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.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by quietus on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:58AM (7 children)
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:
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @12:28PM
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
(Score: 1) by saturnalia0 on Wednesday August 21 2019, @01:24PM (1 child)
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: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:57PM
It's called a greenhouse gas inventory. [www.ipcc.ch]
The EPA compiles USA's greenhouse gas inventory annually, it's located here. [epa.gov] They've been compiling this data for about 30 years now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:09PM
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)
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
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.