• Atlantic Circulation Weaker Than In Last Thousand Years
    28 replies, posted
[quote][B]A sweeping ocean conveyor system that ushers warm tropical waters into the North Atlantic appears to have partly recovered from a near-collapse around the time that the Beatles were breaking up, but the system remains weaker than it had been since before humans figured out how to write modern music on a page.[/B] Powerful Atlantic Ocean currents fuel Gulf streams, affect sea levels, warm cities in continental Europe and North America, and bring nutrients up from ocean depths that help sustain marine ecosystems and fisheries. But an avalanche of cold water from the melting Greenland ice sheet appears to be slowing the ocean circulation to levels not experienced in more than 1,000 years.[/quote] [quote]If the climate relationships identified by the researchers, led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, hold true, growing melt rates in Greenland “might lead to further weakening of the AMOC within a decade or two, and possibly even more permanent shutdown” of key components of it, the scientists warn in their paper. The findings of the research were “dramatic,” but consistent with projections from computer climate models, Stephen Griffies, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate and ocean modeler, said. Griffies wasn’t involved with the study. He contributed to recent research linking abrupt AMOC changes with a historically unprecedented five-inch spike in sea levels along Northeast U.S. coastlines in 2009 and 2010. Other researchers have linked that same AMOC slowdown of five years ago with harsh winters in Europe and with a spike in hurricane activity. [I]“It’s inevitable, from my perspective, that we will start to see more and more evidence for the slowdown of the circulation,” Griffies said. “If the overturning circulation slows down further, these extreme sea-level events on the East Coast will become more frequent.”[/I][/quote] [quote]The precise consequences of an ongoing AMOC slowdown are hard to predict, according to Mann, but he warned that it could reduce global food security by withholding deepsea nutrients from fisheries and food chains that flourish in shallower Atlantic Ocean depths. [I]“The most productive region, in terms of availability of nutrients, is the high latitudes of the North Atlantic,”[/I] Mann said. [I][B]“If we lose that, that’s a fundamental threat to our ability to continue to fish.”[/B][/I] Without the AMOC to carry heat away from the tropics and redistribute it, Mann said parts of the Northern Hemisphere could become cooler. But he also said hurricanes, Nor’easters and other storms could become more common, providing the heat with an alternative pathway along which it can travel. [I]“If you shut down this mode of ocean circulation, you’re denying the climate system one of its modes of heat transport,” Mann said. “if you deny it one mode of transport, it’s often the case that you will see other modes of transport increase.”[/I][/quote] [url]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-jamming-critical-heat-conveyor-18810[/url] Uninformed people often make the mistake of assuming climate change and global warming are the same. The reality is global warming is a climate change event, and there are many other events that are overlooked by the mainstream public and media. We don't think about everything else that we are changing. We are dooming ourselves. A collapse in the thermohaline [I]will[/I] cause a mass extinction event.
Seems like the planet's heartbeat is stopping.
Honestly, at this point we're gonna have to start geoengineering, I mean do we seriously have a choice any more?
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47382469]Honestly, at this point we're gonna have to start geoengineering, I mean do we seriously have a choice any more?[/QUOTE] Self-contained, self-sustaining super structures would be more feasible.
Well, that's terrifying
[QUOTE=Bradyns;47382476]Self-contained, self-sustaining super structures would be more feasible.[/QUOTE] Yeah dude, we've already done some massive damage and frankly I'd rather avert the storm than weather it.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;47382476]Self-contained, self-sustaining super structures would be more feasible.[/QUOTE] The point where mitigation would solve the problem has long since passed. We need to be more proactive than super structures. We need to start actively reversing the changes we've made....[i]somehow[/i]...or we're gonna see some crazy shit.
Is this the one where we have to nuke the core?
[QUOTE=Bradyns;47382476]Self-contained, self-sustaining super structures would be more feasible.[/QUOTE] Geoengineering is like putting a band-aid on a dam.
Shit man, when that metaphorical dyke breaks, fish won't exactly be the dish of the day in this corner of the world. (well, we'd have to import fish from further south at least) Unless we go with the "superstructure" way of dealing with it.
This is the same system that generally keeps the UK from becoming a frozen wasteland, right? Sucks to be you guys. We should have done something 20 years ago...too late now.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47382850]... We should have done something 20 years ago...too late now.[/QUOTE] That's the main problem though, the "general masses" won't give a damn until things are noticeably changing, but by the time that happens there won't be anything we can do about it.
Didn't a similar occurrence happen during the Ice Age?
[QUOTE=Hick2;47382731]Is this the one where we have to nuke the core?[/QUOTE] Nono, this is the one where New York is going to freeze over and we get the southern part of the US to run for the Mexican border. But that's supposed to be Antarctica breaking up, not Greenland.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47382469]Honestly, at this point we're gonna have to start geoengineering, I mean do we seriously have a choice any more?[/QUOTE] stopping to eat so much meat would be a good start
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47382739]Geoengineering is like putting a band-aid on a dam.[/QUOTE] No geoengineering is like tossing a mysterious liquid onto a fire, it could put it out...or it could be even more flammable We honestly do not know enough to even begin large scale geoengineering projects, reducing our overall impact and letting natural processes return to an equilibria is the only thing we can do that is garenteed to not backfire
[QUOTE=Killuah;47383744]stopping to eat so much meat would be a good start[/QUOTE] Way ahead of you, I stop to eat so much meat all the time!
