|
dex_sda posted:Arctic is still melting during freeze season. The global anomaly is deviating from the mean at a rate of 0.3 sigma a day. source?
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
dex_sda posted:That poster from the arctic forum + some others Thanks, I've been pretty out of the loop on climate change and my blind googling didn't bear fruit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Random driveby questions from someone that has been trying to read climate papers recently (and maybe in a bit over my head): Why isn't ocean acidification stressed near as much as global warming in climate change? It seems like the effects on the ocean are immediate and the similarities to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum are uncanny. The fact that the ocean pH has dropped by .1 since industrialization and is charted to rapidly change should scare a *lot* of people. Even a lot of conservative navelgazers understand what happens when they let pH wander on their pool. I also understand that massive human migrations will at least be inevitable before we can correct our course, but what is the likelihood of some sort of mass extinction and what sort of uncertainties are around it? Like I get that we're emitting about 100 to 10 times as much carbon per year now than as we did in the permian-triassic mass extinction period, but the sustained carbon release there was also over somewhere around 20,000 to 400,000 years. I guess I'm wondering how far off into uncharted territory are we?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I'll admit that I've not researched it as much as I have climate change but I kinda feel like that even if all the shellfish and normal fish die as long as we have plankton around to produce oxygen and evaporation around to give us rain and fresh water we can still eke out a living in whatever theoretical situation it is where arable land still exists but ocean life doesn't anymore. From what i've been reading, the biggest issue seems to be the rate of acidification. If acidification is done at a slow enough rate, things will be able to cycle through enough generations to adapt. However, if it happens rapidly enough, there is no time for natural selection and everything that isn't extremely resilient to pH-drops dies. Outside of this, there are some more fragile groups, like pteropods, that will simply dissolve under increased acidification. Uranium Phoenix posted:Mass extinction is already occurring: Thanks for this reference.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What do fish eat? I don't know, you're using a word that's used to describe at least 5 different classes in the animal kingdom. It's really naive to go "well all fish will die" without some sort of argument about how they won't be able to adapt to pH changes or how immediate food/shelter sources won't be able to adapt to them either. Since that'll need to be done on a fish by fish basis good luck being able to make a blanket statement about all of them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:The point being that while fish don't die from rapid acidification of oceans, the vast ecosystem supporting fish populations and the fish population the fish population supports is absolutely unequivocally and certainly vulnerable to acidification. If you take out a more or less vital part of the ecosystem, say jellyfish or every calcifying species such as zooplankton or invertebrates with an exoskeleton/shell, that ecosystem collapses. I get that ocean that most species of fish can't live in water at 2100-projected pH levels. I also get that tests on things like coccolithophores show that some varieties can adapt to acidification if allowed to breed over increasingly acidic waters over longer durations (like 12 months). Is the same true for fish? What rates of change can they adapt to? Are there some species that are more resilient to changes in pH than others? Dumping a species in 2100-level pH water ignores the 80 years that happens in between. But I do agree that the rate of acidification is terrifying. The faster pH drops, the fewer generations anything will have to adapt.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
If you want to drop population growth rates you don't knock on doors or post on forums telling people to have fewer kids, you go advocate for women's rights to contraception and abortion and make them as available as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm skeptical about the average Westerner feeling climate change in the next couple decades. We're probably talking more stuff like disappearance of cheap fish of certain varieties, or costlier produce etc. Stuff like Rossby wave resonance will lead to more dramatic weather and weather shifts across the US as we've already been seeing, but it's hard to convince people that a statistical ensemble of unusual events is a change. To most people it's just a lot of wildfires / tornadoes / floods / droughts / whatever that year. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Oh hey glad to see we're moving on from paralyzing nihilism to ecoterrorism. Can't wait to see the rise of the Green Mujahideen in earnest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Isn't "virtue signaling" a term most commonly used by the alt right? Every once in a while complete idiots accidentally stumble into something that is relevant to the zeitgeist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
The 2017 SWIPA report is out. It provides an excellent overview of the current arctic regime: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3677458-SNOW-WATER-ICE-AND-PERMAFROST-SUMMARY-FOR-POLICY.html#document/p1
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Gareth Gobulcoque posted:Late 2030's for a September ice free Arctic while the consesus slow transition model, seems extremely optimistic at this point. Since we're now at the point where a big melt within the historical range puts us there already. I agree, my personal belief is that we'll get there around the early 2020s with any bad year before then running the risk of killing Arctic sea ice for good. However, I think a lot of our understanding of the recent changes of the arctic haven't really been synthesized properly into models yet. e.g., Rapid Tropospheric Warming events in the arctic (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073012/abstract), Atlantic water creep deep along Svalbard currents, etc... Regardless, telling policy makers that you can expect the Arctic to be an ice-free, humid environment in less than 15 years is still pretty compelling. No more of this "The biggest threat is a few meters of Sea Level Rise by 2100" crap.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:If everybody switched to electric cars and solar powered homes, what would be the next big obstacles in terms of CO2? Meat consumption? Airplanes. If you take one round-trip a year of any appreciable length whatsoever you already blew your entire carbon budget for the year.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
If Azolla ferns were able to capture enough carbon to cause Antarctic glaciation, then why aren't we just capturing carbon in plants and sinking them to the bottom of the ocean???????
