Submitted by strangeattractors t3_zr8n6f in Futurology
Comments
Logalicious t1_j12cj4m wrote
Right, is it 100% or a 100X? big difference. Either way were still fucked.
WalterWoodiaz t1_j12cqtu wrote
I wouldn’t say fucked. Sea level rise is bad but definitely not a civilization ending disaster. The worst thing about it is that the people who will be most affected are in developing countries that cannot prepare for it
reddolfo t1_j12u4rt wrote
It's not sea level rise, it's the destruction of critical ocean currents, acidity changes, etc. The loss of these threaten the ocean's plankton, responsible for up to 80% of the planet's oxygen, as well as the foundation of the planet's food chain.
Containedmultitudes t1_j146kdg wrote
> ocean currents
Including the Gulf Stream, which is what makes most of Western Europe habitable.
lostindarkdays t1_j15cphv wrote
eh, Europe schmeurope. that David statute guy doesn't do it for me, anyway. too skinny.
Yeuph t1_j13hrao wrote
Fortunately as more CO2 is dissolved into the ocean making it more acidic we have these huge glaciers that can keep melting forever injecting non-acidic water to balance things out.
Yay.
NLwino t1_j13kjlw wrote
Combine that with the fact that we can counter global warming with nuclear winter, we really have nothing to worry about. All is fine, carry on.
Z3r0sama2017 t1_j13quhx wrote
Yep. Same way starvation is easy to counter by eating people, two birds with one stone
CO420Tech t1_j14w7nr wrote
Now I need to go listen to Eat All the Old People
[deleted] t1_j13nflb wrote
[removed]
Gemini884 t1_j14hnw6 wrote
Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by ~10% in worst-case emissions scenario.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3
[deleted] t1_j13wmps wrote
[removed]
rixtil41 t1_j15cmkp wrote
There is enough air to last us a few hundred years so not that big of a deal if the air we breathe stoped being naturally recycled right now.
Financial_Exercise88 t1_j1d56fh wrote
Are you sure? Do you know what hemoglobin is and how it works?
rixtil41 t1_j1egecv wrote
So although I don't know the exact ways to on how this would work in every detail my point is that it's not impossible to survive and that any attempt at survival is doomed to fail even if only a small percentage of humanity was left.
Financial_Exercise88 t1_j1fmyjj wrote
All humanity relies on a precise balance between O2 and CO2 in ambient air. Hemoglobin binds CO2 100x more than O2; it only works as an O2 delivery system because there's a hyper-abundance of O2 (declining currently, FYI). Genetic engineering or O2 supplementation mechanisms require extensive supply chains that won't exist if only a few survive.
And if we (humanity) survive but we (you & I) don't then the former matters little.
rixtil41 t1_j1g8wnr wrote
But what about the future where genetic engineering requires less and does not rely on a large number of people? Unless you think humanity will die off before that becomes a reality.
Financial_Exercise88 t1_j1hd2ce wrote
Can AI come up with an alternative to Hb that we can genetically engineer babies to have before the imbalance ambient air is lethal? Probably. But no one is working on it. It will probably affect behavior & intelligence in imperceptible ways long before humans see it as an issue worth pursuing. And then we depend on animals... we're going to replace the whole ecosystem with genetically engineered variants that can thrive in higher CO2/lower O2 environment (are we going to also change our dependence on the Krebs cycle which needs O2) ? No, I don't believe that is realistic. Supply chains will be long gone, humanity too, before then. Or, we could just tax the f out of fossil fuels. No. Brainer.
xXSpaceturdXx t1_j12x9l1 wrote
It’s the domino effect that is the problem. With the melting ice caps, poison rainwater, Global warming, waters going barren of life. it’s all downhill from here. they’re starting to backtrack but not fast enough. We can’t turn the clocks back on the damage that’s been done.
Friday_Night_Pizza t1_j13tm8z wrote
Don't forget mass migrations due to flooding and unlivable conditions, massive blows to food & water security/stability. Oh boi!
