Climate change - how arsed are you?

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

That the temperatures in the Gulf are at an all time high or should I just re-quote your posts of the scientists who attributed this latest incident to hot water?

 

Nobody says "fishkill" around the Gulf - you have to trust me on that one fella.

 

I said it was a common and natural phenomenon, because warm water is common and natural in summer, and so did the scientists I quoted.

 

You're claiming it isn't, and that it's due to climate change, for which you have provided zero evidence. Please, provide some scientists who attribute this event (from JUNE, by the way) to climate change.

 

In fact it's not only normal and common for fish to be killed in Texas because the water is too warm, it's natural and pretty regular for them to get killed in Texas because the water is too cold.

 

https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20210310c#:~:

 

An estimated minimum of 3.8 million fish were killed on the Texas coast during the Feb. 2021 freeze event. 

This is not the first freeze to occur in Texas coastal waters. Multiple freeze events during the 1980s killed almost 32 million fish, with the most severe impacts being on the lower coast.

While the February 2021 event impacted a large area of the Texas coast, the overall number of fish killed in this event appears to be lower than any of the three freeze events in the 1980s.

• December 1983: 14.4 million fishes killed with a geographic extent of the entire coast
• February 1989: 11.3 million fishes killed with a geographic extent of East Matagorda Bay south to the Lower Laguna Madre
• December 1989: 6.2 million fishes killed with a geographic extent of the entire coast 

The Feb. 2021 freeze event appears to have been larger than any other fish kill event seen since the 1980s, including those in the 1990s and 2000’s. The 1997 freeze event saw 328,000 fishes killed but had a significantly higher percentage of game species killed (56%) than in 2021.

[TheHowieLama]

Not sure bringing up another "historic" extreme climate event strengthens your position here.

 

Are you?

[Strontium]

9 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Not sure bringing up another "historic" extreme climate event strengthens your position here.

 

Are you?

 

The point is that the February 2021 event wasn't historic, and neither is the June 2023 one.

 

Found any scientists to support your claim that this is climate change related yet?

[TheHowieLama]

9 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

The point is that the February 2021 event wasn't historic, and neither is the June 2023 one.

 

Found any scientists to support your claim that this is climate change related yet?

 

Well, other than the fact that they were, I guess not.

 

It happened 30 days ago - no "actual" scientist would ever make that claim. 

However, all of them have made this statement - I'll use your girl so there is no back and forth.

 

"Water can only hold so much oxygen at certain temperatures, and certainly we know that seawater temperatures are rising," Clair said. "It is concerning and something that needs to be monitored."

 

These science-type threads have not worked out well for you tbh. You are going to end up looking like a tool why do it?

 

 

[Strontium]

So, just as I said then, this isolated event can't be attributed to climate change, but if it starts to become more common, then there is a potential case.

[Special K]

There's serious flooding at the bottom of Deysbrook Lane after the rain we've had all day.

 

It's straight out of The Day After Tomorrow. Never seen anything like it.

[TheHowieLama]

12 minutes ago, Strontium said:

So, just as I said then, this isolated event can't be attributed to climate change, but if it starts to become more common, then there is a potential case.

 

Would you agree that all "extreme" events are happening more frequently and all have something in common?

 

So, record heat, hail, flood, storm, "fishkill" etc.

 

[Strontium]

31 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Would you agree that all "extreme" events are happening more frequently and all have something in common?

 

So, record heat, hail, flood, storm, "fishkill" etc.

 

Some extreme events are happening more frequently, yes.

[Anubis]

Some areas of Corfu are now being evacuated as wildfires have broken out there as well.

 

[TheHowieLama]

2 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

Some extreme events are happening more frequently, yes.

 

No link to some there fella.

 

It is all, within the last 5 years.

[Gnasher]

53 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Some areas of Corfu are now being evacuated as wildfires have broken out there as well.

 

 

This shits getting really serious now. We'll all have to take our holidays in fucking Blackpool again if this spreads. You're hundred per cent sure it'll piss down there.

