Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-worse dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

El Niño events cause serious shifts in weather patterns across the globe, and an important question that scientists have sought to answer is: how will climate change affect the generation of strong El Niño events? A new study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by a team of international climate researchers led by Bin Wang of the University of Hawaii's International Pacific Research Center (IPRC), has an answer to that question. Results show that since the late 1970's, climate change effects have shifted the El Niño onset location from the eastern Pacific to the western Pacific and caused more frequent extreme El Niño events. Continued warming over the western Pacific warm pool promises conditions that will trigger more extreme events in the future.

The team examined details of 33 El Niño events from 1901 to 2017, evaluating for each event the onset location of the warming, its evolution, and its ultimate strength. By grouping the common developmental features of the events, the team was able to identify four types of El Niño, each with distinct onset and strengthening patterns. Looking across time, they found a decided shift in behavior since the late 1970's: all events beginning in the eastern Pacific occurred prior to that time, while all events originating in the western-central Pacific happened since then. They also found that four of five identified extreme El Niño events formed after 1970.

[...] "Simulations with global climate models suggest that if the observed background changes continue under future anthropogenic forcing, more frequent extreme El Niño events will induce profound socioeconomic consequences," reports Wang.

Journal Reference:
Bin Wang, Xiao Luo, Young-Min Yang, Weiyi Sun, Mark A. Cane, Wenju Cai, Sang-Wook Yeh, and Jian Liu. Historical change of El Niño properties sheds light on future changes of extreme El Niño. PNAS, 2019 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1911130116

-- submitted from IRC


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This discussion has been archived.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, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:58PM (24 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:58PM (#910407) Journal

    I can picture it now!

    Fusty, pushing his gondola around with that long pole.

    Singing his song about how both parties are equally to blame for the climate change induced flooding.

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

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:11PM

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:11PM (#910414) Journal

    Oh pipe down! You're going to crush those pearls! It will be motorized like that one in Moonraker [youtube.com].

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:37PM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:37PM (#910433)

    Same as other cultists whose promised End of teh World failed to happen, Cult of Global Warming can now promise their flood till dolphins swim home.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:41PM (19 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:41PM (#910439) Journal

      Since you mentioned the year, what was the sea level in 1998 compared to today? It must have been much higher then, not something crazy like 3 inches lower, right?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:24PM (18 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:24PM (#910468)

        125 meters lower 20k years ago:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland [wikipedia.org]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundaland [wikipedia.org]

        It has been rising much slower recently at ~16-30 cm:

        Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in).[2] More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017,[3]:1554 which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century.

        [...]

        Since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by more than 125 metres (410 ft), with rates varying from less than a mm/year to 40+ mm/year, as a result of melting ice sheets over Canada and Eurasia.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:45PM (17 children)

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:45PM (#910481) Journal

          Now, if you read the actual citation wikipedia uses [nih.gov] you can see they've got all of about 2 or 3 datapoints for ALL of pre-civilization history that we can discern that match a rate of change for today

          And today, is a fucking goddamn tenth of what the rate of change in will be in 2100, you fucking psychos. Why can't you people just stick yourselves in an lava tube and spare the rest of us your desire for self immolation.

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:59PM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:59PM (#910490)

            All you need is one historical datapoint to get the overall average.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:02PM (9 children)

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:02PM (#910493) Journal

              No, they pretty clearly collected thousands of them and the majority were in the 0-0.1 millimeter per year range, not anywhere near today's 3.3 per year? Like you can click the link and scroll down to the bar graph, it's right there in the article.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:04PM (8 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:04PM (#910494)

                To get the overall average all you need is to know the sea level 20k years ago and today. It is algebra 101.

                • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:09PM (7 children)

                  by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:09PM (#910497) Journal

                  durr a half millimeter per year, which is a fraction of today's 3.3 per year, which I stress is a tenth of what it will be in the uncontrolled emission scenario. Do you have any point to make or just that you didn't do that math?

                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:11PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:11PM (#910499)

                    125 m x 1e3 mm/m / 20e3 years = 6.25 mm per year on average

                    Now watch this basic fact get downvoted by idiots.

                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:25PM

                      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:25PM (#910507) Journal

                      You know what, my math was wrong.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:31PM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:31PM (#910509)

                    Onset of deglaciation at ∼21–20 ka BP with a short-lived global sea-level rise of ∼10–15 m before 18 ka.
                    [...]
                    A major phase of deglaciation from ∼16.5–7 ka BP. The total esl change in this interval is ∼120 m
                    [...]
                    A rise of ∼25 m from ∼16.5–15 ka BP
                    [...]
                    A high rate of sea-level rise starting at ∼14.5 ka BP of ∼500 y duration... the globally averaged rise in sea level of ∼20 m occurs at a rate of ∼40 mm⋅y−1 or greater.
                    [...]
                    A period of sea-level rise from ∼14 to ∼12.5 ka BP of ∼20 m in 1,500 y.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217469/ [nih.gov]

                    So we have:
                    3.33 mm/yr for thousand years
                    12.6 mm/yr for 9.5 thousand years
                    40.0 mm/yr for 500 years
                    13.0 mm/yr for 1.5 thousand years

                    A ~10x increase in rate from ~3 mm/yr would not surprise me. About 2.5% of the time since the LGM was spent in such a state.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 23 2019, @03:34AM (3 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @03:34AM (#910658) Journal

                      A ~10x increase in rate from ~3 mm/yr would not surprise me.

                      But we're not even close at the present. This is particularly frivolous since much of the present day rise in sea level is still due to the end of the last glacial period. We'll need significantly more than 10x increase in rate from global warming to get ~30 mm/year.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @06:32AM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @06:32AM (#910683)

                        It is still worth planning for. Double or quadruple it and plan for that i say... because even if that disastrous situation does not manifest our planning will still help for many other difficult scenarios.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 23 2019, @12:28PM (1 child)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @12:28PM (#910767) Journal
                          There's a whole bunch of stuff to plan for. Climate change is not the only problem in the world when you have over 7 billion people.
                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @12:28AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @12:28AM (#911439)

                            Then the right thing to do is assess all the threats and the cost of dealing with them and do a cost-benefit analysis. I am pretty sure that doing basic stuff known since biblical times like stockpiling resources and tools for hard times will be the best solution.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:46PM (#910603)

              Better get a bulk rate on your wedding cake, then, you'll have four dozen husbands.
              'cause. like, everyone knows earth has access to unlimited supply of frozen water, thus in another 2 million years or so, Earth will be an ocean planet.

          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:05PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:05PM (#910495) Journal

            I should correct one oversight that actually matters, the "tenth" thing comes from the scenario where we continue current exponential growth of emissions. The IPCC also forecasts other scenarios that are a lot tamer like half the exponential growth and modest reductions in emissions(both of which still have sea level rise, but nowhere near as dramatic).

          • (Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:09PM (3 children)

            by SpockLogic (2762) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:09PM (#910498)

            Today it is over 90F in Central Florida and its the later part of October, WTF !!!

            --
            Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:15PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:15PM (#910502)

              Where I am it is 74 F and the average for October is 73 F. Holy Shit that is one average temperature!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:40PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:40PM (#910519)

              You live in Central Florida

              You call yourself "SpockLogic"

              Was that intentional?

              • (Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:31AM

                by SpockLogic (2762) on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:31AM (#910640)

                Affirmative on both counts.

                10.30 pm and its down to 80F, cool at last ....

                --
                Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:39PM (1 child)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:39PM (#910436) Journal

    The fun thing is they will be. Because while the rise of the peak tides is one of the slowest, steadiest, and least variable elements of climate change, there will be a singular event where it breaks over the dykes and dams in Manhattan and you can be damn sure the local government will be blamed for inadequate maintenance.

    And in the calculus of the moment, no centrist will think back to the political debates of 2019, all politics is in isolation. The slaughter of the kurds is completely aside from our alignment with local politics to beat ISIS, which wasn't created out of the destabilization from us supporting "moderate rebels" in Syria and invading Iraq, which was had nothing at all to do with proving we were right about Iraq invasion 1, which had nothing at all to do with defeating our own weapons we gave Saddam to deter Iran, who wasn't our enemy because we supported a coup against their democratic revolution.

    There will be no lesson learned. There cannot be a lesson learned.