Maybe. Maybe not. New study, reported on at SciTechDaily,
The world's largest ice sheets may be in less danger of sudden collapse than previously predicted, according to new findings led by the University of Michigan.
The study, published in Science, included simulating the demise of West Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier, one of the world's largest and most unstable glaciers. Researchers modeled the collapse of various heights of ice cliffs—near-vertical formations that occur where glaciers and ice shelves meet the ocean. They found that instability doesn't always lead to rapid disintegration.
"What we found is that over long timescales, ice behaves like a viscous fluid, sort of like a pancake spreading out in a frying pan," said Jeremy Bassis, U-M associate professor of climate and space sciences and engineering. "So the ice spreads out and thins faster than it can fail and this can stabilize collapse. But if the ice can't thin fast enough, that's when you have the possibility of rapid glacier collapse."
Or, not.
[...] "There's no doubt that sea levels are rising, and that it's going to continue in the coming decades," Bassis said. "But I think this study offers hope that we're not approaching a complete collapse—that there are measures that can mitigate and stabilize things. And we still have the opportunity to change things by making decisions about things like energy emissions—methane and CO2."
[...] "The ocean is always there, sort of tickling the ice in a very complex way, and we've only known for a decade or two just how important it is," he said. "But we're beginning to understand that it's driving a lot of the changes we're seeing, and I think that's going to be the next big frontier in our research."
Journal Reference:
J. N. Bassis, B. Berg, A. J. Crawford, et al. Transition to marine ice cliff instability controlled by ice thickness gradients and velocity [$], Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.abf6271)
(Score: 3, Funny) by fustakrakich on Monday June 21 2021, @02:43AM
Wait wait... [pinimg.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Monday June 21 2021, @02:58AM (26 children)
What if these 97% climate alarmists, instead of saying climate change is happening, kept publically predicting that something looked bad, but then stated that they were pretty sure that it *wasn't* going to happen, like a one-in-a-million chance, and that there was no reason for alarm. Then every time they'd have to issue a correction after it did happen, and eventually people would think that big science or whatever was *suppressing* climate change news.
Maybe the general population would then think they'd stumbled on some big discovery and wouldn't be made to feel so dumb about it, and might start believing it. I mean, if some group comes up with corrections again and again, keeping the issue in the news, eventually people might think the opposite was happening?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @06:22AM (4 children)
You ignore the root cause of skepticism. The first (to my knowledge) fear-mongering climate change article that's available in digital form is this [apnews.com] one. You might find the dialog to eerily similar. In a nutshell: 'We only have 10 years to act, or the world as we know it will end.' That article was written 31 years ago. When you speak of hyperbolic predictions, you're putting your credibility on the line. Because if the world doesn't end in 10 years, then you've shown yourself to be cluess and/or hopelessly hyperbolic. The faithful will continue to believe you, but those without a strong preexisting bias are going to be pushed further and further away.
Hyperbole is often well intentioned, as a means of emphasizing the urgency of something. But it, in the longrun, tends to have the exact opposite effect of what's intended. Because as the hyperbolic fails to come to pass, your urgings in the future start to become ignored - whether or not that is justified. In a nutshell, the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf [wikipedia.org]. Or, as Aristotle put it when asked what those who tell lies gain from it, "that when they speak truth they are not believed".
The moral of this all applies to far more in our society today than simply climate change.
(Score: 5, Informative) by https on Monday June 21 2021, @02:39PM (2 children)
I don't know if you noticed, but we failed to act and right now we're kinda fucked [youtube.com]* environmentally and climaticly. Except for the ozone layer. Oh, wait, that's because we collectively fucking well did something about it right fucking quick.
You might as well be a paid shill for Exxon.
* 37 seconds NASA animation
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @04:03PM (1 child)
So, replacing invariably failed hyperbolic predictions with an arbitrary color mapping is supposed to be *more* compelling to me?
Here [nasa.gov] are the actual data for your video which present things much more clearly than some pointless colorization. Okay, the temperature has increased approximately 1 degree in 140 years. And I'll happily grant it continuing to increase. During periods such as the Cretaceous you're looking at degrees 10+ above what we have today, all ice sheets melted, and CO2 concentrations upward of 1200ppm. And we had a lush green planet full of a massive diversity of life that thrived with a complete absence of tools or technology.
Even if we burned literally all oil we currently have we will not hit even remotely close to those levels. And anything like a Venus style runaway effect is literally impossible. So the fear is over the next century or two, people will be gradually driven to either move inland or to technologically resolve the encroaching seas? And this somehow equals "we're fucked". Stuff like this makes me feel like people *want* to feel scared.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @04:18PM
It isn't so much that "we've been warmer" it is that we are warming very fast. Life can adapt to most any condition, as long as it has time. The trouble is, we aren't giving it time. I think Randal Monroe stated it quite well here:
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Basically, a mass extinction takes place when the environment changes faster than evolution can account for:
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-5-major-mass-extinctions-4018102 [thoughtco.com]
The Oxygen catastrophe killed most of the species alive at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event [wikipedia.org]
The fact that life worked around it eventually is nice, but just because life will survive such a cataclysm doesn't mean humans will.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 21 2021, @05:31PM
Petty contrarianism along party lines.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @06:34AM (13 children)
And on the scientific issue, I'd add something is also a much more broad moral. The entire and only point of science is to avoid dogma. Scientific and other progress is the world was halted not because they could not envision the scientific process, which is hardly some amazing insight, but simply because they were unable (or undriven) to pursue outside of the norms of the time due to dogma.
How well do you think a researcher who might seek to pursue research against the grain of climate change (perhaps suggesting that catastrophe is not the end-game) would be received at a research institution? A journal? How many grants (which are increasingly the defacto measurement of 'grading' researchers) would he have access to? If you're unaware of the state of academia today, suffice to say that such an individual would be all but black-listed.
What we've done in climate science is not something to rejoice about, because it's a complete desecration of science. Imagine if in particle physics one researcher who chose to pursue string theory met with another more mainstream particle physicists and the latter non-ironically commented "Oh.. I see. You're one of those standard-model deniers, aren't you?" That notion is absurd (for now), yet is precisely what we have done in the climate sciences.
And no it's not because catastrophic climate change is self evident - far from it. It's because the entire field has become deeply politicized. And politics and science mix as well as oil and water.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @09:06AM (12 children)
OR, Fossil fuel companies and corrupt Republicans have gaslighted (see what I did there?) the whole issue so badly that it is nothing but political, and all any sane person can do is point out to "free speech" "dissent is good" assholes that, you're doing it again. So can it, bubba!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @10:06AM (5 children)
Did you come up with that yourself, or was it a talking point in your daily newsletter from Commie Central.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Monday June 21 2021, @05:35PM (4 children)
Did you fail to come up with a rebuttal yourself, or is this just a generic "you must be a commie" response the right relies on when reality fails to deliver you a solid defense?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:40AM (3 children)
Ignorant A/C is too stupid to know about Pravda for his Communist joke.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @08:29AM (2 children)
Are you sure which side of the glass you are on? The individual you are implicitly supporting here is the one mocking the worth of dissenting ideas or freedom of expression because [people who don't think like I do are bad guys] type mentality.
Pravda would most certainly approve of his message.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @08:35PM
Muh difference of opinion!
lawl
What a load of hogwash, as usual used by the idiot that doesn't want to be made fun of. Should we extend the same level of respect to Hitler as we do to Ghandi? Should we entertain ideas of eugenics and start culling the population?
Many opinions are just wrong, and once they are provably wrong they merit only insults and mockery. Even khallow admits climate change is real, though he is busy trying to cling on to his "this is fine" approach. Whining about being persecuted just because you hold stupid opinions does not make you oppressed. The day we lock you up is the day you can cry about censorship, until then you are free to spread "the word" however you can to whomever will entertain your silly notions.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 22 2021, @10:44PM
Way to miss the point entirely.
SOP for you really.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @02:09PM
What you may not be considering here is that dogma (and it's twin, taboo) is rarely opposed by most of the people of a given time and place. Quiet the opposite - the public themselves tend to be some of the most vehement "enforcers" of such things.
So stating 'I don't mind this dogma, because it's something that any good person should believe anyhow.' is not some unique position, but one of the most fundamental requirements for dogma/taboo to take hold. When Galileo was working to publicly advance the argument for the Earth revolving around the Sun, rather than vice versa, it was not Galileo + Society vs Church. It was Galileo vs Society + Church. His views were deeply unpopular for the time, and felt to be the domain of awful and amoral people. Of course now we see things differently.
And perhaps the even bigger moral is that Galileo was not the first person to posit the Earth revolved around the Sun, nor was Copernicus. The first person dates all the way back to our very own Aristarchus, who 2300 years ago proposed not only a heliocentric view but also correctly hypothesized that the stars were 'distant suns'. But because of the authority of more renowned scientists of the time having different opinions, such a basic discovery would lay dormant for nearly 2 millennia before finally being "discovered" again.
So, let's assume you are correct and that fossil fuel companies and corrupt republicans have gaslit the issue, and there is currently no valid argument the current climate change narrative. That still would not be a scenario under which one would ever want to accept pursuit of such being considered taboo, nor the prevailing view to be seen as dogma.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Monday June 21 2021, @03:26PM (4 children)
Here's another:
Here's another:
Just think of all the progress we could make, if it weren't for all those gaslighters!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @05:46PM (3 children)
Bugger off shill, the entire site has finally caught on to your pro-oil propaganda. We get it, you're a moron that won't believe in anything until it affects you personally and very obviously. Maybe go back to school?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 21 2021, @08:51PM (2 children)
Is that the sound of impotent whining I hear?
Funny how I can point out three examples of religious climate change nuts attacking their own people (the author that I cite in my journal is a true believer, for example) and be accused of oil shilling.
This is a large part of why I don't take climate change seriously. You waste so much time routing out the unbelievers in your midst. There's no way you have a sane viewpoint that we could based sound environmental or economic policy off of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:04AM (1 child)
"This is a large part of why I don't take climate change seriously."
No one cares, you've shown that you don't take anything seriously unless it is a rightwing talking point. Every time you've appeared to have a tiny fraction of reasonableness it has always been a subterfuge for you to push climate change denial. So again, fuck off you shill, feel free to come back when you are capable of acknowledging reality instead of looking for ways to argue your lame rightwing narratives.
I will admit I get a tiny bit of entertainment seeing you trying to appropriate issues and twist them around. The desperation to be taken seriously is palpable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 22 2021, @02:15AM
In other words, your woo is acting up again.
"Climate change denial" is one of those catch phrases that indicate one is shunning the unbelievers. What does "denial" mean here? I don't deny climate change. I do deny that we've shown there's a climate change crisis, but that's merely because we haven't shown that. Show it and I'll change my tune.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 21 2021, @03:06PM (6 children)
There once was a film called "An Inconvenient Truth". It made some predictions of things to come in a few decades if we didn't act. How true did those predictions turn out to be? It can't predict the future perfectly. But it got a number of things right.
Rising sea levels.
Shrinking arctic and antarctic sea ice.
Greenland losing mass.
Mountain glaciers are shrinking.
More and stronger tropical storms and tornadoes.
Increasingly hotter summers and colder winters because more energy in the weather system.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Monday June 21 2021, @04:57PM (4 children)
The problem with this style of prediction is that it's the same game as 1-900-FOR-TUNE used.
The accurate bits of what you said are what anybody (provided basic climatic knowledge) could have told you given a graph such as this [wikimedia.org] (geologic timescale of Earth temperatures). The climate has been in a regular cycling in between periods of long cold followed by incredibly rapid (at least relatively speaking) periods. Do note the scale on the x-axis which mushes up the cycling in the very old and very recent eras.
The last glacial maximum [wikipedia.org] ended about 20,000 years ago and we've been warming up ever sense. And so even 18,000 years ago somebody could have made most of those predictions and been correct. And this would have been true with or without humanity since this pattern predates our very existence.
---
I say most because some of that stuff, which was predicted, is false. For instance there has been no evidence [noaa.gov] to support increasing tornado frequency/strength. Keep in mind that a tornado that happens when nobody sees it does not, for purposes of our accounting, happen. This (larger + more spread out population) is why there are more reported tornadoes, yet when comparing areas where reporting would have happened past and present - there is no trend whatsoever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @05:51PM (3 children)
More ignorant interpretations that try to spin this crisis as a natural progression. The key bit to that particular propaganda approach is to ignore the natural geological time scales along with the effects of human industrial activity.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 21 2021, @09:19PM (2 children)
Are you implying that geological time scales are significantly different than the time of human industrial activity?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Tuesday June 22 2021, @05:08AM (1 child)
Your comment would make more sense were the trends actually different. Whatever impacts humans have only serves to magnify the natural trend, rather than change it. This, consequently, makes "predictions" of the sort you referenced as insightful as my "predicting" that computing technology will be smaller/faster/cheaper.
The interesting thing about climate change is that it's become a deeply political issue, but most people are unaware of even the most basic components of climate. And so all you have is people blindly repeating what they read other people write, yet those who wrote such things were, themselves not only just as ignorant, but even worse - as they were driven by motivations outside the issues themselves - most notably being revenue generation, or in the case of political types - vote generation. In either case, hyperbole sells while reality fails.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @04:23PM
You can always see who is a libertarian, the undeserved smugness accompanied by vague edgy ligic but mever any detail.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 21 2021, @08:53PM
Ok, what on that list did it get right? I'll note I was predicting the same things back then - just not at levels we should worry about. Is my truth more inconvenient than theirs?
(Score: 1, Troll) by js290 on Monday June 21 2021, @03:38AM (32 children)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @04:11AM
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146594-eight-low-lying-pacific-islands-swallowed-whole-by-rising-seas/ [newscientist.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @04:14AM (14 children)
Links look like goatse spam, not gonna go there, and the guy sounds a little crazy anyway
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @04:50AM (1 child)
https://support.bitly.com/hc/en-us/articles/230650447-Can-I-preview-a-link-before-clicking-on-it- [bitly.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @06:18AM
Yeah, no. Just post the actual link or fuck off.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Mykl on Monday June 21 2021, @06:23AM (11 children)
He is crazy. All sorts of weird theories, including the possibility that climate change is caused by significant changes in Earth's Mass, rather than CO2 levels. He tried publishing under a fake name after the submissions under his own name were thoroughly debunked. Oh, he's recently become an anti-vaxxer too.
GP will try to defend him by Strawman arguments against you or misusing logical fallacy arguments.
(Score: 1) by js290 on Monday June 21 2021, @01:27PM (10 children)
nice ad hominen
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @06:12PM (2 children)
BINGO!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by js290 on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:39AM (1 child)
ACs ranting on about how their belief system is better than someone else's belief system
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @03:00AM
Nah, just better than yours, and the people in your links, ad hominen or not, he's definitely nuts, you are too if you take that stuff seriously
And remember, give us real links
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:12AM (6 children)
How does it feel being a total sheep? Do you just hear the most insane shit and think THAT HAS TO BE TRUE! otherwise why would anyone put forth such a crazy idea? Is that the level you're on? The crazier the story the more you believe it? Or do you at least require the trappings of logic, even if 5 minutes of research would poke a million holes? Teach us js290, how do we reach the pinnacles of belief that only you have mastered?
(Score: 1) by js290 on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:19AM (5 children)
CO2, 0.05% of atmospheric gas by volume, has a significant effect on the Earth's climate... you must have been born last night...
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:27AM (4 children)
Cyanide is deadly to humans at a rate of 0.000125% of weight. What's your point?
(Score: 1) by js290 on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:37AM (3 children)
You're obviously unfamiliar with the carbon cycle... and probably lotta other stuff... maybe try going outside
(Score: 3, Touché) by Mykl on Tuesday June 22 2021, @01:11AM (1 child)
Ad-hominem. Sorry, you lose. Thanks for playing though.
(Score: 1) by js290 on Tuesday June 22 2021, @05:24AM
huh, this must be a bot account
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @06:14PM
Where do fossil fuels fall on the carbon cycle, I didn't see the part where carbon is resequestered at a rate similar to that at which we are digging/pumping it out of the ground.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by bradley13 on Monday June 21 2021, @09:00AM (15 children)
If you look at the Pacific islands, no, there is no relative change in sea level. Why? Because the islands can and do adapt to slow changes in sea level. This is known, and is the reason why the articles about sinking islands and drowning populations are laughable. The danger to the islands comes from land and resource mismanagement.
Sea levels in any one particular region are also not a reliable global indicator, because land is also shifting and changing. However, across the globe, the overall average sea level has been rising since the last glacial maximum. [wikipedia.org] In more recent times, there was a pause in sea level rise during the little ice age (a couple hundred years ago). Since then, sea level has been slowing increasing at a rate of 2mm to 3mm per year. This is well-documented by tidal gauges and, more recently, by satellite data.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @10:05AM (10 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:NASA-Satellite-sea-level-rise-observations.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Link the right page. We are not talking about sea level at the times of last ice age.
Also, I suggest you understand basic metric conversions. Like 3.3mm/yr is current rate. Not future rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Sea_level_history_and_projections.svg [wikipedia.org]
Also, from the link
Sure, that will not happen tomorrow or by 2100. But eventually. Anything that is not 50+ meters above water, will become nice place for fish to live. Never mind Pacific islands. Manhattan? Florida?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @11:04AM
Yesterday would be already too late to have already happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @02:26PM (8 children)
National Geographic actually wrote an extremely interesting piece [nationalgeographic.co.uk] on this. Things of course change dramatically, but at the same time, I find it interesting how little they changed as well.
And due to the extremely gradual rate of the change, this will also provide plenty of time for humans to move inland. For instance in Florida today there are already on occasion 'king tides' that bring the ocean right your front door. This is probably deterring some development and so people move just a bit further back, and this can/will repeat gradually over many decades and centuries.
A lot of the hyperbole misses this aspect of it all. It's not like we go from 'everything is fine' to 'oh god everything's '50m under water now'. Even with accelerating rates, it will all be extremely gradual and also be simultaneously challenged by technology and technological advances along the way. Ultimately, this particular aspect of climate change does not seem to be especially deserving of the alarm.
(Score: 1) by js290 on Monday June 21 2021, @04:15PM (7 children)
Actually, catastrophism is probably more likely than the climate constant/alarmists would like to believe; see Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.
Also, probably should not develop in an area where the government is the only insurer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @05:21PM (1 child)
Part of my apathetic attitude towards climate change is, in part, because of this specific issue.
It's a given that catastrophe has hit Earth, sometimes literally, and multiple times. And it *will* happen again. And there's no real way to prepare for it because there are just so many possible avenues. The universe itself can kill us in an endless number of ways which can all be generalized down to either kinetic (like asteroids), or electromagnetic (like an unfortunate directed gamma ray burst - one hypothesis for the Ordovician extinction). And then nature has countless ways to kill us. Large volcanic eruptions have been hypothesized as causes for numerous mass extinction events. It's not the volcano that kills you, but the ash blotting out the sun. Plants die, everything else follows shortly thereafter. Or imagine a supervirus with the contagion of measles and the lethality of ebola, add a long incubation period in for particularly gruesome effect. And then the countless ways we can kill ourselves intentionally or unintentionally need not even be explored.
Sooner, or later, something will happen. And there is only one possible solution - becoming a multiplanetary species. And then, as soon as technologically possible, a multi-star species. And eventually, a multi-galaxy species. And we can already realistically start pursuing this. The issue then being that I find it difficult to care about climate change on Earth when the goal is to colonize Mars. Not because 'who cares about Earth then', but because even if the most hyperbolic scenarios play out on Earth on a hyper-accelerated timeline, our home planet would still look like a utopia compared to somewhere like Mars. Of course we should do what we can to reasonably help resolve climate change, but people acting like it's a species-ending event are just being silly.
(Score: 1) by js290 on Monday June 21 2021, @08:14PM
"Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed." [bit.ly]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 21 2021, @08:59PM (4 children)
Catastrophism is a belief, catastrophe is what you speak of.
Why? Big Daddy is footing the bill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:08AM (3 children)
I doubt you realize that Republicans are the ones that overwhelmingly demand government handouts. Except when their on the campaign trail, then it is all about rugged individualism. Republicans are such rubes, at least liberals realize most politicians are full of shit and then hold our noses to vote out the fascists. Keep dreaming about Big Daddy little man, maybe he'll bail you out from your poor life choices?
(Score: 1) by js290 on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:41AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @03:07AM
More suspicious goatse looking crap! Get the fuck outta here with that shit!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 22 2021, @04:16AM
I doubt you realize that either. I can provide multiple spins on this. For example, in a political environment where everyone has a price, the people with the higher price tag are going to be more ruggedly individualistic and/or powerful.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 21 2021, @10:36AM (2 children)
Laughable, eh? Mountain air has an euphoric effect on you?
Five Pacific islands vanish from sight as sea levels rise [newscientist.com]
Tebua Tarawa was an island of the Republic of Kiribati. ... it disappeared in 1999, along with the island Abanuea [wikipedia.org]
Teuga Patolo stands in king-tide waters that surround her neighbour's house at Funafui in Tuvalu. [abc.net.au]
One Tuvalu island evacuated after flooding from Pam [rnz.co.nz]
Water lens [wikipedia.org] - 40 litres per household per day [ifrc.org]
Sea level rise is forcing Fiji coastal villages to relocate [cgtn.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by js290 on Monday June 21 2021, @02:10PM (1 child)
hmm... so Plato was correct & accurate about Atlantis...
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday June 21 2021, @03:49PM
Non-sequitur or you typoed "Simon Albert of the University of Queensland" as "Plato".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 21 2021, @01:06PM
The WAY tropical islands adapt to slow sea level changes is by growing coral deeper. This doesn't keep the island above water during the deep periods, but it does keep the water shallow. Unfortunately, corals don't like really hot temperatures, so this may not happen this time. Also, "slow" doesn't mean the same thing to an island as it does to a person.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @03:51AM (5 children)
Rome wasn't melted in a day.
Give it time - it will melt soon enough, when you aren't looking, say some Tuesday.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @07:40AM (4 children)
Amen to that. You put an ice cube into boiling water and, imagine that, it's still there in a few seconds. And then some people come to conclusion that "ice cubes don't melt in hot water". On geological timescale, AGW is like that. But we all know where the CO2 we released will lead to -- easily +5C temperature rise in next few hundred years with probably north of +3C by 2100. And this is assuming we hit our targets and stop all fossil fuels in our lifetimes (at least if you were born around time of commercial internet).
The world is not a state machine. It's a partial differential equation. Like your blood pH, any changes are buffered nicely. Once you actually measure a change, you know that you are dead already. But we are like an idiot drinking bleach and saying "yeah, see, bleach is neutral since my blood pH is not changing!!!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @05:25PM
And then you put a steel cube into boiling water and, imagine that, it's still there in a few seconds. And so some people come to the conclusion that "steel doesn't melt in hot water."
Because no, we do not know what the CO2 we released will lead to. If one believes the media, it will end in catastrophe in 10 years. For the past 40 years.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 21 2021, @09:02PM (2 children)
Unless, of course, it doesn't, say due to a combination of unacknowledged carbon sinks and lower than expected climate sensitivity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:17AM (1 child)
I do not look forward to your next 3 progressions. It is good that your brain is slowly accepting reality, but I guess the alternative was insanity. Self preservation for the RWNJ win!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday June 22 2021, @02:18AM
I've been at step three for over twenty five years and that's only because I started looking seriously at climate change back then. I find it remarkable how little effort is actually put into presenting scientific cases for urgent climate change mitigation. My take at present is that the pro-climate change side is so irrational and deceptive that I'll only get good evidence from the near future - the books that can't be cooked. So far it hasn't looked good. Those models are running hot.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @09:57AM (1 child)
He posted an article that said, and I quote: "we're not approaching a complete collapse".
(Score: 0, Troll) by TheMightyChickadee on Monday June 21 2021, @10:41PM
Don't blame the messanger/editor! Who was the submitter? That is who we really need to cancel! What did they do to Hemo?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @04:51PM
and here i was thinking that giving them fossil fuel 1%ers a good compromise by extending their income by doubeling their time on market till peak oil/gas by sacrificing half of each day to solar energy would work.
i guess greed knows no bounds and if push comes to shove a biolab will remedy any exponential run-away rather then allowing(!) non energy-source-owners (that's me and you) to harvest free energy from the sun.
obviously energy costs something (tho it's free for the gas and oil well owner... an co.) and the money "goes somewhere"...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:09AM (1 child)
Indeed, I was afraid that "Doomsday Glacier" was stable. Now I find out that it is more stable than I initially feared. Like the problem of homelessness, we may never be rid of it.
--
Can't we teach the sharks to laser the extra energy trapped by CO2 back into space? - problem solved.
(Score: 1) by Retian on Tuesday June 22 2021, @11:58PM
A big frickin' laser beam aimed at SPAAAACE would dump a lot of that heat right back into the atmosphere in the way out, making it pretty damn inefficient.
Personally I'd prefer we take the Futurama approach to global warming... Mine a comet for ice then dump a ginormous ice cube in the ocean every decade or so. Don't see any way that could backfire. 😁