[Moctezuma]

I think this year and next might be a bit interesting with the El Nino, increased sun activity and underlying accelerating climate change.

 

I thought that might result in some readjustment on the part of sections of the public, but if you go on social media the sonderkommandos of Murdoch, Dacre, Barclays and Ailes are still refuting everything from every scientist or emissions reduction advocate. Amazing what can be achieved with the human brain.

[Bob]

Not sure if this should go here, or the juxtapositions thread.

[Section_31]

Genuine question but how much more could the west do to stop climate changes? I'd always presumed most of the damage had been done in the 20th Century. Our skylines no longer have factories and chimneys pumping out shite, we don't use coal in our homes, our cars are mostly unleaded with a rise in electric cars. 

 

Are people suggesting we do stuff like, say, stop flying? 

[Moctezuma]

19 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Genuine question but how much more could the west do to stop climate changes? I'd always presumed most of the damage had been done in the 20th Century. Our skylines no longer have factories and chimneys pumping out shite, we don't use coal in our homes, our cars are mostly unleaded with a rise in electric cars. 

 

Are people suggesting we do stuff like, say, stop flying? 

 

More funds/legislation could be put aside for the transition to renewables.

 

Subsidies to fossil fuel industries that the government gives could be cut.

 

There could also be more pressure put on the banks to divest from fossil fuel industries.

 

Criminal sanction for inertia/active propaganda and green washing would help but is unlikely.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

 

 

[clangers]

We're screwed, through a combination of vested interest, greed and enough obfuscation to allow denial to be a believable position. It'll be far too late by the time we actually make the changes required if at all. I recall when I was studying for a masters degree one of the modules for modelling focussed on the various global climate models. Far too complex for my tiny brain, I mean fluid dynamics, not a chance. However what was obvious was the conservative nature of the variables plugged into various models. For any assumptions in the model they'd use the minimal value available given that a model that overestimates would be considered worthless or possibly dangerous.

 

In order to enact serious change we'd need make substantial and dramatic changes to individuals lives which is just not going to happen on a global scale. The focus will likely shift to attempting to mitigate the consequences over the coming decades.

[ZonkoVille77]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

Genuine question but how much more could the west do to stop climate changes? I'd always presumed most of the damage had been done in the 20th Century. Our skylines no longer have factories and chimneys pumping out shite, we don't use coal in our homes, our cars are mostly unleaded with a rise in electric cars. 

 

Are people suggesting we do stuff like, say, stop flying? 

 

Yea I think flying is a big issue. Although those climate worriers do the most flying in their private jets... 

 

Eat less meat. Turn off your heating. Shower less frequently and for a shorter time period. Spend a fortune on a leccy car (that really are as bad on the environment as combustion engines). Eat locally produced food. Parklife!

[Section_31]

The only good thing about all this is that gingers will be confined to barracks. 

[ZonkoVille77]

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-greenland-green-ancient-soil-beneath.html

 

When Greenland was green: Ancient soil from beneath a mile of ice offers warnings for the future

by Paul Bierman and Tammy Rittenour, The Conversation

George Linkletter, working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, examines a piece of ice core in the science trench at Camp Century. The base was shut down in 1967. Credit: U.S. Army Photograph

About 400,000 years ago, large parts of Greenland were ice-free. Scrubby tundra basked in the sun's rays on the island's northwest highlands. Evidence suggests that a forest of spruce trees, buzzing with insects, covered the southern part of Greenland. Global sea level was much higher then, between 20 and 40 feet above today's levels. Around the world, land that today is home to hundreds of millions of people was under water.

Scientists have known for awhile that the Greenland ice sheet had mostly disappeared at some point in the past million years, but not precisely when.

In a new study in the journal Science, we determined the date, using frozen soil extracted during the Cold War from beneath a nearly mile-thick section of the Greenland ice sheet.

