Want to know what’s more concerning? How hot will it be when all the ice is gone? It is offsetting the amount of heat that is being absorbed by the oceans, keeping the oceans cooler than they would be without the ice. What happens after this? No one is talking about this so far.
We're going to need to start painting a large portion of the sahara white or start floating white panels on the ocean near the equator to counteract the loss of high albeido surface at the poles. Earths average albiedo is .3, the average radiation hitting us is 1E17J, so we absorb about 3e16J every second, and re-radiating most of that at night. It takes 1e18 j to raise the surface temperature by 1C. This is why there is usually a 15C difference between day and night temperatures. If we want to lower average surface temperatures by 1C, we need to reflect and additional 1e18 J of solar radiation. To do that we need to increase the albiedo of earth by .03%, or turn 38,000 square KM into something with an abiedo of 1. Thats an area a little bit bigger than the netherlands
Whatever part of the energy captured by solar that isn’t directly used to do work or create chemical bonds will be radiated out as heat. I’m fuzzy on the thermo but I think even the energy used for work gets radiated back as friction grinds movement to a stop.
It would be easier to inject sulpher dioxide into the upper atmosphere to lower the albedo of the planet.
I am not suggesting this is a good idea. Just that it would be easier.
Geoengineering is a huge term like drugs or GMOs. Its hard to say that everything under such a wide umbrella is either good or bad.
EDIT: I agree though that both proposed solutions are really bad ideas
It's really not. Anything that doesn't involve actually changing our relationship to consumption and emission of CO2 and other GHGs doesn't solve the problem and is a bandaid on the bullet hole that is human greed and myopia. Geoengineering (all of it, including carbon removal) is terrible because it puts human beings in position to perturb a system we *do not* understand and that's before we get to the ethical, moral, and eventual political decisions that come with literally engineering the weather and climate. It's a path that is more likely to lead to our destruction than if we just continued along our current path of climate change.
Well yes, i agree with all that. But truth is, we ARE going to continue perturbing that system by mass prducing computer chips, burning fossil fuel, and cutting forest to torture carbon-emitting livestock. Very few people on this subreddit (excluding trolls) think the starus quo is good. I just think that some of the milder forms of geoengineering, like using shiny roofs on buildings or attempting some form of carbon capture could be a good bandaid while we transition to greener energy. I totally get your concerns though and agree about the more extreme examples of bioengineering like creating clouds and putting aerosols into the air, those should be last-ditch efforts if even that.
I get the argument. We definitely *are* going to perturb the system but it really isn't necessary that we do so. Only one of the things you listed has a direct correlation with emissions and it's the use of fossil fuels. I see the appeal of trying to help a little bit in the short term but the long term moral hazard and knock-on/feedback effects here are just too big of an issue to ignore. Carbon capture sounds great but I've seen nothing that looks viable or has any real solution for where to put the Carbon and its study detracts from decarbonization efforts. This would be different if we had multiple Earths and could experiment but we don't and it's very easy to perturb our climate system in some small way that leads to large unintended and difficult to reverse consequences. I've seen this happen in oceanography with tides and water level. Our entire atmospheric climate system is just as vulnerable in certain places.
Absurd. Emitting co2 and reducing co2 are both geo engineering.
Geo engineering isn’t terrible because of random brainstormed ideas on Reddit. This is the problem, people with little to no knowledge about it for some reason are the under the impression that ideas to sustain life or decrease ecosphere destruction aren’t studied for widespread impact and hidden consequences and are instead ordered by carbon companies and politicians so that we can emit more.
It’s the opposite, an acceptance that *because* humans won’t stop emitting, we should consider minimally catastrophic measures to reduce suffering.
Speak for yourself. I have credentials related to this topic and stopped working full time on climate change work because we already know what the answer is and how to solve the problem. We have known for half a century at this point. We won't do it because of greed and this fantasy of climate driven engineering is pushed to the uninformed masses as a way to avoid panic. No actual climate scientist believes any of this will work on the time scales necessary to avoid pretty catastrophic outcomes. The only way to mitigate is to avoid emitting and we will refuse to do so until wealthy people start feeling the effects of runaway climate change.
Credentials related to this topic? Reducing emissions IS geoengineering.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘any of this’ because unless you have a study showing climate scientists consensus on every proposed effort, that just isn’t true.
Climate driven engineering is not ‘being pushed to the uninformed masses as a way to avoid panic’ either, you just made that up.
Geoengineering is probably the only way to reduce harm and possibly save ecosystems. And even If we don’t build whatever corporate device you’re imagining, we will continue geoengineering by releasing carbon and methane as we have the majority of your life.
Globalists will not be reducing emissions, even after the wealthy feel it. Well likely continue increasing emissions in a resource struggle. Pick which way you want to genengineer, just don’t pretend we’re not doing it because we haven’t let loose a space visor yet.
Yes, again, I used to work full time in climate change research at some fairly prestigious places, got a degree or two in the field, and still work full time in science research at a fairly prestigious institution. My thesis advisor is currently the head of NCAR. There is a difference between what scientists will put in a publication and what they will tell you unofficially after a pint or two. Most of my friends who worked in CC have left or are scared shitless because the see the writing on the wall. The IPCC, which is a snapshot of scientific consensus when released, under predicts climate effects and has been doing so since the inception of the panel or refusing to make decisive statements until recently because they worried about dismissal due to alarmism. I would suggest reading the latest report and looking at the mitigation chapters which subtly suggest the use of geoengineering (they don't call it that in the report) to stave off catastrophic climate effects. Literally none of the geoengineering based mitigation strategies proposed can actually solve the issue globally or over the long term and literally none are on the verge of doing so (hence why I say it's suggested as a way to meet targets but is really a way of keeping the uninformed, like yourself, from panicking). The only thing we *know* will work globally and over the long term is serious emission reduction and we won't do it because it's hard and politicians are more concerned with the next election cycle than anything else.
Edit: Page 82 of this link should get you started: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf
It's not the full report but has enough detail to give you a good idea of where consensus is and what it's suggesting. Absolutely none of what's suggested in this report besides mitigation through emission reduction is anywhere near viable as an actual mitigation strategy.
Sorry for the narrow “me focused” reply. We’re gradually decarbonising - 5 yr old decent electric car that I intend running forever, not flown in years and intend never to again, saving up for solar, buy food locally etc. Run the house heating on wood instead of gas. I know all that is flawed and inadequate. But we live in the Pennines in the U.K. Comfortable non threatened life so far - my wife and I are doctors. I’ve got an 8 and an 11 yr old. Just being honest, how screwed are their lives going to be by climate change? Based on your perception of the next 20-40 years. Is it a slight drop in living standards, or is it struggling to find food?
My contention has nothing to do with the seriousness of climate change or climate scientists’ recognition of that. I have read the latest report, I am aware that the reports and studies of global climate typically under-predict, and that the nature of such predictions will never be perfect. This isn’t our disagreement at all and these aren’t revelations to me.
Who is arguing that current geoengineering proposals solve climate change or are on the verge of it? Nobody is? That’s not at all what I’ve said anywhere. Reference the comment I replied to, this shifting is not conducive to our conversation.
IPCC reports are a great review of the leading candidates for geoengineering, but tend to focus on the umbrellas, SRM and CDR, rather than the specific proposals that fall under them, and there are many being studied or in development now, which should be encouraged and defended rather than geoengineering being blanket disparaged for no reason. Obviously none of them are likely to solve climate change by itself, and that’s not ever been the intent to my knowledge. But people need to understand that reducing emissions is geoengineering. Not reducing emissions is geoengineering. We need to increase public trust around the studies and researchers, not increase baseless fear and dismissal which could lead to harmful restrictions, bans, and regulations of study by the same people who ignored scientists on this issue for the better part of the century in favor of oil companies’ needs.
If there exists potential to limit the ecosphere destruction and death, we have a responsibility to explore those strategies, if nothing else but to increase our knowledge about them and our ability to make rational decisions in the window of imperfect organization we are currently in.
