Slashdot Mirror
3-5 Degree Rise in Arctic Temperatures Called 'Inevitable' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
Sharp and potentially devastating temperature rises of 3C to 5C in the Arctic are now inevitable even if the world succeeds in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement, research has found.
Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN. Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate "tipping point" as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect. "What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic," said Joyce Msuya, the acting executive director of UN Environment...
Even if all carbon emissions were to be halted immediately, the Arctic region would still warm by more than 5C by the century's end, compared with the baseline average from 1986 to 2005, according to the study from UN Environment. That is because so much carbon has already been poured into the atmosphere. The oceans also have become vast stores of heat, the effect of which is being gradually revealed by changes at the poles and on global weather systems, and will continue to be felt for decades to come.
The findings were presented at the UN Environment assembly Wednesday, where a report written by 250 scientists and experts from over 70 countries also warned that "damage to the planet is so dire that people's health will be increasingly threatened unless urgent action is taken."
Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN. Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate "tipping point" as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect. "What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic," said Joyce Msuya, the acting executive director of UN Environment...
Even if all carbon emissions were to be halted immediately, the Arctic region would still warm by more than 5C by the century's end, compared with the baseline average from 1986 to 2005, according to the study from UN Environment. That is because so much carbon has already been poured into the atmosphere. The oceans also have become vast stores of heat, the effect of which is being gradually revealed by changes at the poles and on global weather systems, and will continue to be felt for decades to come.
The findings were presented at the UN Environment assembly Wednesday, where a report written by 250 scientists and experts from over 70 countries also warned that "damage to the planet is so dire that people's health will be increasingly threatened unless urgent action is taken."
First one referenced mid-century, second one referenced end of century. It'll eventually get bad. Just a question of whhow many of us will live to see it
I'm sure some "cogent, studied, factually-handy, helpful and altruistic" Republican friends will be here to child-splain to us that this is all a hoax, inevitable, not happening, but also unstoppable and we shouldn't try.
We at some point have to listen to science. Obviously since we haven't kicked these long-time-oil-funded denialists to the curb entirely, we aren't to that point yet.
So the question becomes : How long are we going to entertain these no-credential no-science-background 1950's "I got mine's" and their Fox News hot air before we ignore them and begin to really address this?
I'm tired of their lies, always the same predictable shit in the face of scientific facts they will never acknowledge - and never read except to take single lines out of context as if that debunks the rest of it.
It's time to debunk their Big Tobacco playbook and forget them.
Climate change was an inside job.
Never forget.
Sun was weaker in the Jurassic.
What's Draconian? That you might have to eat meat only once a day (healthier anyway)? Or that you might have to take an electric train on a 500 mile trip, not fly in a fossil-powered Spam can? Or that you'll have to drive in an electric or hydrogen car, not a hydrocarbon-belcher? Or that your apples might not come in a wasteful plastic bubble pack? Or that you might end up telecommuting a few times a week or even (OMG!) live in a more urban area or small town closer to your job? Or that your electricity might come from clean nuclear and renewables, not a coal-burning smog-belcher? OMG, the horror!!! Society will move on, just like it did when the EPA was introduced and car exhaust no longer smelled like an oil rig, rivers no longer caught fire, and bird populations increased as DDT was banned...
No: it will shift the belts toward the poles, but not necessarily expand their sizes. Also, it has to be addressed eventually. 3-5C is one thing, but when do we decide to stop? At 10C? 20C? 30C?
Think about this. The French, Swiss, Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese all have industrialized, happy societies while belching out about 1/3 of the CO2 emissions per person of the US. Lowering CO2 emissions doesn't have to come with a dramatic lowering of the standard of living. It's mainly an engineering problem...
What’s the emotional response even supposed to be then? If you tell people that something is inevitable they’re not going to care. In that case you don’t care about cutting carbon emissions, you start planning with how to best deal with the consequences.
Been there, done that. Tee-shirt is found in the mud and or ice cores. So plan on six meters of sea level rise.
http://academic.emporia.edu/ab...
If we get all the way to the Pliocene we could have 25 meters of sea level rise. Wikipedia has plenty on the Pliocene Climactic Optimum, so you can look it up yourself.
The only way to save the world is to give up any and all wealth to centralized power and kill all white people
I think the point is to make us think global warming should be super scary. In fact global warming will merely lead to an expansion of the agriculture belt, with the equatorial belt growing the most. Thus we will get more better stuff, especially jungle fruits and olive trees. Will it lead to more better other stuff? Only time and common sense will tell. It seems likely that rivers near the equator will become more powerful and insanely cold places may be less insanely cold.