The timing—about 416,000 years ago, with largely ice-free conditions lasting for as much as 14,000 years—is important. At that time, Earth and its early humans were going through one of the longest interglacial periods since ice sheets first covered the high latitudes 2.5 million years ago.

The length, magnitude and effects of that natural warming can help us understand the Earth that modern humans are now creating for the future.

A world preserved under the ice

In July 1966, American scientists and U.S. Army engineers completed a six-year effort to drill through the Greenland ice sheet. The drilling took place at Camp Century, one of the military's most unusual bases—it was nuclear powered and made up of a series of tunnels dug into the Greenland ice sheet.

A brief look at the evidence beneath Greenland’s ice sheet and the lessons its holds.

The drill site in northwest Greenland was 138 miles from the coast and underlain by 4,560 feet of ice. Once they reached the bottom of the ice, the team kept drilling 12 more feet into the frozen, rocky soil below.

In 1969, geophysicist Willi Dansgaard's analysis of the ice core from Camp Century revealed for the first time the details of how Earth's climate had changed dramatically over the last 125,000 years. Extended cold glacial periods when the ice expanded quickly gave way to warm interglacial periods when the ice melted and sea level rose, flooding coastal areas around the world.

For nearly 30 years, scientists paid little attention to the 12 feet of frozen soil from Camp Century. One study analyzed the pebbles to understand the bedrock beneath the ice sheet. Another suggested intriguingly that the frozen soil preserved evidence of a time warmer than today. But with no way to date the material, few people paid attention to these studies. By the 1990s, the frozen soil core had vanished.

Several years ago, our Danish colleagues found the lost soil buried deep in a Copenhagen freezer, and we formed an international team to analyze this unique frozen climate archive.

In the uppermost sample, we found perfectly preserved fossil plants—proof positive that the land far below Camp Century had been ice-free some time in the past—but when?

Exquisitely preserved fossils of more than 400,000-year-old moss, on the left, and a sedge seed on the right, found in the soil core from beneath the Greenland ice sheet, help tell the story of what lived there when the ice was gone. Credit: Halley Mastro/University of Vermont

Dating ancient rock, twigs and dirt

Using samples cut from the center of the sediment core and prepared and analyzed in the dark so that the material retained an accurate memory of its last exposure to sunlight, we now know that the ice sheet covering northwest Greenland—nearly a mile thick today—vanished during the extended natural warm period known to climate scientists as MIS 11, between 424,000 and 374,000 years ago.

To determine more precisely when the ice sheet melted away, one of us, Tammy Rittenour, used a technique known as luminescence dating.

Over time, minerals accumulate energy as radioactive elements like uranium, thorium, and potassium decay and release radiation. The longer the sediment is buried, the more radiation accumulates as trapped electrons.

In the lab, specialized instruments measure tiny bits of energy, released as light from those minerals. That signal can be used to calculate how long the grains were buried, since the last exposure to sunlight would have released the trapped energy.

The uppermost sample of the Camp Century sub-ice sediment core tells a story of vanished ice and tundra life in Greenland 416,000 years ago. Credit: Andrew Christ/University of Vermont

Paul Bierman's laboratory at the University of Vermont dated the sample's last time near the surface in a different way, using rare radioactive isotopes of aluminum and beryllium.

These isotopes form when cosmic rays, originating far from our solar system, slam into the rocks on Earth. Each isotope has a different half-life, meaning it decays at a different rate when buried.

By measuring both isotopes in the same sample, glacial geologist Drew Christ was able to determine that melting ice had exposed the sediment at the land surface for less than 14,000 years.

Ice sheet models run by Benjamin Keisling, now incorporating our new knowledge that Camp Century was ice-free 416,000 years ago, show that Greenland's ice sheet must have shrunk significantly then.

At minimum, the edge of the ice retreated tens to hundreds of miles around much of the island during that period. Water from that melting ice raised global sea level at least 5 feet and perhaps as much as 20 feet compared to today.

 

How optically stimulated luminescence works.

