Antarctic sea-ice at 'mind-blowing' low alarms experts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66724246

by mindracer • 3 years ago

66 92 3 years ago

bbc.co.uk

solardev4• 3 years ago

At some point, we should probably stop calling it climate change and just start calling it climate abandonment. We're all so desensitized now that the more stories come out, the less people care... =/

throw_pm233• 3 years ago

There is a slight danger though. Suppose there is a baseline climate change, Earth is getting gradually warmer on average.

Then there is some yearly variation, say, this year above average by 3 degrees, 5 years later below average by 3 degrees.

If you call the yearly variation climate change, then five years later your opponents will say "you see, it was a hoax".

It is a bit like presidents taking credit for the stock market going up. Then when it inevitably goes down, it makes them look bad.

defrost2• 3 years ago

Sure - save for the geophysical fact that we're not seeing just variation .. underlying the usual flux we are seeing a steady increase in heat energy trapped in the near sea | land layer.

This is an inevitable physical consequence of human activity steadily increasing the insulating properties of the atmosphere in a demonstrable and measurable way.

Sure, right now we're going up faster than our new normal rate of increase due to ENSO flux, and in a few years we'll see our rate of increase drop below the current rate as ENSO swings back (fingers crossed) .. but overall on a ten year rolling average we're seeing steady increases in average global temp. as a direct result of human activity (hence AGW) and it'll stay that way until we reduce the insulation properties of the atmosphere.

myshpa9• 3 years ago

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.ht...

https://skepticalscience.com/internal-variability.htm

PradeetPatel2• 3 years ago

That is not true, I think most people care dearly and are doing everything to slow down climate change, this includes participating in recycling and watching our own carbon footprints.

Ultimately its up to us to convince the policymakers and senior leadership in corporations to make the correct decision.

myshpa9• 3 years ago

participating in recycling and watching our own carbon footprints

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...

Ultimately its up to us to convince the policymakers and senior leadership in corporations to make the correct decision

Imagine a nation with the highest consumption of meat, where individual choices and habits have long shaped dietary preferences. In such a scenario, without widespread adoption of plant-based diets and a shift in societal norms driven by individuals, convincing policymakers and senior leadership in corporations to regulate and promote sustainable diets becomes an uphill battle.

It's through our own choices and advocacy that we can lay the foundation for systemic change and address the pressing issue of climate change effectively.

netsharc• 3 years ago

Huh, "most people"? Maybe in your community, but most of the planet probably don't care. And even if they do those things, only to a degree of inconvenience that they tolerate.. separating plastic/metal/etc? Easy. Missing out on European vacations? "But it's been my life dream to see Italy! It'll only be once in my lifetime!".

And the little plastic recycling they do has the effect of making them think "I'm helping!", when in reality it moves the needle very little...

mg• 3 years ago

Could we breed trees which capture more CO2?

We increased crop yields multifold already:

https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

So maybe we can do the same to carbon yield?

Are trees the plants which capture most CO2 per hectare?

montalbano• 3 years ago

Lots of people have been working on this for a long time. But it's a very hard problem.

See for example

+ https://www.salk.edu/harnessing-plants-initiative/

+ https://www.slcu.cam.ac.uk/news/wood-modification-boosts-bio...

+ https://news.mongabay.com/2023/07/genetically-engineered-tre...

+ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/science/genetically-modif...

Are trees the plants which capture most CO2 per hectare?

I'm struggling to find exact numbers per hectare, and it's only one of several important metrics (e.g. speed of capture, longevity, ecosystem effects).

From my readings I believe a combined strategy of species-diverse reforestation and algae breeding (perhaps GM, though I don't know enough) would be optimal.

Edit: as noted by others below, wetlands preservation and extension would also be great.

edhelas2• 3 years ago

STOP thinking that planting trees will solve the problem.

We need to plan _forests_ not trees. Trees are not tools to fix our CO2 problem, we need to restore ecosystems and think how we can regrow forests and not monocultures of a "super CO2 capture tree".

When we will start to understand that one problem != one solution, especially when it comes to things as intricate and complex than ecosystems we will start to understand the root of our issues properly.

myshpa9• 3 years ago

Agree completely.

Just a note that monoculture plantations don't function the same way as vast, diverse, multi-level primeval forests, with regards to a water cycle and biodiversity.

Temporary_313372• 3 years ago

Also thinking about only the CO2 is such a narrow thing. We’ve disturbed natural ecosystems in so many ways- bees pollination, animal migration, natural predators and so on.

DoreenMichele• 3 years ago

Wetlands capture a lot more CO2 and we have lost 85 percent of them globally since the 1700s.

myshpa9• 3 years ago

We increased crop yields multifold already

With catastrophic effects.

https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2...

All planetary boundaries mapped out for the first time, six of nine crossed

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu...

Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries

Most of it is because of animal agriculture - it uses 80% of agriculture land and about half of our crops.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...

Could we breed trees which capture more CO2?

We don't have to breed new trees. The ones we have are enough.

We have enough space to capture 2+x more CO2 than we've released into the atmosphere since industrial revolution.

We could switch to plant-based diets and free an area the size of both Americas.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land...

On that land a regular primeval forest, Miyawayki/Amazon/Syntropic style would grow 10x faster than regular monocultures and that would also enable the biodiversity to rebound. We'd get ourselves out of overshoot in no time (given few decades, of course).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4

https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food

The overshoot threatens our civilization with crop failures. The only realistic way out of it is immediate phase-out of fossil fuels and plant-based diets.

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471

foota• 3 years ago

Your two quotes don't follow:

We increased crop yields multifold already

With catastrophic effects.

Most of it is because of animal agriculture.

fsloth3• 3 years ago

I agree with most of what you wrote above. The ludicrous amount of resources used for growing animals for food is totally non-value adding and harmful to the environment as a whole. That said I'm not a vegetarian - my diet is based on industrila logistics - I eat the protein that the supermarket logistics chain provide to our neighbourhood.

"The only realistic way out of it is immediate phase-out of fossil fuels and plant-based diets."

The suggestion for a global plant based diet is not unfeasible. Only thing you need is to convince the elites to change to vegetarianism. One of the large scale "hari seldon" style rules of thumb are that the non-elites will generally imitate the perceived lifestyles of the elites to the best of their abilities. This is not a physics or engineering problem, but a marketing problem and hence not impossible to solve.

I disagree we can immediately phase-out fossil fuels. They are foundational to the whole global industry including agriculture. I agree we should, but this is an engineering problem that has not yet been solved.

Turing_Machine2• 3 years ago

The overshoot threatens our civilization with crop failures. The only realistic way out of it is immediate phase-out of fossil fuels

An "immediate phase-out of fossil fuels" would kill a billion people or more right off the bat. Do you not understand that, or do you simply not care?

https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/images/US...

See how corn yield has increased from around 20 bushels/acre to nearly 180?

That extra 160 bushels of corn per acre is due almost exclusively to fossil fuels and other modern agricultural practices.

That extra 160 bushels is also what feeds a substantial portion of the planet.

The same is true of other crops such as wheat. In the last hundred years or so, the Kansas wheat crop has gone from 12-13 bushels per acre to well over 30 (40 in a good year).

That didn't happen with a peasant poking animal manure into the ground with a digging stick. It happened with tractors, combine harvesters, and petrochemical-derived fertilizers.

mywacaday• 3 years ago

There's part of me thinks just let the worst happen and let it end half of humanity, that way we might learn to live more in harmony with our environment. Currently we're a pox on this planet.

kzrdude• 3 years ago

If we grow our resource use to such a point that we reach a ceiling, then we are exactly like a pox, or any other organism that breeds until its niche is filled.

Those who want to make us live sustainably now or previously are hoping that we can be smarter than that. We're supposed to be a smart species. Can we limit ourselves artificially to preserve a better quality of life?

Easy to be pessimistic about this now(!)

jkhdigital2• 3 years ago

Half of humanity is not going to die from climate change. It is going to die from other people who consider humanity itself to be a pox.

Also, birth rates are in terminal decline pretty much everywhere except Africa so don’t worry, we’ll control our population on our own.

krona• 3 years ago

That might take a while. Humans fare better in hotter climates.

timeon4• 3 years ago

let it end half of humanity

What about other animals?

fsloth3• 3 years ago

"let it end half of humanity"

You do realize that would be mostly the half whose nations had nothing to with this mess in the first place, right? The rich well of nations of northern hemisphere will not suffer dramatic population falls (just the slow, endemic kind from low birth rate).

nobody9999• 3 years ago

There's part of me thinks just let the worst happen and let it end half of humanity

Good idea. Why don't you start with yourself?

FrustratedMonky2• 3 years ago

Pox?

Or an invasive species without a natural predator.

Turing_Machine2• 3 years ago

There's part of me thinks just let the worst happen and let it end half of humanity

You first.

maCDzP• 3 years ago

I believe algae, and speifically Coccolithophores, have played a large part in capturing CO2 in the atmosphere. But I believe the efficiency per volume is low.

gonzo41• 3 years ago

Undewater kelp forests are where we should be aiming. There's a lot of researching happening here atm. Seaweed can grow 40X faster than a tree because it doesn't have to fight as hard against gravity. So growing large biomass in the oceans seems like a great way to sink carbon.

Also closing the loop on plastics.

Rnonymous• 3 years ago

Crop yields have increased by use of fertilizers, modern farming machinery, and chemicals that prevent disease. Yields did NOT substantially increase due to higher photosynthetic rates which is how carbon is fixated.

jiofj• 3 years ago

(They began counting in 1981)

edhelas2• 3 years ago

Do I feel some climatoscepticism, or at least climatodenialism in this message ?

jkhdigital2• 3 years ago

Pathologizing dissent is not going to change anyone’s mind.

pauldenton2• 3 years ago

Comparing criticisms of data, (testing of data being a key part of science) to denying the Holocaust isn't going to win anyone over. We've heard many inaccurate predictions before, an easy one being "2 Weeks to flatten the curve" or "If you get vaccinated you'll have a 98% protection rate and can no longer catch Covid"

unpopular423• 3 years ago

Did we also panic in 2014 that was above average by a similar margin? I just can't remember

timeon4• 3 years ago

Was it similar? The graph in article is showing that it was not.

thulle3• 3 years ago

That little september bump? Compared to what seems to be a 5 month record gap?

unpopular423• 3 years ago

It was record high the whole year.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2023/09/asina_S_iqr_...

neets• 3 years ago

What if earth is normally like one of those water planets in sci-fi where the poles are all water?

solardev4• 3 years ago

The penguins would be pretty bummed

wallhack3• 3 years ago

Vote out any policy maker who impedes the response to climate change.

This is not something we fix as individuals, with feel-good home solutions, recycling, or planting trees. Large industry is destroying our world, on purpose, because of greed.

This only gets fixed through policy and regulation. Vote.

fsloth3• 3 years ago

Given this is a discussion forum with global reach your suggestion on implementing change to global industrial policy via voting may or may not be viable (not everyone gets to vote, and most of the countries lack global impac. US is really unique along with few other countries being able to influence global industry trends).

EForEndeavour• 3 years ago

Good point, but I don't think it changes the validity of encouraging participation in democratic process where possible. Perfect is the enemy of good.

dgan• 3 years ago

You are implying there are candidates who do not impede response to climate change: even the Greens are against nuclear, which in my understanding, is totally unproductive.

They are also still debating "décroissance", that is "de-growth".

I find crazy that no one even mentionned the word "efficiency" as in "we might not need all the resources we consume to produce everything we do today. Let's set a realistic efficiency goals and try to achieve them"

thulle3• 3 years ago

I guess you could see de-growth as efficiency, lower useless production/necessary production for a good life-ratio.

If we just reduced the resources needed to produce todays consumption, why wouldn't the savings just go to producing more of the same stuff? Ie. growth?

wallhack3• 3 years ago

Great point. Finding consensus on a solution is problematic.

I was referring to people who deny that climate change is even real. I would love to get to the stage of debating how to fix things, instead of being stuck in the stage of complete denial.

mbfg• 3 years ago

all politicians are flawed. vote for the least flawed.

nxm• 3 years ago

How do I vote out Chinese and Indian policy makers where bulk of coal power plants are continuing to be built?

NhanH• 3 years ago

China is the #1 builder in all renewable (and nuclear too) by a significant margin

You are going to need to also propose a solution beyond "stay poor" for the country.

PradeetPatel2• 3 years ago

By providing education and awareness, change can only come from within those countries. The citizens of China and India are probably on the same page as you.

belltaco• 3 years ago

Understand the context first instead of believing the simplistic memes pushed by climate change denialists. For example, in India the reason is that there was a shortage of natural gas which became scarce and super expensive because of world events, so they had to build more coal power plants to not have blackouts. Solar is still growing fast, 82% of new capacity in 2022 was solar, and there's a lot more in the pipeline.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/29/solar-82-of-power-capac...

37% of new car sales in China are either full electric or plugin hybrid. 25% are full electric BEVs. The west is far behind.

tzs• 3 years ago

India is emitting massively under their fair share of the world's CO2 emissions under any sane allocation. So the first thing to do is not vote for policy makers who try to deflect from their country emitting way more than its fair share by bringing up India.

RandomLensman• 3 years ago

Large industry keeps a lot if people alive and provides abundance of a sort - nothing wrong with that. Mixing fighting climate change with some redesign of societies and creating the "new human" is an unproductive move, I think.

sunflowerfly• 3 years ago

A big problem is young people do not vote. About half the voters are 50 and over.

survirtual• 3 years ago

Voting will do nothing. Even if you could audit the voting system and prove it wasn't fraudulent, have you met any of your fellow humans on planet Earth? You are a teeny, tiny minority. They will continue to vote to destroy this planet.

You'll have to be more clever on solving this problem. I would suggest against parroting false feel good phrases that will result in absolutely nothing changing, and start thinking outside the box you and many others seem to have found themselves in, if you actually want to see our planet survive.

We are talking about the death of this entire planet being perpetrated by a specific group of people. What sort of solutions did our ancestors come up with for significantly smaller stakes, to simply safeguard things like freedom? When speaking of saving an entire world with the potential to spread life throughout a galaxy, there are few conceivable solutions which cannot be easily morally justified if they result in safeguarding that future.

We are a species with an infinite cosmic destiny. I might suggest we all start acting like it.

solardev4• 3 years ago

Policy won't change unless the two party gridlock does. Even when the Dems take power (like now), nothing really happens. It's just lip service at best.

wallhack3• 3 years ago

I think this false equivalency is damaging.

Republicans are in favor of dismantling and eliminating the EPA and clean energy initiatives, for instance. Democrats aren’t great either, but Republican policies are measurably at least an order of magnitude worse.

koksik202• 3 years ago

more area to spread the suburbs to if not covered by ice

Temporary_313372• 3 years ago

If the ice volume gets too low, even the Futurama style of cooling is going to stop working. https://youtu.be/0SYpUSjSgFg?si=8ovAWC1IGL9Z7JXf

weinzierl2• 3 years ago

If you want to show a trend, give us a diagram that shows a trend. A scatter plot with a trend line would be a start, maybe.

One can equally interpret the diagram from the article as showing a fairly constant level - somewhat varying within a limited range - with 2023 being an outlier. All it tells about is the variance and without at least more year labels there is no way to read anything about the trend from it.

[I'm not saying the article is wrong or right, just that it does a very bad job supporting its thesis.]

penteract• 3 years ago

From the article:

Until 2016 Antarctica's winter sea-ice had actually been growing in size.
"There is a chance that it's a really freak expression of natural variability," [Dr Mallet] says

There isn't an obvious trend. I'm pleased that they aren't trying to hide this and that the article is clear that we don't know everything about Antarctica (I'd imagine it's very hard to get data for annual sea ice maxima before we started measuring them). This isn't supposed to single-handedly convince anyone that climate change is happening, but show a piece of evidence that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent.

frumiousirc• 3 years ago

trend

You can play with the data a bit here:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-i...

Be sure to click the Antarctic button. Arctic (the default) shows 2012 as the lowest record.

For Antarctica, last year was the previous minimum and was 2-sigma from the mean. Additional iso-sigma curves are not shown but I'd guess this year is at least one more sigma off the mean. I progressively activate past years and do not spot an obvious trend. So, last two years have deviated significantly with this year deviating yet more so.

On the other hand, given the number of measurements, we would expect about two measurements to be outside of 2-sigma. If we do not attribute anything to 2022 and 2023 being correlated, then this is just a fluctuation.

On the gripping hand, 2022 and 2023 may be the first two points of an explosive trend.

weinzierl2• 3 years ago

Thanks for pointing to the source data. As much as I would be careful eyeballing a trend I would be with eyeballing the absence of one. I really would love to see a proper analysis of this data, but I am in my phone right now.

Arctic doesn't really matter much in this regard because the arctic ice doesn't influence the sea level, which I think is the main (but not only) point of the article.

singularity2001• 3 years ago

To keep track of the graph (click Antarctic) : http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-i...

ChrisArchitect2• 3 years ago

[dupe]

ChrisArchitect2• 3 years ago

More discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37540768

lsllc• 3 years ago

Dupe:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37540768

ben30• 3 years ago

It’s essential to consider the multifaceted effects of our environmental interventions. For instance, the commendable move in 2020 to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in shipping lanes had an unintended side effect. The decreased emissions meant fewer sulfur dioxide-based clouds in the atmosphere, which previously reflected a significant amount of sunlight and contributed to rain cloud formation. While reducing emissions is a positive change, the absence of these ‘reflective clouds’ might be inadvertently amplifying the heat, especially when combined with the current El Niño. This could partially explain the accelerated ice melt in Antarctica we’re observing just three years after the regulation change. It serves as a reminder that the Earth’s climate system is intricately interconnected, and actions in one area can have cascading effects.

Antarctic sea-ice at 'mind-blowing' low alarms experts

Related Stories