The Antarctic is Signaling Big Climate Trouble (nytimes.com) 115
Around the frozen continent, a vast current circles the world. New science is revealing the power it holds over the future. Ice shelves are in retreat, and researchers are alarmed at what they're learning. From a report: The immense and forbidding Southern Ocean is famous for howling gales and devilish swells that have tested mariners for centuries. But its true strength lies beneath the waves. The ocean's dominant feature, extending up to two miles deep and as much as 1,200 miles wide, is the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, by far the largest current in the world. It is the world's climate engine, and it has kept the world from warming even more by drawing deep water from the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, much of which has been submerged for hundreds of years, and pulling it to the surface. There, it exchanges heat and carbon dioxide with the atmosphere before being dispatched again on its eternal round trip. Without this action, which scientists call upwelling, the world would be even hotter than it has become as a result of human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. "From no perspective is there any place more important than the Southern Ocean," said Joellen L. Russell, an oceanographer at the University of Arizona. "There's nothing like it on Planet Earth."
For centuries this ocean was largely unknown, its conditions so extreme that only a relative handful of sailors plied its iceberg-infested waters. What fragmentary scientific knowledge was available came from measurements taken by explorers, naval ships, the occasional research expeditions or whaling vessels. But more recently, a new generation of floating, autonomous probes that can collect temperature, density and other data for years -- diving deep underwater, and even exploring beneath the Antarctic sea ice, before rising to the surface to phone home -- has enabled scientists to learn much more. They have discovered that global warming is affecting the Antarctic current in complex ways, and these shifts could complicate the ability to fight climate change in the future. As the world warms, Dr. Russell and others say, the unceasing winds that drive the upwelling are getting stronger. That could have the effect of releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, by bringing to the surface more of the deep water that has held this carbon locked away for centuries.
For centuries this ocean was largely unknown, its conditions so extreme that only a relative handful of sailors plied its iceberg-infested waters. What fragmentary scientific knowledge was available came from measurements taken by explorers, naval ships, the occasional research expeditions or whaling vessels. But more recently, a new generation of floating, autonomous probes that can collect temperature, density and other data for years -- diving deep underwater, and even exploring beneath the Antarctic sea ice, before rising to the surface to phone home -- has enabled scientists to learn much more. They have discovered that global warming is affecting the Antarctic current in complex ways, and these shifts could complicate the ability to fight climate change in the future. As the world warms, Dr. Russell and others say, the unceasing winds that drive the upwelling are getting stronger. That could have the effect of releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, by bringing to the surface more of the deep water that has held this carbon locked away for centuries.
Yeah, but... (Score:1)
.... for ever gallon of water ascending there'll be a gallon descending taking recently dissolved CO2 with it surely?
Re: (Score:1)
You are assuming the concentration of CO2 is the same for each.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, that makes no sense. The GP assumption is that the concentration of CO2 is DIFFERENT for the water rising than the water falling, else it wouldn't contain recently dissolved CO2.
Which makes me wonder if a deep fracking well with a fountain on top would be an efficient way to soak up atmospheric carbon.
Re: Yeah, but... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you're one of THOSE nutters to whom math is just racist.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are assuming the concentration of CO2 is the same for each.
The article basically says more is still going in and down
So still absorbing more but less than previously though.
The main concern looks to be the water is warmer than expected and melting the underside of the ice. Which is currently holding back the ice sheets to some extent.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read the rest of the paragraph. (I know it's hard when your attention span is short so here it is...)
"But the deep ocean water that upwells around Antarctica contains even more carbon dioxide"
"By some estimates the oceans have taken up about 25 percent of the excess carbon dioxide, and more than 90 percent of the excess heat, that has resulted from burning of fossil fuels and other human activities since the 19th century. But the deep ocean water that upwells around Antarctica contains even more
Re: (Score:2)
Currently it is sinking X tons of carbon.
With this change it is sinking X-Y tons of carbon.
This will increase the CO2 in the air by Y tons yes?
Re:Clickbait with this one weird trick (Score:5, Insightful)
The Arctic and Antarctic are melting because they are fundamentally fed up with warm air. So are the glaciers in the Rockies, Andes, Himalaya, and the Alps. Notice a pattern here. And how about those forest fires in Siberia or the American West. Nope, no warming here.
It takes a special kind of ignorance to refuse to see the signs.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The Arctic and Antarctic are melting because they are fundamentally fed up with warm air. So are the glaciers in the Rockies, Andes, Himalaya, and the Alps. Notice a pattern here. And how about those forest fires in Siberia or the American West. Nope, no warming here.
It takes a special kind of ignorance to refuse to see the signs.
