Almost 40% of World's Glaciers Already Doomed Due To Climate Crisis (theguardian.com) 105
Almost 40% of glaciers in existence today are already doomed to melt due to climate-heating emissions from fossil fuels, a study has found. The Guardian: The loss will soar to 75% if global heating reaches the 2.7C rise for which the world is currently on track. The massive loss of glaciers would push up sea levels, endangering millions of people and driving mass migration, profoundly affecting the billions reliant on glaciers to regulate the water used to grow food, the researchers said.
However, slashing carbon emissions and limiting heating to the internationally agreed 1.5C target would save half of glacier ice. That goal is looking increasingly out of reach as emissions continue to rise, but the scientists said that every tenth-of-a-degree rise that was avoided would save 2.7tn tonnes of ice.
However, slashing carbon emissions and limiting heating to the internationally agreed 1.5C target would save half of glacier ice. That goal is looking increasingly out of reach as emissions continue to rise, but the scientists said that every tenth-of-a-degree rise that was avoided would save 2.7tn tonnes of ice.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't listen. Now my igloo is collapsing and sliding into the Antarctic ocean! If only I had stopped eating meat...
Just eat Polar Bear. It's a little chewy, and it's bigger than you are and will try to eat you first, but since they're all gonna die anyway, hey, BBQ sauce!
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't listen. Now my igloo is collapsing and sliding into the Antarctic ocean! If only I had stopped eating meat...
Just eat Polar Bear. It's a little chewy, and it's bigger than you are and will try to eat you first, but since they're all gonna die anyway, hey, BBQ sauce!
There aren't any polar bears in Antarctica.
There's still time to eat the penguins though, before Trump's tariffs finish them off.
Re: He warned us! (Score:1)
What if each piece of meat was taken unwillingly from a curious, gentle intelligence that you could beneft more by learning from, than by killing and eating it?
Furthermore, what if there already exist plant-based products that you cannot tell are different from murdered flesh in a blind taste test?
Is it actually just the taste of cruelty you want, and can that urge be satisfied in virtual environments without harming real animals?
Re: He warned us! (Score:2)
"What if each piece of meat was taken unwillingly from a curious, gentle intelligence that you could beneft more by learning from"
I tried that, but cows only say moo. Stupid cows.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh... the walking steak dispensers... I could never figure out where the money went.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's an especially engaging hobby, what can I say?
Re: (Score:1)
What if each piece of meat was taken unwillingly from a curious, gentle intelligence that you could beneft more by learning from, than by killing and eating it?
We don't need that many study cows. What do we do with all the extras?
Furthermore, what if there already exist plant-based products that you cannot tell are different from murdered flesh in a blind taste test?
What most plant based meat products need is more meat [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of a skit talking about dolphin safe tuna. Don't eat the tuna, the nets are catching dolphins as well. They are smart and cute. Wait, what about the fucking tuna? Dennis Leary does it much better then me though. This covers it nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What if each piece of meat was taken unwillingly from a curious, gentle intelligence that you could beneft more by learning from, than by killing and eating it?
Whatever curious, gently intelligent meat I might forego will be eaten by some other curious and gentle intelligence. My cat is the most curious and gentle thing walking the Earth, and he butchers about 3 curious and gentle chipmunks or rabbits a week, that I can prove. Republicans didn't make him that way. Capitalism didn't do it either. There is no sky daddy, so we can't blame that. The universe you inhabit did it. He's right to be how he is and so am I.
So fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
"Save the whales!" is old and busted.
"Save the glaciers!" is the new hotness.
Re: He warned us! (Score:2)
That's because it's too late to save the whales.
Re: (Score:2)
If only they had turned swapping on. /s
Re: (Score:1)
They would be better off with checksummed backups. They'll come in handy when the alien cylinder gets here.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if we could get a certain culture from harpooning them, that would help. In fact, if we could get all cultures to stop harpooning them, that would go a long way.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone still believe this BS? If so, I have a covid booster shot for ya.
Of course I believe it. The science is settled. And then I bought beachfront property.
Humans are doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the population still believes in a skydaddy. We've also built a culture where being smart is shunned.
Re:Humans are doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
So your basic world view is that there is a big global exception to thermodynamics for planet earth, that CO2 magically doesn't behave the same way it behaves everywhere else in the universe?
Does that sum up your position?
Re: Humans are doomed (Score:1)
Ironic position to take when ecomarxists are the ones insisting climate stop changing because we like it how it is.
Re:Humans are doomed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
But we know climate change deniers will ignore any studies and data presented.
Heck, there's an entire channel devoted to debunking climate change denial and people (often) just ignore what he says and post blatant misinformation (and to the point: Often based on religious beliefs).
potholer54: A retired geologist.
Here's a good starting video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As a semi-retired geologist, and a potholer, that's a link I can't pass over.
Oh, BTW, after 30 years as an oilfield geologist, I've been perfectly comfortable that humans are causing present-day climate change for well over 30 years. If I needed it, the fact that I spent nearly a decade drilling around the Palæocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, geosteering production wells into the oilfields capped by the lithological changes from that thermal event, really didn't leave me with a lot of options but to make
Re: (Score:1)
It will cause your children discomfort if they are under 50.
Higher insurance costs.
Higher food prices.
Possible loss of some food selection (really... that's already happened since I was a child but it's more driven by corporate excessive profit seeking where they will give 12 feet of shelf space to their most profitable product and simply shut out profitable but less profitable products that used to share about 6 feet of shelf space out of that 12).
Increased likelihood of suffering a tropical disease or pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that's documented by their own hands
You're gonna have to explain that, if they are liars how do you know they are lying without an alternate set of facts you reference? Who is presenting you a climate analysis that is different? Do share the data that proves the previous data was lies.
If someone made a prediction and it turns out to be false that's because of additional measurements to the contrary. Do you have those measurements? Who is making them? If it's the same people making the predictions, well, that's literally science. You are sou
Re: Humans are doomed (Score:1)
But for that, instead of looking for articles that go "look, I found a prediction that turned out to have been wrong", you'd have to look at what the actual "consensus models" (IPCC, etc.) said, under the preconditions that actually applied. "Dead on" would be a fair evaluation when you compare those to the
Re: (Score:2)
So you do deny thermodynamics
Re: (Score:3)
Strawman harder, dipshit? It's real simple, when the experts have been dead wrong about every major prediction for the past 40 years, they're not experts.
OK, let's see. 40 years ago was slightly after the National Academy of Sciences report "Carbon Dioxide and Climate" (the first major review report about climate change), and slightly before the first IPCC report. You can find the NAS report here: https://nap.nationalacademies.... [nationalacademies.org] and the first IPCC report here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/cli... [www.ipcc.ch]
These are what the experts actually said (not the celebrities that the media love to quote, not the doomsayers, not the tabloids: the experts). I'm looking for predi
Re: Humans are doomed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, it would be. You don't want to scare the politicians into paralysis. Let them find their own excuses for paralysis.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not being smart that's shunned, it's A) being wrong on every doomsday prediction climate science has ever made and B) outright lying. Both of which should be shunned by anyone who isn't either insane or retarded.
Heretic! I am reliably informed that Florida went underwater ten years ago. And it's all the fault of you stupid science deniers!
Re:Humans are doomed (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see... a small group of scientists that have nothing to gain, who work for damn near minimum wage are all out to screw you in some big global conspiracy. But, that politician who go rich off of corporate donations is who you believe. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your loss. Probably your cognitive deficit too.
Re: Humans are doomed (Score:2)
Just remember only 5 years left according to your leader AOC
Re: Humans are doomed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This way we wouldn't have to continually waste our modpoints downmodding these trolls
you can't fight flies with guns, not to mention that munition is limited. the way not to "waste" your points is to only mod stuff up; insightful, informative and funny are your friends. it will be a tiny bit less depressing experience, recognizing value makes you feel better than whacking an endless stream of zombie moles, but otoh you will find that your modpoints go often unused (but not wasted) and that trend has been increasing for a long while.
That is, of course, assuming that the current moderation system isn't working exactly as intended by the /. gods.
not as intended, but this site stopped qualifying as a nerd
Re: (Score:2)
Here! Here! If I had mod points, I would mod you up! That's precisely how I use my points and for more or less the same reason.
Re: (Score:1)
classic conservatives, blame the liberals for all your personal faults
"our ideas suck shit and we can't even pretend to defend them anymore but it's the fault of those pesky liberals! why did you make us so fucking stupid?! why did the liberals make my wife leave me?!"
Mass Migration (Score:2)
Re: Mass Migration (Score:4, Insightful)
It is almost as if the rich CAN AFFORD to lose their beachfront homes and move elsewhere when sea levels rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory "Sell their houses to who Ben?!" [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Curious that all those very rich and powerful people, including the likes of Barack Obama, have moved to beachfront properties. It's almost like all those rich and powerful people don't think their homes are going anywhere.
First, the predictions are that in the "business as usual" case, the sea level will rise due to global warming by a predicted 66 centimeters by the year 2100. Including error bars, the highest-case estimate comes to 110 cm (reference: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/asset... [www.ipcc.ch] ). So if they're more than a meter above sea level, no, they won't be underwater in your lifetime or theirs.
Second, if you look at the photos of these "beachfront properties" that you can find in any of the popular magazines that fawn over cel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mass Migration (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
FYI:
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report and other scientific sources, here are general estimates of likely average sea level rise per decade from 2020 to 2100:
Sea Level Rise Projections (2020-2100)
2020-2030: Approximately 3-4 mm/year, resulting in a total rise of about 30-40 mm (3-4 cm)
2030-2040: Approximately 3-5 mm/year, leading to about 30-50 mm (3-5 cm) over the decade
2040-2050: Approximately 4-7 mm/year, accumulating around 40-70 mm (4-7 cm)
2050-206
Re: (Score:2)
Flooding - in the sense of permanent inundation rather than temporary incursion of sea water (or fresh water) into an area, followed by it's removal - tends to be followed by net deposition of sediment, not net erosion of sediment.
There is already such a sign sticking out of the mud of the glacier-avalanche deposit which used to be the Swiss village of Blatten. Stupid. Jus
Re: And, the obvious ways to address this are igno (Score:4, Informative)
Re: And, the obvious ways to address this are ign (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. You could pump ocean water from the oceans to enclosed basins on the continents which are below (current) sea-level. That would be the Death Valley Basin in America, the Dead Sea between Jordan, Israel and Palestine, and the Caspian Basin in the Russia, Kaxakhstan, Uzbeckistan (or its it Turkumenistan? I need an atlas to check.) Iran, Azerbaijan and ... is Chechenya also on the coast. "Bloody trans-Caucasus hive of warring little tri
Re: And, the obvious ways to address this are ign (Score:2)
Re: And, the obvious ways to address this are ign (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you're allowed to do in America, but in Europe, the UK, and all 3rd-world countries I've worked in, the limitations of discharge of oil-contaminated water are such that the cheapest thing to do with the co-produced water from an oilfield is to pump it back into the oilfield - which has the benefit of maintaining the pressure in the field to reduce your expenditure on pumping oil out of the field. The volume of storage from such sources is tiny compared to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And, the obvious ways to address this are ign (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And worldwide, 110 million people live under the sea level, protected only by walls, and about 10% lives near the sea. The sea level rise by 29-59 cm as predicted by the end of the century, will have serious effect on small islands and many coastal cities and areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus if you use the water for irrigation, it ends up flowing down into the ocean in a few months or less.
Not that you'd use desalination water for irrigation anyway - far too expensive. Even the Gulf (of Persia/ Iran, not America/ Chicxulub) States don't do that much, and they've never been particularly bothered by prices or efficiency.
Re:And, the obvious ways to address this are ignor (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And, the obvious ways to address this are ignor (Score:5, Insightful)
Every "solution" the skeptics lay claim to requires obscene amounts of energy. Whether it's desalination or carbon sequestration, they would require incredible amounts of energy to be at all scalable. Which leads us to the great paradox of the quasi-skeptics and their "build more shit to absorb the shit we're emitting" pseudoscience. If you can produce so much energy that you could do large scale desalination, effectively sequester those salts, other minerals and metals so you don't kill off large proportions of marine and land ecospheres, then you've already solve all the important problems that cause the climate change effects, and you don't need to do anything other than mitigate what would be a few centuries of ill-effects of previous emissions.
Every time I see these kinds of claims, it just baffles me. I had one guy tell me that Alberta could keep pumping out bitumen and natural gas, because nuclear, wind and solar would provide enough energy to capture and sequester all the GHGs. He seemed absolutely baffled when I informed him that thermodynamics put such high constraints on the efficiency of any such mechanism that energy requirements would exceed (likely by an order or two of magnitude) any energy extracted directly from the fossil fuels themselves, and further, you wouldn't even need those fossil fuels any more.
Basically the skeptics, quasi-skeptics and the climate nihilists (those that accept we're doing substantial harm, but just don't want to do anything about it), are either completely ignorant of physics, or simple don't give a damn and have effectively become hedonists.
Re: (Score:2)
I had one guy tell me that Alberta could keep pumping out bitumen and natural gas, because nuclear, wind and solar would provide enough energy to capture and sequester all the GHGs.
Alberta is going to keep pumping out bitumen and natural gas. Over time somewhere between zero and all of the carbon from production will be captured and sequestered. Whoever you were talking to may have been an optimist, or a salesman, or simply did not explain it well.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's not like water disappears. It will, eventually, drain back into the Ocean anyway.
Re: And, the obvious ways to address this are igno (Score:2)
Re: And, the obvious ways to address this are igno (Score:2)
How about open borders (why not migrate to Canada, Greenland, Siberia?) and universal basic income?
Re: (Score:2)
The more obvious way is to move inland.
Investment advisory: boats (Score:2)
I predict the price of boats will go up while price of prime beach real estate will decrease.
It may or may not be save though on the water too, due to increased hurricane activity so.... Mars?
Seriously, if it does happen as predicted to the best of our current understanding, teach your children to swim and to fish.
Re: (Score:1)
It's too late, baby... (Score:1)
I see the ice caps melting,
The oceans rising high,
We thought we had more time,
But now the truth won't lie.
Storms are getting stronger,
The droughts are in our face,
It's hard to find a refuge,
In our once familiar space.
Itâ(TM)s too late, baby,
The planet's burning bright.
We turned away too often,
Now weâ(TM)re losing the fight.
Itâ(TM)s too late, baby,
To turn back the clocks now,
We've forged our own destruction,
And there's no way to vow.
Tropical diseases spreading,
They make their way on flights,
Pa
Re: (Score:1)
I loathe and despise slashdot's editor and editorial policy on deleting or editing posts.
anyway... ignore this one and go to the one where I reformatted the apostrophe's it didn't like to apostrophe's it did like.
Re: (Score:2)
You're using the typographical "Grocer's Apostrophe's", not ASCII apostrophes.
On a Mac?
Re: (Score:1)
No I'm on a PC but was using an opensource editor that unicode support. I think these are tilted apostrophe's instead of hyphens.
It's too late baby... (Score:1)
I see the ice caps melting,
The oceans rising high,
We thought we had more time,
But now the truth won't lie.
Storms are getting stronger,
The droughts are in our face,
It's hard to find a refuge,
In our once familiar space.
It's too late, baby,
The planet's burning bright.
We turned away too often,
Now we're losing the fight.
It's too late, baby,
To turn back the clocks now,
We've forged our own destruction,
And there's no way to vow.
Tropical diseases spreading,
They make their way on flights,
Parasites and infections,
Fill
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea.. really it is. It's been too late for quite a while now.
I'm not saying don't do your best to address it. But we were supposed to be down to adding 29 gigatons of carbon annually by now and instead we are up to adding 45 gigatons of carbon annually next year.
And since every 1,000 gigatons roughly equates to +1C, we are now putting enough carbon out to raise the temperature every 22 years.
And those projections are ignoring the *massive* methane sublimation that's already been underway a few years.
So,
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someday, but, no, it's not too late yet.
Yea.. really it is. It's been too late for quite a while now.
I suppose the question is, too late for what? Too late to stop some amount of global warming and consequent climate change? Yes. Too late to stop the most catastrophic effects? No, not too late.
I'm not saying don't do your best to address it.
Yes, you are. You just said it's too late to address it.
Re: (Score:1)
Until you accept the reality that it's too late to fix/solve the problem, you are not dealing with reality. Once you are dealing with reality, you can start making rational decisions about what actions you can take to improve your personal situation and to keep from making things even worse than they already are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Climate crisis? Please (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the Earth will not morph into something as barren as Mars nor as warm as Venus. However, the Climate Crisis is not a lie. The Greenhouse effect is real and well understood: putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will warm the planet, the warming will affect the climate, and some of the effects of this will be deleterious. This was not controversial in any way until the oil companies started a propaganda campaign to undermine the science, since they worried that it might cause people to burn less oil, and hence reduce their profits.
Whether and to what extent this is a "crisis" depends very much on what you consider a crisis to be. This is a very slow crisis. It was slow to start, it was slow to start showing effects... and if we decide to address it, it will be slow to stop.
Re: Climate crisis? Please (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An in case the scientific research and understanding is actually right, which is much more likely then your baseless opinion, what you are going to do?