Antarctic Sea-Ice at 'Mind-Blowing' Low Alarms Experts (bbc.com) 200
The sea-ice surrounding Antarctica is well below any previous recorded winter level, satellite data shows, a worrying new benchmark for a region that once seemed resistant to global warming. BBC: "It's so far outside anything we've seen, it's almost mind-blowing," says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center. An unstable Antarctica could have far-reaching consequences, polar experts warn. Antarctica's huge ice expanse regulates the planet's temperature, as the white surface reflects the Sun's energy back into the atmosphere and also cools the water beneath and near it.
Without its ice cooling the planet, Antarctica could transform from Earth's refrigerator to a radiator, experts say. The ice that floats on the Antarctic Ocean's surface now measures less than 17 million sq km - that is 1.5 million sq km of sea-ice less than the September average, and well below previous winter record lows. That's an area of missing ice about five times the size of the British Isles. Dr Meier is not optimistic that the sea-ice will recover to a significant degree.
Scientists are still trying to identify all the factors that led to this year's low sea-ice - but studying trends in Antarctica has historically been challenging. In a year when several global heat and ocean temperature records have broken, some scientists insist the low sea-ice is the measure to pay attention to. "We can see how much more vulnerable it is," says Dr Robbie Mallett, of the University of Manitoba, who is based on the Antarctic peninsula. Already braving isolation, extreme cold and powerful winds, this year's thin sea-ice has made his team's work even more difficult. "There is a risk that it breaks off and drifts out to sea with us on it," Dr Mallett says.
Without its ice cooling the planet, Antarctica could transform from Earth's refrigerator to a radiator, experts say. The ice that floats on the Antarctic Ocean's surface now measures less than 17 million sq km - that is 1.5 million sq km of sea-ice less than the September average, and well below previous winter record lows. That's an area of missing ice about five times the size of the British Isles. Dr Meier is not optimistic that the sea-ice will recover to a significant degree.
Scientists are still trying to identify all the factors that led to this year's low sea-ice - but studying trends in Antarctica has historically been challenging. In a year when several global heat and ocean temperature records have broken, some scientists insist the low sea-ice is the measure to pay attention to. "We can see how much more vulnerable it is," says Dr Robbie Mallett, of the University of Manitoba, who is based on the Antarctic peninsula. Already braving isolation, extreme cold and powerful winds, this year's thin sea-ice has made his team's work even more difficult. "There is a risk that it breaks off and drifts out to sea with us on it," Dr Mallett says.
Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:3, Informative)
I have already seen deniers go in on how Antarctica was once iceless which is true, but decreasing ice levels never occurred so fast according to existing ice cores.
Even those who have come to accept that climate change is man made, the position will be moved from "it's not man made" to "Well it's too late, what could we possibly do about it?"
Re:Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:5, Insightful)
The ice sheet in Antarctica melted dramatically between 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. It resulted in multiple meters of sea level rise, far beyond where we are yet. This event was obviously not human caused. And it was very, very recent.
https://singularityhub.com/202... [singularityhub.com]
Climate change is real, humans are certainly having an impact, but no one *really* knows how much.
Should we be trying to slow climate change? Absolutely, we should be deploying every resource. However we should also not be burying heads in the sand and ignoring hard science just because it is inconvenient with respect to the narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
The ice sheet in Antarctica melted dramatically between 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. It resulted in multiple meters of sea level rise, far beyond where we are yet. This event was obviously not human caused. And it was very, very recent.
The sea level rise that resulted from this had a major effect on the politics of Clovis Man. Republican chieftains were replaced with Democratic headmen, who directed that high technology, such as agriculture and the wheel, be abandoned in favor of a return to foraging. Unfortunately, the new chieftains cut spending on spearpoints so far that the Clovis were easily wiped out by the vast hordes of Olmec refugees they had let in without background checks. But Mother Gaia saw that this was good and re-chilled
Re: (Score:2)
Should we be trying to slow climate change?
That is a fools errand. We do not know what, how, or why the climate is changing. We do know we are having an effect on the climate and that the effect appears to be quite negative.
