuclear power has a longer lead time which can be seen in the growth in the share by 1 percentage point, from 2% in 2009 to 3% in 2015.

Unlike in developed countries, China�s manufacturing industry is the sector with the largest consumption of electricity and fuel. Therefore, the demand for energy, in general, is largely driven by trends in basic materials production (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.7). As Table 2.2 indicates, there has been a substantial slowdown in the growth rate of the demand for materials, halving the physical growth in this sector since 2012. First reports on 2016 show a further slowdown or even decrease in most indicators.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:39

Furcht: May 31, 2015; I can now say in certitude that you are a stupid newbie.

A Smartie Veteran® would accept the glittering phalii for the gifts that they are.

That's okay though, we all started as noobs.

So an interesting paper came out on the 26th of Oct, (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01225-9) about paleo ocean temperature and the methods used to measure them, it apparently also addresses the cool tropics paradox.

Having a very limited understanding of this particular field I struggled to wrap my brain around the abstract, what sort of implications could this have on existing models and the like? Will revision of past models be required at all?

# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:13

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Furcht posted:

So an interesting paper came out on the 26th of Oct, (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01225-9) about paleo ocean temperature and the methods used to measure them, it apparently also addresses the cool tropics paradox.

Having a very limited understanding of this particular field I struggled to wrap my brain around the abstract, what sort of implications could this have on existing models and the like? Will revision of past models be required at all?

Another nail in the denialist coffin, mostly. Previously they could say "the earth has been this hot before, based on this data!", and now that is no longer true.

Though I already see people on Reddit saying poo poo like "well you can't compare 60 million years ago to today, the conditions are completely different so it's irrelevant". :argh:

# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:17

the old ceremony: Aug 1, 2017; by FactsAreUseless

i am going to singlehandedly solve this problem with my enormous brain

# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:17

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Xi is a canny politician who has managed to eliminate his rivals while publicly championing popular causes. He may be the leader of an authoritarian state but it's entirely possible he is really going to clean up the environment because it's a good move politically.

# ? Oct 27, 2017 03:14

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

New science suggests the ocean could rise more � and faster � than we thought :siren:

# ? Oct 27, 2017 04:18

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Living through this era is like suffering through all the trailers and then dying right as the film starts. :cripes:

# ? Oct 27, 2017 04:26

Telephones: Apr 28, 2013

I'm not sure how to feel tbh. I'm just floored by the speed.

Climate Change: literally liveposting the apocalypse, now.

Telephones fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Oct 27, 2017

# ? Oct 27, 2017 04:52

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

WaPo wants $1.

Please, do the spiteful and quote the article.

# ? Oct 27, 2017 04:52

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Accretionist posted:

WaPo wants $1.

Please, do the spiteful and quote the article.

Well, they do good work, but if you really want to be cheap...

quote:

Climate change could lead to sea level rises that are larger, and happen more rapidly, than previously thought, according to a trio of new studies that reflect mounting concerns about the stability of polar ice.

In one case, the research suggests that previous high end projections for sea level rise by the year 2100 � a little over three feet � could be too low, substituting numbers as high as six feet at the extreme if the world continues to burn large volumes of fossil fuels throughout the century.

�We have the potential to have much more sea level rise under high emissions scenarios,� said Alexander Nauels, a researcher at the University of Melbourne in Australia who led one of the three studies. His work, co-authored with researchers at institutions in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, was published Thursday in Environmental Research Letters.

The results comprise both novel scientific observations � based on high resolution seafloor imaging techniques that give a new window on past sea level events � and new modeling techniques based on a better understanding of Antarctic ice.

The observational results, from Texas and Antarctica, examine a similar time period � the close of the last Ice Age a little over 10,000 years ago, when seas are believed to have risen very rapidly at times, as northern hemisphere ice sheets collapsed.