If this is true, then explain why the sea ice extent has been increasing year-on-year since the low in 2012? Reference: NSIDC [nsidc.org]. I could be reading the graph wrong, or mis-interpreting, so I am mindful of that possibility.
Replying to myself: I misread the graph; it was the Arctic that has been increasing year-on-year. The antarctic had a big drop during 2015, and has remained lower ever since. Antarctic sea ice extent anomaly [nsidc.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Which graph are you looking at?
The Figure 2a shows that in 2012 there was the lowest extent of sea ice between August and Oct (i.e. end of summer), although 2020 shows the lowest extent for most of winter. 2012 is the only year that is not continuous, so I guess they picked this because it was extreme. All the last five years show a lower level of Sea Ice year round than the median of 1981-2010. So Sea Ice cover is decreasing. 2020 and 2012 are in close competition for the lowest ice cover show, across the
Re:Clickbait with this one weird trick (Score:5, Informative)
Replying to myself: I misread the graph; it was the Arctic that has been increasing year-on-year.
You also misread the Arctic graph you linked to. Although the extent minimum in 2012 was lower than any other year in the graph, and 2021 was about the same as 2017, 2020 sea ice extent was lower than 2019, 2019 was lower than 2018, and 2018 was lower than 2017. That's not a year-over-year increase - it's a year-over-year decrease for those years. Also, all of those years had a sea ice extent much lower than the average for 1981 thru 2010.
Re: Clickbait with this one weird trick (Score:2)
Re: Clickbait with this one weird trick (Score:2)
Re: Clickbait with this one weird trick (Score:2)
IPCC (Re:Clickbait with this one weird trick) (Score:1)
The UN IPCC is perhaps the largest and most vocal organization in the world warning us about global warming. Not only are they telling people that global warming is bad but they tell us what we need to do to stop it.
It's right here on their website: https://news.un.org/en/story/2... [un.org]
Are we going to listen to the IPCC or not? If we listen to them on the problem then why not listen to them on the solution? I've been told, "Nobody wants nukes!" Okay, then nobody wants to solve the problem of global warming.
How can I have Real Hope?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
An increasing population is a tremendous part of the problem. But it's only a part. Stone age hunters repeatedly drove the game they hunted to extinction, and with a pretty small population. (Of course, stampeding a herd off a cliff by setting a fire behind them isn't a very efficient hunting strategy, but it works.)
Here's your Real Hope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't work out so well for Pittsburgh last time they played Minnesota.
91 volcanoes could heat the ocean (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, I don't get "fighting climate change" eit (Score:4, Insightful)
Impossible to "adapt" to the local heat records we are starting to see. Your local food production will also fail due to heat and drought.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when the number of people dying of heat exceeds the number of people dying of cold.
Better yet, let me know when more crops are killed by heat waves than are killed by frost.
There are plenty more heat adapted crops you could switch to, but cold adapted crops are more rare, that's why greenhouses and cold frames exist. Heat and sun is GOOD for growing plants.
Re: Yeah, I don't get "fighting climate change" ei (Score:2)
Climate change gives us more extremes, hot and cold. Lose - lose!
Re: (Score:2)
Some people just will not admit defeat! First it was "global cooling" (about 50 years ago). Then it was "global warming". Neither of those flew, so why not turn in desperation to "extreme excursions"?
Extreme weather has always happened, and it always seems exceptional to those who experience it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bit. More extremes, more technology to deal with extremes, is all. You're just being lazy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Impossible to "adapt" to the local heat records we are starting to see. Your local food production will also fail due to heat and drought.
No, it won't. I live in England, which is perpetually watered by rain brought in from the Atlantic. Every few years we get a day or two of 100 degree Fahrenheit warmth, which the locals consider to be a heat wave.
Scotland, Wales and Ireland - even the north of England - could do with a bit more heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice that you would like "a bit more heat" but it's impossible to adapt to all of the climate changes coming. Not just heat waves but cold waves, wind storms, droughts, floods, etc. (BTW, the Gulf Stream is responsible for your temperate climate in England but that will be going away and you won't be able to adapt to the resulting weather chaos.)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought we had thorium batteries back in the 1970s. Isn't that what we used to power the Voyager and Pioneer missions?
Re: (Score:2)
They had plutonium not thorium.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying every car should have it's own nuclear reactor with the heavy shielding?
Or are you saying use nuclear reactors to make energy to charge batteries which can also be charged with renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
I too look forward to our delicate agriculture and food distribution system. No, wait, I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ready for it.
Eat the rich!!!
