Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WalterWoodiaz t1_j129fv7 wrote

How conservative was the old model? 100 times faster doesn’t seem right if the old model was accurate for Antarctica. Is there any way I can see the source of this study?

177

Logalicious t1_j12cj4m wrote

Right, is it 100% or a 100X? big difference. Either way were still fucked.

65

WalterWoodiaz t1_j12cqtu wrote

I wouldn’t say fucked. Sea level rise is bad but definitely not a civilization ending disaster. The worst thing about it is that the people who will be most affected are in developing countries that cannot prepare for it

14

reddolfo t1_j12u4rt wrote

It's not sea level rise, it's the destruction of critical ocean currents, acidity changes, etc. The loss of these threaten the ocean's plankton, responsible for up to 80% of the planet's oxygen, as well as the foundation of the planet's food chain.

141

Containedmultitudes t1_j146kdg wrote

> ocean currents

Including the Gulf Stream, which is what makes most of Western Europe habitable.

34

lostindarkdays t1_j15cphv wrote

eh, Europe schmeurope. that David statute guy doesn't do it for me, anyway. too skinny.

2

Yeuph t1_j13hrao wrote

Fortunately as more CO2 is dissolved into the ocean making it more acidic we have these huge glaciers that can keep melting forever injecting non-acidic water to balance things out.

Yay.

14

NLwino t1_j13kjlw wrote

Combine that with the fact that we can counter global warming with nuclear winter, we really have nothing to worry about. All is fine, carry on.

30

Gemini884 t1_j14hnw6 wrote

Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by ~10% in worst-case emissions scenario.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3

5

rixtil41 t1_j15cmkp wrote

There is enough air to last us a few hundred years so not that big of a deal if the air we breathe stoped being naturally recycled right now.

1

Financial_Exercise88 t1_j1d56fh wrote

Are you sure? Do you know what hemoglobin is and how it works?

1

rixtil41 t1_j1egecv wrote

So although I don't know the exact ways to on how this would work in every detail my point is that it's not impossible to survive and that any attempt at survival is doomed to fail even if only a small percentage of humanity was left.

1

Financial_Exercise88 t1_j1fmyjj wrote

All humanity relies on a precise balance between O2 and CO2 in ambient air. Hemoglobin binds CO2 100x more than O2; it only works as an O2 delivery system because there's a hyper-abundance of O2 (declining currently, FYI). Genetic engineering or O2 supplementation mechanisms require extensive supply chains that won't exist if only a few survive.

And if we (humanity) survive but we (you & I) don't then the former matters little.

1

rixtil41 t1_j1g8wnr wrote

But what about the future where genetic engineering requires less and does not rely on a large number of people? Unless you think humanity will die off before that becomes a reality.

1

Financial_Exercise88 t1_j1hd2ce wrote

Can AI come up with an alternative to Hb that we can genetically engineer babies to have before the imbalance ambient air is lethal? Probably. But no one is working on it. It will probably affect behavior & intelligence in imperceptible ways long before humans see it as an issue worth pursuing. And then we depend on animals... we're going to replace the whole ecosystem with genetically engineered variants that can thrive in higher CO2/lower O2 environment (are we going to also change our dependence on the Krebs cycle which needs O2) ? No, I don't believe that is realistic. Supply chains will be long gone, humanity too, before then. Or, we could just tax the f out of fossil fuels. No. Brainer.

1

xXSpaceturdXx t1_j12x9l1 wrote

It’s the domino effect that is the problem. With the melting ice caps, poison rainwater, Global warming, waters going barren of life. it’s all downhill from here. they’re starting to backtrack but not fast enough. We can’t turn the clocks back on the damage that’s been done.

29

Friday_Night_Pizza t1_j13tm8z wrote

Don't forget mass migrations due to flooding and unlivable conditions, massive blows to food & water security/stability. Oh boi!

8

Gemini884 t1_j14i1mv wrote

>waters going barren of life

Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by ~10% in worst-case emissions scenario.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3

3

Huntred t1_j12f0ck wrote

Yes, people in developing counties will have a hard time preparing, but it’s not like Florida is going to be able to build a wall around itself. Some places where the dollar-per-unit of costal protection might be able to afford it (thinking NYC), but other places even in the US will have a harder time practically in the day to day (hard to move ports and what are we going to do about New Orleans?) and looking to the future (mortgage/insurance nightmares.)

COVID showed that the supply chain isn’t very anti-fragile and the climate catastrophe is much more impactful.

23

Exciting-Pangolin665 t1_j12go5w wrote

Limestone baby we will rise again (florida)

3

Huntred t1_j12gw1x wrote

Limestone is highly porous and sea-water soluble, so…

7

Sprinkle_Puff t1_j132w0o wrote

If you draw with a sharpie around the limestone it should protect it

4

spudzilla t1_j14nz7i wrote

Mar A Lardo underwater? A win for society and our nation's secret papers.