Off the Texas coast, this would have inundated ancient coral reefs. Usually, these reefs can grow upward to keep pace with sea level rise, but there�s a limit � one observed by a team of scientists aboard a vessel called the Falcor in 200 foot deep waters off the coast of Corpus Christi.

These so-called drowned reefs showed features that the researchers called �terraces,� an indicator of how the corals would have tried to respond to fast rising sea levels. Because the organisms must maintain access to a certain amount of sunlight, they would have tried to grow higher to keep up with fast rising seas � but they wouldn�t have been able to do so over a very large area. And so their growth became concentrated in progressively smaller, stepped regions:

[image]
A 3-D representation of Dream Bank, a long-dead reef offshore South Texas. The vertical scale of the image has been increased to clearly illustrate the terrace structures that form due to rising sea levels via a process known as backstepping. (Image courtesy of P. Khanna/Rice University)

�The reef under stress often has a tendency to kind of shrink to this higher elevated area,� said Andr� Droxler, one of the authors of the study in Nature Communications and a researcher at Rice University. �It creates this pyramid-like system.� (Droxler completed the research with colleagues from Rice and Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi.)

The youngest drowned corals date to the end of the last ice age, around 11,500 years ago � corresponding to what scientists believe were large warming events in the northern hemisphere and so-called meltwater pulses from now melted ice sheets. And multiple drowned reefs off Texas show a similar pattern � and terminate in similar water depths.

�Over 120 kilometers, the reefs behaved the same way. It�s difficult to find any other reason why they would do this,� Droxler said.

If carbon emissions continue unabated, expanding oceans and massive ice melt would threaten global coastal communities, according to new projections. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)
Droxler thinks the reef structures suggest eras when sea level was rising by tens of millimeters annually, far beyond the current, roughly 3 millimeters per year. (A 50 millimeter annual sea level rise would produce a meter, or over 3 feet, of rise every 20 years.) The new study therefore concludes that during the last ice age, there were multiple bursts of fast sea level rise � and implies that our future could hold something similar.

�The steady and gradual sea-level rise, observed over the past two centuries [may] not be a complete characterization of how sea level would rise in the future,� the study concludes.

Meanwhile, far away in the Southern hemisphere, a team of scientists used a very similar seafloor mapping technology to detect ancient iceberg �plough marks� etched deep into the seafloor of Pine Island Bay, an ocean body that currently sits in front of one of West Antarctica�s most worrying glaciers, Pine Island. The results were published in the journal Nature on Wednesday by researchers at the University of Cambridge, the British Antarctic Survey, and the Bolin Center for Climate Research in Stockholm.

The seafloor grooves, the researchers believe, were made during a similar era to the Texas coral steppes (the close of the last ice age), and signal a very rapid retreat of Pine Island over roughly a thousand years. Here�s what they looked like in the seafloor imagery the study produced:

[image]
Linear-curvilinear iceberg-keel ploughmarks on the surface of a large grounding-zone wedge located in the mid-shelf Pine Island Trough, West Antarctica. (Martin Jakobsson)

What�s critical about the markings, explains lead study author Matthew Wise of the University of Cambridge, is their maximum depth � 848 meters, or around 2,800 feet. Because ice floats with 10 percent of its mass above the surface and the remaining 90 percent below it, this suggests that when the ice broke from the glacier, close to 100 meters (over 3oo feet) of it was extending above the water surface.

That�s a key number, because scientists are converging on the belief that ice cliffs of about this height above the water level are no longer sustainable and collapse under their own weight � meaning that when you get a glacier this tall up against the ocean, it tends to crumble and crumble, leading to fast retreat and potentially fast sea level rise.

�If we think about how thick these icebergs would have needed to be considering these float with 90 percent of their mass and thickness beneath the sea,� Wise said, �we think of an ice cliff that was at the maximum thickness implied by the physics of the ice.�

The problem is that if it happened then, well, it could happen again. Both Pine Island glacier and its next door neighbor, Thwaites, are known to get thicker as one travels inland away from the sea, which means they are capable of once again generating ice cliffs taller than the critical size detected by the current study.