Re: (Score:2)
As people keep pointing out, they're only like 1% of the population. Barely enough for a good three day feast. It seems like the poor people are fat and the rich people are more likely to be skinny these days too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because eating cheap refined carbs makes you fat, and eating proper food - meat, fish, dairy, vegetables - keeps you slim. Also the rich don't have to attend "offices" where they do next to nothing for eight hours a day to massage some "boss"'s ego, and have to commute for another one to four hours. In their copious free time, they can do a thing I call "exercise" which our bodies evolved to need.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that makes them a better source of calories when shit hits the fan.
Re: (Score:2)
More heat is good for plants. That's why we have greenhouse technology.
Re: (Score:2)
More heat is good for some plants, and bad for others. If we were nomadic, that, and things like changes in rainfall, wouldn't be as much of a problem. But we're not nomadic. Our food production in particular is very specialized, optimized, and fixed to geographical locations.
Re: (Score:3)
Thus the need to be willing to adapt and change to new crops and new forms of producing food- like algae/Tilapia columns, vertical permaculture, and of course, shifting the growing zones towards the poles.
You're thinking about leaving the easy stuff the same and changing the hard stuff, why not flip that thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would definitely like to eat food algae rather than drive a Tesla.
The experts vehemently disagree with you. Decreasing carbon emissions is *much* cheaper, thus easier, than dealing with the fallout from rapid climate change. Sorry, but some tilapia isn't going to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is more USING THE CLIMATE CHANGE. I don't disagree that the climate change is happening, but I do disagree that the cheapest thing to do is turn into a Luddite and try to stop it.
Real science starts with realizing that most experts are seriously over-credentialed and underinformed.
Re: (Score:3)
Last I looked, more people died of cold than of heat every year- by a lot. Freezing to death is more common than heat stroke 100 to 1.
And starving to death is more common that both of those put together, by a long shot.
"Don't do anything that collapse the global agriculture" should be your number one goal, if you really wanted to save lives.
Re: (Score:1)
If you really wanted to save lives from global warming then you would to look for solutions. What is the energy source with the least lifetime greenhouse gas emissions? A study out of the UN from 2020 tells us it is nuclear power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Here's a few studies that show electricity from new nuclear power would cost less than that from natural gas, offshore wind, or rooftop solar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I've had people claim my numbers are wrong but to know that would mean
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear does have problems, but they are solvable. In particular, nuclear won't solve any problems whatsoever until we start reprocessing spent fuel. This hasn't been done in America since the 1970s. That's a BIG one.
But, overall, I expect that a mix of sources will end up being best, and nuclear makes sense as part of that mix. (Ther
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear does have problems,
Yes, every energy sources has problems. The problems with nuclear power are fewer
but they are solvable.
Right, and those problems are not only solvable but also at low costs compared to the return.
In particular, nuclear won't solve any problems whatsoever until we start reprocessing spent fuel. This hasn't been done in America since the 1970s. That's a BIG one.
I don't see that as a big problem. We could easily mine virgin fuel every time, store spent fuel in above ground steel and concrete drums for 300 years, and then as those containers reach the end of their expected life of containment the fuel will have had all the fission products decay away and the "spent" fuel will be useful again a
reprocessing needed [Re:Yeah, I don't get "fig...] (Score:2)
... In particular, nuclear won't solve any problems whatsoever until we start reprocessing spent fuel. This hasn't been done in America since the 1970s. That's a BIG one.
I don't see that as a big problem. We could easily mine virgin fuel every time, .
No; if the world goes 100% nuclear, we run out of fuel too fast if we don't reprocess.
If you want to combat climate change, we have to start reprocessing used fuel.
--again, I don't particularly disagree with most of what you say. I do want nuclear advocates to stop pretending that the problems don't exist, but I'm quite happy in return to acknowledge that, yes, the problems seem to be solvable.
Re: (Score:2)
No; if the world goes 100% nuclear, we run out of fuel too fast if we don't reprocess.
First. the world will not go 100% nuclear. Onshore wind, hydro, and geothermal are all too cheap to ignore so we will be using them in addition to nuclear power. Second, there is far too much uranium and thorium in the ground for us to run out of fuel.
If you want to combat climate change, we have to start reprocessing used fuel.
I'm sure we will end up reprocessing fuel but it won't be because we are running out of fuel or places to put the spent fuel. It will be because we find ways to turn spent fuel into new fuel that is competitive with digging up new uranium and thorium. This
Re: (Score:2)
No; if the world goes 100% nuclear, we run out of fuel too fast if we don't reprocess.