We should work on lowering our effects on the environment until we understand the situation more thoroughly. Climate will change with or without us. Trying to affect/effect that change can not be done with our current levels of understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
"We" do know, even if you profess ignorance. You can find the answers to your questions here [www.ipcc.ch]. In brief:
The "what" is by pulling your head out of the sand and looking out the window! Global temperatures are rising in significant ways, at a rate that is unprecedented for at least the past million years. Precipitation patterns are changing. Rare and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and worse. Glaciers a
Re: (Score:2)
"We" do know, even if you profess ignorance. You can find the answers to your questions here [www.ipcc.ch].
I am glad that you read what I wrote. I am sad that you utterly failed to understand it. I am glad that you THINK that you know everything there is to know about geoengineering and that it is all just a simple matter of controlling humans to keep the climate from changing.
Here is a quote from my message that I think you can understand:
We should work on lowering our effects on the environment until we understand the situation more thoroughly.
Does that not align with your paranoid world view? I am pretty sure it does. So why are you wasting energy bloviating about "knowing" things that you and "we" do not know.
Re: (Score:2)
We should work on lowering our effects on the environment until we understand the situation more thoroughly.
Does that not align with your paranoid world view? I am pretty sure it does. So why are you wasting energy bloviating about "knowing" things that you and "we" do not know.
Unfortunately at this point it has practically become a religion. You're asking fanatics why they can't just be good and moral people without the threat of being sent to a lake of burning fire.
Air quality and grid decentralization are all the reasons I need to get rid of coal and gas power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
> 5,000 to 10,000 years ago
> This event was obviously not human caused.
As a leftist I can tell you that humans existed 10,000 years ago. You right wing extremist bible-tards think the world started at 6,000 years.
I'm assume you are trolling, but the op did not say humans didn't exist 5K to 10K years ago. They said humans didn't cause the change. The human population estimates are 1 million to 10 million total 10K years ago and 5 million to 20 million 5K years ago. Since the industrial revolution didn't start until 300-ish years ago and oil and coal weren't used at all by humans until 2500 years ago how did we cause the melting? If the planet is so fragile that a handful of stone age humans melted the sea ice to th
Re: Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not reading all that. Not because I don't believe your claims but it doesn't appear any of the links say anything on what to do about the problem.
We have reports on what to do about the problem, and the IPCC is one organization that publishes reports on what to do. I won't link to the IPCC reports because they are easy enough to find. For those not all that motivated to even look at the executive summary of the reports I'll give one important detail that it appears many miss, the IPCC reports that without more nuclear power plants we will not hit our CO2 emission reduction goals. Anyone want to claim otherwise? I can mention other reports that say the same. Anyone wish to argue that nuclear power "costs too much"? Well, the IPCC says if we don't build more nuclear power plants then we miss our CO2 emissions goals so if nuclear power "costs too much" then dealing with global warming must be lower cost than nuclear power. Is that where anyone wants to take the conversation? Whatever problems nuclear power has that is trivial compared to solving global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should. Just to be clear, is this [www.ipcc.ch] the executive summary you are referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
I should know better than to reply to anonymous cowards but...
I think this is pretty straight forward. As a US citizen I say sanction the two largest world polluters (and probably India) until they start making significant annual CO2 reductions.
As a US citizen I find that to be an odd statement to make. I'll use this list of CO2 emissions as my guide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Top of the list is China so if we sanction the two largest "polluters" (assuming that CO2 is the "pollution" under concern or at least an accurate proxy for pollution in general) then China gets sanctions. I believe China is already under considerable sanctions for other reasons than CO2 emissions so addi
Re:Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I just do what I always do when people of this intellectual level try to enter a discussion: "Yes, and mommy sure is proud of you. Now go and play while the adults are having their boring conversation".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, sweety, that's nice, mommy is proud of you...
But in all seriousness, you don't say that for their benefit, you say it for the benefit of the others that might be listening so they know that this position deserves nothing but patronizing and ridicule.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I understand the
Re: (Score:2)
So letting the bullshit stand there uncontested is better? Because then the reaction is "well, that shut them up, so the argument has to be solid".
Re: (Score:2)
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Mark Twain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best medicine is not to argue with liars. Don't give them the power of being the other side of the discussion. Exclude them completely and let their disconnection from reality weight their claims accordingly.
