5 ms·

That last chart is really interesting, and maybe quite alarming. Most of the conversations around global warming focus on limiting the global temperature increa

That last chart is really interesting, and maybe quite alarming. Most of the conversations around global warming focus on limiting the global temperature increase to a few degrees c over the next few decades. However it looks like the average temperature at this station has already increased from 6°-12° F to what looks like 14°-20° F. This is already an increase of 2° C! So while the global average may only have changed slightly, temperatures in specific regions have already gone slightly off the rails.

graeme 9y ago
Yeah, global average increase of 2.0 includes some very large increases in specific regions. Almost everywhere over land will be over 2 degrees, I think. Global average includes the oceans, and they change less. Personally, I think even 2 degrees is too high, but we don't have much choice about that, unless we invent really efficient carbon sucking technology.
glenra 9y ago
> That last chart is really interesting, and maybe quite alarming. The general expectation has always been that most future warming will show up where it's coldest today. For the world average to move by 2 degrees doesn't mean it gets 2 degrees warmer everywhere, rather it gets much more than 2 degrees warmer in cold winter nights in high latitudes over land, while the temperature barely moves much in, say, tropical ocean areas. Um, try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_global_war...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sulam 9y ago
It’s worth being very alarmed. We are putting carbon into the atmosphere at a rate 6X greater than during the worst hyperthermal of the Eocene, which is the regime we are replicating. It’s noteworthy that sea levels (eustatic) were anywhere from 100 to 200 meters higher then, a combination of essentially all surface ice melting and the thermal expansion of water. Even if you’re so optimistic that you think we can drive our own emissions down to less than 1/6th current levels, feedback loops are have started driving non-anthropogenic carbon into the atmosphere that we have zero ability to control. Another supporting data point is that most reef-dwelling species experienced an “anomalous” mass extinction during this period and not coincidentally we are seeing the same effects already in today’s oceans. Some people say climate change scientists are being alarmist. In fact they are being very conservative and the data is scarier than what is reported.
- sulam 9y ago
  Two more things — land animals during the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) did -not- have mass extinctions, but there is evidence of mass migrations. This is another example of something we are already seeing today (for quite a while now). Now project forward 50-100 years and imagine the mass land animal migrations are us. Given how well we aren’t handling comparatively minor migrations today, you could be forgiven for thinking we are well and truly f*cked. Interestingly, it’s probably carbon capture “technology” that caused the Eocene to go from 3500ppm CO2 to below today’s levels. Arctic cores show at least 8 meters (!) of sedimentary Azolla that corresponds directly with a massive reduction in atmospheric carbon, kicking off an ice age. Google the Azolla event for more details. This is why my personal focus is on carbon capture as a potential solution. Azolla apparently took us from greenhouse earth to an ice age in under 1M years, so I’m hoping we can do better. I also have a lot of respect for Elon Musk’s plan. Oh, and in a truly delicious ironic turn, oil companies are investigating whether or not they can find oil in Arctic sedimentary deposits created by the Azolla event. I guess they want to put all that carbon back into the air!
  - colordrops 9y ago
    What is Elon Musk's plan?
    - sulam 9y ago
      Mars.
    - emiliobumachar 9y ago
      Convert humanity as fast as possible to electric cars and solar roofs. Not a full solution, particularly not at this time, but will, if successful, take big chunks out of the problem.

graeme 9y ago

Yeah, global average increase of 2.0 includes some very large increases in specific regions. Almost everywhere over land will be over 2 degrees, I think. Global average includes the oceans, and they change less. Personally, I think even 2 degrees is too high, but we don't have much choice about that, unless we invent really efficient carbon sucking technology.

glenra 9y ago

> That last chart is really interesting, and maybe quite alarming. The general expectation has always been that most future warming will show up where it's coldest today. For the world average to move by 2 degrees doesn't mean it gets 2 degrees warmer everywhere, rather it gets much more than 2 degrees warmer in cold winter nights in high latitudes over land, while the temperature barely moves much in, say, tropical ocean areas. Um, try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_global_war...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sulam 9y ago

It’s worth being very alarmed. We are putting carbon into the atmosphere at a rate 6X greater than during the worst hyperthermal of the Eocene, which is the regime we are replicating. It’s noteworthy that sea levels (eustatic) were anywhere from 100 to 200 meters higher then, a combination of essentially all surface ice melting and the thermal expansion of water. Even if you’re so optimistic that you think we can drive our own emissions down to less than 1/6th current levels, feedback loops are have started driving non-anthropogenic carbon into the atmosphere that we have zero ability to control. Another supporting data point is that most reef-dwelling species experienced an “anomalous” mass extinction during this period and not coincidentally we are seeing the same effects already in today’s oceans. Some people say climate change scientists are being alarmist. In fact they are being very conservative and the data is scarier than what is reported.

sulam 9y ago
Two more things — land animals during the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) did -not- have mass extinctions, but there is evidence of mass migrations. This is another example of something we are already seeing today (for quite a while now). Now project forward 50-100 years and imagine the mass land animal migrations are us. Given how well we aren’t handling comparatively minor migrations today, you could be forgiven for thinking we are well and truly f*cked. Interestingly, it’s probably carbon capture “technology” that caused the Eocene to go from 3500ppm CO2 to below today’s levels. Arctic cores show at least 8 meters (!) of sedimentary Azolla that corresponds directly with a massive reduction in atmospheric carbon, kicking off an ice age. Google the Azolla event for more details. This is why my personal focus is on carbon capture as a potential solution. Azolla apparently took us from greenhouse earth to an ice age in under 1M years, so I’m hoping we can do better. I also have a lot of respect for Elon Musk’s plan. Oh, and in a truly delicious ironic turn, oil companies are investigating whether or not they can find oil in Arctic sedimentary deposits created by the Azolla event. I guess they want to put all that carbon back into the air!
- colordrops 9y ago
  What is Elon Musk's plan?
  - sulam 9y ago
    Mars.
  - emiliobumachar 9y ago
    Convert humanity as fast as possible to electric cars and solar roofs. Not a full solution, particularly not at this time, but will, if successful, take big chunks out of the problem.