Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
For fun, here's some old info that I stumbled upon this weekend regarding climate change:
White House Memo 17 September 1969
President's Science Advisory Committee report, 1965

The first led me to the second, which has a bunch of neat info like projecting 25% increase in CO2 levels by 2000 (from 1950 baseline) and a corresponding increase of 0.6°C to 4.0°C at the surface... actual increase was a bit over 32% and right at 0.6°C.

Nixon hosed us again. Well, him and LBJ.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Nov 8, 2015

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
That Bloomberg article (where those graphics came from) owns.

If for some reason you want to challenge shitheads who still call this a scam or some poo poo, point out some historic things, such as:
1884 - "carbonic acid" (aka CO2) recognized as a greenhouse gas (though that specific term had yet to be fleshed out).
1909 - greenhouse gas originates
1950 - CO2 levels measured
1965 - President Lyndon B. Johnson says this to Congress:

quote:

This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
It's buried in the address, but it's there. That resulted in this:
1965 - President's Science Advisory Committee report:

quote:

Based on projected world energy requirements, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (1956) has estimated an amount of fossil fuel combustion by the year 2000 that with our assumed partitions would give about a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, compared to the amount present during the the 19th Century.
Tables in this report refer to 1950 by the start date and 1999 (instead of 2000) projected as gaining 27.77% CO2 in the atmosphere (lowest case projection), extrapolating to 355ppm by 1999.

As nobody did a loving thing since then, the actual recorded concentration for 1999 was a bit over 368ppm.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Nov 13, 2015

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
I figure we deserve something to be thankful for...

quote:

If you thought last month seemed unusually hot for October, you weren’t imagining things. Globally, it was the hottest October on record, according to information released on Nov. 18 by NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It was also the greatest above-average departure from the average for any month.

Feel like you’ve read this before? You might be thinking of a similar article we ran last month—about September being the hottest September since NOAA began collecting records in 1880. In fact, reports NOAA, every month this year other than January and April has been the hottest on record.

The October average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.98°C (1.76°F) above the 20th-century average, according to the agency. This wasn’t only the hottest October on average; it was the highest departure from the average for any month since 1880—that’s 1,630 months of record-keeping. The next highest departure from the average was last month’s. Cumulatively, the year so far has been 0.12°C (0.22°F) hotter than any other on record.

Since not all areas of the planet are equally warm, NOAA also released a map of temperature variations broken down by region, for the period of January to October.
...but this ain't it.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
That depends on a few things, too. Honda calculated that the non-driving cost of a vehicle in CO2 was 22% of what it emitted over a lifetime of 100,000 miles.

That would be a combined production, disposal, transportation, resource extraction, etc. That came out to roughly 2.22 tons of CO2. Suppose someone only drives a lovely MPG car about 5000mi/yr and suddenly upgrading to a great MPG car doesn't seem like a great option from a 'green' standpoint.

However, it might be far more. There's a (perhaps high-end) estimate of 35 CO2-equivalent tons for a new Land Rover.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 2, 2015

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
In other news, the Arctic is going to go above freezing for awhile... in winter:

quote:

Warm Arctic Storm To Hurl Hurricane Force Winds at UK and Iceland, Push Temps to 72+ Degrees (F) Above Normal at North Pole

We’ve probably never seen weather like what’s being predicted for a vast region stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pole and on into the broader Arctic this coming week. But it’s all in the forecast — an Icelandic low that’s stronger than most hurricanes featuring a wind field stretching over hundreds and hundreds of miles. One that taps warm tropical air and hurls it all the way to the North Pole and beyond during Winter time. And it all just reeks of a human-forced warming of the Earth’s climate…
...
By early Wednesday, temperatures at the North Pole are expected to exceed 1 degree Celsius readings. Such temperatures are in the range of more than 40 degrees Celsius (72 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.
...
The Arctic region as a whole is expected to experience a [frankly quite insane] temperature anomaly in the range of 4 degrees Celsius above average by January 3rd of 2016. Note the broad regions over Northern Canada, Siberia, and the Arctic Ocean that are predicted to experience temperatures in the range of 20 degrees Celsius above the already hotter than normal 1979 to 2000 baseline readings. For some areas — particularly in Northern Canada — this will mean near or even above freezing temperatures for tundra and permafrost zones in the depths of Winter. A set of conditions that has serious implications for permafrost thaw and related carbon store feedbacks.
Fun stuff!

This weekend was pretty crazy, but holy poo poo. Also, the cold air has to go somewhere... the U.S. gets some of it!

Take a look at stuff right now.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Dec 29, 2015

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
As expected...