Warnings for the future

The ancient frozen soil from beneath Greenland's ice sheet warns of trouble ahead.

During the MIS 11 interglacial, Earth was warm and ice sheets were restricted to the high latitudes, a lot like today. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained between 265 and 280 parts per million for about 30,000 years. MIS 11 lasted longer than most interglacials because of the impact of the shape of Earth's orbit around the sun on solar radiation reaching the Arctic. Over these 30 millennia, that level of carbon dioxide triggered enough warming to melt much of the Greenland's ice.

Today, our atmosphere contains 1.5 times more carbon dioxide than it did at MIS 11, around 420 parts per million, a concentration that has risen each year. Carbon dioxide traps heat, warming the planet. Too much of it in the atmosphere raises the global temperature, as the world is seeing now.

Over the past decade, as greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise, humans experienced the eight warmest years on record. July 2023 saw the hottest week on record, based on preliminary data. Such heat melts ice sheets, and the loss of ice further warms the planet as dark rock soaks up sunlight that bright white ice and snow once reflected.

• At midnight in July, meltwater pours over the Greenland ice sheet in a meandering channel. Credit: Paul Bierman
• Model results show possible extents of a shrunken Greenland ice sheet when Camp Century was ice-free 416,000 years ago. SLE is sea-level equivalent of the melted ice in meters. Credit: Reprinted with permission from AJ Christ et al., Science 381:6655 (2023)
• At midnight in July, meltwater pours over the Greenland ice sheet in a meandering channel. Credit: Paul Bierman
• Model results show possible extents of a shrunken Greenland ice sheet when Camp Century was ice-free 416,000 years ago. SLE is sea-level equivalent of the melted ice in meters. Credit: Reprinted with permission from AJ Christ et al., Science 381:6655 (2023)

• 
• 

Even if everyone stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would remain elevated for thousands to tens of thousands of years. That's because it takes a long time for carbon dioxide to move into soils, plants, the ocean and rocks. We are creating conditions conducive to a very long period of warmth, just like MIS 11.

Unless people dramatically lower the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, evidence we found of Greenland's past suggests a largely ice-free future for the island.

Everything we can do to reduce carbon emissions and sequester carbon that is already in the atmosphere will increase the chances that more of Greenland's ice survives.

The alternative is a world that could look a lot like MIS 11—or even more extreme: a warm Earth, shrinking ice sheets, rising sea level, and waves rolling over Miami, Mumbai, India and Venice, Italy.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Explore further

[Arniepie]

its cloudy today therefore global warming doesnt exist.

 

how can you not love the twitter experts? 

[Anubis]

1 hour ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

Shower less frequently and for a shorter time period.

You want me to shower less frequently than 2 mins once per year?

[Bjornebye]

49 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

its cloudy today therefore global warming doesnt exist.

 

how can you not love the twitter experts? 

Crayon degree motherfuckers

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

The only good thing about all this is that gingers will be confined to barracks. 

Negged, on behalf of the Ginger Love thread.

[Moctezuma]

37 minutes ago, clangers said:

We're screwed, through a combination of vested interest, greed and enough obfuscation to allow denial to be a believable position. It'll be far too late by the time we actually make the changes required if at all. I recall when I was studying for a masters degree one of the modules for modelling focussed on the various global climate models. Far too complex for my tiny brain, I mean fluid dynamics, not a chance. However what was obvious was the conservative nature of the variables plugged into various models. For any assumptions in the model they'd use the minimal value available given that a model that overestimates would be considered worthless or possibly dangerous.

 

In order to enact serious change we'd need make substantial and dramatic changes to individuals lives which is just not going to happen on a global scale. The focus will likely shift to attempting to mitigate the consequences over the coming decades.

 

I remember sitting in lectures about 20 years ago now thinking, 'this has a strong propensity to be a run-away situation just given the number of feedback loops', in particular related to permafrost methane release and that not really comporting to the models being shown at the time