I believe the best medicine is to argue how the solutions to lower CO2 emissions also brings other benefits. If the opposition in your debate will not consider global warming a problem then perhaps you can get agreement on fuel and electricity costs, energy independence, air and water pollution, freshwater shortages, resource wars that the USA could get sucked into (which is related to energy independence, water supplies, and energy costs), or other problems that share solutions with lowering CO2.
Getting m
Re: (Score:2)
There is a "martyr impulse
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I wouldn't say a man who got millions fewer votes than his opponent was "elected." More like he snuck into power through a series of procedural back doors; more or less a Russian-backed coup. Then we threw him the hell back out by an even wider margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, humor me, what benefit does the electoral college offer in a world where it's no longer impossible for the ordinary person to even know the candidates they're supposed to vote for?
Re: (Score:2)
The benefit of the electoral college is to give more weight to votes given in states with lower populations so that the candidates running for office aren't ignoring the issues of these low population states and running their election only on the votes they get from large population centers.
I don't know the numbers exactly and I'm not going to look it up right now but it is something like California get 57 electoral votes while Alaska gets 3 electoral votes. Having 3 votes isn't much but it is far more tha
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how the EU pulls that off... hmm... maybe not electing an ersatz-king is a start.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs an ersatz king when they have the real deal?
Queen Elizabeth apparently still held considerable authority as the queen but chose to use a light touch. I heard stories of her touch not being so light when dealing with matters within the royal family but that's not all that related to how the nation is run. I expect King Charles to rule in much the same way, as would his heir. After that though the King of England might not rule on the same model as Queen Elizabeth, they'd have no memory of how sh
Re: (Score:2)
The British monarchy is something ... special. Yes, even in that sense. Most of the "power" that monarch has is ceremonial and/or traditional, and you'd probably see an uprising if he or she ever tried to actually exercise any of the powers he/she has left. Just because some heads in Europe wear a crown doesn't mean jack. You'll find a lot of "royalty" littered across Europe, with most of them having some sort of representative role.
You'll also find that in most European countries that choose to have a pres
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of room for Congress to provide oversight on what the President does, or what executive authority the President has delegated to heads of various departments. The problem is that Congress has had a long habit of delegating their own lawmaking authority to the executive branch. Congress will create some executive office, provide what is an often vague description of their authority, then just let whomever is President at the time to make up what is effectively law all the time.
An example mig
Re: (Score:2)
Over time Congress has willingly surrendered a lot of power to the Executive.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. President was not intended to be a king. Things have gotten out of whack and the checks & balances system is no longer working as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
The electoral college (and the senate) give much greater weight to the votes of people in the smaller states. That's tyranny of the minority. Is that supposed to be good because it isn't a tyranny of the majority?
The constitution and respect for people's rights are what protect against a tyranny of the majority, not the electoral college.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:2)
"How many times and for how long as this bullshit been proven to be a total fabrication?"
Zero.
The Mueller report contains a metric shitload of evidence of collusion, but he was not asked to look for that, which is what he actually said.
Your inability to read is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point of "it's not man made" is to be an excuse to do nothing. So if the house is on fire will they say "it's not my fault!" and go back to sleep while it burns?
Some of this also is a wishful desire that someone will come up with a solution eventually such that there's no inconvenience in the meantime. But this magical solution is extremely unlikely, the most we will find are some stopgap measures which become increasingly futile as temperatures increase. The actual solution has been proposed decades ago - cut back on emitters of greenhouse gases, even if that means an economic decline. Instead I am seeing too often an attitude that death (by covid, floods, fires, etc) is preferable over giving up freedom to do stupid things (use a gas guzzling suv to take kids two blocks to school, refusing vaccines, refusing to evacuate).
The worst part is that this has been made political. And politics causes illogical thinking. Which ultimately means, in summary, we're doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive degrowth with a goal of a human population of 1B by 2100 begins to scratch at what's necessary. Unfort
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly wrong, but not quite accurate. [caltech.edu]
However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years. While the drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean did not absorb as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it has in recent years, probably due to the reduced pressure of carbon dioxide in the air at the ocean’s surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we take the scientific approach to the current situation, and make one minor tweak-- that emissions peaked in the 1980s-- then do you see another option? Not advocating genocide, but the current projections see population peaking in the "near future" (human time scale), and dropping back to pre-inustrial levels over a few hundred years (give or take). This is expected to be a fairly natural phenomenon.
So, are there any good (realistic) alternatives for humanity other than bracing for that? If it happe
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 50 and I have no kids, so I don't need this planet any longer than maybe 30 years. Tops.
What's your excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... I actually agree with both you and the troll on some level.
There are changes I will try to make, things I will try to do to manage risks in my personal life, and things I will try to hand down to my niece and nephews, but the reality is that there is very little our society can do to solve a problem framed as CO2 levels in the next 20-100 years. You could frame the problem as sea level rise and ocean warming and there are actions that can be taken, at least on some scale. You might be able to frame
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the every day sea level that is the problem. The problem is when a storm surge hits a small increase in sea level results thousands more more acres of land being flooded.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you suggest we keep consuming more and more? We need to do SOMETHING, and we know that auto emission are a contributing factor, so yes, we need to cut back emissions. If the environment is such that we don't control it but we can contribute, we should stop contributing. Ie, if we're downhill from a volcano, maybe stop building there. If we're in the middle of a desert, maybe don't build a one hundred mile long canal to get water just to keep a city alive. If we're in a high fire risk zone, stop putt
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
For Antarctica to be lacking in ice means there's no ice cores still existing to show how quickly prior melting events happened.
If you want to make an argument on how we need to be concerned about global warming then please make an argument that is not so easily refuted by the "deniers". Also helpful in making the case against denial is bringing practical solutions to the table. If the argument is that global warming could kill us all while also making the argument that nuclear fission energy will kill us
Re:Others ways to find that out (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you investigate it from the other end...
I get it but I'm not sure people are getting my complaint here.
If everything is evidence of global warming then nothing is. It used be that "weather is not climate" because, well, rare weather events aren't indications of changes to local climate. Weather in climate in that we define the local climate to be an average what the weather has been for the last 20 years. Weather is "sort of" the climate, but that doesn't mean a snow storm is now a sign of global warming because snow storms happen in spite of global warming not necessarily because of it.
People are so eager to point out something to defend global warming that they are making silly arguments of no ice core records of Antarctica being without ice before. Of course there's no ice core records of no ice on Antarctica, and why that is should have been obvious. Make everything about global warming and people will tune it out, and they should tune out silly arguments on global warming like they should for anything else. The problem is if the good evidence of global warming is mixed in with bad arguments and bad data then people will tune out the good arguments with good data too.
There's signs of sea level being much higher than it is now with salt deposits deep into deserts in Africa. I watched something on YouTube recently where someone pointed out that there's likely all kinds of things to find out in the desert because the arid climate preserved so much. The problem is that going out in the desert for archaeology, geology, and other studies is unpleasant and/or expensive. That still brings the problem of people going to look for global warming and nobody much caring when they find it. Look for the truth, and if you find global warming then report it. Look for something specific and nobody will be surprised when you find it.
I'm reminded of someone going out to some remote mountain looking for Noah's Ark and claiming to have found anchor stones for a large ship high up in the mountains. The evidence was pretty light on them being anchor stones, and maybe they were. They appeared to be deliberately chiseled rocks that had some semblance to anchor stones from a long time ago, but given the weathering and no real means to put a solid date on when (or even definitively show *IF*) they were chiseled into anchors the stones by themselves wasn't all that noteworthy. Along the same lines are claims of finding the legendary land of Atlantis because of this, that, or the other thing. Don't go looking for Atlantis, instead look to see what is there. You might not like what you find, but that's how science is done.
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's the beauty of denialism. No matter what stage you're at, you don't need to do jack.
First, it's "there is no climate change".
When that is no longer possible to deny, it's usually "ok, there is, but the climate has always changed".
When you point out that the speed is a problem, aside of "yeah, it was hotter before, but then this planet didn't have to support human life", the next stage is "Ok, but it's not man-made, so what can we do?"
And when it's finally no longer deniable that it's anthropogeni
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, why should I do something when there's others who could instead?
Can't someone else do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you see, the problem here is that the people we mow down are usually not the ones that have the biggest carbon footprint. You'd have to kill like 200 million Africans to come close to what offing just a million of Americans would save us.
We're simply killing off the wrong people here.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Europe, USA, China and India need to just vanish. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Europe, USA, China and India need to just vanish. Problem solved.
But then who would the rest oft he world steal from for sustenance?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they wouldn't have to anymore, after all, who taught them that anything in a foreign country is there for the taking?
You see, we don't steal from them, we just protect our resources. That our resources are buried in their country is just a fluke of nature.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd prefer they come over and take it?
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why good relations with the South America (for the US) and Africa (for the EU) are essential. If we can convince them somehow to keep the riffraff at home, we have fewer problems.
Luckily that doesn't affect sea levels, but damn (Score:2, Interesting)
Luckily there is no effect on sea levels due to the melting of sea ice. Hopefully we can get a handle on this before it translates into too much melting of Antarctic continental ice. There is some isolation between the sea temperatures which are causing the sea ice melt from the air temperatures which cause continental ice melt. But it's still worrying. Certainly it's sobering and time to get serious.
As these worsening symptoms occur, it makes me remember as a youth having debates about global warming
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like it was time to get serious 30 years ago. We basically are going to wait around until there is a catastrophe that 99% of people agree was part of our reality. Then we can start disgusting it rationally. And it has to be serious, knee deep water in Venice isn't serious by these standards. It needs to be neck deep water at Buckingham Palace before we'll admit that maybe it's time to do something.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel like it was time to get serious 30 years ago. We basically are going to wait around until there is a catastrophe that 99% of people agree was part of our reality. Then we can start disgusting it rationally. And it has to be serious, knee deep water in Venice isn't serious by these standards. It needs to be neck deep water at Buckingham Palace before we'll admit that maybe it's time to do something.
People like comforting lies. And big industry, with the help of the world governments and generations of data on how to best manipulate people, are providing those comforting lies at just the right rate of speed to keep any real change from happening and to keep the largest segments of society, the people that will ultimately pay the worst price for climate change, from rising up and tearing down those bastards before it's too late. As satire, "Don't Look Up" may have some negative strikes, but looking at i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No problem for me. Back in the 1980's, I ordered plans for building an amphibious car from the back of a magazine. Going to come in pretty handy in a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
I reiterate my original question:
As these signs of the effects we're having continue to roll in, as hurricanes get more prevalent and worse, as ice melts, as swaths of the world have record heatwaves over and over, it makes me curious what he, and others like him, currently use as justification for maintaining business as usual.
So I can thank-you for the answer:
We're not looking at a catastrophe. We're looking at a slow, centuries long progression for the kind of warming that took millenia before. Considering the speed of adaptation so far, we've far exceeded what is necessary so far. Planet is greener, more fertile and friendlier to human life it has ever been in history of our species. We'll be fine. Doomsayers existed in every documented generation we had, and they will continue to exist. And they all share exactly one commonality.
They are all wrong.
Thank-you. It's good to know what the head-in-the-sand types are using as their current opiate of choice.
Re: (Score:2)
IPCC has already stated that all paths to limiting warming to a target of 1.5 C, a target we are quickly approaching (1.1 C), requires decarbonization. As in removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Any fossil fuels we burn today have to be removed in the future. That's bleak, and expensive. (source: IPCC-AR6, March 2023)
In terms of history and records. We broke a lot. But that's more fluff for getting the journalists to write about this. What is more important is what models can predict. But rather than simp
Re: (Score:2)
I recall a few years ago ... (Score:2)
Good thing it's cooler over there on that land ice right beside the sea ice. If that land ice were melting, that could be a problem.
I recall a few years ago there was a big panic over how there was a big increase in Antarctic sea ice and concern that the underside of the Antarctic continental ice sheet was melting. This, it was said, looked like the start of a massive melt-and-slide of a big chunk of the southern ice cap from land into the oceans, which (if it occurred) WOULD rapidly raise ocean levels and
Throw it on the stack of outliers. Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
Precious few folks are on the fence anymore on anything climate-related. The camps are entrenched. I don't even know that anybody's even trying to refute contrary positions with any real enthusiasm... the stories have become background noise. That's the shame in all of this. The basic breakdown in the willingness of people to be convinced of a position they didn't already hold comes at a terrible cost.
I am opinionated, and more than one person considers me an egotistical jackass. But... I am very open to being wrong, and I'll freely admit it when it happens. And it happens a lot. But... you'd better to be able to tell me how you know what you purport to know. I consider it a redeeming quality among my collection of questionable ones. I also won't claim to know with certainty when I do not. That puts me at a disadvantage in some arguments... lots of people have far greater belief in their own correctness about major, complicated matters, than I have on the simplest of things. I don't understand that kind of certainty. It's just bizarre to me.
So here we have a story that, although the summary doesn't specifically call out climate change, will trigger a lot of pronouncements of "fact" that point in opposite directions, and they'll all talk right past each other. Nobody will listen, nobody will give ground or concede points, and no progress will be made. It's a wonderful grandstanding opportunity, but that's all that it brings.
Re: (Score:2)
People reach a point in denialism where new evidence they're wrong feels like proof they're right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For sure. That's the author's likely intent, and why the words were carefully chosen. And I would like to think there's a collection of people who read it for that. But I'm betting that's not where the conversation around it will come from.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly; the magnitude was unpredicted and quite different than anything before, potentially indicating a tipping point. 2023 seems to have had several potential tipping point events, which may indicate a dramatic shift in rate-of-change.
Re:Throw it on the stack of outliers. Doesn't matt (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many who don't participate in batshit denialism, but also don't fully comprehend the urgency and gravity of the situation. They will say things like:
"We have plenty of time to figure this out."
"New technology will save us. People always find a way."
"America/The West always finds a way. Everyone else might be fucked, but we'll be safe."
Basically every politician (excluding deniers) falls somewhere in this range. They will say it's a problem, they will say gee, wouldn't it be great for us to cut emissions ("Bla bla bla", to quote Greta Thunberg) and yet when it comes time to actually do these things, they're right back to subsidizing fossil fuels. They'll kick the habit, sure, but... tomorrow. Next week. Next administration. Next generation. Intellectually, they know there is a problem, but they are totally unable to address it. Very much like any drug addict.
In addition to all the politicians, much of the general population falls in this middle ground of acceptance and helplessness. You have deniers making up maybe a third of the population, Thunberg protestor-types making up 1%, and most everyone else falling into the middle mindset I described.
The parallel of this mentality to drug addiction - I say this as a recovering addict - is stark, and grim. People only wake up from their helplessness after a long experience of suffering, and some extreme traumatic event. If they wake up at all. It's going to get way worse before it gets better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precious few folks are on the fence anymore on anything climate-related. The camps are entrenched. I don't even know that anybody's even trying to refute contrary positions with any real enthusiasm... the stories have become background noise.
That is because the people who have motivation to do things that destroy the environment are not swayed by words. They also do not care what anyone else thinks. Their greed also blinds them to the future.
Either government(s) steps up or we destroy the planet. The problem with government(s) stepping up is that the motivation for doing things that destroy the planet brings lots of benefits... and those benefits can be shared with those who are in charge of deciding things. Sure, there are laws against such "s
We need a 'disaster tax' (Score:3)
This is going against 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' we hate to spend for that ounce of prevention but no problem finding money for a disaster.
The thing to do is tax this disaster spending at1% to go to a green-energy climate fund.
Re: (Score:3)
The right answer is, "Don't rebuild in situ. Migrate." But that's also the most emotionally unfulfilling and coldly calculated way of looking at it, and some people will suffer. Still right, though. If you wouldn't eat in a restaurant called "Chez Listeria", you probably shouldn't rebuild a house in "Hurricane Alley".
Re: We need a 'disaster tax' (Score:2)
Yes, it's part of the greater ongoing tragedy that we are not even talking about managed retreat in Hawaii.
Rebuild! Rebuild! But they'd better fucking rebuild homes as boats.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not going to waste my time explaining to you why your response is stupid. You obviously didn't understand what I wrote already.
'Recorded' (Score:2)
Definitions are tricky.
Recorded by satellite? Sure.
Recorded on old Chinese maps? Well, now, that's different.
Since we're in an interglacial period, when do we expect all of the glaciers to have melted?
That always happens before they start to build up again.
When I was a kid they were expecting ice accretion to begin about Y. 3100 based on climate models and ice cores, with melting by 2500 AD.
Nothing so far seems too far off from that except the politicians who want to tax eating, moving, and breathing.
IPCC says hydro, onshore wind, geothermal and more (Score:2)
I have become an avid viewer of Decouple Media and in this podcast the hosts bring in guests that point out how we need hydro and nuclear fission for reliable energy, and how onshore wind and geothermal make low cost and low CO2 options for intermittent energy. https://www.decouplemedia.org/... [decouplemedia.org]
People might not think geothermal is an intermittent energy source but if run too long at a time it can "freeze" the hot rocks deep in the Earth and ruin future output of the plant. It's a relatively reliable energy
Depressing but expected (Score:2)
When it gets hotter ice melts, it's pretty simple physics. When you add water to a vessel the levels get higher.
Low lying areas are more productive than higher areas so this is where virtually everyones lives. Raise the water levels, move or drown.
Currently the world is just pretending to fight climate change. If you're not using nuclear you're not serious and we need to get much better at building it.
The world need lots of energy and fossil fuels are just sooooo easy, a bit like OxyContin. Just another bli
but...I thought (Score:2)
with all the ice supposedly melting, isn't the water level supposed to be higher?
New project (Score:2)
Re: Given their numbers... (Score:2)
New York has New Amsterdam style levies.
Did you mean sea walls? In the USA levees bound rivers and reservoirs, not the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
They are contemplating building a giant wall in NYC - its getting push back locally because nobody wants a 20ft wall blocking the view...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody told you something silly when you were a kid, and now the scientific world is bound to your acceptance of it as a child? While you're looking for examples where the prognosticators of your youth are getting it wrong, are you also keeping a checklist of what they got right?
Melting sea ice won't really affect the coastline. The Archimedes principle applies, with a slight allowance for varying salinity.
Re: (Score:2)
Melting sea ice won't really affect the coastline. The Archimedes principle applies, with a slight allowance for varying salinity.
Sure, but I think the important part is in the first quoted paragraph of TFS concerning how that sea ice helps cool the planet:
An unstable Antarctica could have far-reaching consequences, polar experts warn. Antarctica's huge ice expanse regulates the planet's temperature, as the white surface reflects the Sun's energy back into the atmosphere and also cools the water beneath and near it.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, the implications for the future are not good. I was just replying to the poster's dubious point. So while melting sea ice doesn't directly (or immediately) impact coastlines... indirectly it almost certainly will (and does).
Re: (Score:2)
So while melting sea ice doesn't directly (or immediately) impact coastlines... indirectly it almost certainly will (and does).
Like when rising temperatures cause all the ice *on* Antarctica to melt ... From What is the global volume of land ice and how is it changing? [antarcticglaciers.org]:
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is the largest store of frozen freshwater; it would raise sea levels by 57.9 m (its “sea level equivalent”, or SLE) on full melting. The Antarctic Ice Sheet covers 8.3% of the Earth’s land surface.
Re: (Score:2)
But this doesn't take into account the changes of density of water when ice melts. See https://www.internetchemistry.... [internetchemistry.com]
And then most of the ice in Antarctica is not floating, so if it melts it will definitely cause a sea level rise.
Re: (Score:2)
So when do we get a "Day After Tomorrow" event?
Re:Given their numbers... (Score:5, Informative)
Given their numbers of how much ice was captured, and has now since melted, should we not have already seen the majority of our coastal cities fully submerged?
No. Sea ice has no *direct* effect on sea level. It's the old chestnut about an ice cube floating in a glass of water; does the water level go up as the ice melts? No, because the ice cube displaces it own weight in water.
Sea ice just happens to be easy to measure with remote sensing; loss of sea ice is an indicator that the Antarctic is getting warmer. Those warmer temperatures will cause *glacial* ice to melt faster, and those glaciers *will* have an effect on sea levels because they will introduce more water to the oceans. Sea ice loss also has indirect effects on sea level by making it easier for glaciers to calve icebergs which again is *adding water* to the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Sea ice loss also has indirect effects on sea level by making it easier for glaciers to calve icebergs which again is *adding water* to the ocean.
