Rate of Sea Level Rise 'Has Doubled Since 1993,' Report Finds (yahoo.com) 116
One of the most alarming findings mentioned in the World Meteorological Organization's 2022 report, released Sunday, is that the "rate of sea level rise has doubled since 1993." They added: "The past two and a half years alone account for 10 percent of the overall rise in sea level since satellite measurements started nearly 30 years ago." From a report: One of the main causes of the accelerating pace of sea level rise is melting glaciers. According to the WMO, "2022 took an exceptionally heavy toll on glaciers in the European Alps, with initial indications of record-shattering melt. The Greenland ice sheet lost mass for the 26th consecutive year and it rained (rather than snowed) there for the first time in September." Last week, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a report on endangered glaciers finding that one-third of the glaciers in UNESCO World Heritage sites are expected to disappear by 2050. The remaining two-thirds can be saved if greenhouse gas emissions are cut quickly and deeply enough to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the report concluded.
In 2022, the average global temperature is estimated to be about 1.15C above the 1850-1900 average. This actually could have been worse. For the first time in a century, La Nina, a weather pattern that causes cool water to rise to the surface in the Pacific Ocean -- leading to cooler-than-usual weather -- occurred for the third year in a row. The WMO estimates that this means 2022 will be the fifth- or sixth-hottest year on record, rather than the hottest ever. But the trend toward ever-higher temperatures remains clear. "The latest State of the Global Climate report is a chronicle of climate chaos," said U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in response to the report's release. "As the World Meteorological Organization shows so clearly, change is happening with catastrophic speed, devastating lives and livelihoods on every continent. Glacier melt records are themselves melting away, jeopardizing water security for whole continents. We must answer the planet's distress signal with action -- ambitious, credible climate action. COP27 must be the place, and now must be the time."
In 2022, the average global temperature is estimated to be about 1.15C above the 1850-1900 average. This actually could have been worse. For the first time in a century, La Nina, a weather pattern that causes cool water to rise to the surface in the Pacific Ocean -- leading to cooler-than-usual weather -- occurred for the third year in a row. The WMO estimates that this means 2022 will be the fifth- or sixth-hottest year on record, rather than the hottest ever. But the trend toward ever-higher temperatures remains clear. "The latest State of the Global Climate report is a chronicle of climate chaos," said U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in response to the report's release. "As the World Meteorological Organization shows so clearly, change is happening with catastrophic speed, devastating lives and livelihoods on every continent. Glacier melt records are themselves melting away, jeopardizing water security for whole continents. We must answer the planet's distress signal with action -- ambitious, credible climate action. COP27 must be the place, and now must be the time."
Eureka (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Eureka (Score:2, Funny)
Step 1, put head between legs (Score:2, Insightful)
COP27 must be the place, and now must be the time
Then we're fucked, because every single COP to date has been a worthless fucking circle jerk of politicians pretending they give a fuck about humanity's future.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. On a positive note, I think most things never get as bad as the doomsday callers suggest.
Re:Step 1, put head between legs (Score:5, Insightful)
On a positive note, I think most things never get as bad as the doomsday callers suggest.
Sea level rise is happening faster than expected by the doom forecasters, so think again.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case all we have to do is give it time and they'll be right. Since we do jack shit about it because it would impede the all-holy profit, eventually we'll get to any kind of doomsday you can imagine.
What happens is that we return the carbon to the atmosphere that we had back when the world was pretty much covered in huge trees. Since these trees don't exist and we don't exactly sit on tons of anthracite, take a wild guess where that carbon has to go.
Re: Step 1, put head between legs (Score:2)
That's observation bias, there are few survivors of a doomsday to provide the counter example.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd disagree COP27 must be the place, and I'd also disagree they're *totally* useless.
The COPs have actually delivered something - not what many people think, or how they'd have liked to see it - but things have happened as a result of them. Before the Paris agreement, we were on track for something like a 4+C increase. That's currently somewhere around 2.7C - so progress has been made. I'd also say that even Trump wasn't able to "rid" the USA of the Paris agreement - a bunch of states and cities "stayed in
Re: (Score:2)
Missing information: (Score:4, Interesting)
Read the summary three times looking for the claimed rate of sea level rise that has "doubled".