Gemini884 t1_j14i1mv wrote
>waters going barren of life
Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by ~10% in worst-case emissions scenario.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3
Huntred t1_j12f0ck wrote
Yes, people in developing counties will have a hard time preparing, but it’s not like Florida is going to be able to build a wall around itself. Some places where the dollar-per-unit of costal protection might be able to afford it (thinking NYC), but other places even in the US will have a harder time practically in the day to day (hard to move ports and what are we going to do about New Orleans?) and looking to the future (mortgage/insurance nightmares.)
COVID showed that the supply chain isn’t very anti-fragile and the climate catastrophe is much more impactful.
Exciting-Pangolin665 t1_j12go5w wrote
Limestone baby we will rise again (florida)
Huntred t1_j12gw1x wrote
Limestone is highly porous and sea-water soluble, so…
EdgarAllanPuss t1_j12j28d wrote
Back to the drawing board
bathroomheater t1_j12te1c wrote
Back to the drowning board*
Sprinkle_Puff t1_j132w0o wrote
If you draw with a sharpie around the limestone it should protect it
spudzilla t1_j14nz7i wrote
Mar A Lardo underwater? A win for society and our nation's secret papers.
chill633 t1_j15lslp wrote
>"...but it’s not like Florida is going to be able to build a wall around itself."
I now have a new fear -- that Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida reads Reddit. PLEASE don't give him ideas!
johannthegoatman t1_j12t6iy wrote
Seems like developing countries also don't have a ton of expensive infrastructure though, so rebuilding further in is not nearly as difficult
Friday_Night_Pizza t1_j13tidd wrote
At current rates, it's estimated that all the ice melting on earth would take about 4000-5000 years. if that were to ever happen, it represents at 225-250ish foot rise in the sea level. It would change the whole globe dramatically
AG2dayAG t1_j12eueb wrote
I saw another study that says some glaciers are melting others are getting bigger
FogletGilet t1_j12fpvm wrote
Yes that's normal because glaciers always tend yo oscillate. The problem is that the absolute amount of ice on glaciers is going down, even if some individual glaciers go up it doesn't make it for the loss.
AG2dayAG t1_j12gcrw wrote
The studies are all over the palace its hard to tell. The eu plan Is to charge a carbon tax thus seems like they're taking advantage of the situation to tax people rather than tackle the problem. Why not flat out ban 100+ for yachts and private jets as a start
ChalupaCabre t1_j12ntmg wrote
Why not charge a carbon tax so you can collect sales and luxury taxes on the item and then charge out the wazoo to fill the tank?
Or ban, and collect $0 in taxation. Seems like an easy choice!
AG2dayAG t1_j12o4nt wrote
Numbers are being inflated to give politicians a bigger budget to fleece
Containedmultitudes t1_j146teb wrote
11 day old account spewing obscurantism and denial, wonder what you’re doing here.
AG2dayAG t1_j14863h wrote
Whatever you say
strangeattractors OP t1_j12f4io wrote
Interesting. Have a link?
AG2dayAG t1_j12h2pk wrote
What's also weird is in the 70s the climate change situation was global cooling not warming thwn in the 80s they started with warming seems like they find excuses to scare people. Also if the seas will rise by so much why are politicians and rich elites buying ocean front homes seems odd to me
BlueSwordM t1_j12m0v8 wrote
Not true. The scientific consensus and data at the time overwhelmingly showed that global cooling was never a thing, really only global warning.
Koshunae t1_j12rzw4 wrote
Wasnt there essentially a smear campaign at the time by the oil companies, just throwing out opposing and misleading information?
There are places that have kept detailed and fairly accurate meteorological data since 1880, and localized spots as early as the mid 1600s.
The warming trend has been known for a long time, but its been greatly accelerated.
Containedmultitudes t1_j1470fn wrote
Here being spewed by an 11 day old account engaging in climate denialism. I have a feeling the smear campaign wasn’t limited to the past.