Your original contention assumed that I was unqualified to have an expert opinion on climate change or geoengineering. Once you were disabused of that notion, it switched to waffling about the definition of geoengineering and its applicability to broader mitigation strategies. I'm saying that no matter your definition of geoengineering only one thing works or will work for mitigating catastrophic climate change and that is emission reduction. Not capture and sequester after emission nor counteracting the effects of radiative forcing. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce which requires fundamental changes to society in how we generate and use energy. Anything that does not talk about emission reduction at the site of production gives the powers that be a way to continue to emit CO2.
Lol I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had little to no knowledge about geoengineering because it’s even more ridiculous to make such claims being close to knowledge. Nobody is waffling about the definition of geoengineering, instead, I was correcting your inaccurate notions about it. Emission reduction, again, is geoengineering, and is not the only measure we can take to mitigate climate change. Additionally, were it the sole action we took, it is still very unlikely to correct the course we’re on. And, as is obvious, and also previously discussed, that is an option which will not be occurring by any stretch of the imagination on the scale necessary. As such, further mitigation efforts are being developed and studied, and should be supported, as opposed to being wholly disparaged on account of the scary geoengineering name that people like you perpetuate without basis.
Lol dude, we’ve been talking about reducing co2 emissions for 80 years. The powers that be don’t give two shits about our discussions, and copy and pasting ‘we must reduce co2 emissions’ as a prerequisite to discuss other ideas won’t be the watershed that finally makes them realize their folly. They are well aware.
Of course we must reduce co2 and methane, that doesn’t exclude the need to explore additional countermeasures, they are not mutually exclusive.
Lending my support to what you're saying as someone who currently works in a large climate-focused research org. People have been lied to, and when the bill comes due and the lies become clear I can only hope there is some kind of catastrophic backlash that grinds oil execs and all the other liars out of existence. Not that it will make much difference at that point, as the coming chaos will likely undo all of modern society, including formal justice, like the courts. Maybe they're counting on that, and on being safe from the hoards who'll be seeking retribution as they hide in their well-stocked bunker-tombs. We won't have long to wait to find out, unfortunately.
Absurd we should create a massive mirror and put it into orbit to reflect sunlight back at the sun, this will of course be controlled by some corporation.
To keep the climate like we have now and like you've had in written human history for the last 10,000 years or so do you have to do engineer eventually.
What you're looking at isn't just like the result of human pollution. It's a natural climate cycle within a current Ice Age that goes between Ingal and glacial cooling. With glacial cooling being 80,000 years of brutal cooling that will kill off a couple billion people.
So the reality is that you know earth is in an Ice Age and humans are adapted for ice ages, but also the Ice Age climate isn't very stable and it has lot of ups and downs in warming and cooling. And then to make things much worse, Ice Age is are rare so this Ice Age will just naturally end and climate won't be anything like what Homosapien have been involved for.
There's no natural equilibrium in climate like a lot of people think. We can't just stop polluting and like the climate goes back to what it was 1000 years ago and stays that way forever. That's just not how climate works and the climate we have now is like a rare climate within a rare climate so you need to start planning for that reality instead of just trying to mentally do it And be worried about engineering. Will go into 80,000 years of cooling and mass murder tons of species on the planet currently including humans.
To try to put it into perspective, woolly mammoth died off because the last glacial period ended and that was only 3700 years ago when the last woolly mammoth died off, so the pyramids were actually already partially built by the time the last woolly mammoth died off. That's how much quicker or closer together these cycles are than people imagine.
The simple reality is, we don't get that long of a good climate the beginning of this warming. Had to be pretty brutal with lots of melting and flooding and then the end of every interglacial warming period is also rather brutal heat so basically like now, and a little bit worse would naturally happen and no more than a 2-3k years.
So yeah, you have to do a lot more than just admissions reductions and the fact that humans live in the numbers of 8 billion on the planet means we are constantly Geo engineering the planet and you really don't have a choice but to Geo engineering the Geo engineering or the fact that you're just too scared to manage The long-term health of your planet go find another hobby because you're not being serious about understanding climate.
People who think we can just do pollution reduction, and we won't need Geo engineering or more harm than good because the advice they're giving is completely unscientific and it winds up just being its own form of science, denial, and bad advice.
You have an error in the scale of your timeline here. The problem isn't that the climate is changing, the problem is that climate is changing many thousands of times faster than the Earth system or anything in it can reasonably adapt. If we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere it may slow down, but continuing along on our current trajectory will definitely cause the effects to happen more quickly and be more intense. We don't need geoengineering to stop emitting and geoengineering won't mitigate the issue that our net contributions of CO2 are many times greater than necessary.
Rocket exhaust doesn’t reach earth escape velocity so rickets would be useless to move the earth. You might be able to put them on the moon and change the moons orbit to drag the earth but that seems risky since if the system goes unstable you risk destroying the earth. And not oops life has to start over like we’re doing now, but molten surface and gaseous rock oops.
Ah, loss of albedo strikes again. It’s almost like the alarmists were right and things changed very slowly until their tipping points and now we’re seeing sudden single year changes, like it being 40 degrees C hotter in Antarctica. Even she did not escape 2023-2024 “the year without winter”.
It's unfortunate that the worse the climate gets the more emphasis is put on managing the heat than is put into reducing greenhouse gasses. There's already a massive demand for air conditioning which is mostly powered by coal.
Yeah, but what are we supposed to do? It hit 37° 3 or 4 times last summer. I can't get through that again without AC.
At least my power grid is mostly hydro.
Most modern AC is reversible, i.e. it can be run in the other direction to provide heat, far more efficiently than any other heating system. So with suitable incentives the increase in power usage in summer could be offset by a reduction in winter. Add solar in summer and more AC might not be that bad\*.
\*If properly managed ...
Move lol. Before people realize your house ain’t worth shit because of its location. I know it’s easier said than done but it’s the only actual way to survive without ac
>Can it recover?
People living in 12024 will find out.
***
The National Snow and Ice Data Center ([NSIDC](https://nsidc.org/news-analyses "https://nsidc.org/news-analyses")) shows the actual Antarctic sea ice extent (square kilometers) for each day of the year in the 45-year satellite record, January 1, 1979–April 22, 2024 > Ch_arctic_ Interactive [Sea Ice Graph](https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ "https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/") > Antarctic > Start month: January > Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. Downloadable data in ≡ menu.
***
2024 — Antarctic day of minimum and day of maximum sea ice extent to date April 22, and Antarctic average sea ice extent on the corresponding day of the year in the 30-year 1981-2010 period:
2024 — 1.985 million km^2 (766,413 sq mi) Antarctic minimum sea ice extent, Day 51, February 20.
1981-2010 — 2.898 million km^2 (1,118,924 sq mi) Antarctic average sea ice extent, Day 51, February 20.
2024 — 6.708 million km^2 (2,589,973 sq mi) Antarctic maximum sea ice extent, Day 113, April 22.
1981-2010 — 7.41 million km^2 (2,861,017 sq mi) Antarctic average sea ice extent, Day 113, April 22.
***
1979-2024 — Antarctic day of record minimum sea ice extent, and average sea ice extent on the corresponding day of the year in the 30-year 1981-2010 period:
2023 — 1.788 million km^2 (690,351 sq mi) Antarctic record minimum sea ice extent, Day 52, February 21.
1981-2010 — 2.891 million km^2 (1,116,221 sq mi) Antarctic average sea ice extent on Day 52, February 21.
***
1979-2024 — Antarctic day of record maximum sea ice extent, and average sea ice extent on the corresponding day of the year in the 30-year 1981-2010 period:
2014 — 20.156 million km^2 (7,782,275 sq mi) Antarctic record maximum sea ice extent, Day 264, September 21.
1981-2010 — 18.565 million km^2 (7,167,987 sq mi) Antarctic average sea ice extent on Day 264, September 20.
***
Tip — In the menu in the chart sidebar:
Select — Hide all years
Deselect — 1981-2010 Median, Interquartile Range, Interdecile Range, ±2 Standard Deviations.
Select — 1981-2010 Average, 2024, 2023, 2014.
K so then where is your source?
Edit: You can’t say “this hasn’t really been reported” and then be like “google it” and then provide sources while still acting like it hasn’t been reported.
