9 ms·
World’s oceans at record high temperature for 80 consecutive days
- sgt101 3y ago[flagged]
- x3874 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- coolhand2120 3y ago[flagged]
- adonig 3y ago[flagged]
- PheonixPharts 3y agoIt's certainly a strange time to be alive. I was explaining to my child my work in AI, showing him images of himself as a character from his DnD campaign and at the same time am gently introducing him to the increasingly dire state of our climate. For parents of my generation "the talk" is not about sex, it's about the reality that we might not have a future to offer our children. It feels like I am very literally living the life depicted in sci-fi novels of my youth. Equal parts wonderful and terrifying.
- edgefield 3y agoWell said. I have two small kiddos and difficult to know how to engage with them on topics like AI and climate change. As a related experience, I picked up my son from a birthday party and the birthday consisted of a rented massive trailer with big screen TVs and 7-8 different video game consoles for couch coop gaming. All powered by a generator. Very cool and very frightening all at the same time.
- pizzafeelsright 3y agoI would love to discuss these topics in detail in person with someone like you. I am completely unconcerned about climate change or AI yet very concerned about how my child will interact with your child when their concerns are vastly different.
- hutzlibu 3y ago"it's about the reality that we might not have a future to offer our children." But wasn't that always the case? War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it. Btw. it seems the war made russia change its stance and some official "scientific" commitee has decided, that climate warming comes simply from radiation inside earth that follows a natural pattern. So no need to not burn coal then. So the hope is, that china who does believe in human made climate change will push them to still reduce CO2 somewhat. Indeed strange times.
- katbyte 3y agoThe need to not burn coal goes beyond CO2, the particulates and radiation coal plants put out is terrible for health. Coal has, and continues, to cause more deaths then nuclear ever has and produces radioactive ash while at it.
- hutzlibu 3y agoI did not debate that, but russia has also a history of not really caring about pollution.
- landemva 3y agoIn general, socialist regimes have not cared about the environment. The Stasi records museum in Berlin has a mention of this in the courtyard. Lack of private property leads to government pollution.
- pgeorgi 3y ago> War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it. All sides showed remarkable restraint in actually following up on the threats. While the possibility of nuclear war was part of the backdrop, at least the impression was made that everybody tries to be as reasonable as possible to prevent it from happening. Compare to climate change where people actively try to sabotage stuff like renewables build out (e.g. "In 2019, the state tried to further penalize solar users by implementing a law that levied fines against solar users." [0] which was struck down eventually - but still, people considered that a good enough idea to propose, successfully vote and implement that?!?) to stick it to The Man (or something). [0] I don't care too much about the specifics, so not naming and shaming anybody, but the source is: https://todayshomeowner.com/solar/guides/states-that-outlaw-or-restrict-solar-panels/ https://todayshomeowner.com/solar/guides/states-that-outlaw-...
- Freestyler_3 3y agoKids are the key to shaping the future, but kids is also the reason we are here. Generations upon generations of children being produced, who with each generation "produce" more CO2. Our planet needs strong leadership that dictates what can and cannot be done. Instead we have leaders making up solutions that are not solutions, but are presented as such.
- acdha 3y agoThe problem is less the children than the fact that lifestyle changes made things enormously more CO2 intensive. India has far more people and far lower CO2 emissions because they didn’t change their lifestyle to involve huge increases in beef consumption, daily individual travel in massive gas powered vehicles, and heavy use of climate control systems. A significant chunk of those changes and the CO2 emitted happened after we knew that global warming was happening, too, so it really comes back to the ability of rich people to buy their way into being allowed to ignore externalities.
- aeonik 3y agoI'm confused, what do you mean there's not going to be a future for them? No doubt there's going to be some challenges, but I thought all that carbon was in the atmosphere and oceans before it was sequestered by plants and alagae. I thought the major issue was the speed of change, but we really don't know what life is thing to do in response. According to this article, during the Cambrian, the earth was 10C hotter than it is today. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/09/20/you-asked-dinosaurs-survived-when-co2-was-extremely-high-why-cant-humans/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/09/20/you-asked-dinos... We're going to need to adapt, and things will be harder, but I believe it's totally doable.
- _Microft 3y agoOK, so this is fine? (No, I do not believe that)
- skrebbel 3y agoPretty much yes
- WarOnPrivacy 3y agoVanuatu might disagree. In Vanuatu, sea level rise is a very real concept with a number of communities already being inundated during high tides (2016) ref: https://www.spatialsource.com.au/sea-level-rise-mapping-reaches-vanuatu/ https://www.spatialsource.com.au/sea-level-rise-mapping-reac...
- skrebbel 3y agoYeah but we went from “oh no we’re all going to die and we have to prepare our kids for that eventuality” to “oh no Vanuatu is sinking” in just a few HN comments. In that light I’d like to underline that in the “this is fine” meme, things are actually on fire. It’s an apt comparison.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
- manmal 3y agoWhy not frame it as „Major challenges ahead“ instead of „no future“? That sounds like a recipe for learned helplessness and defeatism.
- ed25519FUUU 3y agoMy children aren’t going to care because I don’t care and there’s no reason to fill them with unnecessary doom and fear. Yes it is outside of our sphere of influence. It’s bad parenting to make kids worry about things outside of their control. And before you criticize me, know that I’m a cloth diapering, organic food growing back-to-land hippy. I’m happy to compare our carbon footprints.
- spacephysics 3y agoI think that’s a bit dramatic and airing on fear mongering. Other comment responses of OP have better sources, but I do not agree the “future is at risk” because of this. I’m more inclined to closely watch geopolitical events unfold, as US hegemony becomes slowly unstable and potentially untenable. If climate change were really really as dire as some say it is, we wouldn’t be half-assing our way via renewable energies which don’t have a power grid or power store nearly capable enough to handle a “fully electric future” We’d be spending more money than the likes of other world powers on proven nuclear energy (unlike Germany who has decommissioned theirs in favor of coal) I think I read the nuclear waste of nuclear power stations we have today could fit in a big Walmart? That’s an insane amount of energy density. That doesn’t include the potential for nuclear diamond batteries to reuse the spent fuel rods, or other upcoming technologies to reuse the waste. Don’t get me wrong, we should look into truly renewable energy. But needing vast amounts of rare-earth minerals for solar panels and batteries from China, or nickel and cobalt from child-labor mines in the Congo doesn’t seem to line up with the ethos of “going green” We should “go nuclear”
- eximius 3y ago> If climate change were really really as dire as some say it is, we wouldn’t be half-assing our way Yes, this is why people are worried. It is dire and we are half-assing our responses.
- civilized 3y agoI do wish we could overcome our squeamishness about nuclear. Because our climate circumstances are indeed dangerous. And in my opinion, they're quite a bit more dangerous than nuclear power would be, if we committed to scaling it up with a reasonable balance of safety and cost-effectiveness. It is only expensive because we hold it to a much higher standard of safety than any other power source. And understandably so, to some extent, because the tail risk from operating nuclear is greater, but we are facing tail risk from fossil fuels warming the planet as well, and I think that tail risk is much greater and much harder to control than that from nuclear. I think we need less moralism and fear of complex systems, and more hard-headed, engineering-led cost-benefit analysis.
- EGreg 3y agoWhat I find strange is that people are actively building a zoo for themselves. The population could have been very happy and rich with around 1 billion people — less garbage, less pollution, less extinction of species, less monocultures and farms, more biodiversity, sustainable resources, and not as much pressure on ecosystems. But we live on an exological credit card.
- moojacob 3y agoIf this world with a billion people existed, most likely (7/8th chance) you wouldn't exist. How does never existing make you feel? Unless in this fantasy you'd survive and enjoy the extra resources which comes off as extremely selfish to me.
- EGreg 3y agoPeople can have children below the replacement rate They already do, in tons of countries It might take care of itself, if not for AI and nukes humanity could be fine. But they just can’t resist, humanity seems to be acting like a rapacious child because of competition across countries. As for your question… look ul the Doomsday Argument. 7% of all people who ever existed are alive today. If the population constantly increases then given the fact that you are alive means you’re more than likely living in the last days before a major population crash. The only question is what will be behind it — birth control or some ecosystem collapse?
- layer8 3y agoI guess we should also ramp up industrial livestock production because otherwise those extra billions of animals would never exist.
- quercus 3y ago[flagged]
- mistrial9 3y agosmall children do not have the grounding to deal with existential threats -- IMHO it does no good to have a "logical,serious" talk about such things in the first 10+ years
- alfor 3y ago[flagged]
- acdha 3y ago> They have been making so many doomsday predictions that all turned out to be completely false. Citations needed. Remember that we’re aware that the 1990 IPCC report’s predictions were accurate and that the mid-1970s “global cooling” thing was a handful of papers which never had mainstream scientific acceptance and were disproven by the end of that decade, so there’s no point in repeating false claims about either of those topics even if it is popular in certain circles.
- DontchaKnowit 3y agoThe worst case scenarios of climate chanve are grim but still leace room for humanities future. It will be tumultuous, but not catacalysmic. Alarmism does nothing for us. We should try to stay level headed
- bmmayer1 3y agoScuba diver here. I highly recommend the documentary Chasing Coral about coral bleaching, a direct result of high ocean temperatures (and, I highly recommend taking up scuba now before it's too late :))
- davidjones332 3y ago[dead]
- scoofy 3y agoWhen some scientific organization comes out with a survivability index map for future locations by year, I'll like and subscribe.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoProbably something like this but the red bits are "bigger and there's more of them": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8/figures/3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8/figures/3
- ioslipstream 3y agoFor an alternate take on this: https://twitter.com/ethicalskeptic/status/1664657442225963009?s=46 https://twitter.com/ethicalskeptic/status/166465744222596300... His data suggests that the rate of rise in ocean temperatures can not possibly be due to man made circumstances and is instead due to earth core leakage.
- adrianN 3y agoClearly the lizard people from Earth's hollow core are responsible.
- slily 3y agoYes, let's shut down the contrarians by making fun of them or calling them words, there is clearly no room to discuss complex phenomena, as we have learned in the last few years dealing with COVID-19 "misinformation".
- edgefield 3y agoOP wouldn’t be so skeptical except for the fact that 99% of scientists have been raising the alarm bells about climate change for 50 years and mainly politicians and commentators, often with little to no expertise and significantly biased due to fossil fuel connections and donations, have been questioning and undermining the science.
- adrianN 3y agoThere certainly is no room to discuss them on Twitter. If the Twitter person has real data they should try writing a paper. There are about eight billion people who would love to see the CO2-theory of climate change falsified. They'd be a hero, trillions of dollars of unnecessary investment prevented, everybody rejoices.
- gmuslera 3y agoIt is not just record, it is well above all the previous records, including some strong El Niño years (that didn’t started yet).
- adrianN 3y agoAt least renewable energy generation is still following a nice exponential growth curve. It's too slow to prevent dire climate change, but it might be fast enough to prevent complete collapse of technological civilization.
- _Microft 3y agoWhat does 2σ mean here? Is that referring to a normal distribution with the given mean, i.e. if temperature were following a normal distribution with a mean like from 1982-2011, then 95% of the temperatures would fall into the 2σ range?
- edgefield 3y agoYes, that’s my understanding.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tpmx 3y agoSo it all boils down to how https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst is created. The NOAA 1/4° Daily Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature (OISST) is a long term Climate Data Record that incorporates observations from different platforms (satellites, ships, buoys and Argo floats) into a regular global grid. The dataset is interpolated to fill gaps on the grid and create a spatially complete map of sea surface temperature. Satellite and ship observations are referenced to buoys to compensate for platform differences and sensor biases.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- myshpa 3y agoThe warming of the oceans could lead to the following consequences: - Coral reef collapse and loss of marine biodiversity. - Accelerated sea-level rise, resulting in coastal flooding and displacement of populations. - Ocean acidification, harming shell-forming organisms and marine ecosystems. - Disruption of ocean currents, leading to altered weather patterns and increased extreme weather events, potentially causing massive oceanic dead zones leading to - Release of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from warming ocean sediments and decaying organic matter, a potential extinction event. --- Peter Ward: “Oceans - What’s the Worst that Can Happen?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eM1aakTzMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eM1aakTzMw
- koboll 3y agoME: "Release of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from warming ocean sediments and decaying organic matter, a potential extinction event." Is this a realistic possibility? GPT-4: The phenomenon you're describing is associated with an event referred to as a "Canfield Ocean" or "Strangelove Ocean." The hypothesis is named after paleoceanographer Donald Canfield, who proposed that several mass extinctions in Earth's history might have been caused by an increase in hydrogen sulfide (H2S) produced by sulfate-reducing bacteria when the oceans became depleted of oxygen (anoxic). Under certain conditions, this is a theoretical possibility. If global warming were to result in widespread anoxia (lack of oxygen) in the oceans, it could potentially trigger a large-scale release of hydrogen sulfide gas. This gas is poisonous to most forms of aerobic life (those that require oxygen), and a significant increase in its concentration could lead to mass extinctions. However, it's essential to note that while this hypothesis is theoretically plausible, it remains highly controversial, and the conditions required to trigger such an event are extreme. It's not a certainty that global warming would lead to widespread ocean anoxia, and even if it did, it's not clear that this would necessarily result in a large-scale release of H2S. Moreover, our understanding of the exact causes and progression of the various mass extinctions in Earth's history remains incomplete, and there's ongoing debate among scientists about the role played by hydrogen sulfide. Other factors, such as volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, and changes in sea level, have also been implicated in these events. To summarize, while the scenario you're describing is theoretically possible, it's still highly speculative and there's a lot we don't know. It's not something that's likely to happen in the near future, but it underlines the importance of taking ac
- fallingfrog 3y agoI see 3 semi-distinct bands in the data, where there are dense clusters of lines, and gaps in between where the lines are a bit more sparse. It looks to me like the line jumps from the bottom band to the middle band in 1997, then back down, then up again in 2001, and then stays there until 2014/2015 when it jumps up a second time. You can see them better if you remove the mean/+2sigma/-2sigma lines. I wonder the reason for that? Could be I'm just seeing patterns where none exist of course. Edit: the jumps kind of correspond to moments in time when the solar insolation was on its upswing and the periods when it temporarily slowed kind of correspond to periods when insolation was declining, I think however I'm exceeding my training a bit, perhaps an actual climate scientist could tell us more precisely what's going on.
- pasmafaute 3y agoThe oceans normally undergo a cycle of patterns in ocean currents which also manifest surface temperature warming and cooling. You've probably heard "El Niño" and "La Niña" during weather forecasts. The cycle is very irregular and I doubt we have good prediction models for it. However, the observations of the ocean currents line up very well with ocean surface temperature readings. On it's own, the ENSO cycle would not cause an overall trend of warming. However, it is very capable of being the cause of the "bands in the data" that you noticed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_...
- fallingfrog 3y agoInteresting! Thank you
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pluc 3y agoYou mean switching to paper straws did nothing?
- submeta 3y agoI find myself losing hope for humanity when I observe a significant portion of society in Germany, for instance, either voting for or intending to vote for a party known as the 'Alternative für Deutschland'. This party is primarily defined by what it opposes. Its supporters are often frustrated and resistant to evidence that their meat consumption contributes to climate change, or that fossil fuels exacerbate this global crisis. They seem to long for the past, harking back to the ways of the 1980s, and are generally resistant to change. They often resort to derogatory names for those advocating for environmental responsibility and believe in conspiracy theories about hidden powers controlling the media and society. These theories often involve notions of a deluge of immigrants designed to alter the fabric of Western societies and strip them of their privileges. Engaging in rational debates with these individuals proves challenging, as they often dismiss any evidence presented as a sign that you are 'woke', deluded, or part of a clandestine group intent on their destruction.
- edgefield 3y agoSounds like the MAGA movement in the United States. I share your sentiment of losing hope.
- okeuro49 3y ago> Engaging in rational debates with these individuals proves challenging, as they often dismiss any evidence presented as a sign that you are 'woke', deluded, or part of a clandestine group intent on their destruction. I would debate you, by pointing out a lot of "green" policies disproportionately affect the working class, including AfD voters. > frustrated and resistant to evidence that their meat consumption contributes to climate change Start with banning private jets and asking the very wealthy to curtail their carbon footprint. Then asking everyday people to change their habits might be less than hollow words. Once the very privileged start leading by example, then others might follow. But of course, they won't do. Germany's energy policy, eschewing nuclear, has not brought in a stable renewable energy system. It has destabilised Germany's political standing and made Germany overreliant on Russian gas. I consider myself an environmentalist, which is why I don't spend time asking people to wear hair shirts.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoEvery society is 3 meals away from total chaos. What provides those meals is a system built on top of topsoil, fresh water, fish, oil, pollinators, and atmospheric conditions of humidity, temperature, precipitation, etc. And the absence of pollution. Topsoil is not dirt, it's an habitat for organisms that make soil fertile. It takes many years to regenerate 1 inch of topsoil. Agriculture consumes topsoil faster than it regenerates. Fresh water is water with low saline content. Desalination does not work at scale, and if it did, it would still make food prices rise. Fresh water is only 2.5% of Earth's water. Rivers are being polluted, groundwater is being pumped faster than it is replenished. Rainwater is not enough to sustain agriculture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjsThobgq7Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjsThobgq7Q Sustainable fishing requires harvesting only fish above reproductive age. Fisheries do not care about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trawling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trawling Pollinators everywhere are dying due to habitat destruction and products used in agriculture. And on top of that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere via pollution, causing it to trap more heat, and causing oceans to become acidic, which in turn causes climate to behave differently in ways that affect agriculture. In short, it's an ecocide. We are in the middle of an extinction event: the Anthropocene extinction, an extinction event caused by humans. Animals above certain weight are dying and that is an excellent indicator that we are next in line. Each human has a stomach which is a chemical reactor, and food is its fuel. And as more humans are added to the population the rate at which we process (destroy) the environment accelerates. We are already beyond the point of sustainability and heading towards a predictable collapse. Putting a single-use plastic container into a recycle bin won't do shit for the environment. Our civilization is just a giant ant death circle following each other's pheromone trails until we collapse collectively. Not much can be done other than downscale your lifestyle, avoid traveling, go zero waste, stop buying from ecocidal corporations. But this will only delay the inevitable: more environmental impact, and ultimately, global conflict. Remove the 3 meals from people's tables, and you'll get conflict over the resources that are left. The strategic pieces in this conflict are already being placed on the board.
- ornornor 3y ago> The strategic pieces in this conflict are already being placed on the board. This is interesting to me, could you elaborate what the pieces are? I’m guessing natural resources like freshwater?
- oneTbrain23 3y agoDo take note, Siberia will thaw and this will give great opportunity to Russians to farm and dominate in future. So at least from their perspective this is good for them. Of course the rest of the world will suffer with USA destine to be dustbowl as foretold in Interstellar.