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:You have apt avatar text. Just think, in 30 million years we'll have even *more* fossil fuels at the bottom of the ocean to quibble over!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:This thread is so bad that I can't even tell if this is a joke. you know it'd work, we just need to dump a freshwater lens somewhere out in the atlantic n start growin em. o wait that's what the arctic is doing as it dies lol. it'd be a fun bit of rollin the dice with albedo potential though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Please donate to my kickstarter to dump a shitload of phosphorous near svalbard to create giant loving azolla blooms n sink em to the underworld
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:On the upshot, I didn't know about Azolla until now! An interesting point of that article, quote:Azolla took advantage of the abundant nitrogen and carbon dioxide, two of its favorite foods, and flourished. Large populations formed thick mats that covered the body of the lake. When rainfall increased from the changing climate, flooding provided a thin layer of fresh water for Azolla to creep outward, over parts of the surrounding continents. We're already seeing increased snow cover at middle-high latitudes and we'll soon find out whether it's significant. If the Arctic truly is changing to an Atlantic humid client we'll know by increased precipitation on the surrounding land masses soon. This does create salinity stratification with some areas become much less saline while others become much more saline, and when that happens usually interesting things occur.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
The graph would also probably look more interesting if sulfate emissions were plotted as well, given that they have a net cooling effect. Edit: Here it is: https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=267 Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 08:18 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Better yet when someone posts a graph from 1700 to now, just post one from 1Ma to now with a nice lil pointer of us doin a sick kickflip out of the quaternary at the edge.
Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 09:00 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:It's kind of sad and telling that the best relevant graphic visualization of "the history of temperature" is a goddamned web comic. Less than 1 glaciation cycle is a pretty zoomed in view so idk about that being the best. If you zoom out, once we leave 2C it's pretty clear we're out of anything we've seen in the Eemian or any other Quaternary glaciation cycles. Something interesting is bound to happen sooner or later. 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Alternatively, find a way to kill off 90% of humanity. Every time you want to try the "Lol everyone should just die" answer to global warming remember that womens' rights to bodily autonomy as well as good efforts to make sex education and contraceptives available will drastically lower the human population growth rate! Now instead of being a whiny nihilist you can bring something productive to the table!!