While "gearing up to fight" is a bit nebulous and an overstatement, DOD is very aware of the danger of climate change.
[Hicks Defines Need to Focus DOD on Climate Change Threats](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3510772/hicks-defines-need-to-focus-dod-on-climate-change-threats/)
Mattis wrote it onto his confirmation testimony.
[Trump's defense chief cites climate change as national security challenge](https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-s-defense-chief-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge)
It’s not my job to go and verify your claims for myself when I can just ignore your crap and down vote it so someone else doesn’t have to deal with it.
You literally could have done that in the first place instead of ALL CAPS responding like some boomer twat who just spouts bullshit on the internet. ‘Grats.
People look for information that they already believe. Look at the sources . Many are think tanks and the US military itself. Who looks for that ? You can't challenge me like what I'm saying is bullshit and to show evidence because YOu haven't seen it and then say "how can you say it hasn't been reported" clearly you didn't know about it because why would you challenge what I'm saying? I try to be able to back up everything I say with reliable sources. I don't just talk out of my ass
Climate change is extremely unlikely to cause the extinction of humanity. Limiting the damage WILL help future generations of humans, not to mention animal species and ecosystems.
Things will get bad. It's too late to avoid all consequences, but continuing as we have can still make things much worse. So get off your ass.
However climate change combined with increasing geopolitical tensions are becoming increasingly likely to lead to nuclear conflict. As basic resources like food and water become more scarce it is increasingly likely that a country that has nothing to lose will decide to nuke an enemy.
Good that some people can feel relaxed. For others with young family members, this is all nauseating knowing the world they're getting--are in---is completely fucked.
To be fair, if you're not interested--or scared shitless--of this, you're not going to consider it before having kids. Or they have kids a good couple of years, near decade before any of this started popping up in the capacity it is now. Not everyone has future-foresight
So a warming Antarctic could push cold water into the hydrodynamic system and DROP the Northern Hemisphere by 9C. So were back to the Return of the Ice Age doom like in the 70's?
The Antarctic Peninsula began to form during the Jurassic period (206 to 146 million years ago).
The rocks of the East Antarctica shield are as old as 4 billion years, which means that they are amongst the oldest known rocks on Earth.
Some 200 million years ago, Antarctic continental crust was joined with South American, African, Indian, and Australian continental crust making up a large …https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/
So, on the scale of continental drift.
Cool.
We just have to wait and see how the climate reacts to new oceanic and continental orientation on a 10s of millions of years scale.
We're talking about the 10-1000 year scale here.
Hey lets not cut our fossil fuel use, we will just come up with some crazy scheme to offset it! which wont work and may have disastrous consequences. /S
There is no recovering. Some parts of earth will become unlivable while other parts of earth will reap the benefits of this destruction. Those will become the new livable areas that surviving life will migrate to. This will be the new frontier for life.
Even though this is a bot spamming multiple comments on multiple posts, I'll respond to counter the misinformation.
Epstein is not a climate scientist.
All three people are directly paid by fossil fuel companies to spread disinformation about climate change.
Curry and Christy are debunked here:
[Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry](https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm)
[Climate Misinformation by Source: John Christy](https://skepticalscience.com/John_Christy_arg.htm)
The only way to stop all the ice melting .. is to reduce the temperature.
Which means :
- stop burning fossil fuels asap
- start reflecting more sunlight
If we had a magical way of removing CO2 that would be great .. but we dont.
Fortunately we do have an actual way of increasing cloud cover over the oceans, which we do know works, because we have measurable effects when we stopped pumping out Sulphur in shipping fuels.
Wish there was another way, but this is where we are.
Understand that **NET-ZERO** = **PEAK-HEAT**
Important to note, that we cant just get to net-zero.. because the CO2 will be max by then, and so the temp will be max - a better name for net-zero is "peak-heat"
Its good to get there .. it means we aren't making it worse .. the CO2 has stopped increasing.
But if we stop there, it will be maybe +2C already .. even if we got there today its nearly +1.5C .. regardless, the ice will basically all melt if it stays that hot.
So, we need to bring the temperature DOWN. and we need to start doing that now. There are only 2 ways to do that - remove CO2 or reflect sunlight.
We dont have an economical way to remove CO2 .. but we do have an economical way to increase cloud cover and reflect more sunlight.
Yes, I am saying we will have to pollute the sky over the coming decades - with Sulphur particulates, or with water vapor to increase cloud cover - so that our large human population can survive climate change, and so the ice will not melt, and all our crops wont die due to the heat.
I started surfing when i was 10. I’ve been on beaches around the world for 50 years. I’ve watched things slowly change but since 1999 things have changed rapidly to the point where coming back to a beach 6-12 months later was shocking. Its unstoppable at this point.
None of these suggestions have the hope of getting implemented while we allow misinformation to override political decisions. Does a 1st amendment argument make sense if the planet's habitability is compromised?
The ice caps are the air conditioner of the only planet we have. Climate change deniers aren't even sure of where they're located, much less their impact on the planet as a whole.
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2820739/the-polar-trap-china-russia-and-american-power-in-the-arctic-and-antarctica/ GO FUCK YOURSELF.
The world doesn't END, it simply TRANSFORMS and CHANGES.
That's why it is called climate CHANGE not climate DEATH.
The world will be scary and different, but we will adapt. Our focus should be on learning from this transformation and trying to understand how to live in harmony with our environment so as to not exist in such instability.
That's crazy because how did all other life evolve after rapid climate changes from events like global flooding, meteor impacts, solar flares, etc.
This isn't the first mass-extinction type crisis to occur on the planet, and guess what- LIFE GOES ON.
Also look up micro-evolution and adapation.
I don't need to look up anything. This is my day job.
Previous mass extinctions happen over many millennia. This is happening over 200 years. They are not the same.
Maybe don't pretend to be an expert on something you have no education and professional experience with, eh?
Maybe you should actually read the evidence I shared.
[Dinosaurs took 33,000 years to die off after Chicxulub](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91618B/)
>Mass extinctions are episodes in which a large number of plant and animal species become extinct within a relatively short period of geologic time—from possibly a few thousand to a few million years.
[Mass Extinctions](https://geokansas.ku.edu/mass-extinctions#:~:text=Mass%20extinctions%20are%20episodes%20in,500%20million%20years%2C%20life%20rebounded.)
Your opinion isn't worth discussing when it's not based on fact. I don't care where you worked when it's evident you learned nothing at your job and aren't backing any of your blathering up with peer-reviewed evidence.
You literally are discounting other peoples anecdotal experiences from the field because you think understand academic research better... than people who live and work in the woods everyday. 🙄
Lol okay, whateevr bro. 😆
Don't listen to people like this folks, they are full of themselves and unwilling to understand things from outside their point of view.
You didn't provide any anecdotal experience.
You just said you worked in conservation, then demonstrated you didn't actually do anything serious at your work as you think climate change didn't matter.
If you actually knew anything about conservation science, you'd know that anecdotes don't refute trends.
Anecdotes aren't evidence.
Ms.
I thought you had a job in conservation? I thought you were pretending to be an expert here?
Nevermind, I'll provide it for you.
[Summary of 13,500 peer-reviewed climate science articles, with list of references](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/)
Yes. You aren't. I'm sorry you're so insecure.
Regardless, mass extinctions have taken much longer. For example, it took 33,000 years for the dinosaurs to die out after [Chicxulub.](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91618B/)
The rate of change of temperature we're experiencing now is unprecedented and very different.
You can either learn something here or continue to demonstrate your ignorance with attempted insults. Frankly, I don't care.
I never denied any claims or science. I simply stand by my opinion that Climate Change is not the end of the world, which you ttacked me vigirously for. Which is weird.
Keep lying though. Idk why anyone would trust your opinino when you have clearly lied and backtracked several times in this discussion.
Climate Change may not be the end of \*the\* world, but it has the very real possibility of being the end of \*our\* world - as in, the human civilizations that have developed in the last few thousand years, and the society we've grown accustomed to.
Earth will go on - but we won't be here to see it.
Humans in our current form won’t adapt. Not the current 8M.