...for a brief time period, anyway.

It's loving Winter. It is pitch dark there, now.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
The thing is that we could replace a lot of modern conveniences with alternative ones that work just as well - or better.

One example - solar heaters. A poo poo but working version can be built from painted aluminum cans, glass, and a box. They work pretty well in a good chunk of the country, providing heat during the day. Problem is that it's an ugly black box on the side of your house, so gently caress that because of social reasons.

Our houses suck rear end at retaining heat and cool air, which could be fixed by building them out of things that don't suck. Again, social reasons frequently prevent this. They could even be made virtually weather-proof, but screw it, because of appearances.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Verge posted:

Show me this weather-proof house.

Start reading

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
How much space do you reckon an attic encompasses in a 'normal' house? What about wall thickness or other dead space areas?

They started building stemwalls before 2000 as a variation on the pure dome, which accommodate people a bit better - or at least make the structure look more like a 'normal' house.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Verge posted:

I don't consider the attic in a conventional home as wasted space because it does not extend outward into our land-space but I'd guess...1/4? I mean, all I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit to extending the structure outward. poo poo, a dome roof makes engineering sense, no question, and a dome house if you really need to withstand nature's wrath but outside those factors, I don't see a benefit outside of having wasted horizontal space, unless you're making the claim that they can make the walls significantly thinner. This is all, of course, secondary to the difficulty in the fabrication process (steel beams that don't go straight are a oval office!)
Eaves overhang a bit, but fair enough. They've been building a bunch of schools in Oklahoma using monolithic domes, and I believe all of them use stemwalls to raise the dome up from the ground a ways. Here are a few house examples. Even without straight stemwalls, they can curve the dome differently.

This house looks pretty loving rad, using two domes that blend in tremendously well. I think it might be more susceptible to weather, though.

Fabrication is a non-issue. They use rebar - either steel or basalt, not beams.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

lapse posted:

New GISS data. As you can see, global warming stopped in 1998




That +1.5°C target out of Paris sure ain't looking good.
Also, December GLOBAL 2015 anomaly:
Land +3.40°F 1st Warmest
Ocean +1.49°F 1st Warmest
Land+Ocean +2.00°F 1st Warmest

Whee...

p.s. in light of this result, rename thread to "tl;dr we're all hosed" like the (accurate) old thread title.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 21, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
December 2015:

quote:

The December 2015 globally-averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces was 1.11°C (2.00°F) above the 20th century average of 12.2°C (54.0°F), the highest for any month since records began in 1880, surpassing the previous all-time record set two months ago in October by 0.12°C (0.21°F). This is the first time the global monthly departure from average has surpassed 1°C and is the largest margin by which an all-time monthly temperature record has been broken. Incredibly, the December 2015 temperature also surpasses the December record temperature set last year by 0.29°C (0.52°F), the largest margin by which a monthly temperature record has been broken for its respective month.
That's only because the ocean was not as hot:

quote:

Separately, the global land surface temperature was 1.89°C (3.40°F) above average, the highest on record for December, surpassing the previous record set in 2006 by 0.48°C (0.86°F).
...
For the oceans, the globally-averaged temperature anomaly of +0.83°C (+1.49°F) was the highest on record for December, surpassing the previous record set in 2009 by 0.19°C (0.34°F).
...
Parts of the northwestern Pacific, the North Atlantic south of Greenland, and regions in the southern oceans near Antarctica were were cooler or much cooler than average, with no areas of the global oceans record cold.
Globally:

quote:

Australia ended 2015 on a warm note, with its sixth highest December temperature in the country's 106-year period of record, at 1.04°C (1.87°F) higher than the 1961–1990 national average.
The average temperature for Norway during December 2015 was 4.4°C (7.9°F) higher than the 1961–1990 average, marking the seventh warmest December since national records began in 1900.
Tropical air masses brought the United Kingdom its warmest December since records began in 1910, at 4.1°C (7.4°F) above the 1981–2010 national average and surpassing the previous record by a full 1.0°C (1.8°F).
France also observed its warmest December since its national records began in 1900, with a temperature almost 4°C (7°F) above the 1981–2010 average, easily surpassing the previous records of 1934 and 2000.
With records dating to 1767, Austria reported its fourth warmest December, at 2.8°C (5.0°F) above the 1981–2010 average.
With a temperature 2.0°C (3.6°F) higher than the 1981–2010 average, Spain reported its second warmest December, behind only 1989, since national records began in 1961.
With every province record warm, Germany as a whole observed its warmest December since national records began in 1881, with a temperature 5.2°C (9.4°F) higher than the 1981–2010 average.
The Netherlands also reported its warmest December in its 115-year period of record. The average monthly temperature of 9.9°C (49.1°F) was almost as high as the average temperatures in October and November 2015 (both 9.9°C / 49.8°F).
Russia was extremely warm in December. During the first 10 days of the month, temperatures were 12°–16°C (22°–29°F) above average.
With 29 eastern states reporting record high temperatures for December, the continental U.S. as a whole was also record warm for the month, with a December temperature 3.3°C (6.0°F) above the 20th century average.
To the north, Ontario, Canada, was also record warm across the entire province for December, with temperatures 5°–10°C (9°–18°F) above the 1981–2010 average.
Let's celebrate the good loving times! :smithicide:

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Annual Report 2015:

quote:

The State of the Climate November 2015 report noted that in order for 2015 to not become the warmest year in the 136-year period of record, the December global temperature would have to be at least 0.81°C (1.46°F) below the 20th century average—or 0.24°C (0.43°F) colder than the current record low December temperature of 1916. In fact, December 2015 was the warmest month of any month in the period of record, at 1.11°C (2.00°F) higher than the monthly average, breaking the previous all-time record set just two months ago in October 2015 by 0.12°C (0.21°F).
:stare:

quote:

With the contribution of such record warmth at year's end and with 10 months of the year record warm for their respective months, including the last 8 (January was second warmest for January and April was third warmest), the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), beating the previous record warmth of 2014 by 0.16°C (0.29°F).
:stonklol:

Just to remind everyone how hosed we are:

quote:

The warmth was due to the near-record strong El Niño that developed during the Northern Hemisphere spring in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean and to large regions of record warm and much warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in parts of every major ocean basin.
At this point I begin to wonder if there's even a point in saving for retirement.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Sure... if U.S. dollars have a value in the future hellscape.

I'm not convinced that they will.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Good news!

Things are looking up:

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Oh, Australia...

quote:

As many as 110 out of 140 positions at the atmosphere and oceans division at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) will be cut, Larry Marshall, the agency’s chief executive, told staff Friday. Another 120 positions will be cut from the land and water program. Across the agency, 350 climate staff will be moved into new roles unrelated to their specialty.
...
Marshall, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, became CSIRO’s CEO in Jan. 2015 and immediately announced that CSIRO would focus on innovation over basic science. Marshall and CSIRO representatives did not respond to ClimateWire’s request for comment by deadline.

When Malcolm Turnbull became Australia’s prime minister in September last year, replacing a pro-energy predecessor, environmentalists rejoiced. But Turnbull’s government has also emphasized science that can be easily commercialized, according to media reports.
...
On Feb. 3, Marshall wrote in a memo that CSIRO would henceforth focus on commercially viable projects. The next day, during a staff meeting, he said all climate change programs would be cut. Staff would be transferred into other programs, so there would not be job losses, he said.

Marshall wrote in the memo that climate change is now settled science, and basic research is no longer needed.

“The question has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it, and how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with,” he wrote.

CSIRO would now focus on a path where “climate and industry can be partners, now we must walk that path to prove our science.”
gently caress everything.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Do you know what September 1979 and January 2016 have in common?

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
The months long uncontrollable methane release in California probably didn't help matters.

At least they plugged it this past month, finally. Alas, it is inconsequential... its total output was something like 1/4th of what California alone spews.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
If all the smarter people don't have kids (presumably dumb people are going to continue doing so), it's going to be loving Idiocracy out in the future.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Weather continues to troll Oklahoma.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Things are looking up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Xc3LtZRWo

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Perhaps similar to how ice can trap CO2 bubbles given the right conditions?

Anyway, I want to remind folks of something kind of important:
Photosynthesis doesn't make oxygen out of carbon dioxide.

Instead, the emitted oxygen (and plants don't always emit it) comes from the water that is also used during photosynthesis.

The oxygen molecules of carbon dioxide make up the sugars that plants produce.

That is why you see this:

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jul 22, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

TildeATH posted:

What horrible doom does this graph mean? I don't know anything about O2 concentration.
Just the usual eventually-humanity-will-die trend. Of course, that might be a lot faster if we manage to kill off phytoplankton.
However, the depletion of oxygen is happening faster than CO2 is rising. Never mind on this one for now, finding conflicting info.

Placid Marmot posted:

That's pretty pedantic (N.B. I am never pedantic) and NOT important.
For every CO2 that enters the reaction, one O2 is emitted - it makes no difference (outside of determining isotope ratios) whether the oxygen atoms come from the H2O or the CO2.
Your graphs, as your link states, show a downward trend due to fossil carbon being combined with atmospheric oxygen faster than photosynthesis can convert the CO2 back to O2.

