|
How's the ice looking? Some of the sea ice extent data I've seen looked good, but other areas look terrible (Bering Sea).
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
Antarctic is melting from the bottom so it doesn't show in ice extent graphs, the Arctic has all but lost multi-year ice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Anyone mentioned that the entire gulf of Oman has gone anoxic?quote:The new research has confirmed that the largest OMZ in the world is located in the Gulf of Oman – which is actually a strait, bordered by Iran, Pakistan, Oman, and the UAE – encompassing almost the entire 165,000 square kilometres (63,700 square miles) that make up the ocean region. I'm sure this is indicative of absolutely nothing and the ramifications of it will be virtually nothing, though. For sure. 100%.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
call to action posted:How's the ice looking? Some of the sea ice extent data I've seen looked good, but other areas look terrible (Bering Sea). I’m not sure how something can look good when it’s in a downward trend and nothing of significance has been done to slow the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere. It’s like that Simpson’s episode with a mock USA Today paper bragging that student’s performance in school is decreasing at a slower rate than it was in previous years.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
THE BEATWEAVER posted:Anyone mentioned that the entire gulf of Oman has gone anoxic? quote:Dead zones, or Oxygen Minimum Zones (OMZs), are areas largely devoid of oxygen, and in the ocean, they are naturally occurring between 200 and 800 meters deep. See? Naturally occurring. Didn’t read further, forgot everything before, stuck my head in the sand and will use this quote out of context constantly to dismiss the rest of the information.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:See? Naturally occurring. Didn’t read further, forgot everything before, stuck my head in the sand and will use this quote out of context constantly to dismiss the rest of the information. With regards to ocean anoxia in the Oman sea... Is there anything that can be done? Or is it "shits hosed, try not to make it any worse"?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
yea stop pumping & burning oil
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
Since the largest contributor to OMZ's forming is from fertilizer and sewage draining into the sea, problems about as easy to solve as safe nuclear waste disposal, the best solution would be to kill around five billion humans with a tailored bioweapon. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
If you're not volunteering to be one of the slain, perhaps you should rethink your metric for "best". If you are volunteering, there's a way for you to both reduce your emissions earlier than that and to lower the number of people that need to be killed by this hypothetical bioweapon. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 15:27 on May 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:If you're not volunteering to be one of the slain, perhaps you should rethink your metric for "best".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
My tire body armor is ready someone just needs to hit the switch
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:If you're not volunteering to be one of the slain, perhaps you should rethink your metric for "best". I'd volunteer, wouldn't you? Better slain than starved to death.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
I'd volunteer if it were like a Kickstarter thing where nobody had to die unless we met the signup goal
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Also, don't put words in his mouth. He said "around 5 billion", not exactly 5 billion. For all we know it might only require killing 2 billion obese people.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Start with all puppies and all kittens, add the fatties, halfway there. Easy sell.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Yet another fruitless debate with a "renewable energy won't work" idiot on FB. Me: Meanwhile China added the equivalent power of 10 nuclear plants in solar projects in the first 3 months of this year. How long will it take to get any nuke plant operating in the USA. Also please don’t Store waste from the San Onofre nuke plant on our beaches. Thank you. Them: Nope, it was the equivalent of 1/6 of 1o nuclear plants, because Chines solar produces 1/6 as much energy as nuclear. But details. Me: this is new solar vs what they would get with 10 reactors. Not a compare of existing sources. But keep on socializing the costs and privatizing the profits from nuke power. I’m doing my part by paying high rates after the utility broke the San Onofre plant. Go ahead. Blame the hippies. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/24/china-installs-nearly-10-gigawatts-of-solar-in-first-quarter-up-22/ Them: 10 GW solar at maximum power produces the same as 9 nuclear reactors at maximum power. But nuclear capacity factor is over 90%, and Chinese capacity factor is around 15%. You do know that high level peer review says that we can't decarbonize without nuclear, or gas or bioenenergy with carbon capture and storage? But details. Me: I’m a physicist. The lit I’ve seen you’ve alluded To begins with implicit bias. One issue I have with these studies is the omission of externalized costs that the public ends up bearing.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:If you're not volunteering to be one of the slain, perhaps you should rethink your metric for "best". Cingulate posted:I wager BEATWEAVER was not in fact seriously advocating the murder of 5 billion people. Car Hater posted:I'd volunteer, wouldn't you? Better slain than starved to death. Is this the "Thanos was right" thread or something?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is this the "Thanos was right" thread or something? Not yet but it could be.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
I have to admit that changing Thanos' comic book motivation from wanting to impress Death by killing half the universe to making the remaining life more sustainable made him a lot more relate-able.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
davebo posted:I have to admit that changing Thanos' comic book motivation from wanting to impress Death by killing half the universe to making the remaining life more sustainable made him a lot more relate-able.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Nah, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280ppm, we're at 409 right now. The IPCC's "best guess" at the equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is the rise in temperature based upon a doubling of CO2, is that temperatures would increase by 1.5C-4.5C (and there's been papers in the few years since AR5 which have suggested the higher bounds of that range are very unlikely). As you can see from the ppm incraese, we're not even close to a doubling yet. So in the fantasy scenario where all emissions stopped right now, temperature would continue to rise very minimally and very slowly over the next few hundred years, but a "doomsday" would be extremely unlikely. You're aware that this is in spite of our dimming pollutants, yes? You're aware that since the 1960s, temperatures recorded by radiosonde have risen by over 0.85°C? Look at the decadal means... 1960s mean: -0.118 1970s mean: -0.13 1980s mean: 0.06 1990s mean: 0.185 2000s mean: 0.352 2010s mean: 0.739 (through 2016) Before you say that's bullshit, let me just remind you of something: the graph you normally will see is NOAA Land and Ocean Anomaly. Unsurprisingly, water ain't warming quite as fast as the atmosphere and so it's pulling the curve down. Take a gander at playing with the plot (Land vs. Ocean vs. Land and Ocean). So when I say yeah, we're over a degree and approached two degrees in 2016, I ain't making poo poo up like some might want to believe. If you take out our loving dimming, we're probably over +2°C preindustrial already over land:. Some might want to be pedantic and incorporate SST in sounding such an alarm, but they drat well better realize we ain't cooling down anytime soon. SST is going to catch up over time and we don't live in the ocean - never mind the reliability in older measurements of SST. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 05:47 on May 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
call to action posted:How's the ice looking? Some of the sea ice extent data I've seen looked good, but other areas look terrible (Bering Sea). Global sea ice extent is at 2016/2017 levels again, well outside 2 std. dev. Arctic sea ice extent was slightly record low up until April 20th, then melting stalled somewhat so that 2016 overtook it for lowest, but 2006's drop means 2018 is 3rd lowest for May 2nd. 2017 is very close behind 2016/2018 and now 2006.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Yet another fruitless debate with a "renewable energy won't work" idiot on FB. Capacity factor actually does matter, a lot. If our electrical grid over large regions flips from producing 10% to 100% power output depending on the weather, that fucks a lot of poo poo up unless we've got robust large-scale energy storage (which doesn't exist). Meaning we need stable power generation to even out the spikes and valleys in solar generation - like nuclear, or gas, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Sure, costs do get externalized (including the environmental impact of the lovely dirty manufacturing process and dirtier recycling/junking processes associated with solar), but he's not wrong. 10 GW of solar means a lot less overall energy output than 10 GW of nuclear. Nationalize the nuclear industry, standardize on some new safe designs, and let's start building those fuckers en masse. And finding places to bury nuclear fuel that's still 90%+ usable material wouldn't be such a massive clusterfuck if breeder reactors were allowed again.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Yet another fruitless debate with a "renewable energy won't work" idiot on FB. Fly Molo posted:Nationalize the nuclear industry, standardize on some new safe designs, and let's start building those fuckers en masse. And finding places to bury nuclear fuel that's still 90%+ usable material wouldn't be such a massive clusterfuck if breeder reactors were allowed again. The renewable vs nuclear debate is such a false dichotomy, just do something. People concerned with global warming should support either option, and it's a mistake to support decarbonization via renewable energy while opposing new nuclear capacity. It is a little awkward that the nuclear and coal industries seems to co-lobbying, but that's probably all the more reason to nationalize it. An issue going all in on a nationalized nuclear industry providing baseline power, aside from being a pipe-dream in the current political environment, is that it could be a relatively expensive mistake if cheaper baseline renewable power becomes feasible with large scale storage or a continental HVDC grid in the near future. I think that's an acceptable risk. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 14:37 on May 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:While we should certainly be looking at climate impacts beyond 2100, wrapping that in an apocalyptic and hopeless narrative negates any value that might come from such an investigation. You're right to point out that Hillman is not a climate scientist, but this reflects in far more than a "one-line hyperbolic statement". The article is riddled with inaccuracies and exaggerations stemming from a lack of engagement with the literature. The "end of life" tweets have nothing to do with a conversation about civilization. Aggravation of violence is not predicated by full biosphere collapse. AR5 authors on conflict aggravation sing a different song. A psychopath deflects a discussion about human concerns with the answer "Not all life will be destroyed." Like fishmech, you're clearly very well technically read. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:38 on May 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Can't draw conclusions for poo poo though 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:You're aware that we've already seen an increase in global mean temperature of over 1°C and not even a 50% increase in CO2 ppm, right? You're painting a little too simplistic of a picture....can't just subtract current temperature from long ago temperature and divide by carbon changes to ascertain climate sensitivity, so the snippet "we've already seen an increase in global mean temperature of over 1°C and not even a 50% increase in CO2 ppm" is you I guess trying to mislead people. The assumption there is that co2 is the only factor in the change, whereas (as just one immediate problem with your method) natural variability is probably dominating the pre-1940s temperature changes. Secondly, the logarithmic relationship between co2 ppm and temperature increase means that the temperature increase will be "frontloaded" within the doubling. Which I guess brings up an ancillary point that predictions, for instance, of temperature in the year 2100 is based upon accelerating carbon usage by humans. And yet, we're rapidly developing technology that moves us away from a carbon economy, and that in spite of the huge economic expansion of the past few years, we haven't seen much annual co2 ppm acceleration as economies have been slowly decarbonized. As just one point of contention with the models, I'm fairly skeptical of humanity reaching much higher than say 600 ppm. Things like batteries/electric cars and solar panels are becoming better and cheaper very rapidly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The renewable vs nuclear debate is such a false dichotomy, just do something. People concerned with global warming should support either option, and it's a mistake to support decarbonization via renewable energy while opposing new nuclear capacity. It is a little awkward that the nuclear and coal industries seems to co-lobbying, but that's probably all the more reason to nationalize it. An issue going all in on a nationalized nuclear industry providing baseline power, aside from being a pipe-dream in the current political environment, is that it could be a relatively expensive mistake if cheaper baseline renewable power becomes feasible with large scale storage or a continental HVDC grid in the near future. I think that's an acceptable risk. No nuke plants should be taken offline (other than serious safety issues) until the last coal and gas plant is decommissioned. My point on renewables+storage is that if you consider the externalized costs the public ends up paying, they are cost-effective.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Arkane posted:
This is factually incorrect excepting for rcp 8.5.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
I learned about HVDC in this thread and it sounds like such a good idea, of course we can't have it
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This is factually incorrect excepting for rcp 8.5. Yes, sorry, model predictions of large temperature increases are premised upon accelerating carbon emissions. RCP 8.5 assumes we make close to 0 technological progress and carbon emissions accelerate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
2C is a large temperature increase that severely and negatively alters geopolitical status quo.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You're painting a little too simplistic of a picture....can't just subtract current temperature from long ago temperature and divide by carbon changes to ascertain climate sensitivity, so the snippet "we've already seen an increase in global mean temperature of over 1°C and not even a 50% increase in CO2 ppm" is you I guess trying to mislead people. The assumption there is that co2 is the only factor in the change, whereas (as just one immediate problem with your method) natural variability is probably dominating the pre-1940s temperature changes. Secondly, the logarithmic relationship between co2 ppm and temperature increase means that the temperature increase will be "frontloaded" within the doubling. How the hell is that a simplistic picture? That you don't like the facts does not make them simplistic. When we say things are +2°C it ain't +2°C above 1950 but +2°C above pre-industrial average. You're saying that doesn't even loving matter because of ~natural variation~ while I'm giving you two data points to consider (CO2 ppm isn't even up +50% and GMT is already up over +1°C on NOAA's Land and Ocean Anomaly record) for your delusion that warming will be on the low end of +1.5-4.5°C for a doubling of CO2 (580ppm). You're well aware that temperatures have yet to catch up to our emissions, yet accuse me of being misleading while harping on logarithmic growth. What, pray tell, is the 280ppm CO2 temperature of the Earth so that you may counter my point beyond unfounded insinuations and wishful thinking?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Arkane has been gone for so long that thread newbies don't know to just slap 'em on ignore and call it a day. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
How can I profit from climate change? For fun I looked at some dirt cheap property in a northern Canadian port town that will have some good access to international trade once the arctic ice is gone. It also looks like it will be spared some of the more horrific effects of a warming world. Plus, those environmental migrants will hafta relocate somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:How can I profit from climate change? For fun I looked at some dirt cheap property in a northern Canadian port town that will have some good access to international trade once the arctic ice is gone. It also looks like it will be spared some of the more horrific effects of a warming world. Plus, those environmental migrants will hafta relocate somewhere. Beware the North Atlantic will get loving cold when the thermohaline circulation shuts down.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Beware the North Atlantic will get loving cold when the thermohaline circulation shuts down. It's on the Pacific coast so all good I think
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
THE BEATWEAVER posted:Arkane has been gone for so long that thread newbies don't know to just slap 'em on ignore and call it a day. I'll engage even with Arkane and did in the old thread, too. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 01:21 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:How can I profit from climate change? For fun I looked at some dirt cheap property in a northern Canadian port town that will have some good access to international trade once the arctic ice is gone. It also looks like it will be spared some of the more horrific effects of a warming world. Plus, those environmental migrants will hafta relocate somewhere. This is exactly the right kind of thinking, forget mitigation. We should brainstorm. Real estate: -non-Montreal Quebec is a good bet, endless fresh-water and hydro power. Montreal itself is doomed to wash away like other low-elevation cities -the Great Lakes region is OK, fresh water + infrastructure + scraps of farm-land not yet developed under a McMansion Personal products: -passive radiative cooling systems -discount CO2 scrubbers: room and apartment sized For the inevitable geo-engineering/negative emissions effort: -sulfide gas, algae bioreactor manufacturer investor -build a system to glitter-bomb the sun, sell to the Saudis Luxury product idea: highly automated hydroponic food production systems installed in rich people bolt-holes in anticipation of a post-climate apocalypse breakdown in the global food supply. Does not need to actually work well, just enough to convince Uber investors. -bad news: Elon Musk is already on top of it -good news: Elon Musk is an idiot and will fail, leaving the market open
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
I've always figured that Alaska will come out in a pretty OK spot. Yeah, things are going to get really hosed up really quick with the accelerated rate of change in the Arctic, but once that shakes out it should be in pretty nice climate zone, no?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 05:19
|
|