AG2dayAG t1_j12mjdw wrote
The day the rich start selling their beach front homes then I'll start worrying
Shot-Job-8841 t1_j12ppi9 wrote
The very rich don’t care if their $5,000,000 home is underwater in 20 years.
AG2dayAG t1_j12q90w wrote
You sound dumb right now. The rich know where every penny goes. Why do you think they hire lawyers to pay as little to no taxes as possible
Shot-Job-8841 t1_j12rfnc wrote
I never said they didn’t know, I said the they were rich enough not to care. If you buy a super yacht it can cost millions a year to maintain and crew: but you can easily recoup that by using it to butter VIPs. A billionaire can use a house to help with business deals whereas a mere millionaire buys it to flip.
AG2dayAG t1_j12t6qp wrote
So a millionaire can't use it for business deals? And billionaires don't flip homes?
LordBoxington t1_j12s9df wrote
Dude, Trump himself, the guy who said it's a Chinese hoax, has literally been spending millions on seawalls to protect property and golf courses he owns that are next to the ocean because even he knows it's coming. Also many of these people have yachts that can sustain them for long periods of time just fine, as well a multitude of properties that will allow them to leave at any time to somewhere safer/better/less affected.
AG2dayAG t1_j12t1ps wrote
Dude!!. The property he has is in the hurricane belt it literally gets pummeled by hurricanes almost every year. That's not because of climate change
LordBoxington t1_j12tn0s wrote
Yea, his Scottish properties with the new seawall constructions are really getting walloped by those hurricanes!
AG2dayAG t1_j12tqoc wrote
Link? I'm talking about Mar a lago
LordBoxington t1_j12u9js wrote
Sorry, Ireland, not Scotland - https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-doonbeg-ireland-permission-to-build-wall-for-golf-course-2017-12?op=1
whatisthishappiness t1_j130tr9 wrote
Bro everyone knows Trump just loves walls
LordBoxington t1_j130wwg wrote
Fuck, I didn't even think about it that way, it makes so much sense now
AG2dayAG t1_j12u8a5 wrote
Ok found it has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with the fact that it gets ht with 30 meter waves which isn't good for a golf resort
LordBoxington t1_j12ue35 wrote
He literally cites climate change and rising sea levels in the permit application, how much more proof do you need?
AG2dayAG t1_j12uj3e wrote
You worry about climate change I'll live my life.
LordBoxington t1_j12uzrx wrote
I mean look I'm not super worried about it because I literally have no control over it, so I'm living my life too, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here? Whether or not you believe it's real, it is, and if you're in an area anywhere near sea level have fun figuring out how to deal with it while pretending you aren't! Rooting for you!
AG2dayAG t1_j12v9z9 wrote
Not concerned with it at all. You saying it is doesn't make it so. More government bs to tax its citizens even more.
LordBoxington t1_j12we3q wrote
It's not me you should be paying attention to, it's the literal tens of thousands of scientists who have been screaming about it for decades you should listen to.
This is like getting a warning from the entire military that a missile strike is imminent and being like 'they just MAKING SHIT UP AGAIN!'
(Also if you think taxes are high now, wait until we're paying out a trillion a year just to repair fucking storm damage as they get more severe)
AG2dayAG t1_j12ws2f wrote
If it's inevitable it's inevitable predictions with no way of solving the problem is pointless.
AG2dayAG t1_j12vcrl wrote
I actually hope the sea does rise 50 feet I have a few properties that would become ocean front
LordBoxington t1_j12w4oq wrote
Hell yea brother! Beach front property complete with flooded infrastructure leeching into the water and refugees who are now homeless, big W for you
chill633 t1_j15m8o4 wrote
You say "some" the article you link below says "a few". That article is very clear they're talking about a small minority of glaciers.
AG2dayAG t1_j15p3va wrote
Some can mean a few I didn't say all or alot or a bunch I said some
redrix12 t1_j13mrv3 wrote
100x means 10,000% means 100 times
PaleAsDeath t1_j12zkt6 wrote
"The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in GGreenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement. "
PoliticalHierarchy77 t1_j12khoh wrote
Yet more research suggesting the effects of climate change has been underestimated. This time the Greenland ice sheets may be melting at 100 times faster than previously modelled.
clampie t1_j12l5w7 wrote
It also suggests bad math. And the increase in underglacier volcanic activity matters a little bit, perhaps.
ChalupaCabre t1_j12o5gk wrote
Documentaries I have seen say the old models didn’t include everything they are seeing today.. there are lots of positive feedback loops created that either couldnt be included in modeling or they just didn’t know to include.
Something like all the methane gas released from melting permafrost, which accelerates climate change, which accelerates climate change…etc.
Old model rendered completely too conservative.
Gemini884 t1_j14j0a7 wrote
Then why climate sensitivity(how much the world is expected to warm if CO2 levels double compared to pre-industrial levels) estimates haven't changed for the past 40 years?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity/
ialsoagree t1_j13q37s wrote
Volcanic activity is not a significant cause of glacial loss in the Antarctic, there are no active volcanoes at all in Greenland.
Human_Anybody7743 t1_j13snbf wrote
The volcanoes are doing everything bad myth comes from a cult started by a Ukranian chiropractor and is funded by a bunch of right wing think tanks.
clampie t1_j14bsif wrote
Underground activity is important. Japanese researchers discovered major plumes under Greenland in 2020.
- A hot plume (Greenland plume) rising from the core-mantle boundary beneath central Greenland is discovered.
- The Iceland and Greenland plumes are connected and supplying magmas to Iceland, Jan Mayen, and Svalbard hotspots.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020JB019839
ialsoagree t1_j14ck7i wrote
That plume has existed for millions of years. It's cooling.
In fact, that very research you cited even states that the heat from the plume is feeding the Iceland plume, which is why Iceland has over 100 volcanoes, and over a third of them are active volcanoes (have erupted in the part 50,000 years). Greenland has no active volcanoes at all.
Volcanic activity and heat plumes function over geological time scales. That plume under Greenland was hotter when the ice formed than it is today.
clampie t1_j14f6sj wrote
We just learned about it. And it creates hot spots. lol
ialsoagree t1_j14ff2b wrote
We've known that there was a hot spot under Greenland for a very long time. We didn't know that it was still active, which is what the research you're citing confirms.
clampie t1_j14fm7m wrote
No, we didn't know.
If it's hot enough to melt rocks, it's hot enough to melt ice.
The researchers didn't show up and discover nothing.
ialsoagree t1_j14i9ci wrote
If we didn't know, how did the page I linked to, published before your paper, talk about a hot spot in Greenland?
[deleted] t1_j13u8u6 wrote
Yea and which estimates lol, saw plenty in the 90s that show Miami and SF fully underwater by 2020- it’s certainly not happening 100x faster than THOSE estimates…
ExternaJudgment t1_j144ik4 wrote
Those movies happen when you take the crazy environmentalist people seriously.
[deleted] t1_j13ny8q wrote
[deleted]
MaximillionVonBarge t1_j16q9ic wrote
I can’t believe this is the top comment. Really? How many people think climate estimates aren’t extremely conservative? As most studies are they’re done to limit risk. Wake up. Our science needs our willingness to understand it.
piei_lighioana t1_j194k1t wrote
Two fold issue:
- extremely conservative
- cascading effects.
So... yes and no, somehow in the same box.
TLDR: we're frakked
seanx40 t1_j12y7x5 wrote
So beachfront property West Virginia and Central PA are investments of the future?
Reali5t t1_j14dhl0 wrote
Politicians pushing global warming certainly think so. They keep on buying.
ExternaJudgment t1_j144npe wrote
Beachfront in the rockies
strangeattractors OP t1_j127y9o wrote
Greenland's glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords.
The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in GGreenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement.
"For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland's vertical glacier fronts," lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. "But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland's vertical glacier fronts."
cheezyboi1234 t1_j13whjq wrote
Do note that the ice sheet and these glaciers are different. Yes, tide water glaciers are melting much faster than expected, but they represent a small portion of all the ice in Greenland compared to the ice sheet that is not tidewater. Source: I’m a glaciology student in university
Melodic-Lecture565 t1_j16wfxa wrote
The friction of the melt water trickling down from glacial melt lakes causes heat and further melt too, this also has been noticed just recently.
Gopokes91 t1_j12achj wrote
What a shocker that things are happening faster than expected, it’s almost like we’ve passed multiple tipping points and can only go down from here on out. Time to make every day a blessing because eventually things are gonna get worse and worse.
xXSpaceturdXx t1_j12xrcy wrote
The rich people are already planning their exit strategy. I think they’re going to be sadly mistaken though. Once we go down they go down too eventually. But you’re right that first dominoes been knocked over and it’s only going to get worse from here. I probably won’t be around for the worst of it but it just sucks that we all have to pay for a handful of greedy people.
dramaking37 t1_j146mhm wrote
I don't think they've thought through how desperate people will be and that the individuals responsible would be a target for those people.
supercilveks t1_j15iu05 wrote
Honestly big doubt, trough out history there have always been lots and lots of poor and desperate people around the world, they ain’t doing shit nor they matter to anyone.
Rich people have governments working for them with a well paid and equipped military.
Something changing in this dynamic is basically impossible. It has been there forever and will be.
CintiaCurry t1_j155dm6 wrote
Small price to pay to have billionaires 🤑🤑🤑at least we have lovely billionaires🙃
JefferyTheQuaxly t1_j13pqid wrote
At this rate Greenland may actually turn green.
clampie t1_j12kzsl wrote
I read recently about the increase in underglacier volcanic activity in the area.
ialsoagree t1_j13p658 wrote
You're probably thinking of Antarctica, but even there volcanic activity is having very little impact.
There are no active volcanoes in Greenland, and no underwater volcanoes for at least the past few million years.
There was a hot spot under Greenland, but that was millions of years ago (EDIT: there may in fact still be a hot spot that is cooling, regardless, a hot spot that's existed for millions of years can't explain why ice is melting now) and it has since moved to Iceland:
[deleted] t1_j12l6l3 wrote
[removed]
BlergFurdison t1_j15fqxm wrote
For those who don't know, scientific estimates - especially those that are high profile, such as, you know, predicting the demise of earth's climate and ecosystems - are conservative by nature. Scientists know complicated models are very difficult to predict accurately in terms of magnitude and timeline. So rather than predicting maximum severity outcome in the near future, they will predict minimum consequences by maximum year. What they predict will - in terms of climate - will be more severe at an earlier year.
In other words, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Greenland is melting faster than predicted. Everything is happening faster than predicted.
Wipperwill1 t1_j13kmm0 wrote
Sorry I'm not going to be around when the ecosphere collapses. Our great grandkids are in for a wild ride.
strangeattractors OP t1_j13maxy wrote
“In August 2022, China faced a crippling heat wave that disrupted factories and threatened crop yields — the worst since 1961. Global manufacturers, including Volkswagen and Toyota, were among the companies that suspended operations because of power shortfalls. And some drought-stricken parts of the country are still engulfed by the scorching heat.”
Drought also left the Mississippi River so low near Memphis in the fall that barges couldn’t get through without additional dredging and upstream water releases. That snarled grain shipping during the critical harvest period. Colorado River officials discussed even tighter water use restrictions as water levels neared dangerously low levels in the major reservoirs.
In Europe, heat waves set record temperatures in Britain and other parts of the continent, leading to severe droughts, low river flow to the River Rhine threatened 30% of shipping, and wildfires in many parts of the continent.
This is affecting crops all over the world, and there is a threshold at which the Colorado river won’t have enough water to supply California, where most of America’s crops are grown, as well as other states:
So yea, it is happening in our lifetime.
Gopokes91 t1_j14d4vh wrote
Time bust out the old 12 gauge then.
[deleted] t1_j16ibw8 wrote
[deleted]
Wipperwill1 t1_j16f55p wrote
Not enough people, and certainly not the 1%, care enough about this to actually do anything about it. The 1% are in charge. They own the politicians if they aren't those people already.
Gemini884 t1_j14jdnj wrote
Read ipcc report on impacts and read what climate scientists say instead of speculating.
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/RARohde/status/1589582760079159296#m
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632#m
https://nitter.42l.fr/ClimateAdam/status/1553757380827140097
https://nitter.42l.fr/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1477784375060279299#m
https://nitter.42l.fr/JacquelynGill/status/1553503548331249664#m
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520#m
https://nitter.42l.fr/JacquelynGill/status/1513918579657232388#m
https://nitter.42l.fr/waiterich/status/1477716206907965440#m
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton/
Wipperwill1 t1_j16e08u wrote
Taking 3 examples : The disappearing Amazon Rainforest, retreating glaciers, and the great barrier reef dying off. Suppose all these things are either a coincidence or inconsequential? This is not mentioning the many mass extinctions taking place, rising sea level, or average global temperature rising.
Again, none of this matters to me except academically . I wont be around when the effects really start hurting humanity. I feel a little sad that this is happening but I expect it from humanity. We are much better at reacting to the present than planning for the future.
Gemini884 t1_j17cbxh wrote
Where did I say or link anything that said that these are inconsequential? Do you know what nuance is?
Besides, effects are already hurting humanity.
Minimum-Breadfruit17 t1_j14acam wrote
I think we passed the point of no return decades ago.
30ftandayear t1_j16g9kv wrote
There isn't really a "point of no return" though. Everything regarding climate change is a matter of degree. Each incremental increase in GHGs means an increase in global temps and that will translate into incrementally more damaging climate results.
That is why it is important to continue working and to do everything that we can to do better and minimize the cumulative effects.
Trumpswells t1_j14t2m3 wrote
IMO, Scientific climate change metrics have been unduly optimistic and overly conservative. Maybe as the rate of destruction gathers momentum, it is simply unfathomable ?
yinyanghapa t1_j158glp wrote
So humanity is just going to let a small group of bullies destroy it?
Ixneigh t1_j142ut2 wrote
In S Florida sea levels have risen at least 6 inches from the early 80’s to now.
Murican_Infidel t1_j15h85i wrote
If all of Greenland's glaciers melt, how much would the sea level rise by?
[deleted] t1_j16glvt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j16gpvp wrote
[deleted]
30ftandayear t1_j16h7ip wrote
About 23 feet.
Quote: " For example, if the Greenland ice sheet were to completely melt and the meltwater were to completely flow into the ocean, then global sea level would rise by about seven meters (23 feet)"
A recent study has shown that the existing warming (if we stopped producing GHGs today) would result in about a foot of sea level rise, but that is only about 3% of the total ice mass in greenland.
Neko_Shogun t1_j15hq9e wrote
¿Picked a bad time to start drinking less, didn´t I?
[deleted] t1_j129yto wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_j12bzra wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/strangeattractors:
Greenland's glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords.
The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in GGreenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement.
"For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland's vertical glacier fronts," lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. "But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland's vertical glacier fronts."
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zr8n6f/greenlands_glaciers_are_melting_100_times_faster/j127y9o/
[deleted] t1_j12cz4c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j12fg0o wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j12m71d wrote
[removed]
hagravenicepick t1_j12t8kn wrote
Good, those polar bears need to go before destroying everything
[deleted] t1_j133m1v wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j13b5au wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1457p7 wrote
[removed]
BSG66 t1_j14c3tt wrote
This is awesome! Wonder if we hairless monkeys will even care?
[deleted] t1_j14ia8d wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j156c1b wrote
[removed]
SnooDoubts5781 t1_j159yjy wrote
Dont move to Florida. Kidding you can go.ware a high spf, so hot.
Dr-gizmo t1_j15oac4 wrote
The Planet will survive. Now as for Humans that remains to be seen.
[deleted] t1_j15plis wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j165pv7 wrote
[removed]
christianCowan t1_j16a6c4 wrote
Is it just me or can’t we send some water to space just pull a tube and space is a vacuum and will syphon it on up bing bang boom
snklkjnqqe t1_j16ggzk wrote
Yes, it’s just you.
[deleted] t1_j16c97b wrote
[removed]
Chalkarts t1_j16j87t wrote
*Snickersnort*
It's going to be awesome when the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation collapses.
Humans are screwed lol.
SammyGReddit t1_j16t923 wrote
We’re just getting started will have that up to 1000 times faster before you know it. If there’s one thing we’re good at its destruction.
[deleted] t1_j177ew6 wrote
[removed]
earsplitingloud t1_j177kag wrote
Greenland was named that for a good reason. It was green in the past.
fungussa t1_j17j83v wrote
No, silly.
Greenland was named by the Norse explorer Erik the Red in the 10th century. At the time, Erik had been exiled from Iceland and was seeking a new place to settle. He came across the island of Greenland, which was largely covered in ice and snow, and decided to name it Greenland in an attempt to attract settlers to the area. Despite the cold and inhospitable climate, Erik's marketing strategy worked and he was eventually able to establish a settlement on the island.
The name "Greenland" is somewhat of a misnomer, as the island is largely covered in ice and snow, and there is very little vegetation. However, the name likely reflects the fact that some parts of the island, particularly along the coast, are more green and fertile than others. The name "Greenland" may also have been chosen to distinguish the island from nearby Iceland, which has a more temperate climate and is more green and lush.
RonPMexico t1_j1565f3 wrote
We should definitely upend the global economy because these scientists say so. Look how close they were.
Artistic-Time-3034 t1_j158hde wrote
And the people there are happy, it will help open up there economy and lives. Just ask them.
Unusual-Diver-8335 t1_j163cc1 wrote
Climate scientists: "people, you need to listen to our predictions of what life is going to be by 2100"
Also climate scientists: "we have been off by 100 times"
norbertus t1_j148v65 wrote
Good, we're making progress. The age-old dream of a year-round Northwest Passage is within reach. This will pay dividends for international trade far into the future.
30ftandayear t1_j16ghwi wrote
One very minor benefit amongst a horde of detrimental effects.
You really did the math on that.
norbertus t1_j16q0w2 wrote
> You really did the math on that.
I make weird websites for fun. One of the oldest that is still online is for The National Rifle Association Christian Bible Choir, most of which I wrote as a teenager in the late 90's:
http://choir.faithweb.com/turner_robertson.html
Anyway, ahead of Biden's election, I began collecting notes for a satirical "Cheney-Bush 2020" website -- and got derailed by the pandemic. I didn't have internet at home until I needed it for work (somewhat after the Lockdowns), and when I couldn't go out to get online, well, no new website...
The unrealized project was premised on the idea that after 12 years of amateur rule (between Obama and Trump), America needs a seasoned ruler like Dick Cheney.
Because Dick Cheney has more experience running the country than anybody else eligible for the office.
So then I started thinking about what kinds of talking points might go along with a Cheney-Bush platform, and the "drill, baby, drill" crowd suggested a theme: "Global Warming is Cool."
Among the favorable, pro-business aspects of progress in global warming was a year-round Northwest Passage...
[deleted] t1_j14oj54 wrote
[deleted]
MaybeACoder007 t1_j12azp8 wrote
It’s sad. We are overpopulated, undereducated, and harming other species.
If we don’t reduce the population significantly then we won’t have a population at all.