Uhh... no? This is why it's important - because you just repeated the wrong thing:
Photosynthesis does not change CO2 into O2.

This is what produces oxygen during photosynthesis:
2H2O → 4 electrons + 4 H protons + O2
CO2 + 4 electrons + 4 H protons → CH2O + H2O

There are other processes (Calvin cycle) that eventually creates phosphate or sugars. The important takeaway is that more/faster-growing plants are not going to pump out more oxygen as a result of an increase in CO2.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jul 23, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Placid Marmot posted:

I understand that, chemically, the O2 comes from H2O, as I acknowledged in my response (though my last line was self-contradictory), but I had not appreciated that this mechanism may be a significant cause of ocean deoxygenation, which I believed to be caused by eutrophication-like phenomena.

Here are some fun things to think about when one looks at how O2 is released and how CO2 is captured as outlined above:
-Plants get more water-efficient as temperatureCO2 rises.
-Phosphorus depletion on land
-Phosphorus accumulation in water (as you hint at here)

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jul 23, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Whoops:

quote:

New research led by NASA scientists reveals that almost one-fifth of the global warming that has occurred in the past 150 years has been missed by historical records due to quirks in how global temperatures were recorded. The study explains why projections of future climate based solely on historical records estimate lower rates of warming than predictions from climate models.

A lack of Arctic measurements and the attempts to get them seems to be to blame for this:

quote:

The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of Earth, but there are fewer historic temperature readings from there than from lower latitudes because it is so inaccessible. A data set with fewer Arctic temperature measurements naturally shows less warming than a climate model that fully represents the Arctic.

Because it isn’t possible to add more measurements from the past, the researchers instead set up the climate models to mimic the limited coverage in the historical records.

The new study also accounted for two other issues. First, the historical data mix air and water temperatures, whereas model results refer to air temperatures only. This quirk also skews the historical record toward the cool side, because water warms less than air. The final issue is that there was considerably more Arctic sea ice when temperature records began in the 1860s, and early observers recorded air temperatures over nearby land areas for the sea-ice-covered regions. As the ice melted, later observers switched to water temperatures instead. That also pushed down the reported temperature change.

They didn't think these quirks would add up to a big difference, but:

quote:

These quirks hide around 19 percent of global air-temperature warming since the 1860s. That’s enough that calculations generated from historical records alone were cooler than about 90 percent of the results from the climate models that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses for its authoritative assessment reports. In the apples-to-apples comparison, the historical temperature calculation was close to the middle of the range of calculations from the IPCC’s suite of models.
...good news?

quote:

Any research that compares modeled and observed long-term temperature records could suffer from the same problems, Richardson said. “Researchers should be clear about how they use temperature records, to make sure that comparisons are fair. It had seemed like real-world data hinted that future global warming would be a bit less than models said. This mostly disappears in a fair comparison.”
:suicide:

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Larson C deathwatch.

quote:

The crack in Larsen C grew around 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) in length between 2011 and 2015. And as it grew, also became wider — by 2015, yawning some 200 meters in length. Since then, growth has only continued — and now, a team of researchers monitoring Larsen C say that with the intense winter polar night over Antarctica coming to an end, they’ve been able to catch of glimpse of what happened to the crack during the time when it could not be observed by satellite.

The result was astonishing.

The rift had grown another 22 kilometers (13.67 miles) since it was last observed in March 2016, and has widened to about 350 meters, report researchers from Project MIDAS, a British Antarctic Survey funded collaboration of researchers from Swansea and Aberystwyth Universities in Wales and other institutions. The full length of the rift is now 130 km, or over 80 miles.
:v: but ice in Antarctica is increasing!

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Oh, I forgot, the Crystal Serenity is sailing the Northwest Passage right now. This is a 820ft long cruise ship with a 25ft draft.

Here's their current progress - Ulukhaktok, on the west coast of Victoria Island as of this post. They haven't shown much in the way of sea ice along the way.

They plan to arrive in New York City by September 12th and left Seward, Alaska on August 16th, so they're a good ways along already. Looks like the south route is pretty clear this year, too.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Aug 28, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
The Crystal Serenity is basically free and clear at this point, short of running into an iceberg between Baffin Bay and the NYC.

There were some serious storms in August that greatly fractured arctic sea ice, which leads to the potential that literally the north pole might be open water. Somewhat sadly, we can't see it because NOAA didn't have funding to setup a webcam.

This isn't reflected on NSIDC for whatever reason, I guess they might still count those scattered bits of ice as enough.