3

chill633 t1_j15lslp wrote

>"...but it’s not like Florida is going to be able to build a wall around itself."

I now have a new fear -- that Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida reads Reddit. PLEASE don't give him ideas!

2

johannthegoatman t1_j12t6iy wrote

Seems like developing countries also don't have a ton of expensive infrastructure though, so rebuilding further in is not nearly as difficult

−1

Friday_Night_Pizza t1_j13tidd wrote

At current rates, it's estimated that all the ice melting on earth would take about 4000-5000 years. if that were to ever happen, it represents at 225-250ish foot rise in the sea level. It would change the whole globe dramatically

−5

AG2dayAG t1_j12eueb wrote

I saw another study that says some glaciers are melting others are getting bigger

1

FogletGilet t1_j12fpvm wrote

Yes that's normal because glaciers always tend yo oscillate. The problem is that the absolute amount of ice on glaciers is going down, even if some individual glaciers go up it doesn't make it for the loss.

26

AG2dayAG t1_j12gcrw wrote

The studies are all over the palace its hard to tell. The eu plan Is to charge a carbon tax thus seems like they're taking advantage of the situation to tax people rather than tackle the problem. Why not flat out ban 100+ for yachts and private jets as a start

−21

ChalupaCabre t1_j12ntmg wrote

Why not charge a carbon tax so you can collect sales and luxury taxes on the item and then charge out the wazoo to fill the tank?

Or ban, and collect $0 in taxation. Seems like an easy choice!

1

AG2dayAG t1_j12o4nt wrote

Numbers are being inflated to give politicians a bigger budget to fleece

−12

strangeattractors OP t1_j12f4io wrote

Interesting. Have a link?

2

AG2dayAG t1_j12h2pk wrote

What's also weird is in the 70s the climate change situation was global cooling not warming thwn in the 80s they started with warming seems like they find excuses to scare people. Also if the seas will rise by so much why are politicians and rich elites buying ocean front homes seems odd to me

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

−16

BlueSwordM t1_j12m0v8 wrote

Not true. The scientific consensus and data at the time overwhelmingly showed that global cooling was never a thing, really only global warning.

9

Koshunae t1_j12rzw4 wrote

Wasnt there essentially a smear campaign at the time by the oil companies, just throwing out opposing and misleading information?

There are places that have kept detailed and fairly accurate meteorological data since 1880, and localized spots as early as the mid 1600s.

The warming trend has been known for a long time, but its been greatly accelerated.

6

Containedmultitudes t1_j1470fn wrote

Here being spewed by an 11 day old account engaging in climate denialism. I have a feeling the smear campaign wasn’t limited to the past.

1

AG2dayAG t1_j12mjdw wrote

The day the rich start selling their beach front homes then I'll start worrying

−1

Shot-Job-8841 t1_j12ppi9 wrote

The very rich don’t care if their $5,000,000 home is underwater in 20 years.

9

AG2dayAG t1_j12q90w wrote

You sound dumb right now. The rich know where every penny goes. Why do you think they hire lawyers to pay as little to no taxes as possible

−2

Shot-Job-8841 t1_j12rfnc wrote

I never said they didn’t know, I said the they were rich enough not to care. If you buy a super yacht it can cost millions a year to maintain and crew: but you can easily recoup that by using it to butter VIPs. A billionaire can use a house to help with business deals whereas a mere millionaire buys it to flip.

4

AG2dayAG t1_j12t6qp wrote

So a millionaire can't use it for business deals? And billionaires don't flip homes?

0

LordBoxington t1_j12s9df wrote

Dude, Trump himself, the guy who said it's a Chinese hoax, has literally been spending millions on seawalls to protect property and golf courses he owns that are next to the ocean because even he knows it's coming. Also many of these people have yachts that can sustain them for long periods of time just fine, as well a multitude of properties that will allow them to leave at any time to somewhere safer/better/less affected.

4

AG2dayAG t1_j12t1ps wrote

Dude!!. The property he has is in the hurricane belt it literally gets pummeled by hurricanes almost every year. That's not because of climate change

1

LordBoxington t1_j12tn0s wrote

Yea, his Scottish properties with the new seawall constructions are really getting walloped by those hurricanes!

3

AG2dayAG t1_j12tqoc wrote

Link? I'm talking about Mar a lago

0

LordBoxington t1_j12u9js wrote

Sorry, Ireland, not Scotland - https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-doonbeg-ireland-permission-to-build-wall-for-golf-course-2017-12?op=1

1

AG2dayAG t1_j12u8a5 wrote

Ok found it has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with the fact that it gets ht with 30 meter waves which isn't good for a golf resort

0

LordBoxington t1_j12ue35 wrote

He literally cites climate change and rising sea levels in the permit application, how much more proof do you need?

2

AG2dayAG t1_j12uj3e wrote

You worry about climate change I'll live my life.