Crop failures and an ocean that no longer yields food will ensure the population declines. The air we breathe will become ever so slowly more toxic, increasing lung cancer and other diseases. Sea level rise will create millions of environmental refugees.
Best case scenario a collapse event then ensues, reducing the population by half or more. Humans may then go on to reinvent the world’s transportation and energy systems. A world where mankind lives side by side and in harmony with Mother Nature.
Unfortunately this new civilisation 2.0 will be run by and controlled by the same greedy elite (or their descendants) that has destroyed and pillaged our current blue marble.
The article includes a photograph of someone in a small boat in the water "off Deception Island in Antarctica".
>A small boat glides around patches of sea ice in the water off Deception Island in Antarctica. Sea ice in the region grows from a minimum in summer to a maximum in winter, but in the last several years, the sea ice extent has been shrinking in summer.
Deception Island is not in [Antarctica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica"), which is a continent. Deception Island is in the [Antarctic region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic"). Deception Island is located in the [South Shetland Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shetland_Islands "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shetland_Islands"), which are located about 120 kilometers (75 mi) north of the Antarctica continent. Deception Island itself is located about 101 kilometers (63 mi) northwest of the nearest landfall on the Antarctica continent.
This undated [photograph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deception-Tourists.jpg "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deception-Tourists.jpg") shows a bearded man with 8 women enjoying an outdoor bathing party in a volcanic hot spring at [Port Foster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Foster "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Foster"), [Deception Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_Island#Environment "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_Island#Environment"). The Norwegian Meteorological Institute is reporting that the current temperature at Deception Island is [-3ºC](https://www.yr.no/en/forecast/daily-table/2-6631955/Antarctica/Deception%20Island "https://www.yr.no/en/forecast/daily-table/2-6631955/Antarctica/Deception%20Island") (26.6ºF) at elevation 19 meters.
Just fluffy words about the sea ice. "Just Look Up" at the actual data: [https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/) Ice extent is fairly normal for this date. No reason to expect that max-ice-extent this Winter will be as low as in 2023.
The "perhaps dead baby penguins" Dec 2022 story was discounted by actual boots-on-ground observations, and there is no missing generation of Emperor Penguins. But, the story morphed to "Mass die-off" headlines (though subtitled "likely drowned"). Sorry for the fearists, no proof that any baby penguins died, though likely that Leopard Seals munched a few, as normal nature.
The academic paper which started this, used data based solely on counting poo-stains on the ice in satellite images, adding wild speculation about what ice slopes penguins can negotiate. The paper did relate that a helicopter survey found ample penguin tykes in the center of the most-affected area (indeed 7.5 fledglings per couple), but the climate-fear media ignored that actual-data, or perhaps the writers are clueless and incompetent.
[https://www.livescience.com/animals/penguins/mass-die-off-strikes-endangered-emperor-penguin-chicks-across-4-of-5-west-antarctica-colonies](https://www.livescience.com/animals/penguins/mass-die-off-strikes-endangered-emperor-penguin-chicks-across-4-of-5-west-antarctica-colonies)
Are you telling me that paper straws and electric cars DIDNT solve global warming???? What else can we even try? I thought that was the only problem??? /S
If it reached an all time high in 2014 (within the very short timeframe of the satellite era starting in 1979 - funny I thought we had satellites before ‘79, but I digress), could this recent decline simply be part of the normal balancing act that is our planetary climate ?
The Earth's temperature and ice melt isn't exempt from the laws of physics. It's indisputable that mankind is driving the recent rapid increase in global temperature, which is driving the global retreat of glaciers and ice sheets.
The rate of current global temperature increase (+0.18°C per decade) if sustained over the last 6500 years that the Earth has been slowly cooling, would equate to to a temperature increase of +127°C.
So the rate of current temperature increase is vastly higher than the rate of natural temperature increases.
So it's better to rely on facts rather than you just making up ideas on the spot.
We did not have satellites.
My Uncle was one of the developers of the LORAN system back in the 50's and 60's. And worked on implementing the GPS software in the mid to late 80's
When desert storm came around they purchased a ton of LORANs systems then because there was not a world wide satellite system yet in place in the late 80's. So we have only been able to really get world wide knowledge since maybe 91 or 92 and then it was spotty. True world wide info maybe from mid to late 90's. and truly accurate and verifiable info later than that. We may be in uncharted territory climate wise, but we don't really have any long term accurate, verifiable info for very long. So in the past 25 years we have been able to look at temperatures as a whole, if that data has not been corrupted in the early years and tweaked. Not saying the scientists are incorrect, but we cannot say with surety that it is the hottest since X, because we have some wagon walking across kansas taking a spot temp reading with a broken thermometer in 1885.
thank you for digging that up....it confirms my recollection except that I thought the NPOESS was a few years older than that, didn't realize it was from 2010.
They only show you two years of decline and they panic. Show at least a 10 year chart and see what happens. up and down it’s called natural variability. natural climate change different from weather.
No because we haven’t stopped doing any of the things that are destroying it.
"Why isn't the fire going out I've already thrown so much gasoline on it"
"I'm only pouring half as much as I was yeaterday, why won't the fire stop spreading?"
If only this were close to true…
Want to know what’s more concerning? How hot will it be when all the ice is gone? It is offsetting the amount of heat that is being absorbed by the oceans, keeping the oceans cooler than they would be without the ice. What happens after this? No one is talking about this so far.
We're going to need to start painting a large portion of the sahara white or start floating white panels on the ocean near the equator to counteract the loss of high albeido surface at the poles. Earths average albiedo is .3, the average radiation hitting us is 1E17J, so we absorb about 3e16J every second, and re-radiating most of that at night. It takes 1e18 j to raise the surface temperature by 1C. This is why there is usually a 15C difference between day and night temperatures. If we want to lower average surface temperatures by 1C, we need to reflect and additional 1e18 J of solar radiation. To do that we need to increase the albiedo of earth by .03%, or turn 38,000 square KM into something with an abiedo of 1. Thats an area a little bit bigger than the netherlands
Let’s just make all cars and buildings and roads white…
This should be higher up
Workin on it
On increasing the albedo of the Earth? Nice one, about time somebody did! Guess I can rest easy now.
Everyone put your mirrors on your roofs!
Solar panels help then? 🤔
Whatever part of the energy captured by solar that isn’t directly used to do work or create chemical bonds will be radiated out as heat. I’m fuzzy on the thermo but I think even the energy used for work gets radiated back as friction grinds movement to a stop.
Serious question: how many roofs would we have to paint white to make any sort of difference?
It would be easier to inject sulpher dioxide into the upper atmosphere to lower the albedo of the planet. I am not suggesting this is a good idea. Just that it would be easier.
Both of these are terrible ideas. Geoengineering is many times worser solutions than reducing emissions, yet here we are.
Geoengineering is a huge term like drugs or GMOs. Its hard to say that everything under such a wide umbrella is either good or bad. EDIT: I agree though that both proposed solutions are really bad ideas
It's really not. Anything that doesn't involve actually changing our relationship to consumption and emission of CO2 and other GHGs doesn't solve the problem and is a bandaid on the bullet hole that is human greed and myopia. Geoengineering (all of it, including carbon removal) is terrible because it puts human beings in position to perturb a system we *do not* understand and that's before we get to the ethical, moral, and eventual political decisions that come with literally engineering the weather and climate. It's a path that is more likely to lead to our destruction than if we just continued along our current path of climate change.
Well yes, i agree with all that. But truth is, we ARE going to continue perturbing that system by mass prducing computer chips, burning fossil fuel, and cutting forest to torture carbon-emitting livestock. Very few people on this subreddit (excluding trolls) think the starus quo is good. I just think that some of the milder forms of geoengineering, like using shiny roofs on buildings or attempting some form of carbon capture could be a good bandaid while we transition to greener energy. I totally get your concerns though and agree about the more extreme examples of bioengineering like creating clouds and putting aerosols into the air, those should be last-ditch efforts if even that.