However, since storms scattered ice around quite a lot, it seems likely that large portions of the fractured sea ice could melt before the end of the season in the next few weeks of the melt season.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Sep 2, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
The Crystal Serenity is now south of Greenland, having completed a transit of the Northwest Passage. This voyage had escort(s), but to my knowledge didn't need any icebreaker work to transit.

The previously mentioned storms in August that greatly fractured arctic sea ice had predictably led to a rapid melt, but there have been some ice gains elsewhere.

NSIDC:

quote:

With about two weeks of seasonal melt yet to go, it is unlikely that a new record low will be reached. However, since August 26, total sea ice extent is already lower than at the same time in 2007 and is currently tracking as the second lowest daily extent on record. In addition, during the first five days of September the ice cover has retreated an additional 288,000 square kilometers (111,000 square miles) as the tongue of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea has started to disintegrate.
I think I figured out the issue with NSIDC - they're showing a 'monthly' ice extent in those images rather than daily, which looks like this (from seaice.de):

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
La Niña appears dead this winter - neutral winter is going to suck for a lot of places that had hopes for precipitation.

Also I guess the blob is back:
https://twitter.com/EricBlake12/status/775031461967650816
Which is um... interesting to say the least.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Sep 12, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
On perhaps a good note, it appears that the melt season might well have ended in the arctic.

Sea ice seems to be forming more than it's melting, but a lot of multiyear ice looks to have melted or could still melt due to its location.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

NewForumSoftware posted:

Just because you're incapable of understanding that there is nothing we can do at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM0uZ9mfOUI

It occurs to me that this would be a fabulous segment to interleave footage of the real life effects (famine, refugee migrations, etc), but I haven't the time or skills necessary.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Well, if someone could figure out how to refine aluminum without taking a shitton of energy, that could drop it from being 5% or so of the entire U.S. electrical consumption.

Little things like that would help.

So far, no dice, though.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Uncle Jam posted:

The temperature of the great lakes is actually increasing in November.


Its gonna snow a lot.

Remember, more snow means it's secretly cooling.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Well, the literal and absolute worst-case scenario projected an ice-free Arctic at the end of the summer melt season by 2016.

Guess that was a year or two ahead. Take that you SCIENTISTS! You were wrong again!

e: From this cool place a few days ago:

quote:

We are some 500k km2+ below the record low and over 1mln km2 below 2007 for Nov 9.
Fun times ahead:

quote:

The chart below shows the mean temperature anomaly for these 19 stations in each October since 1971. Remarkably, the 19-station mean temperature in October 2016 was 5.6°C above the 1981-2010 normal and more than 2°C above the 2012 record. October 2016 was the second most anomalous calendar month in the data since 1971 - only January 2016 was warmer relative to normal, at +6.5°C.
:suicide:

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Nov 14, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
It's likely much too late for preventive measures, really.

The only question has been how long before things tip... some thought it was going to take a lot longer to reach such a point; could be that we passed it already.

I'm sure President Trump will save us.

Continued:

quote:

Looking at recent daily temperature anomalies for the same 19 stations, it is amazing to see that the warmth has become even more pronounced since the end of October; the 19-station mean anomaly reached +9.6°C last Thursday (November 3), and on Friday the coolest of the stations was 5.4°C warmer than normal. In terms of standard deviations, Thursday's mean anomaly was the highest of any day from 1971-present.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Nov 14, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
That and Republicans' successful delay of the SCOTUS nomination gives it to ... Donald Trump to decide.

Great work.

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
So the North Pole might have been at or above freezing today.

You know, just to contribute to all of the good news.

Central Oklahoma hasn't even had a loving freeze yet. It's halfway through NOVEMBER, and the closest possibility until December ?? is the end of this week. Usually it's in mid-late October.

e: I know I know, weather and all - and Oklahoma is especially schizophrenic - but it was in the 80s today. Aren't there wildfires and poo poo out East?

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 16, 2016

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Yeah. It's odd that it has been more mild overall here... less cold and hot weather.

yellowyams posted:

Couldn't anyone make a big news story out of this? I haven't seen any of the climate change groups making much of an effort to spread info on what's going on with the Arctic right now. The only reason I even know is because of this thread.
Some news sources tried last year, when during the depths of winter this happened, which was even more remarkable.

I made note of it here.

It seemed to have been met with a collective meh overall.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Evil_Greven
Feb 20, 2007

Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?
Oh yeah, it's been awhile since one of these was posted:
https://twitter.com/ahaveland/status/798184605748600834
e: Note that this doesn't have November 2016, which is the current concern; 2016 is below all previous November measurements.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Nov 16, 2016

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply