5 ms·

What's really terrifying to me is all the positive feedback loops inherent to warming. Melting permafrost in tundra regions like Alaska releases methane: more

What's really terrifying to me is all the positive feedback loops inherent to warming. Melting permafrost in tundra regions like Alaska releases methane: more warming. Less snow/ice coverage reflects less sunlight: more warming. Desertification and dying rainforests mean less CO2 absorbption: more warming. Warmer air temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which traps longwave radiation: more warming. Some of these haven't even hit the hockey stick portion yet. Between that, the "time delay" between atmospheric CO2 and climate (i.e., that we're probably seeing the climate effects corresponding to the CO2 levels of many years ago), and 2016 breaking temperature records every month so far, it's hard not to conclude that we're fucked and it's way too late. Sigh.

adwf 10y ago
Yep, that's why it's so scary. By the time the effects have become so obvious that even the strongest deniers realise something must be done... that's too late. And it's not just about temperature. It's about the socio-political effects of climate change. How many people realise that a large part of the Syrian conflict is actually down to crop failures? Migration from country -> town led to big social conflicts, which massively contributed to the eventual military conflict.
- shams93 10y ago
  A lot of the conflict you see in the middle east has more to do with crop failure and water shortages than oil. Yemen fell into chaos over acute water shortages.
friendlygrammar 10y ago
>Melting permafrost in tundra regions like Alaska releases methane: more warming If it makes you feel any better, the methane disperses in about 12 years. So a bunch of animals will become extinct and then 12 years later everything will go back to normal! Yeah it doesn't make me feel good either.
- dv_dt 10y ago
  I don't think that's a great model, in 12 years, lot's of the biosphere could die off, generating more methane in decay.
- astrodust 10y ago
  That could be twelve years of utterly apocalyptic weather we might not survive. Just saying. Nobody knows how bad that could get, but do you think we could survive over a decade where the outdoor temperature is, on average, 200°F? One of those animals could be the human species, or at least our idea of what that represents.
  - zaroth 10y ago
    What is this nonsense? The worst case models predict a 10-20 degree increase by 2100.
    - flukus 10y ago
      The models don't rely on the silly assumption that all the permafrost would melt and release it's methane instantly.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      A) That's 10-20°C, not °F. We're already seeing temperatures of 120°F (49°C) in parts of the world, so another +20°C puts that at 156°F (69°C). I'm not exaggerating all that much. B) The projections keep getting more pessimistic as more data is accumulated. C) We're talking about the theoretical worst-case scenario where everything spirals completely out of control and Venus starts to look like a temperate climate.
- triplesec 10y ago
  Do you have any sources for that 12 years datum? It's a new one to me.
- flukus 10y ago
  > So a bunch of animals will become extinct and then 12 years later everything will go back to normal! It's not going to suddenly release all in one day. And it can/will trigger further feedback loops.
astrodust 10y ago
There's also positive feedback loops when it comes to opposition of the very idea that the warming exists. When one politician pushes the idea hard, when people show interest in it, there's an incentive for other politicians to double down on their positions or push even farther to more extreme levels of denial. Plus, voters who strongly identify with a party that promotes that platform may find themselves pulled along, wanting to be in line with the party's politics, and in so doing skew things even further.
dharma1 10y ago
Here is a really great, in-depth article of analysing the effects of methane, and tracking it from space. It's not looking good. Humans are not great with stuff they can't see or that spans over decades. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/
spodek 10y ago
What's terrifying is that people don't connect their behavior to global warming and spew the most ignorant garbage justifying their airplane flights and so on, including the most knowledgeable people. We can't stop what's happening now, but as sure as we wish past generations had reduced polluting, future generations will wish we had. But almost no one does. How many people do you know haven't flown in the past twelve months versus how many have? Everybody cares about the environment until they want to see the Eiffel Tower.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 10y ago
  Individual actions don't make any noticeable difference. Climate change won't be affected if I fly to Europe next month versus staying home. It's a massive collective action problem, and collective action is hard. Individuals changing their habits won't do anything to help.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    That's the biggest cop-out ever. Of course 'individual actions don't make any noticeable difference'. But every collective action is ultimately enacted by lots of individual actors the sum of whose actions is making a noticeable difference. The bigger problem is that there are so many people in the pay of those who'd rather watch the world burn that the short term interests are going to win out or have at least significant enough effects that in the longer term we're going to be paying a very hefty price indeed. Individuals changing their habits will do plenty, if enough individuals are involved. It's a sales and marketing job. If you can get 100's of millions of people to download a stupid game then you probably could get 100's of millions of people to think about whether or not they really need to make that trip, about whether or not they need a new car or not and whether or not they really need to have the AC running 24/7, and to vote for parties that have an eye out for the environment (never mind that in a two party system that's a pipe dream but in countries with coalition governments those parties do tend to get into positions of relative power and the changes they cause are large enough to matter).
strommen 10y ago
If it makes you feel better, melting permafrost is currently a small portion of overall global methane emissions. There's a potential for a massive release of gas, but it isn't happening yet.

adwf 10y ago

Yep, that's why it's so scary. By the time the effects have become so obvious that even the strongest deniers realise something must be done... that's too late. And it's not just about temperature. It's about the socio-political effects of climate change. How many people realise that a large part of the Syrian conflict is actually down to crop failures? Migration from country -> town led to big social conflicts, which massively contributed to the eventual military conflict.

shams93 10y ago
A lot of the conflict you see in the middle east has more to do with crop failure and water shortages than oil. Yemen fell into chaos over acute water shortages.

friendlygrammar 10y ago

>Melting permafrost in tundra regions like Alaska releases methane: more warming If it makes you feel any better, the methane disperses in about 12 years. So a bunch of animals will become extinct and then 12 years later everything will go back to normal! Yeah it doesn't make me feel good either.

dv_dt 10y ago
I don't think that's a great model, in 12 years, lot's of the biosphere could die off, generating more methane in decay.
astrodust 10y ago
That could be twelve years of utterly apocalyptic weather we might not survive. Just saying. Nobody knows how bad that could get, but do you think we could survive over a decade where the outdoor temperature is, on average, 200°F? One of those animals could be the human species, or at least our idea of what that represents.
- zaroth 10y ago
  What is this nonsense? The worst case models predict a 10-20 degree increase by 2100.
  - flukus 10y ago
    The models don't rely on the silly assumption that all the permafrost would melt and release it's methane instantly.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    A) That's 10-20°C, not °F. We're already seeing temperatures of 120°F (49°C) in parts of the world, so another +20°C puts that at 156°F (69°C). I'm not exaggerating all that much. B) The projections keep getting more pessimistic as more data is accumulated. C) We're talking about the theoretical worst-case scenario where everything spirals completely out of control and Venus starts to look like a temperate climate.
triplesec 10y ago
Do you have any sources for that 12 years datum? It's a new one to me.
flukus 10y ago
> So a bunch of animals will become extinct and then 12 years later everything will go back to normal! It's not going to suddenly release all in one day. And it can/will trigger further feedback loops.

astrodust 10y ago

There's also positive feedback loops when it comes to opposition of the very idea that the warming exists. When one politician pushes the idea hard, when people show interest in it, there's an incentive for other politicians to double down on their positions or push even farther to more extreme levels of denial. Plus, voters who strongly identify with a party that promotes that platform may find themselves pulled along, wanting to be in line with the party's politics, and in so doing skew things even further.

dharma1 10y ago

Here is a really great, in-depth article of analysing the effects of methane, and tracking it from space. It's not looking good. Humans are not great with stuff they can't see or that spans over decades. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/

spodek 10y ago

What's terrifying is that people don't connect their behavior to global warming and spew the most ignorant garbage justifying their airplane flights and so on, including the most knowledgeable people. We can't stop what's happening now, but as sure as we wish past generations had reduced polluting, future generations will wish we had. But almost no one does. How many people do you know haven't flown in the past twelve months versus how many have? Everybody cares about the environment until they want to see the Eiffel Tower.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 10y ago
Individual actions don't make any noticeable difference. Climate change won't be affected if I fly to Europe next month versus staying home. It's a massive collective action problem, and collective action is hard. Individuals changing their habits won't do anything to help.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That's the biggest cop-out ever. Of course 'individual actions don't make any noticeable difference'. But every collective action is ultimately enacted by lots of individual actors the sum of whose actions is making a noticeable difference. The bigger problem is that there are so many people in the pay of those who'd rather watch the world burn that the short term interests are going to win out or have at least significant enough effects that in the longer term we're going to be paying a very hefty price indeed. Individuals changing their habits will do plenty, if enough individuals are involved. It's a sales and marketing job. If you can get 100's of millions of people to download a stupid game then you probably could get 100's of millions of people to think about whether or not they really need to make that trip, about whether or not they need a new car or not and whether or not they really need to have the AC running 24/7, and to vote for parties that have an eye out for the environment (never mind that in a two party system that's a pipe dream but in countries with coalition governments those parties do tend to get into positions of relative power and the changes they cause are large enough to matter).

strommen 10y ago

If it makes you feel better, melting permafrost is currently a small portion of overall global methane emissions. There's a potential for a massive release of gas, but it isn't happening yet.