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:This makes no sense. Everything you listed lowers the growth rate, not the overall population. The population will still grow, just at a lower rate. Thanks to the things you listed, the world pop in 2050 will be 9 billion instead of 30 billion, but that is still too much. There is no way to get that number down without oppressive government intervention. "9 billion instead of 30 billion" hmm yes both numbers I've heard thrown around with RCP 8.5 quite a lot :thinking_emoji:
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unfortunately, they don't stop consuming resources while they get old, and the social & technological development that is a prerequisite for universal access to family planning also tends to permit greatly improved lifespans and lower mortality rates. This is a funny quote because a lot of the primary differences between RCP 6 and RCP 8.5 come down to changes in population dynamics. I guess none of that matters when you're just looking for any excuse whatsoever to absolve yourself of personal responsibility though.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Rime posted:Wait, so if civilization collapses such that carbon emissions are significantly halted for a year, the effect would actually be a massive spike in heating? Yes, halting coal production would similarly cause a short-term temperature spike.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
Most of our understanding boils down to "Variance is increasing hella fast." If you think you can glean a concrete conclusion of certain doom out of that, either you're an idiot or you have a lot more computing power than climatologists do.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
I feel like if you want to discuss peer-reviewed literature you should probably just post on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I genuinely don't understand people who have read even a fraction of the links and studies posted in this thread and can pretend like anything we do matters with regards to climate change at all. Does anyone seriously believe that there is any meaningful difference at all between RCP 8.5 and 6.0? Or that there is any chance at all of humanity in general even being able to steer this doomed-rear end ship into a 6.0? Do they think its 1980? What is going on? It's absolute nonsense to pretend like anything anyone in this thread does matters at all with regards to climate change. Sure okay let's say we hit some tipping point where we break the quaternary glaciation cycle. What happens next? Do you know the death toll? Is it everyone? I'm guessing you don't know because while we have useful models (thanks CMIP5) we can't magically peer into the future and see what's going to happen. You can't look at CO2 ppm and act like this is new territory; levels were as high 2000ppm as recently as the Eocene. Aside from some mass extinctions on the sea floor, nothing too exciting really happened (see: Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum). We're also not hitting record territories in temperature, though we are about to leave anything we've seen since the Pleistocene. Things may end up getting really bad, but until the outcomes all point to a guaranteed human extinction event what you do matters. So there is a difference to be made and you can't try to absolve yourself of any responsibility. Also yes there is a difference between RCP 8.5 and RCP 6.0. But climatology research is also moving so quickly that arguing from the IPCC report is becoming rapidly more irrelevant by day.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:It was actually a combination of two papers. Here is a fun followup to that which was recently published: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/14/5336.abstract tl;dr: Slowing jet stream increases vorticity from the coriolis effect which leads to a higher number of "nodes" at the poles, see for the south pole: https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-109.90,-89.21,441 The resonance pattern that can occur from this causes the west coast to either get stuck into periods of extreme dryness or periods of extreme wetness. Similar stratifications across the globe and this effect can account for many recent floods and wildfires. The source causes of this effect are all tied directly back to AGW
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:My concern isn't for the existence of human beings in the future, it's for the continuity of global civilization and world peace, such as it is. Time to give up on the latter and realize that the former is still very much a sliding scale of outcomes.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
I guess my one request if you are going to be a climate nihilist is to learn your poo poo. If you're going to rant about certain death, you better not miss a beat when a climate change denier asks why there was significant global cooling through parts of the 20th century.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Arctic sea ice is, unsurprisingly, falling rapidly. This is such a weird graph given that the arctic has started moving toward the mean throughout late April and May. It looks like Antarctic Sea Ice Extent continues to struggle after the unusual minimum this year. I know that Antarctica has pretty wide variability compared to the Arctic, but I'm starting to wonder if there is some sort of ocean current or other feedback that's starting to cause Antarctic SIE to start deteriorating like Arctic has been.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Ice? Pshh I have your albedo right here *unfurls 15,000,000 km^2 canvas of white paint*
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Ok so now connect the dots and explain how people who believe we can't stop climate change "reject all religious and moral principle in the belief that life is meaningless" You're the kind of idiot that doesn't understand variance and thinks they can divine the one true outcome from a statistical mess. A distribution of outcomes with a significant amount in the "Really Bad" and "Completely hosed" category still doesn't let you extrapolate any sort of dumbass vague statement like "we can't stop climate change." Divining signal out of noise is the same naive conspiratorial bullshit that leads to poo poo like the Seth Rich story - or more closer to your particular kind of brain damage - Guy McPherson (although he seems a fair clip more rational than you). Spend more time reading climate papers and less time spinning your brain in neutral. You do actual climatologists no favors because your braindead hyperbole just creates more denialists.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Since you've read climate papers I'd like to ask your opinion on why papers 15-20 years ago sorely underestimated warming and ghg contribution, and what have more recent studies done to rectify these model shortcomings especially in regards to ghg emission verification? So there are several historical trends that have shown up: Sulfate aerosol cooling hid warming effects. Warming was historically understated until recently due to the negative temperature effects of aerosol sulfate emissions (https://skepticalscience.com/How-much-did-aerosols-contribute-to-mid-20th-century-cooling.html). We also haven't until recently accounted for how much things like global dimming due to coal mining reduce net temperature and how much things will heat up simply by doing things like not burning coal. Denialists will often use the 20th century pause from sulfates to argue that global warming isn't happening. Really, it just masked a much worse warming trend. Sea Level Rise has been repeatedly understated due to better understanding of ice dynamics that is a constantly undergoing level of research. It turns out there's a lot more ways to melt and fracture ice than to heat water to -1.8c. As we better understand the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland glaciology we keep marking our sea level rise predictions upward. A lot of the effects of climate change are also due to changes in global circulation of air and water, and some of these changes are driven by GHG emissions and some aren't. These are notoriously nonlinear systems that are hard to model. Changes in North Atlantic Deep Water currents and vertical overturning drastically changes surface water temperatures in ways that we haven't expected nor modeled until recently. We're also seeing things we could have never predicted with models, like formation of a North Atlantic-based current through the Nares Strait. We also do not have high-resolution 3-dimensional bathymetric ocean data across the globe to accurately model what global ocean circulation would look like. The core issue with models is that all models are wrong, but some models are useful. The useful models let us understand forcing effects that we could think of. Back 30 years ago they let us ascertain things like "Wow these temperature changes definitely can't be explained by Milankovitch cycles alone, it requires GHG forcing to make the outcomes match reality." Now we are asking questions like "What happens when the Arctic ocean becomes increasingly 'Atlantified' by North Atlantic Deep Water." As we're able to answer the recent questions, we keep repeatedly finding positive feedbacks. Finally, I think you could argue that a lot of climatology papers have errored on the side of least drama for quite some time. Edit: Disclaimer I just read this stuff as an interested bystander. My degree was in math and I do computer janitoring now. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 22:25 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:There won't be a mass die-off. You know how people die in heat waves when power grid blackouts happen? Yeah, imagine that on several layers of steroids.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:You mean like old people? The elderly dying a bit earlier because of the heat isn't going to cause population collapse. Human beings die at a 100% humidity temperature of 95F because they can no longer export heat. If you look at record heat waves with high humidity, we're starting to become close more often. Reportedly an Iraqi heatwave in 2015 already surpassed this: https://weather.com/news/news/iraq-iran-heat-middle-east-125-degrees Fortunately we only need to increase our power consumption to keep temperatures lower. I'm sure there won't be any runaway feedbacks from that!!
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:"Mass die offs" still isn't really the right term. People will definitely die, but we're not talking about huge swathes of the population vanishing. Lots of people are going to die in floods and migrations and probably wars too, but it's going to require some pretty unforeseen poo poo going down for it to cause meaningful changes to the global population. So where do you want to set the boundary at? 1B+? There are definitely lots of scenarios that put us at 1B+ deaths and a lot of them can be affected by human action. There will be much larger zones of uninhabitability across the globe, and they will cause massive human migrations because a lot of them will be inhabited. Coincidentally, a lot of the first regions to suffer are in North Africa and the Middle East. I hear we're dying to take in refugees from there. You realize recent models are talking about 8C warming in urban areas right? Plants don't do photosynthesis above 40C and humans don't live past the 100% humidity equivalent of 35C. You should probably recalibrate your expectations in terms of the magnitude of expected changes, and this doesn't even begin to touch on the upscaling of expected sea level rise that will destroy places like Bangladesh.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:The problem with the thread's pessimism is that there is still an awful lot of combustible carbon sitting in the crust, and we can still avoid putting those deposits in the atmosphere. We're certainly going to experience a really lovely few centuries, but we can still make them worse, and there is still an opportunity to prevent that outcome. Similarly, the problem with optimism is that we often speak of climate change in terms of GHG emissions, not change in terms of the amount of dead people. I prefer to see it as "We can still keep the death toll in the millions instead of billions." I don't like euphemisms like "A really lovely few centuries."
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
call to action posted:I'm the "Educating Girls" (nice weasel out of "have less children") line item that will save the world at no cost, buy my book to find out more This is a really stupid take and you're a very stupid person. Also don't use the N-word.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 21:43
|
|