I clicked so you don't have to.
The link to the Yahoo News article says it is 10 millimetres apparently up from 5 millimetres circa 1993. That is about .4 vs.2 of an inch for the non-SI inclined. But wait! That 10mm rise is only measured from Jan 2020. I have to assume that it is an annual rate through implication. So Florida will drown sometime beyond my lifespan. Dammit.
“The past two and a half years alone account for 10 percent of the overall rise in sea level since satellite measurements started nearly 30 years ago.”
Interesting quote. From my lazy back of the head arithmetic, 2.5 years of 30 would be 8.3% approx? So the the actual rate increase? Um just got too hard because I don't have a figure for an actual (assumed average) "overall" rise which must fall between 300mm (over an inch) and something less than double that.
Actually now I'm bored, so sorry for rambling. Just have to be content with the knowledge that in just a decade, (ymmv), Florida City will suffer from waves 4 inches higher than now! Run you bastards, run!!
Re:Missing information: (Score:5, Informative)
I grew up next to a lake. Well, lake is maybe saying a bit much, it was more of a puddle. Lots of area but only about 2 meters deep (that's about 7 feet for you US people). At the deepest. In other words, one should think it's impossible to drown in a puddle like that.
It is. Until you add the wind. It's really amazing how tall waves can get even in a puddle. Tall enough to kill you, even.
Raising a water level by a centimeter means little, as long as the water is calm. It can quickly mean a damn lot as soon as you add some other forces.
Re:Missing information: (Score:5, Insightful)
Raising a water level by a centimeter means little, as long as the water is calm. It can quickly mean a damn lot as soon as you add some other forces.
Yes, one of the grossly underappreciated things about sea level rise is that it means a massive increase in the distance inland traveled by storm surges, because the average beach slope is less than 1:1 (shocking, I know.) The places which occasionally flood mildly now are going to flood majorly soon...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, spoiler alert! They have to find out themselves, how else are they gonna learn?
Re: (Score:2)
how else are they gonna learn?
I presume by attempting to pull themselves out of the ocean by their bootstraps.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way, all those third wordl shithole places such as Bangladesh, Haiti, or Florida, will be washed away at some point in the future so we won't have to worry about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way, all those third wordl shithole places such as Bangladesh, Haiti, or Florida, will be washed away at some point in the future so we won't have to worry about them.
Yeah, but if it happens gradually enough we will still have to worry about the refugees, namely whether or what to do to or for them, depending on who you ask.
Re: (Score:2)
That 10mm rise is only measured from Jan 2020. I have to assume that it is an annual rate through implication.
Nope, it's 10 mm total since since Jan 2020. The "Sea Level Rise" chart shows a 4.4 mm/year trend over that window, and they emphasize that sea level rise isn't uniform. But if it was, Florida would see more like 1.7 inches of increase over a decade, not 4 inches. And that's for the water year-round, not only waves.
The link is not missing [Re:Missing information:] (Score:2)
Read the summary three times looking for the claimed rate of sea level rise that has "doubled".
You didn't have to read very far. The link was to the World Meteorological Organization's provisional 2022 report. The summary was linked: https://public.wmo.int/en/our-... [wmo.int]
which has a link "read the whole report" on the right: https://library.wmo.int/index.... [wmo.int]
Re: (Score:1)
Read the summary three times looking for the claimed rate of sea level rise that has "doubled".
You didn't have to read very far. The link was to the World Meteorological Organization's provisional 2022 report. The summary was linked: https://public.wmo.int/en/our-... [wmo.int]
which has a link "read the whole report" on the right: https://library.wmo.int/index.... [wmo.int]
Yeah and when you read the summary it says "The past two and a half years alone account for 10 percent of the overall rise in sea level since satellite measurements started nearly 30 years ago."
That's 2.5 years out of "nearly 30". So 10% of the rise in nearly 10% of the time. Somehow that doesn't sound bad.
I'm guessing the guys that wrote this aren't so good at math.
Doubling seen in fig 5[Re:The link is not missing] (Score:5, Informative)
My response was to the anonymous coward claiming he had to read the summary three times to "look for" information... that was linked in the first sentence.
As for rate of sea level rise, it is shown in figure 5 on page 10 of the report [wmo.int] in question. This shows sea level rise rate of 2.1 mm per year from January 1993 to December 2002, 2.9 mm per year from January 2003 to December 2012, and 4.4 mm per year from January 2013 to December 2022.
That's doubling according to my calculator. If you don't believe it, tell it to the World Meteorological Association, not to me.
Re: (Score:2)
My response was to the anonymous coward claiming he had to read the summary three times to "look for" information... that was linked in the first sentence.
As for rate of sea level rise, it is shown in figure 5 on page 10 of the report [wmo.int] in question. This shows sea level rise rate of 2.1 mm per year from January 1993 to December 2002, 2.9 mm per year from January 2003 to December 2012, and 4.4 mm per year from January 2013 to December 2022.
That's doubling according to my calculator. If you don't believe it, tell it to the World Meteorological Association, not to me.
Its a very weird graph. Visually it looks linear.
It doesn't start at 0 (probably because the "uncertainty"?)
The arrows visually overlap
The ten year period from Jan 1993 to Dec 2002 says "2.1 mm/year", which would be 21 mm, but it looks closer to 30 on the graph.
The first 10 years of the graph have the highest "uncertainty" range, so the rate could have been higher in the first ten years than the last.
The middle ten has the lowest uncertainty range.
It's not that the information is useless, but the conclusio
drilling down to source [Re:Doubling seen in fig.] (Score:2)
I agree, it would be nice to look at the data and graph it myself.
The link at the bottom of figure 5 sources the data as https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr] . Looks like the details are here: https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr]
I don't have time right now to go through it in detail at the moment, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it would be nice to look at the data and graph it myself.
The link at the bottom of figure 5 sources the data as https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr] . Looks like the details are here: https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr]
I don't have time right now to go through it in detail at the moment, though.
Well this is interesting. The chart from your second link looks different from the one in the report:
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr]
Look at the straight line they have drawn through it
Re: (Score:2)
Well this is interesting. The chart from your second link looks different from the one in the report:
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr]
Look at the straight line they have drawn through it
Yep. But by drawing the line, we can also see the curvature more clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well this is interesting. The chart from your second link looks different from the one in the report:
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr]
Look at the straight line they have drawn through it
Yep. But by drawing the line, we can also see the curvature more clearly.
It does help, but I think it still doesn't show a doubling of the rate.
Also, did you read any of the text? This graph has a dotted line which depicts estimated corrections due to problems with instrument drift in the early years. The chart we saw earlier only shows the estimated corrected graph.
Re: (Score:2)
I did notice that.
Re: (Score:2)
The ten year period from Jan 1993 to Dec 2002 says "2.1 mm/year", which would be 21 mm, but it looks closer to 30 on the graph.
If you compute an average rise from a wriggly graph, you don't draw a straight line from the first to the last data point, you perform linear regression, i.e. you find the line that minimises the RMS of the distance from the data points to the corresponding points on the line.
Re: (Score:2)
The ten year period from Jan 1993 to Dec 2002 says "2.1 mm/year", which would be 21 mm, but it looks closer to 30 on the graph.
If you compute an average rise from a wriggly graph, you don't draw a straight line from the first to the last data point, you perform linear regression, i.e. you find the line that minimises the RMS of the distance from the data points to the corresponding points on the line.
Well, that could be, but the people who created the original chart drew a straight line through it:
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr]
Read the text on the containing page https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr] , especially the explanation for the dashed lines in the first six years. Somehow the chart we've been shown changed the lines, and used the dashed ones instead.
it seems clear that the scientists who created this data are not drawing the conclusions the guys who wrote this report did, and the report is fudg
Re: (Score:3)
The people who created the original chart drew a straight line through it: https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr]
That's fine. They're showing the linear trend.
Read the text on the containing page https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr... [altimetry.fr] , especially the explanation for the dashed lines in the first six years. Somehow the chart we've been shown changed the lines, and used the dashed ones instead.
Right. They used the corrected values rather than the values that are known to be wrong. The TOPEX-A instrumental drift led to overestimate the GMSL slope during the first 6 years of the altimetry record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that could be, but the people who created the original chart drew a straight line through it:
They drew a straight line, but not from the first data point (although there is a coincidental close match) to the highest data point (where you can clearly see the discrepancy). They ran a linear regression and came up with the best linear match for all the data points.
Re: (Score:1)
The link to the Yahoo News article says it is 10 millimetres apparently up from 5 millimetres circa 1993.
And according to NOAA, the sea level graph from 1993 forward still fits to a straight line regression [climate.gov], putting the lie to the WMO's scaremongering.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Did they say which coastline was used to make this measurement?
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking numbers! (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, what has this world come to when 2.5 years out of 30 amount to approximately 10% of the (presumably-noisy) total?
The real crime against humanity is creating a web page that has vast amounts of blank space to stimulate a multi-page site within a single page, like these hosers did in their "provisional" report.
Re: (Score:2)
About 10% of the increase happened in about 10% of the time. Is that wrong to point out?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why you got downvoted for pointing out math.
About 10% of the increase happened in about 10% of the time. Is that wrong to point out?
Oh stop trying to use "math" to refute a breathless headline.
Next you'll be talking about hiding the decline
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, what has this world come to when 2.5 years out of 30 amount to approximately 10% of the (presumably-noisy) total?
The real crime against humanity is creating a web page that has vast amounts of blank space to stimulate a multi-page site within a single page, like these hosers did in their "provisional" report.
Seems about right to me too
I for one welcome... (Score:5, Funny)
our new dolphin overlords.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see the porpoise of your joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Reported.
It's alright. (Score:2)
I live on a hill but always wanted to have my own private island.
Re: (Score:2)
It wont become an island, you'll just have a property with a sizeable moat...
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it keeps other people away, I'll be fine with that. ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, fine by me. Introvert's dream.
Re: (Score:2)
Good enough to keep the peasants out that try to climb the hill so they don't drown.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're just being facetious, but your hill will probably erode away.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! I know your handle is "tragedy" but there's no need to put a tragic end to my dream! ;-)
So, a small number doubled? (Score:3, Insightful)
The politicians pushing this are idiots with their own ends in mind. They will damn us all in order to promote socialist dictatorships they expect to run. Why else would the so-called activists all blame the Democratic-Capitalist political economy and insist we replace it with one that produced nothing but mass suffering and genocide every time it was tried?
Re: (Score:3)
A slowly boiled frog will eventually boil. Exponential change starts slow and stays slow for a very long time, but it's equally hard to reverse.
All this talk about panic and unrealistic goals just attempts to set aside any rational thought and more realistic goals.
Why else would the so-called activists all blame the Democratic-Capitalist political economy and insist we replace it with one that produced nothing but mass suffering and genocide every time it was tried?
I think demonizing the entirety of an ideology prevents you from picking the good bits out and applying those (see also: response to climate change). Because capitalism is far from an ideal political system as it is.
Re: (Score:1)
Exponential change starts slow and stays slow for a very long time, but it's equally hard to reverse.
Indeed, at this rate in 1000 years the sea level will reach the sun. In 2000 years the universe will be all water.
Re: So, a small number doubled? (Score:2)
Welfare Capitalism has been shown for most of the 20th century to work for the U.S. and EU, but the far right wants to put an end to it. Democratic Socialism and mixed economies have also been demonstrated to work, but the far right in American pretend that bridges, hydroelectric dams, and highways sprouted out of nowhere.
Re: (Score:1)
I must have missed when the climate scientists predicted doom and gloom for 2022. I recall their being more concerned about 2122.
What you should be concerned with is things are progressing faster than were anticipated in the 1990's. That starts pulling back that 2122 date. Now you may think this doesn't matter because I'll be dead by then - but here's the rub: we have to start mitigating these effects now so our offspring don't bear the brunt of our bad decisions today. It's no surprise to see our species s
Re: (Score:2)
Let's kill ourselves trying to achieve an unrealistic goal set by politicians with ulterior motives instead of taking a sane and measured approach to cleanup and remediation.
What would a sane and measured approach be?
BS... (Score:1, Informative)
Re: BS... (Score:1)
Real Soon Now? (Score:2)
With a local elevation of 207 feet (Nawth Ca'lina), I won't be enjoying beachfront property any time soon (although some friends of mine might want to start worrying: state coastlines are eroding away, and the state law forbidding any consideration of science in deciding how to deal with coastline erosion: https://abcnews.go.com/US/nort... [go.com]
But I don't think dolphin overlords will be the problem. Good thing they're getting better at tracking great white travels :-)
https://www.newsweek.com/great... [newsweek.com]
https://w [newsweek.com]
Until Mar-a-Lago is under water, (Score:3)
...GOP won't do anything. And if it does go under, maybe that will solve the bottleneck itself.
Ok (Score:2)
Green Agenda (Score:2)
I occasionally need to go one place where I can't escape (that television channel).
Some morbidly curious streak in my nature lets an occasional phrase in for toxicity sampling.
Someone actually said "green agenda" . . . something about converting people to EVs in order to distract the public from the price of gas . . .
My peril-sensitive sunglasses went black looking at the toxicity test result.
Re: (Score:2)
there is indeed 'fake green agenda'
people largely can't afford EV right now so that's all nonsense anyway, gotta love Buttegieg saying the poor can just buy electric cars. No, they can't. Neither can most working class. Maybe in 10 years.
Fake green tries to outlaw or bog down with regulations the basic fuelds that power 80 percent civilization before there are alternatives. Sociopaths like that want people to freeze and starve.
A real green would push for things like either nuclear power or massive colle
Math is hard? (Score:1)
> They added: "The past two and a half years alone account for 10 percent of the overall rise in sea level since satellite measurements started nearly 30 years ago."
The "past two and a half years" is pretty close to 10 percent of "started nearly 30 years ago", so this is surprising or alarming how?
Put on your hip boots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure she's certain she finds some bigger idiot to the right of her who is certain that it's just weather and it will get better really soon now.
Re: (Score:2)
She's just corrupt, she knows there's a federal flood fund. what you want is to have a home that will be among the first to be swamped, so you can get a payoff, because by the time the flooding REALLY picks up there won't be any money left.
The flood fund repays people to rebuild IN THE SAME FUCKING PLACE, it's a shit show by design!
Nancy's house ... (Score:2)
I take it you've never been to San Francisco.
The place is hilly. Flooding due to sea level rise is not going to affect Nancy Pelosi's house in her lifetime, or even in yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you've never been to San Francisco.
Only about a zillion times, not counting living there for a year or so.
The place is hilly. Flooding due to sea level rise is not going to affect Nancy Pelosi's house in her lifetime, or even in yours.
That's probably true, but plenty of SF is low-lying enough to get stuffed.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't you know, reptiloids live much longer than humans. :)
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't realized by now that Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell are on the same side, you're probably too stupid to be allowed out without supervision.
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't realized by now that Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell are on the same side, you're probably too stupid to be allowed out without supervision.
I agree that Pelosi and McConnell are for the most part on the same side, which is that they are both very conservative. Both have shown themselves to be primarily interested in keeping the status quo (the definition of conservative), but are pragmatic enough to at least pander to different constituencies that want change without giving much to them.
The important difference is the constituencies they are pandering to, who are still thrown a bone once in a while. When McConnell gives up something, it results
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. I agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the stupidest memes that is keeps circling around with the moron brigade.
First, lose your boner for Pelosi.
Second, she's 82. At 82 you don't generally give a fuck if something is a good 30 year investment. She can enjoy living in a seaside mansion until she croaks without much threat from sea level rise. She'll be fine. It will get hairy in my lifetime, and my young niblings a re going to see some serious shit.
But sea level rise isn't fake because an old person doesn't have to worry about it
Re: (Score:2)
she just bought it tomorrow?
Re: (Score:1)
Just as a practical matter, green tech is essentially a luxury good.
Renewables are the cheapest form of generation, EVs are feel-good bullshit which produce almost as much pollution overall given that they still have tires, you are off your nut
Re: (Score:2)
Where the rubber meets the road (Score:2)
The thing is, rubber particulates at the roadside aren't contributing to the greenhouse gas problem. EV's do provide a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be working on both problems — we certainly should — but the point of EVs in terms of environmental wellness is not tire particulates. They're way ahead on lower gaseous emissions, which also contin
Re: (Score:1)
rubber particulates don't pose an existential, worldwide threat.
The biggest sources of microplastics are tires and synthetic textiles, in that order. Microplastics are in everyone and most plastics are well known to leach toxins, some of which strongly resemble sex hormones [npr.org]. Birth rates are falling, infant mortality is rising, and hey what's up with the increases in unexplained obesity [nih.gov] and (ruh-roh) gender dysphoria [nih.gov], are we just now noticing that because we're allowed to talk about it or is it in fact on the rise? And if it's the latter, are all of these things connecte [nih.gov]
Nope (Score:2)
That is flat-out irrelevant here. You're ducking the fact that EVs strongly address the greenhouse gas issue. And inasmuch as they directly replace ICEVs, they don't make the heavy particulate problem worse or better. Tires suck, on that we can agree. But rejecting lower-emissions EVs because they use tires, in favor of higher-emissions ICEVs that also use tires, is absurd.
Since EVs directly address the climate change issue, and very well,
Re: (Score:2)
That is flat-out irrelevant here. You're ducking the fact that EVs strongly address the greenhouse gas issue.
They really don't, though. Personal transportation is a minor part of the emissions puzzle. Look, in the USA personal transportation accounts for only 27% of GHGs. Estimates of the GHG reduction benefit of EVs over ICEVs varies, but they run from about 20-60%. However, credible estimates (even from pro-EV media) put them only at around 66% for a grid with 80% renewables, which we are nowhere near. Let's be charitable and call the benefit 40%.
As long as we're letting industry spew GHGs, and we're still using
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! You spent a lot of time admitting that EVs are definitely significant in combating climate change,. :)
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! You spent a lot of time admitting that EVs are definitely significant in combating climate change,. :)
If that's what you got out of that, then you're definitely an optimist, but not too good at sussing out the actual situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, even if this is true as to how electricity is generated, renewables certainly aren't the cheapest form to use, given how very expensive it is to store electricity.
Wind is so cheap that you can build overproduction for less than building storage or more fossil fuel plants, and then you don't have to store it. Also, solar+battery is cheaper than coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind is so cheap that you can build overproduction for less than building storage or more fossil fuel plants, and then you don't have to store it.
Kinda... you need a lot of very high power, very long distance power transmission capacity, much more than presently exists. It'll need to be HVDC, so you'll need gigawatts of rotary condensers too. It's well within our current level of tech, but it's not trivial or cheap.
Also, solar+battery is cheaper than coal.
Everything is cheaper than coal if you take into acc
Re: (Score:2)
you need a lot of very high power, very long distance power transmission capacity, much more than presently exists. It'll need to be HVDC, so you'll need gigawatts of rotary condensers too. It's well within our current level of tech, but it's not trivial or cheap.
Yes, but we need grid improvements for any new capacity but on-site solar, and that has obvious limitations. (We should still be using it though, obviously.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but we need grid improvements for any new capacity but on-site solar
Yep. Weather dependent ones are particularly extreme case since weather systems can be much larger than the availability of cooling capacity (needed for efficient thermal plants). Even so, super high capacity AC lines have been built too. I think there used to be (since degraded to make adding infra cheaper) a 5GW capacity 1MV AC line hundreds of miles long. Modern HVDC lines can keep up, it's just a question of investment.
Re:"It's dead, Jim" (Score:5, Insightful)
And second, the dire predictions of climate chaos have just not panned out.
Well, the heat must have made me hallucinate the 40 degree weather in London this summer.
Today, it's November the 8th and we're already over half way to the wettest November on record. Flooding caused my train to be cancelled yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate activism is a dead issue.
It may be in some places. Among the teens and 20-somethings I know, climate change is seen as the #1 cause for activism.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate activism is a dead issue.
It may be in some places. Among the teens and 20-somethings I know, climate change is seen as the #1 cause for activism.
Did you mean, it's the #1 cause to protest and bitch to one another about on social media? 'Cause the ones that are eligible don't seem to turn out and vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate activism is a dead issue. Apparently, it has been abandoned by the Democratic Party and its allies in government, big tech, and big media. In the entire mid-term campaign season we just went through, I'm struggling to think of any instances where it's even been mentioned, much less focused on. How interesting.
It's never been a campaign issue in the US, except when the GOP rallied people against climate policies. The relative silence suggests that the GOP sees climate politics as an issue that divides its base rather than unites it (in opposition). So most people do accept climate change as a serious issue but there's not yet a US political consensus for real action.
I do agree it generally takes back seat to issues where the worst consequences aren't decades away.
And second, the dire predictions of climate chaos have just not panned out. Chicken Little came to town just too many times, and the alarmism has been exposed for what it is. In this case, I think the observed truth about earth's climate -- its dynamism, its massive size, its billions of years of history -- just wore down the calamity theorists.
Well wildfires are ravaging California, insane hea
Re: (Score:1)
The Democrats successfully passed major climate legislation this year despite unanimous GOP opposition, goal accomplished. Meanwhile the 'green agenda' has absolutely nothing to do with lockdowns, the war, or supply chains.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a couple of theories of why climate alarmism has failed to find its legs. First, I think the combination of a war on European soil, the unnecessarily draconian lockdowns, and the supply chain interruptions have exposed the very high costs of the green agenda. Just as a practical matter, green tech is essentially a luxury good.
I'll tell you why it's died out. We're getting to the point where we can't just SAY we'll do something by X date - we have to start NOW, which COSTS MONEY, which no politician wants to do for something that half of everyone thinks is a hoax, anyway. People are not going to vote for someone that's going to cost them money to fix a problem that isn't affecting them yet.
In his book "Earth", David Brin said that humanity is basically doomed to be on the edge of calamity forever, because we won't do anything exp
Re: (Score:1)
Not according to the WMO report, which you ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
Or perhaps the real reason climate activism is dead is the issue of climate warming is a liberal inspired hand wringing exercise that was 100% BS to begin with.
Yet, sea level is rising.
Re: "It's dead, Jim" (Score:2)
The liberals asked me what to do about the climate deniers and I said drop them all in a coal mine and seal it shut. For whatever reason, liberals are willing to compromise with you nutballs and take the centrist position on the climate problem.
Re:Panic, eleventy!! (Score:5, Informative)
First off, that NASA chart ends in the early summer and there is a lot of northern hemisphere glacier ice melting through the latter half of the summer.
The doubling is claimed as being 1993-2002 vs 2013-2022, or 2.2mm/yr and 4.4mm/yr. averages respectively. You can't average in the recent span too and then claim the increase is lower than you thought. NASA's "current" rate being 3.4mm/yr is the average over the whole 30 years of data. You're comparing the same number (3.35) to itself except one of them is rounded.
NASA's 30 year chart [nasa.gov] looks nearly identical to the one by the World Meteorological Organization chart WMO [wmo.int]
Re: (Score:1)
The appropriate agency would be the NOA, not NASA. ANd their webpage says;
"In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches 67 mm above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present)."
According to NASA (Score:5, Informative)
"The altimetry data also show that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Over the course of the 20th century, global mean sea level rose at about 1.5 millimeters per year. By the early 1990s, it was about 2.5 mm per year. Over the past decade, the rate has increased to 3.9 mm (0.15 inches) per year." - NASA (as of about a year ago) [nasa.gov]
"Scientists have found that global mean sea level—shown in the line plot above and below—has risen 10.1 centimeters (3.98 inches) since 1992. Over the past 140 years, satellites and tide gauges together show that global sea level has risen 21 to 24 centimeters (8 to 9 inches)."
Based on the latest NASA satellite data [nasa.gov], the rate between Jan 1993 to Dec 2002 was 2.7mm/year. Since Jan 2013 it was 4.1 mm/year. That's roughly what the WMO found, and represents a remarkable acceleration.
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming or not, coastal areas tend to erode. So anyone buying beachfront property ever should know that it's in danger of disappearing, AGW or not. Yet people with the money still buy beachfront property. Maybe people with more money than most people make in 20+ lifetimes (Obama, Kerry) and people with more money than most people make in 20K+ lifetimes (Gates) just aren't that worried if their real estate investment only lasts a few decades?