ILikeNeurons t1_j12hwdq wrote
Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a cost-effective and ethical way to reduce environmental destruction and minimize population growth, and 45% of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended. Of those, 58% will result in birth. Comprehensive sex education would go a long way, too, and many states do not include it in their curricula, even though comprehensive sex education has strong bipartisan support among likely American voters. Many women at high risk of unintended pregnancy are unaware of long-acting reversible contraceptive options, and many men don't know how to use a condom properly, which does actually make a huge difference. Besides that, it could help to ensure everyone has access to effective contraception, so consider advocating policies that improve accessibility of long-acting reversible contraceptives and help get the word out that it is ethical to give young, single, childless women surgical sterilization if that is what they want.
As for the rest of the world, it would help to donate to girls' education. It might also (perhaps counter-intuitively) help to improve childhood mortality by, say, donating to the Against Malaria Foundation.
All that said, population is not the most significant cause of climate change -- it's the market failure. That's why the single most impactful climate mitigation policy is a price on carbon, and the most impact you as an individual can have is to volunteer to create the political will to get it passed.
And returning the revenue from a carbon tax as an equitable dividend would help a little bit with inequality, while creating jobs and growing the economy.
Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest, and the IPCC makes clear carbon pricing is necessary.
Policy changes absolutely dwarf the magnitude of the impact of having one less child.
Surur t1_j139f4h wrote
So since we are not going to change policy having no children is the most impactful thing an environmentalist can do, right?
One environmentalist not having 2 children is the same as 60 people not driving? If environmentalists made up 5% of the population and none of them had any children it would be the same impact as if everyone stopped driving.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
ILikeNeurons t1_j13ekyj wrote
DeadWing651 t1_j12fzu7 wrote
How do you significantly decrease the population without committing mass genocides and other evils?
MaybeACoder007 t1_j12gt14 wrote
I mean you can’t really reduce the current population through Euthanasia, women’s and LGBTQ rights… but you decrease the following generations significantly.
historycat95 t1_j12czmr wrote
Ok, Thanos.
What is the "bright line" that defines overpopulation? Capitalism creates a false sense of overpopulation, when the real issue is that resources are not adequately distributed because it's not profitable.
If trillions of dollars weren't currently being used as a dragon's hoard we could easily live on this planet with enough for all and little impact on the environment.
clampie t1_j12l9sv wrote
Capitalism has produced that dragon's hoard if you look at the path of development from a thousand years to today, especially from the industrial age to now.
NordicQualia t1_j12dfzb wrote
Uhm... what? Climate change won't wipe out humanity, no matter how bad it gets, but hundreds of millions of people are at risk of suffering a lot from it, particularly in impoverished nations due to drought causing deadly heat waves, food, and water shortages etc. but according to you that is good because then we have reduced the population?
Overconsumption is the problem, not overpopulation. As long as unrestricted capitalism reigns supreme this won't end.
AG2dayAG t1_j12ex8l wrote
Ww3 is coming that'll get the population down. Add another pandemic and the plan is in place
ladybugsarecoolbro t1_j12jj6e wrote
I wish they’d just legalize euthanasia so I could opt out. Save us all some trouble.
AG2dayAG t1_j12jqfj wrote
What are going to do if you take yourself out arrest you?
[deleted] t1_j12ebm2 wrote
I'm really glad that I chose to retire at 35 rather than 65. And I am meeting more and more people feeling this way than ever before. But could just be confirmation bias, with my current lifestyle and all.
[deleted] t1_j12m6kh wrote
[removed]
strangeattractors OP t1_j12p6br wrote
Yes sure but how many of them displaced millions of people and disrupted major economies?
johannthegoatman t1_j12tneo wrote
Cool, only 10 million years to recover! No problems here. Why bother with biodiversity when you can just grow gmo soy as far as the eye can see
WalterWoodiaz t1_j129fv7 wrote
How conservative was the old model? 100 times faster doesn’t seem right if the old model was accurate for Antarctica. Is there any way I can see the source of this study?