Hmm, I guess I'll trust your uninformed speculation over the thousands of people who study this stuff for a living.
I was thinking about taking up smoking, now a lot of doctors told me that would be really bad for my heath, but maybe you've got some hunch that it will exercise my lungs?
I stole this Sig
When you have nothing constructive to say, resort to death threats.
We need multiple stories per day about what someone predicts might happen 50 years from now. We will call it "news", even though they are just predictions of the distant future and, rather than being new, they are all more-or-less the same.
Lowering CO2 emissions has just been declared meaningless (or nearly so). If enough warming to melt arctic (and presumably antarctic) ice is "inevitable", then restricting CO2 emissions hardly matters.
Only if we give up. If we decided to come up with some scheme for forced cooling, then we'd still want CO2 reduction, so as not to be making the problem worse while trying to make it better. Also, the more CO2 there is in the air, the worse the air gets for mammals. We're mammals. It still matters.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The other 2/3's is Al Gore flying around on his jet preaching about climate change.
If you look at the "recommendations" section, you can see what they want us to do:
"Current patterns of consumption, production and inequality are not sustainable....[Solutions] include changes in lifestyle, consumption preferences and consumer behaviour on the one hand, and cleaner production processes, resource efficiency and decoupling, corporate responsibility and compliance on the other hand. ...Efforts to combat biodiversity loss must also address poverty eradication, food security challenges, gender inequality, systemic inefficiencies and corruption in governance structures and other social variables.
So there it is, that's what we have to do to stop global warming: you need to change your consumption preferences, and all those social variables.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Even if your incoherent rambling made any sense at all, how is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere going to help plants and trees and more biodiversitym, considering the rate at which we are also destroying forests?
Here, educate yourself a bit.
A compilation of the results of several studies, all which more or less point to the same conclusion definitively using different methodologies. You don't know what you're talking about and are attempting a "political point" and failing.
Stop lying, stop mischaracterizing things intentionally and adding your denialist bullshit flavor. It's stale, you look stupid doing it now if once it ever worked.
The science denialism and total braindeath among both the named subscribers and the ACs in how they address topics of this type is beyond sad, quite distressing for one who has been here since the beginning when we were 100% techies. It's terminal for the site.
Slashdot's owners ought to take note and put in place some strong negative feedback to counter this, before the value of their "property" falls to less than zero. It may be too late already.
Carbon is not the only grernhouse gas, nor the most potrnt one.
You're welcome.
True, but it's among the longest lived.
Gases like methane are more potent initially but they break down much faster (maybe 20 years for methane to turn into CO2).
CO2 can hang around for hundreds of years, maybe even 1000 years.
Right now though, 20 years is still far too long. I'll give you that.
No sig today...
co2 is less harmful than methane, so why not just flare all the methane and be done with it?
You mean set all the cows on fire?
Sure, why not? I'm up for that.
No sig today...
So far the most effective mitigations for AGW have been improvements in technology.
So "take action" should mean more incentives for scientific research and development: Better batteries, better solar panels, more efficient appliances (especially air conditioners), etc. Fusion, thorium, sequestration, ocean fertilization, etc. We should research everything, and scale up what works.
It is nerds, not politicians, who will save the world.
That renewables are not going to save us. And that we need to switch to nuclear ASAP in order to save the planet? How much longer are they going to oppose nuclear power, insisting that the only way to fix things is with renewables? Because their opposition is really the only thing stopping us from solving the CO2-induced global warming problem once and for all. None of the climate change skeptics have a problem with nuclear power (well, maybe the coal and oil industries do). It's only the environmentalists preventing us from solving global warming.
Nuclear power doesn't have to be the endgame. After we've replaced fossil fuels with nuclear power, we can still work on developing renewables (and battery tech). And as they become more capable, we can shut down nuclear plants and replace them with renewables. But what's important here and now is to get us off of fossil fuels ASAP. And right now that means replacing all our base load fossil fuel plants with nuclear plants.
Water vapor absorbs significant energy too. You must be new to physics and latent heat.
We are already past the runaway global warning all life dies threshold. The only hope for survival of any life to survive is for the creation of a nuclear winter, and even that may not work.
So PARTY HARDY while you can.
