Arctic and Antarctic See Extreme Heat and Historically Low Sea Ice (newscientist.com) 43
Abnormally hot air has hit both of the world's poles at once, while the extent of Arctic sea ice appears to have been historically low this winter. From a report: Temperature records were broken in Antarctica as warm air swept unusually far into the heart of the continent. Concordia station, which is high above sea level and has an annual average temperature of -50C, reached an all-time high of -12.2C on 18 March, beating the -13.7C record set in December 2016. Another research station, Vostok, also saw record high temperatures. "The Antarctic [heat] is really extreme. I haven't seen anything like that. Colleagues haven't seen anything this extreme," says Walt Meier at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. A band of westerly winds around Antarctica usually isolates the continent from other weather systems. But in the past week, an "atmospheric river" of hot air, originating in the mid-latitudes, travelled down from Tasmania and South Australia, breaching those winds to travel far across the ice, says John Turner at the British Antarctic Survey.
Although such events aren't unprecedented, the temperatures this time are very high. Turner says while it is undoubtedly an "extreme event," he thinks the Antarctic heat looks like natural variability rather than climate change. Past research by Turner has found no discernible trend in extreme temperatures in Antarctica, where the hole in the ozone layer appears to have cancelled out the impact of global warming so far. The recent highs won't have any consequences such as impacts on landing strips for scientists stationed on the continent either, says Ted Scambos at the University of Colorado, Boulder, because most have already departed ahead of the Antarctic winter and those remaining are hunkered down with supplies. The record temperatures come shortly after Antarctic sea ice declined to a record low minimum extent, at 1.92 million square kilometres on 25 February. "It was quite a lot lower than anything else in the 40-plus year record," says Scambos.
Although such events aren't unprecedented, the temperatures this time are very high. Turner says while it is undoubtedly an "extreme event," he thinks the Antarctic heat looks like natural variability rather than climate change. Past research by Turner has found no discernible trend in extreme temperatures in Antarctica, where the hole in the ozone layer appears to have cancelled out the impact of global warming so far. The recent highs won't have any consequences such as impacts on landing strips for scientists stationed on the continent either, says Ted Scambos at the University of Colorado, Boulder, because most have already departed ahead of the Antarctic winter and those remaining are hunkered down with supplies. The record temperatures come shortly after Antarctic sea ice declined to a record low minimum extent, at 1.92 million square kilometres on 25 February. "It was quite a lot lower than anything else in the 40-plus year record," says Scambos.
Global warming can't come fast enough (Score:1)
For a single mother [slashdot.org] in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, when it gets warm enough then the electric company can fully disconnect her electricity. They were only providing enough electricity to keep the house warm.
Re: (Score:1)
But but gas prices are high (Score:2)
One of the biggest issues in the mind of the average conservative right now is the high fuel prices and why isn't the Keystone pipeline operational already? It is like the Titanic is sinking and they are enraged because the coffee creamer just ran out.
Okay then. (Score:2)
So, to be clear, you're willing to pay the inevitable personal price to right the ship... and to pay it right now.
There's not a lot of wiggle room. If it's really to be meaningfully addressed, production of gasoline vehicles will have to stop. Existing vehicles will need to have an end-of-life defined, past which repairs are no longer permitted. Gasoline will go through the roof - people will wish for the good old days when $5 a gallon was available in the U.S. Single family detached house construction will
Re: (Score:2)
So, to be clear, you're willing to pay the inevitable personal price to right the ship... and to pay it right now.
Yes without question. Take a long look... Why should one (or two) particular generation have the right to consume all the non-renewable fossil fuels and incur the consequences of its production and use? Global warming is just another example of tragedy of the commons at play.
Re: (Score:2)
Our descendants will not look kindly upon us. Even those of us who only failed to stop the worst of us.
If there are any descendants. Looks less and less likely. But that would resolve the Fermi Paradox.
Re: (Score:2)
So, to be clear, you're willing to keep pushing the problem off on your children, because if they have to pay the price instead of you, so much the better.
Re: (Score:2)
I, too, would pay the price, I'm challenging not because I'm against it, but to put the cards on the table.
But I also think it won't be paid. We'll be mitigating. Not avoiding.
Re: (Score:1)
Just remove the Navy protection of oil tankers, and let the market set the price of gasoline then.
About $62.50 / gal in 1993 prices, based on billing the first oilwar against 10 years of fuel worldwide.
Problem cured.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually... I like that a lot.
But then I've got a lake lot with a garden and a fishing rod, and the willingness to hunker down.
Re: Okay then. (Score:2)
"Problem cured."
If the problem is 7 billion people, then yeah, that will help a lot by killing about half of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Might be the dumbest thing on the net today, which, with Republicans chanting, might be quite an achievement.