�If a cliff even higher than the ~100 m subaerial/900 m submarine cliffs were to form, as might occur with retreat of Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica, it might break repeatedly with much shorter pauses than now observed, causing very fast grounding line retreat and sea level rise,� explained Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Penn State University, by email after reviewing the current study for the Post.

The final study, released Thursday morning in Environmental Research Letters, takes a different approach but provides perhaps the most sweeping verdict.

The study used five �shared socioeconomic pathways� that analyze possible futures for global society and its energy system, and resulting climate change, over the course of this century. These scenarios will feed into the next report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most influential scientific body that assesses climate change, according to the University of Melbourne�s Alexander Nauels, the lead author of the current study

The research combined these scenarios with tools to project future sea level rise in light of recent science suggesting that Antarctic ice in key regions could collapse relatively rapidly. That includes possible fast retreat at Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers due, in part, to the problem of ice cliff instability.

The result was that in one scenario assuming high fossil fuel use and strong economic growth during the century, the study predicted that seas could rise by as much as 4.33 feet on average � with a high end possibility of as much as 6.2 feet � by 2100. That includes possibly rapid sea level rise as high as 19 millimeters per year by the end of the century. These numbers are considerably higher than high end projections released in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(It is important to emphasize that the highest sea level numbers presented in the new study would result from human choices to pursue large fossil fuel exploitation and economic growth with little attempt to slow climate change. It is far from clear that this is the path the world will actually take.)

On the other hand, if the world limits global warming to the Paris climate agreement emissions target, the study finds that sea level rise might be held as low as 1.7 feet by 2100, on average. Here�s an image illustrating the results:

[image]
21st century global mean sea level rise projections with median and shaded 66 percent model ranges under a baseline high warming scenario and low warming scenario. The dashed lines represent scenarios consistent with the United Nations� Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change�s (IPCC) findings in 2013, while the solid lines present revised sea level rise modeling results based on Antarctic ice sheet contributions suggested by DeConto and Pollard (2016). The IPCC consistent sea level rise likely ranges are based on Nauels et al. (2017). Global mean sea level rise is provided in centimeters relative to the 1986-2005 mean. (Nauels et al.)
When the IPCC undertakes a similar analysis, Nauels said, it could produce results like these. �I think the numbers will go up,� he said of the body�s report, which is expected in 2021.

So in sum � new research is affirming that seas have risen quite rapidly in the planet�s past, and that major glaciers have retreated quickly because their enormous size makes them potentially unstable. Meanwhile, additional modeling projects these kinds of observations forward and suggests that the century in which we are now living could � could � see similar changes, at least in more severe global warming scenarios in which the world continues to burn high volumes of fossil fuels.

But unlike those submerged corals off the coast of Texas, the difference is that we know this could be coming � which gives us a chance to stop it.

# ? Oct 27, 2017 04:58

PIZZA.BAT: Nov 12, 2016

Telephones posted:

I'm not sure how to feel tbh. I'm just floored by the speed.

Climate Change: literally liveposting the apocalypse, now.

Starring:
our capital- it�s super strong and super naked
thunder woman- she flies, like thunder
Stinky diver- a former nautical scientist with an attitude as bad as his odor
And-
Melt Man!

With their power to- ...MELT

# ? Oct 27, 2017 05:00

PIZZA.BAT: Nov 12, 2016

Man in Melt Man was deliberately capitalized because it�s the royal Man not man but i didn�t know how to make that joke work you know with mankind melting now I�m explainingthe joke like a moron just stop typing and push post you moron what the gently caress

# ? Oct 27, 2017 05:02

Uranium Phoenix: Jun 20, 2007; Boom.