−4

LordBoxington t1_j12uzrx wrote

I mean look I'm not super worried about it because I literally have no control over it, so I'm living my life too, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here? Whether or not you believe it's real, it is, and if you're in an area anywhere near sea level have fun figuring out how to deal with it while pretending you aren't! Rooting for you!

1

AG2dayAG t1_j12v9z9 wrote

Not concerned with it at all. You saying it is doesn't make it so. More government bs to tax its citizens even more.

1

LordBoxington t1_j12we3q wrote

It's not me you should be paying attention to, it's the literal tens of thousands of scientists who have been screaming about it for decades you should listen to.

This is like getting a warning from the entire military that a missile strike is imminent and being like 'they just MAKING SHIT UP AGAIN!'

(Also if you think taxes are high now, wait until we're paying out a trillion a year just to repair fucking storm damage as they get more severe)

1

AG2dayAG t1_j12ws2f wrote

If it's inevitable it's inevitable predictions with no way of solving the problem is pointless.

1

AG2dayAG t1_j12vcrl wrote

I actually hope the sea does rise 50 feet I have a few properties that would become ocean front

0

LordBoxington t1_j12w4oq wrote

Hell yea brother! Beach front property complete with flooded infrastructure leeching into the water and refugees who are now homeless, big W for you

2

chill633 t1_j15m8o4 wrote

You say "some" the article you link below says "a few". That article is very clear they're talking about a small minority of glaciers.

1

AG2dayAG t1_j15p3va wrote

Some can mean a few I didn't say all or alot or a bunch I said some

1

PaleAsDeath t1_j12zkt6 wrote

"The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in GGreenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement. "

50

PoliticalHierarchy77 t1_j12khoh wrote

Yet more research suggesting the effects of climate change has been underestimated. This time the Greenland ice sheets may be melting at 100 times faster than previously modelled.

4

clampie t1_j12l5w7 wrote

It also suggests bad math. And the increase in underglacier volcanic activity matters a little bit, perhaps.

6

ChalupaCabre t1_j12o5gk wrote

Documentaries I have seen say the old models didn’t include everything they are seeing today.. there are lots of positive feedback loops created that either couldnt be included in modeling or they just didn’t know to include.

Something like all the methane gas released from melting permafrost, which accelerates climate change, which accelerates climate change…etc.

Old model rendered completely too conservative.

4

ialsoagree t1_j13q37s wrote

Volcanic activity is not a significant cause of glacial loss in the Antarctic, there are no active volcanoes at all in Greenland.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2982/fire-and-ice-why-volcanic-activity-is-not-melting-the-polar-ice-sheets/

2

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j13snbf wrote

The volcanoes are doing everything bad myth comes from a cult started by a Ukranian chiropractor and is funded by a bunch of right wing think tanks.

2

clampie t1_j14bsif wrote

Underground activity is important. Japanese researchers discovered major plumes under Greenland in 2020.

- A hot plume (Greenland plume) rising from the core-mantle boundary beneath central Greenland is discovered.

- The Iceland and Greenland plumes are connected and supplying magmas to Iceland, Jan Mayen, and Svalbard hotspots.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020JB019839

0

ialsoagree t1_j14ck7i wrote

That plume has existed for millions of years. It's cooling.

In fact, that very research you cited even states that the heat from the plume is feeding the Iceland plume, which is why Iceland has over 100 volcanoes, and over a third of them are active volcanoes (have erupted in the part 50,000 years). Greenland has no active volcanoes at all.

Volcanic activity and heat plumes function over geological time scales. That plume under Greenland was hotter when the ice formed than it is today.

−1

clampie t1_j14f6sj wrote

We just learned about it. And it creates hot spots. lol

1

ialsoagree t1_j14ff2b wrote

We've known that there was a hot spot under Greenland for a very long time. We didn't know that it was still active, which is what the research you're citing confirms.

1

clampie t1_j14fm7m wrote

No, we didn't know.

If it's hot enough to melt rocks, it's hot enough to melt ice.

The researchers didn't show up and discover nothing.

0

ialsoagree t1_j14i9ci wrote

If we didn't know, how did the page I linked to, published before your paper, talk about a hot spot in Greenland?

1

[deleted] t1_j13u8u6 wrote

Yea and which estimates lol, saw plenty in the 90s that show Miami and SF fully underwater by 2020- it’s certainly not happening 100x faster than THOSE estimates…

2

ExternaJudgment t1_j144ik4 wrote

Those movies happen when you take the crazy environmentalist people seriously.

−1

MaximillionVonBarge t1_j16q9ic wrote

I can’t believe this is the top comment. Really? How many people think climate estimates aren’t extremely conservative? As most studies are they’re done to limit risk. Wake up. Our science needs our willingness to understand it.

1

piei_lighioana t1_j194k1t wrote

Two fold issue:

  1. extremely conservative
  2. cascading effects.

So... yes and no, somehow in the same box.

TLDR: we're frakked

1