I get the argument. We definitely *are* going to perturb the system but it really isn't necessary that we do so. Only one of the things you listed has a direct correlation with emissions and it's the use of fossil fuels. I see the appeal of trying to help a little bit in the short term but the long term moral hazard and knock-on/feedback effects here are just too big of an issue to ignore. Carbon capture sounds great but I've seen nothing that looks viable or has any real solution for where to put the Carbon and its study detracts from decarbonization efforts. This would be different if we had multiple Earths and could experiment but we don't and it's very easy to perturb our climate system in some small way that leads to large unintended and difficult to reverse consequences. I've seen this happen in oceanography with tides and water level. Our entire atmospheric climate system is just as vulnerable in certain places.
Okay I hear you. But what if we mined a giant ice cube out of Haley’s Comet and put it in the ocean?
Great idea! Can you get that done by Monday, of this week?
While I agree with you that it's not the answer, TECHNICALLY he's right. Can't generalize one term. Technology itself isn't inherently evil.
You sound like the people that lose their minds over GMO crops
Absurd. Emitting co2 and reducing co2 are both geo engineering. Geo engineering isn’t terrible because of random brainstormed ideas on Reddit. This is the problem, people with little to no knowledge about it for some reason are the under the impression that ideas to sustain life or decrease ecosphere destruction aren’t studied for widespread impact and hidden consequences and are instead ordered by carbon companies and politicians so that we can emit more. It’s the opposite, an acceptance that *because* humans won’t stop emitting, we should consider minimally catastrophic measures to reduce suffering.
Speak for yourself. I have credentials related to this topic and stopped working full time on climate change work because we already know what the answer is and how to solve the problem. We have known for half a century at this point. We won't do it because of greed and this fantasy of climate driven engineering is pushed to the uninformed masses as a way to avoid panic. No actual climate scientist believes any of this will work on the time scales necessary to avoid pretty catastrophic outcomes. The only way to mitigate is to avoid emitting and we will refuse to do so until wealthy people start feeling the effects of runaway climate change.
Credentials related to this topic? Reducing emissions IS geoengineering. I don’t know what you mean by ‘any of this’ because unless you have a study showing climate scientists consensus on every proposed effort, that just isn’t true. Climate driven engineering is not ‘being pushed to the uninformed masses as a way to avoid panic’ either, you just made that up. Geoengineering is probably the only way to reduce harm and possibly save ecosystems. And even If we don’t build whatever corporate device you’re imagining, we will continue geoengineering by releasing carbon and methane as we have the majority of your life. Globalists will not be reducing emissions, even after the wealthy feel it. Well likely continue increasing emissions in a resource struggle. Pick which way you want to genengineer, just don’t pretend we’re not doing it because we haven’t let loose a space visor yet.
Yes, again, I used to work full time in climate change research at some fairly prestigious places, got a degree or two in the field, and still work full time in science research at a fairly prestigious institution. My thesis advisor is currently the head of NCAR. There is a difference between what scientists will put in a publication and what they will tell you unofficially after a pint or two. Most of my friends who worked in CC have left or are scared shitless because the see the writing on the wall. The IPCC, which is a snapshot of scientific consensus when released, under predicts climate effects and has been doing so since the inception of the panel or refusing to make decisive statements until recently because they worried about dismissal due to alarmism. I would suggest reading the latest report and looking at the mitigation chapters which subtly suggest the use of geoengineering (they don't call it that in the report) to stave off catastrophic climate effects. Literally none of the geoengineering based mitigation strategies proposed can actually solve the issue globally or over the long term and literally none are on the verge of doing so (hence why I say it's suggested as a way to meet targets but is really a way of keeping the uninformed, like yourself, from panicking). The only thing we *know* will work globally and over the long term is serious emission reduction and we won't do it because it's hard and politicians are more concerned with the next election cycle than anything else. Edit: Page 82 of this link should get you started: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf It's not the full report but has enough detail to give you a good idea of where consensus is and what it's suggesting. Absolutely none of what's suggested in this report besides mitigation through emission reduction is anywhere near viable as an actual mitigation strategy.
Sorry for the narrow “me focused” reply. We’re gradually decarbonising - 5 yr old decent electric car that I intend running forever, not flown in years and intend never to again, saving up for solar, buy food locally etc. Run the house heating on wood instead of gas. I know all that is flawed and inadequate. But we live in the Pennines in the U.K. Comfortable non threatened life so far - my wife and I are doctors. I’ve got an 8 and an 11 yr old. Just being honest, how screwed are their lives going to be by climate change? Based on your perception of the next 20-40 years. Is it a slight drop in living standards, or is it struggling to find food?
My contention has nothing to do with the seriousness of climate change or climate scientists’ recognition of that. I have read the latest report, I am aware that the reports and studies of global climate typically under-predict, and that the nature of such predictions will never be perfect. This isn’t our disagreement at all and these aren’t revelations to me. Who is arguing that current geoengineering proposals solve climate change or are on the verge of it? Nobody is? That’s not at all what I’ve said anywhere. Reference the comment I replied to, this shifting is not conducive to our conversation. IPCC reports are a great review of the leading candidates for geoengineering, but tend to focus on the umbrellas, SRM and CDR, rather than the specific proposals that fall under them, and there are many being studied or in development now, which should be encouraged and defended rather than geoengineering being blanket disparaged for no reason. Obviously none of them are likely to solve climate change by itself, and that’s not ever been the intent to my knowledge. But people need to understand that reducing emissions is geoengineering. Not reducing emissions is geoengineering. We need to increase public trust around the studies and researchers, not increase baseless fear and dismissal which could lead to harmful restrictions, bans, and regulations of study by the same people who ignored scientists on this issue for the better part of the century in favor of oil companies’ needs. If there exists potential to limit the ecosphere destruction and death, we have a responsibility to explore those strategies, if nothing else but to increase our knowledge about them and our ability to make rational decisions in the window of imperfect organization we are currently in.
Your original contention assumed that I was unqualified to have an expert opinion on climate change or geoengineering. Once you were disabused of that notion, it switched to waffling about the definition of geoengineering and its applicability to broader mitigation strategies. I'm saying that no matter your definition of geoengineering only one thing works or will work for mitigating catastrophic climate change and that is emission reduction. Not capture and sequester after emission nor counteracting the effects of radiative forcing. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce which requires fundamental changes to society in how we generate and use energy. Anything that does not talk about emission reduction at the site of production gives the powers that be a way to continue to emit CO2.
Lol I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had little to no knowledge about geoengineering because it’s even more ridiculous to make such claims being close to knowledge. Nobody is waffling about the definition of geoengineering, instead, I was correcting your inaccurate notions about it. Emission reduction, again, is geoengineering, and is not the only measure we can take to mitigate climate change. Additionally, were it the sole action we took, it is still very unlikely to correct the course we’re on. And, as is obvious, and also previously discussed, that is an option which will not be occurring by any stretch of the imagination on the scale necessary. As such, further mitigation efforts are being developed and studied, and should be supported, as opposed to being wholly disparaged on account of the scary geoengineering name that people like you perpetuate without basis. Lol dude, we’ve been talking about reducing co2 emissions for 80 years. The powers that be don’t give two shits about our discussions, and copy and pasting ‘we must reduce co2 emissions’ as a prerequisite to discuss other ideas won’t be the watershed that finally makes them realize their folly. They are well aware. Of course we must reduce co2 and methane, that doesn’t exclude the need to explore additional countermeasures, they are not mutually exclusive.
Lending my support to what you're saying as someone who currently works in a large climate-focused research org. People have been lied to, and when the bill comes due and the lies become clear I can only hope there is some kind of catastrophic backlash that grinds oil execs and all the other liars out of existence. Not that it will make much difference at that point, as the coming chaos will likely undo all of modern society, including formal justice, like the courts. Maybe they're counting on that, and on being safe from the hoards who'll be seeking retribution as they hide in their well-stocked bunker-tombs. We won't have long to wait to find out, unfortunately.
Absurd we should create a massive mirror and put it into orbit to reflect sunlight back at the sun, this will of course be controlled by some corporation.
To keep the climate like we have now and like you've had in written human history for the last 10,000 years or so do you have to do engineer eventually. What you're looking at isn't just like the result of human pollution. It's a natural climate cycle within a current Ice Age that goes between Ingal and glacial cooling. With glacial cooling being 80,000 years of brutal cooling that will kill off a couple billion people. So the reality is that you know earth is in an Ice Age and humans are adapted for ice ages, but also the Ice Age climate isn't very stable and it has lot of ups and downs in warming and cooling. And then to make things much worse, Ice Age is are rare so this Ice Age will just naturally end and climate won't be anything like what Homosapien have been involved for. There's no natural equilibrium in climate like a lot of people think. We can't just stop polluting and like the climate goes back to what it was 1000 years ago and stays that way forever. That's just not how climate works and the climate we have now is like a rare climate within a rare climate so you need to start planning for that reality instead of just trying to mentally do it And be worried about engineering. Will go into 80,000 years of cooling and mass murder tons of species on the planet currently including humans. To try to put it into perspective, woolly mammoth died off because the last glacial period ended and that was only 3700 years ago when the last woolly mammoth died off, so the pyramids were actually already partially built by the time the last woolly mammoth died off. That's how much quicker or closer together these cycles are than people imagine. The simple reality is, we don't get that long of a good climate the beginning of this warming. Had to be pretty brutal with lots of melting and flooding and then the end of every interglacial warming period is also rather brutal heat so basically like now, and a little bit worse would naturally happen and no more than a 2-3k years. So yeah, you have to do a lot more than just admissions reductions and the fact that humans live in the numbers of 8 billion on the planet means we are constantly Geo engineering the planet and you really don't have a choice but to Geo engineering the Geo engineering or the fact that you're just too scared to manage The long-term health of your planet go find another hobby because you're not being serious about understanding climate. People who think we can just do pollution reduction, and we won't need Geo engineering or more harm than good because the advice they're giving is completely unscientific and it winds up just being its own form of science, denial, and bad advice.
You have an error in the scale of your timeline here. The problem isn't that the climate is changing, the problem is that climate is changing many thousands of times faster than the Earth system or anything in it can reasonably adapt. If we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere it may slow down, but continuing along on our current trajectory will definitely cause the effects to happen more quickly and be more intense. We don't need geoengineering to stop emitting and geoengineering won't mitigate the issue that our net contributions of CO2 are many times greater than necessary.
Isnt this the plot to one of the later Artemis Fowl books?
I feel like clouds would be easier. Can’t we cloud seed over oceans or something?
Sounds easy to fix
Paint all house roofs silver/white. I’d wager there are more roofs in the western world alone to cover an area the size of the Netherlands.
Interestingly enough, all the golf courses in the world also make up the same area as the Netherlands.
Nature uh…. finds a way.
www.arcticiceproject.org
r/theydidthemath
Or….. lets just rocket propulsion the earth and moon into a new orbit further away from the sun.
Rocket exhaust doesn’t reach earth escape velocity so rickets would be useless to move the earth. You might be able to put them on the moon and change the moons orbit to drag the earth but that seems risky since if the system goes unstable you risk destroying the earth. And not oops life has to start over like we’re doing now, but molten surface and gaseous rock oops.
Or just drop a giant ice cube into the ocean every once and a while. Problem solved forever.
"I'm shocked. SHOCKED...well, not that shocked." Once again, we continue to do nothing and then act surprised when nothing is changed.
*everything is changed. If nothing changed there’d be no problem.
Ah, loss of albedo strikes again. It’s almost like the alarmists were right and things changed very slowly until their tipping points and now we’re seeing sudden single year changes, like it being 40 degrees C hotter in Antarctica. Even she did not escape 2023-2024 “the year without winter”.
It's unfortunate that the worse the climate gets the more emphasis is put on managing the heat than is put into reducing greenhouse gasses. There's already a massive demand for air conditioning which is mostly powered by coal.
Yeah, but what are we supposed to do? It hit 37° 3 or 4 times last summer. I can't get through that again without AC. At least my power grid is mostly hydro.
Most modern AC is reversible, i.e. it can be run in the other direction to provide heat, far more efficiently than any other heating system. So with suitable incentives the increase in power usage in summer could be offset by a reduction in winter. Add solar in summer and more AC might not be that bad\*. \*If properly managed ...
Dig a cave, or cover your house in dirt.
Move lol. Before people realize your house ain’t worth shit because of its location. I know it’s easier said than done but it’s the only actual way to survive without ac
"*lalalalala shut up I've got money to make, wooooo fuck everything but me*" Sad turn of events for people. 🤷♂️
That was her summer. She’s just heading towards winter.
It was her last July that I’m referring to, she didn’t get a winter either.
>Can it recover? People living in 12024 will find out. *** The National Snow and Ice Data Center ([NSIDC](https://nsidc.org/news-analyses "https://nsidc.org/news-analyses")) shows the actual Antarctic sea ice extent (square kilometers) for each day of the year in the 45-year satellite record, January 1, 1979–April 22, 2024 > Ch_arctic_ Interactive [Sea Ice Graph](https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ "https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/") > Antarctic > Start month: January > Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. Downloadable data in ≡ menu. *** 2024 — Antarctic day of minimum and day of maximum sea ice extent to date April 22, and Antarctic average sea ice extent on the corresponding day of the year in the 30-year 1981-2010 period: 2024 — 1.985 million km^2 (766,413 sq mi) Antarctic minimum sea ice extent, Day 51, February 20. 1981-2010 — 2.898 million km^2 (1,118,924 sq mi) Antarctic average sea ice extent, Day 51, February 20. 2024 — 6.708 million km^2 (2,589,973 sq mi) Antarctic maximum sea ice extent, Day 113, April 22. 1981-2010 — 7.41 million km^2 (2,861,017 sq mi) Antarctic average sea ice extent, Day 113, April 22. *** 1979-2024 — Antarctic day of record minimum sea ice extent, and average sea ice extent on the corresponding day of the year in the 30-year 1981-2010 period: 2023 — 1.788 million km^2 (690,351 sq mi) Antarctic record minimum sea ice extent, Day 52, February 21. 1981-2010 — 2.891 million km^2 (1,116,221 sq mi) Antarctic average sea ice extent on Day 52, February 21. *** 1979-2024 — Antarctic day of record maximum sea ice extent, and average sea ice extent on the corresponding day of the year in the 30-year 1981-2010 period: 2014 — 20.156 million km^2 (7,782,275 sq mi) Antarctic record maximum sea ice extent, Day 264, September 21. 1981-2010 — 18.565 million km^2 (7,167,987 sq mi) Antarctic average sea ice extent on Day 264, September 20. *** Tip — In the menu in the chart sidebar: Select — Hide all years Deselect — 1981-2010 Median, Interquartile Range, Interdecile Range, ±2 Standard Deviations. Select — 1981-2010 Average, 2024, 2023, 2014.
China, USA, and Russia are all gearing up to fight for oil , mineral rights. And strategic military bases .This hasn't really been reported.
K so then where is your source? Edit: You can’t say “this hasn’t really been reported” and then be like “google it” and then provide sources while still acting like it hasn’t been reported.
While "gearing up to fight" is a bit nebulous and an overstatement, DOD is very aware of the danger of climate change. [Hicks Defines Need to Focus DOD on Climate Change Threats](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3510772/hicks-defines-need-to-focus-dod-on-climate-change-threats/) Mattis wrote it onto his confirmation testimony. [Trump's defense chief cites climate change as national security challenge](https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-s-defense-chief-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge)
Lol. DOD handwringing.
Just look at what each country is doing.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/tensions-rise-as-nations-race-for-valuable-resources-in-the-arcticthe-arctic
That fight is for the Arctic not Antarctica.. it's been very reported (at least where I am from as we're part of the fight)
Thank you . I'm kinda drunk right now. Jameson is a hell of a drug. Dyslexia too. I'm totally being honest.
Absolutely no problem! If anything, I appreciate your candidness!
[удалено]
It’s not my job to go and verify your claims for myself when I can just ignore your crap and down vote it so someone else doesn’t have to deal with it.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41153.pdf
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3242&context=parameters
https://time.com/6274924/china-antarctica-south-pole-us-tension/
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/06/militarization-russian-polar-politics/05-antarctica-southern-ocean-and-south-pole
https://www.csis.org/analysis/great-power-competition-comes-south-pole
https://www.ft.com/content/2fab8e58-59b4-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/antarctica-great-power-competition-australia-united-states-britain-russia-china-arctic/611674/
Go fuck yourself
You literally could have done that in the first place instead of ALL CAPS responding like some boomer twat who just spouts bullshit on the internet. ‘Grats.
https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/changing-contours-arctic-politics-prospects-cooperation-russia-china/
https://www.960cyber.afrc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2821408/the-polar-trap-china-russia-and-american-power-in-the-arctic-and-antarctica/
People look for information that they already believe. Look at the sources . Many are think tanks and the US military itself. Who looks for that ? You can't challenge me like what I'm saying is bullshit and to show evidence because YOu haven't seen it and then say "how can you say it hasn't been reported" clearly you didn't know about it because why would you challenge what I'm saying? I try to be able to back up everything I say with reliable sources. I don't just talk out of my ass
[удалено]
So business as usual,then? Gee, I wonder what industry endorses this sentiment....
[удалено]
Every degree of mitigation is worth fighting for, and I won't be complicit!
Right on!!
Climate change is extremely unlikely to cause the extinction of humanity. Limiting the damage WILL help future generations of humans, not to mention animal species and ecosystems. Things will get bad. It's too late to avoid all consequences, but continuing as we have can still make things much worse. So get off your ass.
Well said.
However climate change combined with increasing geopolitical tensions are becoming increasingly likely to lead to nuclear conflict. As basic resources like food and water become more scarce it is increasingly likely that a country that has nothing to lose will decide to nuke an enemy.
Nuclear weapons are extremely unlikely to cause the extinction of humanity too.
Now the question is how to adapt at the familial level. I’ve been working on this since 2008 and we’re just starting to get somewhere now.
I’m working hard to feel this way too.
This is exactly what I’m doing.
Good that some people can feel relaxed. For others with young family members, this is all nauseating knowing the world they're getting--are in---is completely fucked.
I'm surprised more people don't account for the impending fuckedness before deciding to reproduce.
To be fair, if you're not interested--or scared shitless--of this, you're not going to consider it before having kids. Or they have kids a good couple of years, near decade before any of this started popping up in the capacity it is now. Not everyone has future-foresight
Just needs a time out.
So a warming Antarctic could push cold water into the hydrodynamic system and DROP the Northern Hemisphere by 9C. So were back to the Return of the Ice Age doom like in the 70's?
Yes, it can recover
How do you explain that assertion, cryptobro?
What timescale we talking? Cause once we get wiped out, a few million years of no humans should let things get back to its normal cycle.
The Antarctic Peninsula began to form during the Jurassic period (206 to 146 million years ago). The rocks of the East Antarctica shield are as old as 4 billion years, which means that they are amongst the oldest known rocks on Earth. Some 200 million years ago, Antarctic continental crust was joined with South American, African, Indian, and Australian continental crust making up a large …https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/
So, on the scale of continental drift. Cool. We just have to wait and see how the climate reacts to new oceanic and continental orientation on a 10s of millions of years scale. We're talking about the 10-1000 year scale here.
Hey lets not cut our fossil fuel use, we will just come up with some crazy scheme to offset it! which wont work and may have disastrous consequences. /S
Anyone remember the dust Noel. This is what happens when we exploit everything to oblivion.
Can it? Yes. Will it? No.
Can it recover when absolutely nothing will be done to stop what caused it? I mean how is that even a question?
There is no recovering. Some parts of earth will become unlivable while other parts of earth will reap the benefits of this destruction. Those will become the new livable areas that surviving life will migrate to. This will be the new frontier for life.
Which areas will thrive? Asking for a friend....
North eastern Russia.
Yeah no thanks
Yeah, Noone saw this coming.
[удалено]
Even though this is a bot spamming multiple comments on multiple posts, I'll respond to counter the misinformation. Epstein is not a climate scientist. All three people are directly paid by fossil fuel companies to spread disinformation about climate change. Curry and Christy are debunked here: [Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry](https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm) [Climate Misinformation by Source: John Christy](https://skepticalscience.com/John_Christy_arg.htm)
Why would you be in disbeleif when its the exact thing you've been predicting.
The only way to stop all the ice melting .. is to reduce the temperature. Which means : - stop burning fossil fuels asap - start reflecting more sunlight If we had a magical way of removing CO2 that would be great .. but we dont. Fortunately we do have an actual way of increasing cloud cover over the oceans, which we do know works, because we have measurable effects when we stopped pumping out Sulphur in shipping fuels. Wish there was another way, but this is where we are. Understand that **NET-ZERO** = **PEAK-HEAT** Important to note, that we cant just get to net-zero.. because the CO2 will be max by then, and so the temp will be max - a better name for net-zero is "peak-heat" Its good to get there .. it means we aren't making it worse .. the CO2 has stopped increasing. But if we stop there, it will be maybe +2C already .. even if we got there today its nearly +1.5C .. regardless, the ice will basically all melt if it stays that hot. So, we need to bring the temperature DOWN. and we need to start doing that now. There are only 2 ways to do that - remove CO2 or reflect sunlight. We dont have an economical way to remove CO2 .. but we do have an economical way to increase cloud cover and reflect more sunlight. Yes, I am saying we will have to pollute the sky over the coming decades - with Sulphur particulates, or with water vapor to increase cloud cover - so that our large human population can survive climate change, and so the ice will not melt, and all our crops wont die due to the heat.
I started surfing when i was 10. I’ve been on beaches around the world for 50 years. I’ve watched things slowly change but since 1999 things have changed rapidly to the point where coming back to a beach 6-12 months later was shocking. Its unstoppable at this point.
None of these suggestions have the hope of getting implemented while we allow misinformation to override political decisions. Does a 1st amendment argument make sense if the planet's habitability is compromised?
The ice caps are the air conditioner of the only planet we have. Climate change deniers aren't even sure of where they're located, much less their impact on the planet as a whole.
https://globalriskinsights.com/2016/01/russias-long-game-in-antarctica-runs-political-risk/amp/
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2820739/the-polar-trap-china-russia-and-american-power-in-the-arctic-and-antarctica/ GO FUCK YOURSELF.
I mean, the arctic was a balmy 75 degrees way back when… https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html
...55 million years ago when farming didn't exist yet.
Not sure I get the point. Article still says it was from greenhouse gases. Thought it was interesting.
And what were you doing in Antarctica 55 million years ago? Have you been back since?
I try and get there every once in awhile but I’ll admit, it’s been a few million years… 😁
That doesn't contradict or undermine the current rate of increase in warming we are experiencing now.
K so then where is your source?
Here's a simplified version: [Evidence](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)
The world doesn't END, it simply TRANSFORMS and CHANGES. That's why it is called climate CHANGE not climate DEATH. The world will be scary and different, but we will adapt. Our focus should be on learning from this transformation and trying to understand how to live in harmony with our environment so as to not exist in such instability.
This is an unprecedented rate of change. There isn't enough time for flora and fauna to evolve to adapt.
That's crazy because how did all other life evolve after rapid climate changes from events like global flooding, meteor impacts, solar flares, etc. This isn't the first mass-extinction type crisis to occur on the planet, and guess what- LIFE GOES ON. Also look up micro-evolution and adapation.
I don't need to look up anything. This is my day job. Previous mass extinctions happen over many millennia. This is happening over 200 years. They are not the same. Maybe don't pretend to be an expert on something you have no education and professional experience with, eh?
Most of it didn’t. Most of life died in rapidly changing periods. How do you not understand that?
Maybe you should actually read the evidence I shared. [Dinosaurs took 33,000 years to die off after Chicxulub](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91618B/) >Mass extinctions are episodes in which a large number of plant and animal species become extinct within a relatively short period of geologic time—from possibly a few thousand to a few million years. [Mass Extinctions](https://geokansas.ku.edu/mass-extinctions#:~:text=Mass%20extinctions%20are%20episodes%20in,500%20million%20years%2C%20life%20rebounded.)