Here's the problem: if you approach all those top-down, "we're doing this because climate", it won't stick. People will rebel because they will hate changing hard habits for what to them looks like a speculation (and it is -- there is no way to disprove or even verify the entire climate change theory). The car exhaust, the rivers on fire, the decreased bird populations, all of that was obviously wrong, it smelled like death -- it made living creatures that we are recoil. Not so with climate change: it's an abstract, dry, unbelievable, unrelatable theory to most of us.
Approach all those you mentioned bottom up and focus on reducing pollution; in the process you will likely reduce the carbon footprint. If the theory is correct, great. If it isn't, we will still benefit from less harm to living things.
It's irrelevant as to whether the Earth has ever been warmer or colder (no-one is denying that). It's whether we can save (most) of our current lifestyles by making significant, but not too uncomfortable changes to them. And quickly. When the Earth was previously hotter or colder, and Man was either not here, was not causing the changes, or didn't have the capacity to change them, is not really an important point of discussion. Man is here now, (likely) causing the changes, and (hopefully) has the ability and willingness to do something about it.
maybe 20 years for methane to turn into CO2
Methane has about a 7 year half-life in the atmosphere. So in 20 years, about 7/8ths will have oxidized.
Lowering CO2 emissions has just been declared meaningless (or nearly so).
That is not at all what TFA is saying.
If enough warming to melt arctic (and presumably antarctic) ice is "inevitable"
The arctic is going to melt, and much of it already has.
The Antarctic is a different story. It is so cold that global warming has so far caused warmer air to hold more humidity, increasing snowfall, and is actually expanding the icepack. Of course, if temperatures continue to rise, this will eventually go into reverse, but it is not as hopeless as you seem to believe.
Spoken like a true ignoramus, Sun is the best known component of the entire complex problem. We know exactly what it has been doing the entire Earth's history and what it will continue to do for the remainder of it. But, by all means, do explain how younger Sun caused climates warmer than today, with numbers pretty please.
When do we get forests on Antarctica again? The fossilized record reflects a long wait between forested periods on Antarctica.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Temperature derived from Ice core in Greenland.
https://ibb.co/DrxxhK7
so solar output doesnt matter now when talking about climate but it matters suddenly in the juriassic?
Solar output has slowly increased over billions of years as the Sun has gotten older and denser. It was not "suddenly".
Is NOTHING compared to the age of the Earth
Suppose you're setting on the couch in your home, and you feel a bit cold. You look around to see that somebody left a window open.
How long, relative to age of the Earth, should you wait until you conclude that the open window is the cause of the cold ?
It can get worse if we keep burning fossil fuels. The projection is just the minimum.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Lame excuse for doing nothing. Yes, it does matter what everybody does. BTW, both India and China are far ahead of the US in installing renewables. For some reason, they have more enlightened leaders.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Mr. Anderson.
USA is the second or third biggest emitter, so it matters.
USA has besides Kuwait and some other exotic places the highest emission per capita: hence for them it is the easiest to reduce emissions. China can't, albeit they are working hard on renewables, nukes and electric cars/buses.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
While you were saving the planet, he studied The Blade.
or move out to the fucking woods
Burning wood, coal or peat for heat. Driving the old pickup truck 50 miles into town for supplies. Subsistence farming. (I've got food to eat. Let the city folk starve.)
Yeah, that's going to work well.
Have gnu, will travel.
skipping school
Lots of kids hanging out in the neighborhood park, smoking weed yesterday.
Have gnu, will travel.
Well you mischaracterized it intentionally, as you do often.
Nope. If you had read it, you would know that I captured the main points of their solution.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, you're not a scientist, trained or otherwise.
If you had been a scientist, you would know that tolerance is not a concept in the sciences at all. Scientific discourse has its own system of merit, based entirely on factual evidence and on correct use of logic for reasoning about that evidence. Together, these components create a meritocracy for value judgements, under which discourse is acceptable only in proportion to where it lies on this scale of scientific merit.
Discourse without scientific merit is not bestowed any tolerance whatsoever. At best, it is dismissed politely, or simply ignored.
If you drive a gas powered car or use electricity generated from fossil fuels, then you have no place to complain because you are part of the problem.
If you drive an electric car, that is because nerds designed a better battery.
If you get your electricity from solar, it is because nerds designed better panels.