First. the world will not go 100% nuclear. Onshore wind, hydro, and geothermal are all too cheap to ignore so we will be using them in addition to nuclear power. Second, there is far too much uranium and thorium in the ground for us to run out of fuel.
Uranium and thorium are different. No current power reactors use thorium. It's possible we can develop thorium reactors for commercial power, but we don't have them now.
Your statement is like somebody saying "gold isn't expensive. Gold and copper are very abundant." Yes, but gold isn't copper, and thorium isn't uranium.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power does not use only uranium as fuel. Thorium has been tested successfully in current heavy water and pressurized water reactors. Use of thorium as a fuel was tested in the 1960s and 1970s when people thought there might be a shortage of uranium. After the scare of running out of uranium was resolved we didn't forget how to fuel existing reactors with thorium. This scare of a shortage of uranium is often repeated with something like having "only" 30 years of uranium available. In 30 years we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I see you didn't even read what I wrote. That is a solved problem and repeating the claims it is not a solved problem doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report is the product of one man, Mycle Schneider, a man that has dedicated his life to saying bad things about nuclear power. He cherry picks his data. He leaves out important details. Rarely gives meaningful context on what his numbers mean in comparison to other forms of energy. I believe he works very hard to be clear of any charges of lying but he doesn't give the whole truth either. Why take his numbers when there are a number of other sources showing greater agreement with each other, sources like government agencies and universities. The article was in PV Magazine, and the Bulletin of Concerned Scientists, places known to be less than honest about nuclear power.
I'd agree that this report is not worth paying serious attention to. On LCoE and so on there are plenty of other reports such as Lazard to look at. You have indirectly referenced these, although not drawn the correct conclusions, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is good, but "If you really wanted to save lives from global warming ". You can't save lives and embrace evolutionary adaptation, the two goals are diametrically opposed. Evolutionary change requires death.
Re: (Score:2)
A study out of the UN from 2020 tells us it is nuclear power
The study is actually a report on another study.
If you read the assumptions the other study made it paints a very different picture then you.
If you expand nuclear in any significant way the carbon footprint of nuclear goes up because it takes much more energy to mine the uranium
---
Utility scale solar can work with crops. How many crops are grown under shade cloth.
As for using more water what happens to the water that is used to clean the dust etc?
Re: (Score:2)
If you expand nuclear in any significant way the carbon footprint of nuclear goes up because it takes much more energy to mine the uranium
How much more? Has there been a study on this? How much of the total CO2 from nuclear fission comes from mining the uranium? If we see nuclear power expand in any significant way then would we not develop new, more efficient, means to mine the uranium?
Here's something to consider, if we expand solar power in any significant way then would not it's carbon footprint also increase because it takes more energy to mine the silicon? Maybe it won't increase, it may go down because we develop new, more efficien
Re: Yeah, I don't get "fighting climate change" ei (Score:2)
~100grams per kwh was in the report I read.
The biggest thing that can stop the increase is not the mining techniques. It is getting reprocessing running. Get that working and mining emissions drop even lower then what you have already
Re: Yeah, I don't get "fighting climate change" ei (Score:2)
The thing I saw on agri-voltatic suggested increased yield for both food and electricity.
And as for costs. Their is a solar farm near here that is using sheep to keep the grass down instead of paying someone to mow. So in this case agri-voltatic is cheaper then traditional style solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is- and even at the plant level, frost kills more crops than heat, always has. More heat is good for plants. Oh, you might need to replace your whisky with tequila, but chances are, food itself will still be available.
Re:Yeah, I don't get (Score:2)
In the time period of human lifetimes, however, people starve.
Re: (Score:2)
People starving is part of the adaptation. People starve because they are unwilling to adapt their culture, and agriculture, to the new conditions. People who are unwilling to adapt, die. Those who are willing to adapt, live. Such is the way of all evolution, always.
Adapt or die, is the choice. Not "we're going to push a bunch of people into poverty in hopes of holding the climate near steady so that we don't have to adapt".
Re: (Score:2)
People starving is part of the adaptation.
As long as you are ready to agree that your politics is ok with people starving to death, I'm not sure we have any disagreement here.
Re: (Score:2)
You and I may not. I do not hold this as a political position, but as an *evolutionary science* position. It holds true whenever the environment changes for any given species from the amoeba to the sperm whale; thus it isn't political, it's merely reality.
Sadly, large numbers of climate change alarmists want to *stop* climate change instead of adapt to it. They disagree with reality, and think they know enough to control instead of adapt.
I would also remind you that there are at least 4 alternatives to
Re: (Score:2)
You and I may not. I do not hold this as a political position, but as an *evolutionary science* position.