Is there an effect that sea-ice is reflective hence reduces incoming solar load? Or is this just an irrelevant factor (especially since the poles are at such angles from the sun) compared to other reflective parts of the earth's surface like clouds?
Re: (Score:2)
What you are talking about is called Ice-albedo feedback [wikipedia.org].
Up to now it has mainly been an Arctic issue. Antarctica's ice cover is continental and is not expected to experience a significant albedo driven warming for several centuries. Naturally the reduction of summer sea ice cover will cause *some* additional energy absorption, but AFAIK it's still an open question whether that will be significant. A google scholar search doesn't find any systematic reviews that way in on this particular question.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Sea ice has no *direct* effect on sea level. It's the old chestnut about an ice cube floating in a glass of water; does the water level go up as the ice melts? No, because the ice cube displaces it own weight in water.
Sooo... I was almost an idiot just now.
Water is a strange substance in that it expands rather than contracts when it freezes. I was about to say that the sea levels should actually decrease by a very small amount when the ice melts... however, the ice is not "submerged", it is floating, so the extra physical space is above the water line... meaning no change at all in sea levels when it melts.
Re:Given their numbers... (Score:4, Informative)
Given their numbers of how much ice was captured, and has now since melted, should we not have already seen the majority of our coastal cities fully submerged?
No, because this is sea-ice. It's already in the ocean. This is about displacement. The ice floating in water displaces a certain amount of water. How much? The volume of water displaced is equal to the volume of a quantity of water with the same mass as the chunk of ice. Since ice is just frozen water, that means that, when it melts, it occupies the natural volume for that much water. Now, this would mean that there would be absolutely no change in the level of the water, but it's not absolutely 1:1. There are some other factors. One of them is gas entrained in the ice. Another is that the ice is basically entirely fresh water and the ocean water is slightly denser salty water. Another is differences in temperature of the water even after melting. Ice may expand, but normal liquid water contracts as it cools and expands as it heats. Ice melting in the ocean is going to result in cooler water. When you add all the factors together, a large volume of freshwater ice melting in the ocean is probably going to very slightly lower the water level rather than raise it. On the whole though, it will be very close to neutral.
Now, longer-term, the loss of this sea ice will have an effect on ice that's sitting on land, causing it to melt faster. That ice will melt and end up in the ocean, raising ocean levels. There are some other effects as well though. The weight of the ice presses down the land that it's currently sitting on and, once it melts, that land will rebound in elevation. The land under the ocean will be pushed down, however. Then there are the same issues with the differences in salinity and temperature and the presence of entrained gases. All those factors mean that you can't perfectly plot a relationship between the mass of ice melted and the volume of sea level rise.
Re: (Score:2)
NYC was supposed to have Amsterdam-type levies by 2010.
If you look at New York tax rates, this is exactly what happened. At least Amsterdam has those fun pot cafes.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people talking about Trump if they don't want him in elected office? He got elected POTUS in large part because it was the biggest best "yuge" middle finger that could be raised against the "deep state". Keep bringing up how bad Trump would be as POTUS again and you make it more likely for him to get elected.
I doubt Trump will make it through the primaries. He's handicapped by being unable to run for another term, a handicap no other candidate will have. Trump is old, and people aren't liking ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats giving Trump a hard time over how he's handled sensitive documents is pretty rich given the accusations of Democrats doing the same. I suspect that some politicians are fairly lax on operational security, and it's from both major political parties. In hindsight it was as stupid for Trump to go after the Clintons for their lack of keeping sensitive documents secure as it is for Biden to go after Trump.
What this nonsense over investigating Trump on his handling of sensitive documents does is put a
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about global warming is that it's an equal-opportunity killer. It doesn't care what religion, skin color, sexual preference or political position you have. It's absolutely fair and equal.
Ok, granted, being poor is kinda a deciding factor. But hey, at least it doesn't discriminate in any way the US doesn't allow.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they have federal flood insurance for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. But we're working really hard at it, give us a bit more time, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, "The eight warmest years on record have now occurred since 2014"
Or as you call it "trending back to cooler and wetter climates in NA", and since you love referencing it, please read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]