You still didn't read it lol. Stop being lazy, gain some knowledge, and you'll have something realistic to say.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But while I may want to do some sacrifice, e.g. I am already trying to use only public transport and biking, low electricity footprint, I am rioting in the street if you try to touch to my meat consumption. It is one thing to not have bitten at the forbidden fruit. But now I have eaten it and it is very tasty, I am not giving it up until I am dead. Eating tasty stuff is one of the only few guilty pleasure I truly have. I am doing it until I am dead or unable to.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Lots of kids hanging out in the neighborhood park, smoking weed yesterday.
That certainly beats obsessing over the end of the world.
This is getting almost as ludicrous as "ancient astronaut theorists say yes".
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hey now, wait a minute... Until I get my spice rubs and BBQ sauce ready, there will be NO cow burning!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Look at Venezuela. They completely eliminated their carbon footprint last week..
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
But politicians, not nerds, can introduce Pigouvian taxes to help finance that development.
Ezekiel 23:20
And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Are you on drugs?
Ezekiel 23:20
This is the equivalent of those sob-story TV ads showing some kid in a third-world country who will DIE unless you send money NOW. Hint: the money doesn't get to the kid and the kid's gonna die anyway.
By the same token, since temperature rise is inevitable, then you don't need my money.
Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate "tipping point" as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect.
Melting poles also means changing albedo: sea is darken than ice, and hence it traps more heat from the sun.
I'm gonna make a raft out of climate change deniers
By the way, fuck off with your suggestionn that anyone owes a debt to the goddamn machine.
So far the most effective mitigations for AGW have been improvements in technology.
Do zig-zaggy trails across the sky count??
It's been thirty years since I ate a mammal but I think you might want to drain the blood out before you light 'em on fire. Just saying.
...hence for them it is the easiest to reduce emissions.
Right, because population density and existing infrastructure don't factor into it at all.
China also has over 4 times the population, which means each Chinese citizen is outputting half the CO2 as each American. You're suggesting that the people who are already doing twice as good as you do better while you do nothing.
I'd also like to see a citation for China emitting twice as much as the US in 2018. I can't find one up to date. What I do find is that China is actually decreasing it's CO2 emissions (they're actually basically stable) unlike America which is once again increasing them.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This article says the opposite, https://insideclimatenews.org/... with China slightly lowering its emissions over the last 4 years while America is back to increasing them.
Unluckily it is really hard to find good info,as this article makes different claims, https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...
Still, why don't you just say the rest of the world outputs more carbon then the relatively small USA so everyone else has to stop why we continue to burn shit like crazy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Thank you very much, I learned about stellar evolution back in high school so I know how main sequence stars behave. Since we're talking about paleoclimate, those 1+% changes in mean flux are important, not your silly short-term cycles with a 0.1% amplitude.
Ezekiel 23:20
"We have just 12 years to change everything otherwise we're all doooooooooomed." - Courtesy of every flappy headed left wing environmentalist since the 1970's. Personal favorite, was in 1990 if we don't do something now - RIGHT NOW - the world will end in 12 years. Man it's you've been crying wolf for over 100 years, on 12 year cycles and it still hasn't happened...and yet you wonder why fewer people support it.
Om, nomnomnom...
We should research everything, and scale up what works.
We have, only nuclear scales. Also, Thorium and MSRs scale better than LWRs.
It is nerds, not politicians, who will save the world.
Couldn't agree more.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
They really don't.
They really do. Especially if you scale solar up to what you need to reduce CO2 emissions by any real degree.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
co2 is less harmful than methane, so why not just flare all the methane and be done with it? doesn't fix the problem, but sounds like a good mitigation strategy
Burning methane by flaring it is what makes the CO2 (well one of the ways). And the difference in damage between the two isn't enough to make your proposal help at all. Perhaps leave this stuff to the (not software) engineers?
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Fortunately global warming in this cycle, taking into account the great planetary fart, means much more cloud cover which will reflect sunlight and limit the impact.
So about 1.0 to 1.5m rapid short term sea level rise, slowing with the increased cloud cover and the breakdown of the released methane. For the US east coast and a lot of the Mediterranean that is catastrophic.
There is a solution and it ain't that expensive and can largely pay for itself. Start doing a whole of of vertical access wind turbines and bellow sea level desalination grids to irrigate global deserts. Australia the safest bet, stable and secure and most of the precipitation generated by the irrigation will fall in central Australia.