Pretending that political opinions are justified as "evolutionary science" has been a justification for a lot of evil in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a political opinion.
Change the PH balance in the water for a sample of pond scum, and some of them will die, and others will live.
Impose a vaccine into an ecosystem for a virus, and strains of virus-resistant forms of the disease will appear.
Remove the primary food source for any species, and only those who adapt, will survive.
What makes you think climate change is any different *at all*? Adapt or die- that's the rule for all life. It always has been, it always will be. Those who try to fight th
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a political opinion.
Pretending that political opinions aren't opinons, but are justified as "evolutionary science" has been a justification for a lot of evil in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, the fact that species that fail to adapt go extinct doesn't care about your political opinions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
more bullshit. keep spooning
Yeah, we know that certain conservative circles have decided that
Science = Bullshit.
Your disdain for "liberal, mainstream society" has grown such, that you, like many others, will take the musings of some fringe, Internet right-wing bloggers over the latest developments in science and research.
I'm sure those personalities you do listen to know all that is really going on!
Thanks for ushering in a new era of medieval style, faith based believe systems, fantasies and conspiracies. Hope your hate against the le
Re: (Score:3)
And, the mere fact that you aren't getting paid to spew fossil-fuel industry talking points doesn't mean that the opinions that you tell yourself are "free thinking" and "contrarian" aren't opinions crafted for you to repeat by the fossil-fuel industry PR flacks.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for telling me why I hold the opinions that I honestly believed I had derived from careful reading and considerable thought.
I am glad that your opinions are absolutely objective, well-founded, and thus superior to mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for telling me why I hold the opinions that I honestly believed I had derived from careful reading and considerable thought.
ROFL.
I see no evidence that your opinions were thought out. Your opinions are parroting the ones that have been handed to you. Any "careful reading" you may do seems to consist of nothing more than carefully reading skimming through sources to pluck out pieces that can support the opinions you already had, not reading to understand the subject..
Re: (Score:2)
Are we sure that would be a tragedy?
Re: (Score:1)
I can't believe I'm alive to see this happening. California might actually drop off and sink into the pacific ocean! What will we do to stop this TRAGEDY from happening?!?
That's actually funny in more than one way.
Re: Wow. This is TERRIBLE news. (Score:1)
>>California might actually drop off and sink into the pacific ocean! What will we do to stop this TRAGEDY from happening?!?
Do nothing, much easier drive to the balmy shores of Arizona.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a graph showing the maximum and minimum extent of arctic ice: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget the billions of discarded plastic masks.
Re: (Score:1)
It is too bad we don't have the technology to dig in ice. Sure to get the minerals we need to just dig into hard stone, but Ice, that is the real deal breaker.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that we need an ice breaker?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus global climate change reducing the ice would be:
Profit
Re: (Score:1)
> It is too bad we don't have the technology to dig in ice.
The only thing harder than ice is reading comprehension.
Re:This is positive news (Score:5, Insightful)
Check out Siberia and its forest fires. Check out the West of the U.S. and its forest fires. The fish in the Atlantic are voting with their fins and moving north, so much so that the fishermen are complaining that they have to go too far for them.
And just to make your life a bit more comfortable, those nice tropical diseases are moving North into your neighborhood.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: This is positive news (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it is all pine beetle or part pine beetle and part climate change
Or maybe the pine beetles are being pushed [science.org] along [insideclimatenews.org] by climate change. In which case it is all climate change.
This happens partly because climate change weakens the trees making them more susceptible to infestation and partly because pine beetles love warm weather.
Pine beetles didn't make a big, random evolutionary leap. The main thing that has changed in recent years is climate.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This is positive news (Score:5, Informative)
Pine beetles spread slower in years with cold winters than they do in years with mild winters. There have been a lot more mild winters lately, so pine beetle infestations are getting worse. Whether or not "there have been more mild winters lately" is "climate change" is an exercise left to the reader.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As you point out, there's more than one active cause. Monoculture encourages the spread of diseases. But in the case of pine beetles, I believe tha the consensus is that it's a changed climate that takes most of the blame.
Re: (Score:3)
A couple of weeks of minus 40 kills the pine beetles, sadly we just don't get those minus 40 winters anymore here in Canada, or at least in BC where the pine beetle hangs out and devastates the lodgepole pine .
What we did get this summer was close to plus 50C temperatures followed by fires and the last few years, fast warming springs triggering lots of undergrowth growth that then died due to lack of water. Undergrowth that burns very well.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so hot in Siberia, temperatures are like the Mediterranean [bbc.com]. Highest recorded temperature ever in Siberia: 100F (38C for you Europeans).
Re: This is positive news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)