Re: Okay then. (Score:2)
Allowing the oil prices to fluctuate with the market when most of it is controlled by unstable regimes would cause massive economic instability world wide. There's a direct through-line from good economy to good health and prosperity. If you allow the world economy to collapse through constant unmanageable refugee crises, you will see many, many people die.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Okay then. (Score:2)
Placing subsidies on volatile commodities is common practice for all functioning economies. All governments should look to secure their supply of necessary resources. You know, like the opposite of what private companies like Ford did when they failed to understand the chip supply chain. If that type of shit happens to food or oil, you're done.
Re: (Score:1)
stupid government defined.
Re: (Score:2)
Houses are easy insulated.
Air traffic - world wide - contributes about 2% to CO2 emissions.
Any more misconceptions?
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, and to add a bit more, the oil market is much more complicated than most of us appreciate.
As an example, there was some whining about why the U.S. was buying Russian oil. Most of us realize that all oil is not created equal, the chemical properties differ depending upon where it was drilled. The refineries along the Gulf Coast are geared for using high sulfur oil. The U.S. doesn't produce a lot of high sulfur oil and had been buying it from Venezuela. When that market was closed for the U.S refiners, t
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct. Gulf coast refineries are tooled for heavy crude. They do not want light crudes - their value-add, and the source of their revenues, is in the transformation of heavies into useful products. Trying to give them light products is like trying to stop selling flour to a baker, proposing instead to supply them with bread.
For what it's worth, there are about 200,000 bpd of Canadian crude that flow through the Gulf Coast and out to export that could be directed within the U.S. instead of to India,
Re: (Score:2)
The real question they should be asking but won't because it doesn't fit their narrative, is why aren't U.S. oil producers pumping more oil? We're energy independent, remember?
It couldn't be that these companies are holding back their production to keep prices high, is it? That would be unAmerican.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the biggest issues in the mind of the average conservative right now is the high fuel prices and why isn't the Keystone pipeline operational already? The real question they should be asking but won't because it doesn't fit their narrative, is why aren't U.S. oil producers pumping more oil? We're energy independent, remember? It couldn't be that these companies are holding back their production to keep prices high, is it? That would be unAmerican.
I've seen other fora where yes, this is the exact question they're asking -- why aren't we pumping as fast as we can? They then answer their own question by saying it's Joe Biden's fault. It couldn't possibly be any other reason. Trump (his name be praised) would never have allowed this to happen. Or so they claim...
Re: (Score:2)
They experienced Trump and how he encouraged Saudi Arabia etc to flood the market, as cheap gas equals votes, even though it decimated the American oil fracking.
With a good chance of Trump's return along with cheap OPEC+ oil, investing in production doesn't look promising.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably are. But why would they sell it to Americans at a discount?
Re: But but gas prices are high (Score:2)
Plenty of people ask that. And the answer is that they were burned by the pandemic (remember oil futures at NEGATIVE $20/barrel?!). You can't ramp up production really fast. So unless they expect the Ukraine war to go on for a while, there's a lot of risk of over-production. The U.S. oil surplus is at least partly due to expensive oil. We can't produce as cheaply as most OPEC countries.
Re: (Score:2)
It would also bankrupt a lot of US oil producers. Fracking is not cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as it happens on the free market, that's Ok.
Similar to predictions of "Global Warming", Peak Oil [wikipedia.org] was promised too. Yet, so far, the only obstacles to global oil-extraction have been governmental actions, not anything natural...
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are natural, get a large group of people together and some type of government will result and in a capitalist system, the capitalists will control that government and use it to increase profits.
Re: But but gas prices are high (Score:2)
But at what price does it get you to look at something like a Leaf? A Leaf is approximately $30k and is arguably a $25k vehicle with a $5k electric premium. The average American vehicle uses about 550 gallons of gas per year, or 5,550 gallons for a typical 10 year lifespan. It only takes a $1 rise in gas prices to make that the cheaper option. And that's not even including the reduced maintenance from an electric vehicle.
Gas prices in my neighborhood recently got to $6.20. That's more than enough to make ma
Nothing to see here! (Score:2)
Don't worry, everything is fine folks, just keep humping CO2 into the air as fast as possible in the name of the Holy Economy (hallowed be the Job Creators, peace unto their profits).
Screwed, Blued, (Score:2)
and Tattooed. Waterworld here we come!
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about that sweet grant money, yo. Because if you're looking to get rich, federal research grants are the way to do it! Especially those evil, conniving grad students looking to live high on the hog getting paid maybe $30K/year on research stipends, hot damn! And all you have to do to get in on it is bust your balls/ovaries 70 hours a week writing proposal after proposal. A
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch! Nice burn.
Re: Run! (Score:2)
You jest, but there is a definite bias in funding that leads to many spurious papers being published that fit a particular narrative while making others nearly impossible to get published. No one is getting rich off science, but the scientists that want to feed their families know they need dance the way the master says.
The reproducibility problem in science is a good indicator that MOST of what scientists are engaged with is junk science.