|
Gortarius posted:I'm a big idiot so I'm going to ask what all this means? Here's a fun fact about that: Aside from September and October of this 2017, the other 8 top high anomalies are during El Niño events. 2017 now has the record high anomalies for September and October in the satellite record... but it isn't during an El Niño. So, um, yeah... can't blame this year's record highs on natural variation. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Nov 5, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
So I assume that during the next strong El Nino year the gulf coast is going to be wiped from the face of the earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/11/el-nino-and-the-record-years-1998-and-2016/quote:
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/927255409726857216 https://twitter.com/kevpluck/status/927626475020439554
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/927255409726857216 This is not the end of the NSIDC charts (yet) so the hyperbole on the bottom comment isn't (yet) warranted. Soon though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:This is not the end of the NSIDC charts (yet) so the hyperbole on the bottom comment isn't (yet) warranted. Soon though. Yes, soon! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:We can just inject more chemicals into the soil to keep it productive until a long-term technological solution is found. The technological solution requires understanding and curating ecosystems and going to the effort of conserving resources. Why bother with that while disposable water and fertilizer are cheap?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
i understand and curate ecosystems and will offer my services for a small price
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/927255409726857216 It's questionable how crucial this particular satellite was Like, I probably come down on the "probably shouldn't have scrapped the spare" side of the line, but it's a small thing not a big thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It's questionable how crucial this particular satellite was There is going to be a gap in our NSIDC records. That is a big thing. We will lose one of our few pieces of observation we have on this pathetically underobserved part of our planet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:There is going to be a gap in our NSIDC records. That is a big thing. We will lose one of our few pieces of observation we have on this pathetically underobserved part of our planet. I backpedal to: someone who knows a hell of a lot more about this poo poo than I do told me there is sufficient redundancy on this. Wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
I think even if there is redundancy it seems absurd to destroy a backup that is already completed and I assume paid for. Our government wastes so much money
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:I think even if there is redundancy it seems absurd to destroy a backup that is already completed and I assume paid for. Our government wastes so much money Absolutely 100% agree as per my original post, just curious whether my mindless regurgitation of secondhand knowledge is fatally flawed 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
we must build cities for the animals
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I backpedal to: someone who knows a hell of a lot more about this poo poo than I do told me there is sufficient redundancy on this. Wrong? NSIDC has 4 satellites F16 - F19. F17 has periodically malfunctioned and recovered. F19, the newest one, failed in 2016 and recently has been declared non-operational. These satellites have a 5yr expectancy. F16 is 13 years old; F18 is 8 years old. We will not have any further NSIDC satellites before at least 2022. Failure of F16 and F18 before a replacement would cause a gap in the record that would have to be filled in by Japan's JAXA dataset. Given our weak observational coverage of the Arctic, having one data set to rely on is problematic. You can see this by looking for disparities in the running JAXA extent/area time series vs the NSIDC time series. Losing F19 is really problematic because it was the newest one so it had the longest life expectancy from here. Sure would've been great if we put F20 in orbit instead of destroying it. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Nov 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
What y'all heard about that mantle plume heating up the Antarctic
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
call to action posted:What y'all heard about that mantle plume heating up the Antarctic God is annoyed with how long the "Donald Trump" disaster is taking to destroy the world so is checking out everything else in the menu.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
call to action posted:What y'all heard about that mantle plume heating up the Antarctic It isn't heating up the Antarctic
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
That article literally says it is, they just don't know to what extent
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Yeah, it is heating the ice above it, but it very well may be a localized phenomena and it doesn't explain other melting occurring elsewhere. Looking at the paper abstract, I think both articles are actually fairly misleading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Reading the abstract, I think that it's a pretty irrelevant discovery as far as climate change and the future of the planet goes. The WAIS is probably gonna collapse before most of us die, but not because of this particular thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
call to action posted:That article literally says it is, they just don't know to what extent The plume would have been there for around fifty million years, and the ice sheet would have formed atop it. It likely affected the way ice melted at the end of the last Ice Age. But it’s not really something to worry about. “It’s been there forever, it will remain there for a really long time,” said Seroussi. “We don’t have to worry about it. But at the same time, as the future brings more heat... the ice will probably be warmer in this area than in other places.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
I wonder what the carbon footprint of printing and shipping millions of Emoji Movie blu-rays was. How many months of life did that shave off our civilization?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Rime posted:I wonder what the carbon footprint of printing and shipping millions of Emoji Movie blu-rays was. How many months of life did that shave off our civilization? hopefully all of them death is near inshallah
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Rime posted:I wonder what the carbon footprint of printing and shipping millions of Emoji Movie blu-rays was. How many months of life did that shave off our civilization? The answer, of course, is "practically nothing". About 0.0000001% (that's one one-millionth of a percent) of total annual emissions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The answer, of course, is "practically nothing". About 0.0000001% (that's one one-millionth of a percent) of total annual emissions. But your vacation flight is killing the planet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
So global sea ice is dramatically worse, again - having fallen past -4 std deviation. It's not as bad as last year, but I'm gonna have to say the fact that it hasn't been above -2 std deviation in over a year is a bad sign: Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Nov 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
i don't want to live in a world without walruses 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
I don't think this one got posted, cool visualization. https://twitter.com/anttilip/status/921809347658895361
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Dr. Furious posted:But your vacation flight is killing the planet. Well air travel makes up about 5% of global emissions, so you know, seven orders of magnitude higher.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Is that total emissions or human emissions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Is that total emissions or human emissions. I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm talking about antropogenic GHG emissions. There's a natural carbon cycle but left alone it stays in balance, whereas anthropogenic emissions raise concentrations of atmospheric GHGs which in turn causes climate change, ocean acidification, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There's a natural carbon cycle but left alone it stays in balance what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
I know what the carbon cycle is, but you're a moron if you think that's currently 'balanced' in any fashion absent anthropogenic emissions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I know what the carbon cycle is, but you're a moron if you think that's currently 'balanced' in any fashion absent anthropogenic emissions. Again, I'm having a whole lot of trouble understanding what you mean. Can you put in some more detail? Over very long time scales, sure, it's not balanced, and GHG levels fluctuate. But the overwhelming bulk of the rise in atmospheric GHG levels right now is being driven by anthropogenic emissions, not natural ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
what about retirees driving around in campervans / suvs towing caravans? how much does that contribute?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...es-of-progress/ I'd have to quote the whole drat article, too much good stuff. Tl;dr: We're fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:you're a moron Thug Lessons posted:Again, I'm having a whole lot of trouble understanding what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Rime posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...es-of-progress/ yessss
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 16:42
|
|