10 ms·
Antarctica: Ice shelves shrinking 'with no sign of recovery
- gardenfelder 3y agoA new study has found that almost half of Antarctica's ice shelves are shrinking. This could increase ice loss from glaciers and affect the ocean's ability to absorb carbon
- m3kw9 3y agoHow long till my deep in land home to have a coastline?
- vkou 3y agoA while, it'll almost certainly happen long after you'll be dealing with food insecurity, and millions of refugees whose coastline land is now underwater.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- immmmmm 3y agoIPCC projections are typically 1-2m (scenario dependent) for end of the century, with up to 50+m worst case scenario in 1-2 millennia
- spandextwins 3y agoPlant a tree. Today. Before it's too late.
- galuggus 3y agoDo it for free at mptr.ee
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- codetrotter 3y agohttps://www.thissongplantstrees.com/ https://www.thissongplantstrees.com/ > You can plant trees for free using Spotify. > We made a second audio clip where all the revenue goes to planting trees > Sounds too good to be true. How does this work? > Everytime you listen to a song on a streaming service it earns a tiny bit of cash for its creator. > We use that money to plant trees. Neat!
- thehappypm 3y agoI can’t put my finger on why but this seems like stealing
- codetrotter 3y agoYou probably can’t put your finger on why because it’s not. They are earning royalties for the amount of times people listen to their audio. And use the royalties to pay for trees. If anyone is stealing anything, it’s Spotify. Most artist are paid pennies for their music even when a lot of people listen to it. Spotify is great for consumers, but not so great for most musicians.
- olddustytrail 3y agoWe're talking billions of tons of ice. A single tree won't hold that back. Plus, it's Antarctica! The tree will die in that cold!
- 11235813213455 3y agothe 1st part of your comment makes me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoTrees do not affect CO2 levels, over long time. The basic reason is explained by why it is also called "carbon cycle". Plants grow, temporarily storing carbon, then die, releasing the carbon back to atmosphere either by burning or by decaying or by being consumed and literally breathed out as CO2 back. Rather than planting a tree, you can actually help the atmosphere more by cutting a tree and building a house out of it and not letting it rot for a really long time. By cutting the tree and building the house, you are sequestering the carbon for probably longer than the tree would live (depending on what would be its future) and also making space for new trees to grow. If you are looking to actually affect the long term outcome, you need to do one of two things: 1) stop emitting CO2 2) sequester the atmospheric CO2 somewher, for a really long time.
- dangles 3y agoWhere did oil come from?
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoThe oil came from small microorganisms that fell out of carbon cycle by getting themselves in places where they could not rot or get burned. The same story is behind coal, except it is not possible to generate any more coal deposits naturally. The reason we have coal is some hundreds of millions of years ago there were huge plants that would topple but there was nothing on Eearth yet that could completely digest plant matter. So the biomass would basically stay where it fell and new plants would grow on top of dead ones. This explains the shape of coal deposits. Some time later I think fungi evolved that could digest cellulose and any plant afterwards would rot rather than get burried. This explains why ALL coal deposits in existence are older than something like 600M years.
- thfuran 3y agoAs I understand it, that's no longer the prevailing theory regarding coal.
- 3y ago
- edhelas 3y agoAgain... planting trees is pointless. We need to recover lands and grow forests. Trees are not carbon pumping units, they are part of ecosystem. The moment we will start to understand this, we will make a giant step in the right direction.
- 11235813213455 3y agoA tree is a local air conditioning, air purifier, air humidifier, so always better than nothing, it hosts so much life like insects that are vital to other lifeforms and trees indirecly
- spandextwins 3y agoStanford shows otherwise https://earth.stanford.edu/news/growing-carbon-offsets-trees https://earth.stanford.edu/news/growing-carbon-offsets-trees
- jraby3 3y agoI think it’s probably much more effective to stop eating meat. Land is cleared for cattle at an alarming rate and is the main reason for the shrinking size of the Amazon.
- MandieD 3y agoAvoiding beef from Brazil would be an easy first step.
- immmmmm 3y agoYou certainly want to stop cutting trees. I think it’s 10 million cut each days. Then invest time and money in ecosystem preservation and adaptation. Many scientific reports available, let you google that.
- bantunes 3y agoNobody cares. Most have decided they prefer SUVs, cheap burgers and flying to Greece twice a year for 50 quid over the Amazon being a thing or co-existing with wildlife. And the ones that didn't make that choice are unwilling to change things because deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff.
- nine_zeros 3y ago> Nobody cares. Yep, too busy boosting my lines of code for an unskilled BS manager. I don't even have time for my family, let alone the environment.
- GravityLab 3y ago> violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff. nah that’s just what ideologues say because they care more about their top-down control agenda. If climate change was fixed tomorrow, they’d be disappointed because they wouldn’t be able to exact control over others in the name of climate concern. Plant more trees. Invest in renewables.
- Podgajski 3y ago> Plant more trees. Invest in renewables. I do not know how people can be convinced those things will do anything to mitigate the changes we are seeing and will see for years even if we stop all carbon output now. What his needed is shame, for people to be shamed, but we have no religion anymore so no one cares about shame.
- peteradio 3y agoTrees give shade, shade reduces energy demand.
- GravityLab 3y agoNah, leave shaming in the era of the Salem witch trials. We don't need that. Here's what we need: - global amount of co2 emissions per year https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi.... - average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates) https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve... 37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848 Given the above, we could plant this many trees in a year or two if we really tried. Couple that effort with more renewables, more investment into fusion and co2 sequestration machines, more electric cars, etc, and it's taken care of. I would question the character of any person who wants to be the one doing the shaming or thinking we need shaming for this. This is an engineering problem.
- RetroTechie 3y ago"Annual mass budget of Antarctic ice shelves from 1997 to 2021" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0186 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0186
- 11235813213455 3y agoThose headlines or observations are so obvious, why do we even do them? We can even feel the temperature rise year after year, October temperature are like August
- moomoo11 3y agoCould we do controlled volcanic eruptions to bring the temperatures down? Honestly these kinds of problems need insane out of the box thinking, because trying to change human behavior is one of the hardest things in the world. It doesn't work unless you're okay living under fascists/communists (no thanks). I'd much rather we explore unorthodox "organic" "all-natural" attempts like dropping some JDAMs into a volcano. Who knows, it might work. People certainly will not stop burning fossil fuels or being selfish.
- leosanchez 3y ago> Could we do controlled volcanic eruptions to bring the temperatures down? Is it even possible? If so which volcano?
- peteradio 3y agoNIMBY!
- sshb 3y agoStratospheric aerosol injection is one of the proposed approaches https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/07/05/sun-blockers-us-scientists-aim-to-cool-the-earth-by-reflecting-sunlight-into-space https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/07/05/sun-blockers-us-sc...
- immmmmm 3y agoIt’s called geo engineering and problems would include: 1) ocean acidification 2) a sky white rather than blue 3) severely alerted rain patterns 4) a very sharp positive climate transient if for some reason you stop doing it 5) etc etc Also most climate scientists we simply cannot control a system that chaotic Also, injecting sulphuric acid at large scale in the atmosphere might not be such a great idea. But yeah, chemtrails would work.
- unblough 3y agoThis comment from "50 days ago" absolutely rocked me then and continues to provide a sobering and depressing real life metric to the climate crisis. I've showed anyone who will listen this chart. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37257643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37257643
- jules-jules 3y agoDeclining Antarctic sea ice further drives global warming, a little discussed topic. >The discussions of the remarkable September global warming have noted that much of the warming is associated with an extreme warming anomaly over Antarctica, with the suggestion that this warming is a weather effect that will disappear. While it is true that Antarctic temperature fluctuates greatly from month to month, we note that there is a latent southern Hemisphere polar amplification of warming that has long been dormant, as Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover has been relatively constant for several decades. The recent decline of sea ice area may be an indication that, averaged over weather, Antarctica will become a more important contributor to global temperature change. The above is from James Hansen's latest newsletter. Another one of those pesky self-reinforcing feedback loops.
- bigfryo 3y agoYou cannot trust any establishment site when it comes to talking about any item or topic that is supported as a important narrative by the establishment. Anything goes as far as that's concerned because the establishment rewards anyone who supports a narrative that is under siege, as is the climate change narrative obviously
- sghiassy 3y agoHonest question. How do we morally differentiate human-caused climate change from natural climate change (I.e: Ice ages naturally come and go) I get that that human-led climate change means that humans are mucking things up (which sucks). But if humans cause large swings in climate that would happen naturally, then it’s not like what we’re causing is unique right? It’s just natural phenomenon from unnatural causes. It seems to me, that humans are rightfully worried about existence. But even large-mass-scale extinction is a natural repeating phenomenon. So I say long live the next species (which I can only assume is sharks with freakin’ laser beams attached to their heads https://youtu.be/INFavIUmhcE https://youtu.be/INFavIUmhcE)
- ALittleLight 3y agoWhat does morality have to do with it? If the climate is changing in a way that's bad, we need to do something about it. We'd need to do something about it even if it were natural. The problem with climate change is not moral, it's that it will make it harder for people to live and kill people and so on.
- bobthepanda 3y agoSpeed. This climate change is happening faster than any other climate change event short of a volcanic eruption or a meteor, both of which also generally result in mass death. (Krakatoa is associated with years of famine.) It is easier to adjust over hundreds of years than decades or less.
- neom 3y agoSure... earth's climate has naturally fluctuated throughout its history. However, the current rate of change is unprecedented in human history... The key difference between natural climate change and human-induced climate change is the speed at which it's happening. Natural climate changes, like ice ages, occur over thousands of years, giving ecosystems time to adapt. Climate change we're experiencing now is happening over years leaving little time for adaptation. The question of morality isn't about whether climate change is unique to human activity, but about our responsibility as stewards of the planet. Our actions are causing harm to ecosystems, wildlife, and our own communities at a rate that is far from normal. The planet might have experienced similar changes in the distant past, the rapidity of current changes and the harm they're causing is what makes this a moral (and our) issue... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37882129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37882129
- bigchillin 3y agoWelp, if you know about our planets history & cycles then this is not necessarily of concern. The planet goes through cycles, read about the great year or about the ice core samples form Greenland which tell a fascinating story
- caseysoftware 3y agoFTA: > Scientists found 68 of Antarctica's 162 ice shelves experienced a "statistically significant" reduction in mass between 1997 and 2021. > Another nine ice sheets saw smaller losses over the same period, while 29 gained mass and 62 did not change significantly. Missing a key piece in this summary: What was the net change? Was it an increase or decrease?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kakaz 3y agoDeutsche Welle. Not very trusted source