Pollution is responsible for 16% of early deaths globally:

Summary: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171020182513.htm
Full Article: http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/pollution-and-health
Full Infographic: http://www.thelancet.com/pb-assets/Lancet/stories/commissions/pollution-2017/Pollution_and_Health_Infographic.pdf

Obviously, it overwhelmingly affects poorer countries, and is largely the product of coal and dirty fuels. Another study found switching from coal to solar in the US would save 51,000 lives and $2.5 million per life saved. The Lancet study above also notes massive savings that come from pollution control, and benefits to economies.

Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Oct 27, 2017

# ? Oct 27, 2017 05:15

Telephones: Apr 28, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IjN7tBL-3g

# ? Oct 27, 2017 05:50

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

Rime posted:

Living through this era is like suffering through all the trailers and then dying right as the film starts.

Unless you're 50 and/or die early, you're going to be alive to see the death of the ocean and the collapse of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet. Have no worries about that.

# ? Oct 27, 2017 06:02

snoo: Jul 5, 2007

Conspiratiorist posted:

Unless you're 50 and/or die early, you're going to be alive to see the death of the ocean and the collapse of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet. Have no worries about that.

👌👌👌👌👌👌 *screaming*

# ? Oct 27, 2017 06:12

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

enraged_camel posted:

Well, they do good work, but if you really want to be cheap...

Thanks!

AceOfFlames, if you need something to console yourself then consider this: You'll bear witness to either cataclysm or miracle. We'll either be (globally) hosed or subject to a veritable Deus Ex Machine when Elon Musk figures out how to convert air into black graphite dominoes like the ones from 2001: A Space Odyssey

It will be so interesting!

And if we're lucky, us primitive screwjobs will have our social media analyzed by user-directed sociologist AIs in 200 years when school children learn, "how and why humanity broke the world," as a lab exercise.

# ? Oct 27, 2017 06:19

Telephones: Apr 28, 2013

no, I think the food then government will just disappear and most people will die by withering or violence. (e approximately)

# ? Oct 27, 2017 06:38

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Accretionist posted:

Thanks!

AceOfFlames, if you need something to console yourself then consider this: You'll bear witness to either cataclysm or miracle. We'll either be (globally) hosed or subject to a veritable Deus Ex Machine when Elon Musk figures out how to convert air into black graphite dominoes like the ones from 2001: A Space Odyssey

It will be so interesting!

And if we're lucky, us primitive screwjobs will have our social media analyzed by user-directed sociologist AIs in 200 years when school children learn, "how and why humanity broke the world," as a lab exercise.

Choose on these sliders just how dumb, selfish and greedy humans have to be for history to have played out like it did!

# ? Oct 27, 2017 08:26

FourLeaf: Dec 2, 2011

Rime posted:

Living through this era is like suffering through all the trailers and then dying right as the film starts.

With Trump in charge how can you say this? Instead of futile incrementalism we're accelerating as we drive off the cliff. That means a shorter timeframe and an increased likelihood we will see and experience the horror for ourselves.

# ? Oct 27, 2017 10:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 22:46

sitchensis: Mar 4, 2009

Matt Christman from Chapo Trap House:

quote:

"Fascism arises because of the collapse of institutional legitimacy of liberal institutions.

That's how we got Trump and that how we're gonna get what's coming next after him that's gonna be even worse.

Because if you think there's not gonna be more ecological and economic catastrophes in the future that liberalism is wholly unsuited to loving deal with and that that failure is not going to lead to fascism filling that hole, you got another thing coming.

That's what these guys who marched in Charlottesville are aware of--the unspoken premise of the zombie neoliberalism we're living in, which is that we're coming to a point that there is going to be an ecological catastrophe and its going to either require mass redistribution of the ill gotten gains of the first world OR genocide. And these people have said "well if that's the choice, I choose genocide" and they are getting everybody else ready, intellectually and emotionally, for why that's going to be ok when it happens."

# ? Oct 27, 2017 21:59

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »