Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 21 2019, @12:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the that's-science-for-you dept.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/

Recently, the U.K. Met Office announced a revision to the Hadley Center historical analysis of sea surface temperatures (SST), suggesting that the oceans have warmed about 0.1 degree Celsius more than previously thought. The need for revision arises from the long-recognized problem that in the past sea surface temperatures were measured using a variety of error-prone methods such as using open buckets, lamb's wool–wrapped thermometers, and canvas bags. It was not until the 1990s that oceanographers developed a network of consistent and reliable measurement buoys.

[...] But that's where the good news ends. Because the oceans cover three fifths of the globe, this correction implies that previous estimates of overall global warming have been too low. Moreover it was reported recently that in the one place where it was carefully measured, the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by quietus on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:58AM (7 children)

    by quietus (6328) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:58AM (#883064) Journal

    No, we're not boned. There are a number of practical things we can do to at least mitigate the effects.

    Off the top of my head:

    1. Increase the number of carbon dioxide sinks: plant trees on unbuilt land and roadsides, do not mow grass fields and roadsides so often.
    2. Invest into carbon storage [soylentnews.org] for the chemical industry.
    3. Improve weather modelling and prediction. Large parts of Africa and Asia simply do not have reliable weather stations, if they have weather stations at all. A pressure zone above the Indian Ocean can influence the weather over large parts of Africa, which can turn into a cascade effect towards Europe. Similar reasoning for the South-Americas and the United States. Better prediction allows more time to prepare for disasters, and can discern new emerging climate patterns, in turn influencing decisions on agricultural policy etcetera.
    4. Cities are most vulnerable to climate change effects: they're heat islands to start with, so the effect of heat waves are even more worse there. They are more vulnerable to thunderstorms, while having a high concentration of people, utterly reliant on public infrastructure, in a very small place. You can improve cities' climate though: create more public green spaces, line the streets with trees, and make it cool to cover building walls where possible with plants. Also, design cities like a datacenter, with cold and warm air currents, and with bodies of water acting like heat sinks. Then, develop proper, and public, disaster plans.
    5. Develop power infrastructure into smart grids, combining renewable and (small) nuclear power generators.
    6. Reduce your energy expenditure: newer fridges, lightbulbs and about any other electrical appliance are competing on energy-efficiency.
    7. Invest in cheap public transport -- not the big headline infrastructure projects -- especially (short and long-distance) hydrogen fuel buses, and use proper planning and forecasting to estimate demand. Where necessary, i.e. the regions surrounding cities, make this an on-demand service -- with a clear and simple web-based interface. The proper country-side will remain reliant on individual car transport.
    8. Shift heavy, long-distance trucking from diesel to hydrogen. Shift car fuel from diesel and gas towards LPG and CNG: converting from benzine (gas) to LPG will only set you back about $2,000, while CNG is a little more expensive. European car makers are already providing CNG models for the same [carscoops.com] price as comparable [www.adandp.media] diesel models, straight from the factory -- with CNG models theoretically even emission-free in operation.
    9. Develop and invest into serious water resources management and flood disaster plans.

    None of these things are expensive, big ticket, items to do.

    Adapting to climate change will not require big sacrifices. It will not require you to change your diet.

    Instead, it will make your environment more pleasant to live in and, hence, increase your quality of living.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @12:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @12:28PM (#883074)

    None of that carbon-focused stuff is going to do anything to help with climate change... total waste of time and resources. You end up poorer and more vulnerable in the end.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 21 2019, @01:08PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 21 2019, @01:08PM (#883090) Journal
    We can also adapt to climate change, such as moving to higher ground, moving farms to where the better growing conditions exist, and adopting best practices for disaster preparedness and recovery worldwide.
  • (Score: 1) by saturnalia0 on Wednesday August 21 2019, @01:24PM (1 child)

    by saturnalia0 (6571) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @01:24PM (#883103)

    I am yet to see a widely accepted, widely publicized study clasifying the main sources of global warming. Does it really help to change your light bulbs? If so, how much? Or perhaps it makes no significant difference, since the X industry is orders of magnitude more pollutant (perhaps it doesn't even cause larger CO2 emission but emits a sufficient amount of other stronger greenhouse gases).

    The causes must first be accurately quantized before thinking about acting on them.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:09PM (#883132)

    Reduce your energy expenditure: newer fridges, lightbulbs and about any other electrical appliance are competing on energy-efficiency.

    While it is unknown in The Hotbed of D, a large part of the world has this yearly natural phenomenon known as "winter". When whatever energy the new expensive appliances "save", then need be fed into another appliance known as "heater", or the user of the appliances will freeze to death and become unable to pay the interest on their loans.

  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:47PM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:47PM (#883243)

    Yes, all those things will help.

    They're orders of magnitude less than what's needed to prevent catastrophic global warming. We're already losing glaciers, melting the polar ice caps, and unfreezing the methane in the arctic permafrost which will create a nasty positive feedback loop. Oh, and the Amazon rainforest is currently on fire, sea levels are already rising substantially, and hurricanes have gained intensity. Even if we somehow reduced the growth of CO2 to zero (and we haven't even come close to that), we'd still be in serious trouble.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday August 21 2019, @06:27PM

      by quietus (6328) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @06:27PM (#883266) Journal

      Why do you think they're orders of magnitudes less than what's needed?
      And secondly: what do you want -- reorganizing economy and society in a couple of years with a war-like effort and attitude? That, to me, seems only likely when things already have hit the fan i.e. really large-scale disruption due to a whole cascade of extreme weather events. When that happens, we're likely to be already in a runaway process -- trying to stop that, if it is at all possible given our limited scientific knowledge, is likely to cost us a lot more than taking a number of steps now.

      Besides, there's human psychology to behold: taking a number of small steps, which turn out not to be a doom-discomfort-and-sacrifice happening, will prepare minds for even further steps, if necessary. You do not immediately start to rebuild a precious old-timer, you first practice on cheap cars.

      And one more thing, what khallow already alluded to: the focus now is very much on negative feedback loops. Systems often also have feedback loops that run in the counterdirection: good old Earth may as yet still surprise us, positively.