3-5 Degree Rise in Arctic Temperatures Called 'Inevitable' (theguardian.com) 302
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."
Here comes the Republicans to "Interpret" science. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
So back to the Sangamon/ Eemian. (Score:3)
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... [emporia.edu]
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.
End of the century news (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Read the report. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Read the report. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't sound unreasonable. Americans consume a lot more than those in Europe but have a similar or lower quality of life, and much of Europe could actually do a lot better.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't sound unreasonable. Americans
I see, those Americans are the ones who need to consume less. The good Europeans like you are fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually stop reading in the middle of that sentence because you were so offended by the first half of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Read the report. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually yeah, it would be great if they stopped colour coding stuff for girls pink... But the real issue here is that gender equality leads to fewer children. Women in control of their fertility and educated will have fewer children, which is good for the climate.
Possibly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People in the United States are much wealthier than those in Europe in general, with a much higher quality of life. From the OECD Society at a glance figures [mises.org], Sweden and Germany have about the same average disposable income as Alabama, Kentucky and Montana, not exactly considered economic power houses. Places like Portugal or Poland are at half of Mississippi's level. Most European countries fall within the bottom t
Re: (Score:2)
Americans consume a lot more than those in Europe
This is why I always fight you about spreading pollution across populations.
An American and a European consume roughly the same amounts of everything.
America as a country manufactures a fuckload more than European countries. This, of course, results in more pollution. And yet here you sit insinuating that Americans, individually, are greedy pigs next to the oh so wonderful European.
Fuck off with that shit. Your un-nuanced view of pollution is fucking annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's consumption.
As one example, European homes tend to be much more efficient and require a lot less heating and cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
you need to change your consumption preferences
I will deeply respect the first environmentalist I meet who tells me he's switched to taking cold showers to Save The Planet(tm).
At least ethically, if not scientifically - so far they've all wanted to force others to change but maintain their high consumption ways personally. They say it won't make a difference if only they do it - millions of them say this.
Re: (Score:2)
I will deeply respect the first environmentalist I meet who tells me he's switched to taking cold showers to Save The Planet(tm).
Is that the only metric you'll accept, or is it okay with you if they switched to solar to heat their water?
Re: (Score:2)
Hot showers take very little energy. My gas bill in the summer months is tiny. You want someone to take an action that is almost purely symbolic.
I respect people who take actions and spend their money to make much bigger impacts on greenhouse gasses. You can probably reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than taking cold showers by eliminating beef from your diet.
My wife and I both drive electric vehicles and we installed solar panels on our house. Our CO2 emissions are probably half what they were three yea
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Never going to happen. It's like the Vatican's solution to combatting aids, abstaining from sex, which no one of course did.
Giving out condoms, which meant that behavior was changed only slightly, and everyone could keep on ?ucking, did make a big difference to the spread of aids.
So basically unless someone invents something to cool the planet down without affecting our lifestyles, we are doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
Gender inequality causes climate change?
I knew it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long until the environmentalists concede? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Shhhhh, don't tell anyone... (Score:2)
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.
Antarctic Forests (Score:2)
When do we get forests on Antarctica again? The fossilized record reflects a long wait between forested periods on Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably when the continent moves closer to the equator again.
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't any trees that can survive 5 months of darkness, nor 7 months of sunlight.
It is inevitable, (Score:3)
Scientists say could... (Score:2)
Unless you send money (Score:2)
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.
Albedo (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]: sea is darken than ice, and hence it traps more heat from the sun.
Re:Albedo isn't so black and white (Score:2)
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.
Here comes Waterworld (Score:2)
I'm gonna make a raft out of climate change deniers
and everywhere else is heated much much less (Score:2)
Artctic is a hot spot of global warming.
PS. I am doing a data research/selflearning on NOAA data on precipitation now.
no geoengineer consulted (Score:2)
One man's inevitable calamity is another man's droolworthy challenge.
Re: How about getting your story to be consistent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sun was weaker in the Jurassic.
Re:How about getting your story to be consistent? (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about getting your story to be consistent? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [nationalgeographic.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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? [wikipedia.org]
Re:How about getting your story to be consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The other 2/3's is Al Gore flying around on his jet preaching about climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It can get worse if we keep burning fossil fuels. The projection is just the minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:How about getting your story to be consistent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: How about getting your story to be consistent? (Score:2)
...hence for them it is the easiest to reduce emissions.
Right, because population density and existing infrastructure don't factor into it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This article says the opposite, https://insideclimatenews.org/... [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... [carbonbrief.org]
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, I read both the paper
No, you didn't. You've said nothing insightful about it.
Re:How about getting your story to be consistent? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How about getting your story to be consistent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
skipping school
Lots of kids hanging out in the neighborhood park, smoking weed yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of kids hanging out in the neighborhood park, smoking weed yesterday.
That certainly beats obsessing over the end of the world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How do you define "take action"?? (Score:2)
So far the most effective mitigations for AGW have been improvements in technology.
Do zig-zaggy trails across the sky count??
Re:How do you define "take action"?? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They really don't.
They really do. [environmen...ogress.org] Especially if you scale solar up to what you need to reduce CO2 emissions by any real degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 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...
You could always try Socialism. (Score:4, Funny)
Look at Venezuela. They completely eliminated their carbon footprint last week..
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: How do you define "take action"?? (Score:2)
By the way, fuck off with your suggestionn that anyone owes a debt to the goddamn machine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:LOL, 25-100 years of data (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
So, you are *utterly intolerant" of views aside from your own? I *am* a trained scientist, I don't advocate that at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, degrees in physics and mathematics and 37 years in a *highly technical* related field, including complex simulations of highly non-linear systems. Sound like anything that could possibly be related to this. If you wanted to play dueling credentials, you would lose, Mr. AC.
This isn't about 'science', it's about freedom of speech, and trying to suppress people's opinions. Moreover, "science" generally refers to falsifiable propositions, and the submitter attempts to rem
Re: who sent creimer to the north pole (Score:2)
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.