Depending upon how rapid the development, the problem could largely be curtailed and the impact limited and as a bonus tens of thousands of square kilometres of global food and wood fibre bank produced, really do great things for the Japan Australia economic union and protect Japanese and Australian coastal cities.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
That's hilarious. I vaguely remember some gloom and doom predictions from the 90s, but haven't bothered trying to go back and find any of those articles. Amazing to actually read that ... really does make them all look like a bunch of sandwich-board wearing nutters screaming on a street corner.
Also, Thorium and MSRs scale better than LWRs.
Based on what? Evidence to date says they barely scale past 2 wind turbines. We have no large scale thorium or MSR reactors in operation to make the claim.
I'm sure theoretically they do, but let's get them out of the pilot stage before we talk about scaling.
Artctic is a hot spot of global warming.
PS. I am doing a data research/selflearning on NOAA data on precipitation now.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
We at some point have to listen to science.
Gotta love a lefitst authoritarian who demands we listen to science when it allows him to grab more power as in this case, and ignore it when it tells him that there are only 2 genders, and the brain differences are quantifiable in the womb. This isn't about science, it never was. It's about scientists getting their next grant to pay their bills which feeds people like you using it to consolidate more power.
What "toxic waste" are we talking about? Glass, aluminium, silver, silicon? That's not "toxic waste", and in any case, it's easily recyclable. In fact, it's definitely going to be one of the welcome sources of raw materials for future industry, because all these materials are already present in a refined form, as opposed to bauxite or silicon dioxide which need to be refined with significant effort.
Ezekiel 23:20
Thorium and MSRs scale better than LWRs
There's absolutely no evidence for that. Did you just wake up from an utopian dream and are confusing fiction with reality? Where's your thorium reactors and MSRs and their billed costs?
Ezekiel 23:20
That's model is too simple. Weather & climate is more like a web than a linear chain because when one thing changes it affects many other variables.
Ice loss does mean warmer water, but as the temperature increases so does the evaporation rate. More evaporation means more water vapor in the air which means more cloud cover, which increases the albedo, and if that increases enough it could even cause the water temperature to drop and even start to freeze again.
we are in the shadows armed to the teeth and one day you will cross that line.
You are in the shadows. An internet tough guy armed with a keyboard and an internet connection who will do nothing and not matter to anyone.
Cite or STFU.
Dust off a copy of TIME, OMNI, or Scientific American. Then you can watch the new generation of retards and their current puppet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spew the same shit, oh and Al Gore. He really likes those 12 year doom cycles. Personally? I'm also enjoying her tantrums over the "fact checkers" calling her out on her shit.
Om, nomnomnom...
Switzerland is hardly mild.
Israel has hot summers and spews about 50% of the carbon per capita of the US.
Sweden, with its cold winters, is about 33% that of the US (theyre smart and use nuclear power for 40% of their energy).
See, I read both the paper
No, you didn't. You've said nothing insightful about it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
One man's inevitable calamity is another man's droolworthy challenge.
> The Complete Case for Nuclear
> Why We Fear Nuclear
> The War on Nuclear
> Future of Nuclear
> Climate Scientists for Nuclear
> Conservation Scientists for Nuclear
> Women for Nuclear Argentina Conference
> Why Fear of Nuclear Threatens Japan's Energy, Environmental, and National Security
> Nuclear Pride Fest in Belgium!
> Save French Nuclear!
I...may be detecting a bit of an agenda here...
No USA is falling fast down the list, india will be like China around 2060
per capita doesn't matter when the big places under central control are ramping up hugely.
No point in 350 million USA reducing emissions a bit, won't matter when billions are going into high gear. math wins, feel good greenie bullshit trying to lower U.S. living standard loses.
No it's solid logic and math. 350 million USA people won't matter when billions are ramping up their emissions.
You're confused, those "renewables" they're installing don't make up for the huge coal plants they're bringing on globally, not just at home but around the world as they go to near colonial model.
they're not enlightened, they're ramping up the carbon pullution
you're fooled by token greenie B.S.
lolz sorry but Switzerland is indeed mild, winter temperatures only 28 - 45 deg F. Hell that's early spring here.
Minus 20 to 30 F, that's the kind of shit you'll see in midwest and north winters. Those pansy swiss would die.
and you bring up the Mediterranean climate of Israel?!! are you fucking shitting me, that is VERY mild climate.
You put Swiss or Israelis in their "winter clothing" outside for an hour in the weather we had two weeks ago and they would be dead, that's a fact. you think high 20s F is "cold"? you have no idea what cold is, when every cold snap has a body count in the news
See also: Sweden, which uses about 1/3 of the carbon per capita of the USA.