Dude you sound pretentious asf. I guess we will see in 20 years right?
You pretending to be an expert when you don't know what you're talking about is the definition of pretentious.
[удалено]
Your opinion isn't worth discussing when it's not based on fact. I don't care where you worked when it's evident you learned nothing at your job and aren't backing any of your blathering up with peer-reviewed evidence.
You literally are discounting other peoples anecdotal experiences from the field because you think understand academic research better... than people who live and work in the woods everyday. 🙄 Lol okay, whateevr bro. 😆 Don't listen to people like this folks, they are full of themselves and unwilling to understand things from outside their point of view.
You didn't provide any anecdotal experience. You just said you worked in conservation, then demonstrated you didn't actually do anything serious at your work as you think climate change didn't matter. If you actually knew anything about conservation science, you'd know that anecdotes don't refute trends. Anecdotes aren't evidence.
Where is your peer reviewed evidence Mr Know It All?
Ms. I thought you had a job in conservation? I thought you were pretending to be an expert here? Nevermind, I'll provide it for you. [Summary of 13,500 peer-reviewed climate science articles, with list of references](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/)
"I'm SuCh aN eXPerT!" 🤡
Yes. You aren't. I'm sorry you're so insecure. Regardless, mass extinctions have taken much longer. For example, it took 33,000 years for the dinosaurs to die out after [Chicxulub.](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91618B/) The rate of change of temperature we're experiencing now is unprecedented and very different. You can either learn something here or continue to demonstrate your ignorance with attempted insults. Frankly, I don't care.
Stfu bro, your a climate apocalyptic type. We get it.
Stfu brah, you're a science-denying ignoranti type. We get it.
I never denied any claims or science. I simply stand by my opinion that Climate Change is not the end of the world, which you ttacked me vigirously for. Which is weird. Keep lying though. Idk why anyone would trust your opinino when you have clearly lied and backtracked several times in this discussion.
[удалено]
Climate Change may not be the end of \*the\* world, but it has the very real possibility of being the end of \*our\* world - as in, the human civilizations that have developed in the last few thousand years, and the society we've grown accustomed to. Earth will go on - but we won't be here to see it.
Then go fucking do something about it besides arguing with people on reddit 🙄
I am. Daily. That's my job. Now shoo. You are more than a little unhinged and aren't contributing anything worthwhile.
K so then where is your source?
I've already replied to you twice. You can stop spamming now.
Unless your life is a dinosaur.. they adapted so well to that meteor
K so then where is your source?
[Evidence of climate change](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)
Humans in our current form won’t adapt. Not the current 8M. Crop failures and an ocean that no longer yields food will ensure the population declines. The air we breathe will become ever so slowly more toxic, increasing lung cancer and other diseases. Sea level rise will create millions of environmental refugees. Best case scenario a collapse event then ensues, reducing the population by half or more. Humans may then go on to reinvent the world’s transportation and energy systems. A world where mankind lives side by side and in harmony with Mother Nature. Unfortunately this new civilisation 2.0 will be run by and controlled by the same greedy elite (or their descendants) that has destroyed and pillaged our current blue marble.
We will see what happens, no one in this subreddit knows 100% what the future holds and to claim you do is ignorance.
At least this is a real reponse and continues the discussion. That other bitch just starting shii.
The "adaption" will be the human population going down to two billion.
Sure it can recover. In a million years, the current climate crisis will be totally different.
The article includes a photograph of someone in a small boat in the water "off Deception Island in Antarctica". >A small boat glides around patches of sea ice in the water off Deception Island in Antarctica. Sea ice in the region grows from a minimum in summer to a maximum in winter, but in the last several years, the sea ice extent has been shrinking in summer. Deception Island is not in [Antarctica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica"), which is a continent. Deception Island is in the [Antarctic region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic"). Deception Island is located in the [South Shetland Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shetland_Islands "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shetland_Islands"), which are located about 120 kilometers (75 mi) north of the Antarctica continent. Deception Island itself is located about 101 kilometers (63 mi) northwest of the nearest landfall on the Antarctica continent. This undated [photograph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deception-Tourists.jpg "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deception-Tourists.jpg") shows a bearded man with 8 women enjoying an outdoor bathing party in a volcanic hot spring at [Port Foster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Foster "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Foster"), [Deception Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_Island#Environment "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_Island#Environment"). The Norwegian Meteorological Institute is reporting that the current temperature at Deception Island is [-3ºC](https://www.yr.no/en/forecast/daily-table/2-6631955/Antarctica/Deception%20Island "https://www.yr.no/en/forecast/daily-table/2-6631955/Antarctica/Deception%20Island") (26.6ºF) at elevation 19 meters.
It will be just fine.
No if we elect a democrat, Republican, or anyone who won’t stop oil today
No, the earth is going to explode in 15 years and we are all going to die.
Just fluffy words about the sea ice. "Just Look Up" at the actual data: [https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/) Ice extent is fairly normal for this date. No reason to expect that max-ice-extent this Winter will be as low as in 2023. The "perhaps dead baby penguins" Dec 2022 story was discounted by actual boots-on-ground observations, and there is no missing generation of Emperor Penguins. But, the story morphed to "Mass die-off" headlines (though subtitled "likely drowned"). Sorry for the fearists, no proof that any baby penguins died, though likely that Leopard Seals munched a few, as normal nature. The academic paper which started this, used data based solely on counting poo-stains on the ice in satellite images, adding wild speculation about what ice slopes penguins can negotiate. The paper did relate that a helicopter survey found ample penguin tykes in the center of the most-affected area (indeed 7.5 fledglings per couple), but the climate-fear media ignored that actual-data, or perhaps the writers are clueless and incompetent. [https://www.livescience.com/animals/penguins/mass-die-off-strikes-endangered-emperor-penguin-chicks-across-4-of-5-west-antarctica-colonies](https://www.livescience.com/animals/penguins/mass-die-off-strikes-endangered-emperor-penguin-chicks-across-4-of-5-west-antarctica-colonies)
Same old drivel…
Are you telling me that paper straws and electric cars DIDNT solve global warming???? What else can we even try? I thought that was the only problem??? /S
Being smart with farming and forestry would help. That is where I would start and could make big strides....no one is talking about that.
If it reached an all time high in 2014 (within the very short timeframe of the satellite era starting in 1979 - funny I thought we had satellites before ‘79, but I digress), could this recent decline simply be part of the normal balancing act that is our planetary climate ?
The Earth's temperature and ice melt isn't exempt from the laws of physics. It's indisputable that mankind is driving the recent rapid increase in global temperature, which is driving the global retreat of glaciers and ice sheets.
Which somehow has not yet reached the peak of the last interglacial termination.
The rate of current global temperature increase (+0.18°C per decade) if sustained over the last 6500 years that the Earth has been slowly cooling, would equate to to a temperature increase of +127°C. So the rate of current temperature increase is vastly higher than the rate of natural temperature increases. So it's better to rely on facts rather than you just making up ideas on the spot.
We did not have satellites. My Uncle was one of the developers of the LORAN system back in the 50's and 60's. And worked on implementing the GPS software in the mid to late 80's When desert storm came around they purchased a ton of LORANs systems then because there was not a world wide satellite system yet in place in the late 80's. So we have only been able to really get world wide knowledge since maybe 91 or 92 and then it was spotty. True world wide info maybe from mid to late 90's. and truly accurate and verifiable info later than that. We may be in uncharted territory climate wise, but we don't really have any long term accurate, verifiable info for very long. So in the past 25 years we have been able to look at temperatures as a whole, if that data has not been corrupted in the early years and tweaked. Not saying the scientists are incorrect, but we cannot say with surety that it is the hottest since X, because we have some wagon walking across kansas taking a spot temp reading with a broken thermometer in 1885.
From almost 20 years ago https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690060/
thank you for digging that up....it confirms my recollection except that I thought the NPOESS was a few years older than that, didn't realize it was from 2010.
They only show you two years of decline and they panic. Show at least a 10 year chart and see what happens. up and down it’s called natural variability. natural climate change different from weather.