[QUOTE=Sableye;47384068]No geoengineering is like tossing a mysterious liquid onto a fire, it could put it out...or it could be even more flammable We honestly do not know enough to even begin large scale geoengineering projects, reducing our overall impact and letting natural processes return to an equilibria is the only thing we can do that is garenteed to not backfire[/QUOTE] I'm sure OvB can tell us about that smashing experiment with the iron added to the water.
[QUOTE=TestECull;47382499]The point where mitigation would solve the problem has long since passed. We need to be more proactive than super structures. We need to start actively reversing the changes we've made....[i]somehow[/i]...or we're gonna see some crazy shit.[/QUOTE] Mitigation is the only feasible option. You want to build compounds that actively improve the climate? Okay, you'l need hundreds or thousands to even make a dent. You need the cement for building all that shit, costing energy and resources to make, along with all other building materials. All that shit needs to be transported to the building sites, burning fossil fuels to get it there. By the time we're done with that, we've pretty much killed the planet outright. Yaaaaaay
[QUOTE=Killuah;47383744]stopping to eat so much meat would be a good start[/QUOTE] Or we could just start pumping money into removing CO2 from the atmosphere and start lab growing meat but everyones a bitch so neither of those will ever happen. C'est la vie. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=judgeofdeath;47384797]Mitigation is the only feasible option. You want to build compounds that actively improve the climate? Okay, you'l need hundreds or thousands to even make a dent. You need the cement for building all that shit, costing energy and resources to make, along with all other building materials. All that shit needs to be transported to the building sites, burning fossil fuels to get it there. By the time we're done with that, we've pretty much killed the planet outright. Yaaaaaay[/QUOTE] But no, to literally all of that. We can build scrubbers that suck in air from the atmosphere and scrub the CO2 from it. Secondly a lot of countries have some stake in renewable energy and solar powers costs are plummeting so we'll be using that a lot soon. On top of that there's nuclear power plants which we absofuckinglutely should be building, especially considering the newer reactor designs can be fueled up with nuclear waste, meaning we could run through our current supplies of useless nuclear material in all the burial sites and we wouldn't need to dig up fuel for something like 300 years. Anyone who says there's nothing we can do, or that it'll make them worse is a coward, we [i]can[/i] fix this, and if you care about our species in the slightest then we need to do this otherwise it's our kids and grandkids on the line, never mind the fact that we ourselves will have to start dealing with major impacts from climate change.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47385025]Or we could just start pumping money into removing CO2 from the atmosphere and start lab growing meat but everyones a bitch so neither of those will ever happen. [/QUOTE] Planting more trees would be a start to making that happen.
Let's plant shitloads of hemp, not only does it save trees, it can be produced in massive quantities (which would make it total shit to smoke), and then harvested and used for paper and other wood products, this would greatly reduce the cutting of trees, and also replace a fair deal of CO2 in the atmosphere. It can also be grown to maturity in a short ass time so they can be up and running in no time.
Large scale aquaponics, nuclear, and solar power.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47385025]Or we could just start pumping money into removing CO2 from the atmosphere and start lab growing meat but everyones a bitch so neither of those will ever happen. C'est la vie. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] But no, to literally all of that. We can build scrubbers that suck in air from the atmosphere and scrub the CO2 from it. Secondly a lot of countries have some stake in renewable energy and solar powers costs are plummeting so we'll be using that a lot soon. On top of that there's nuclear power plants which we absofuckinglutely should be building, especially considering the newer reactor designs can be fueled up with nuclear waste, meaning we could run through our current supplies of useless nuclear material in all the burial sites and we wouldn't need to dig up fuel for something like 300 years. Anyone who says there's nothing we can do, or that it'll make them worse is a coward, we [i]can[/i] fix this, and if you care about our species in the slightest then we need to do this otherwise it's our kids and grandkids on the line, never mind the fact that we ourselves will have to start dealing with major impacts from climate change.[/QUOTE] I'm not criticizing building more nuclear power plants or solar power or whatever. It's just that actively removing CO2 is probably more counterproductive than anything. Want to remove CO2? Use flora, preserve the oceans and lower CO2 output. Don't go around plopping scrubbers everywhere. Shit needs maintenance, power and chemicals to keep running.
[QUOTE=TheCreeper;47385223]Planting more trees would be a start to making that happen.[/QUOTE] No it's not, trees take forever to grow and when they die they release their carbon again, we don't have time for sorta okay measures any more, this is genuine existential risk here, trees won't cut it. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=judgeofdeath;47385273]I'm not criticizing building more nuclear power plants or solar power or whatever. It's just that actively removing CO2 is probably more counterproductive than anything. Want to remove CO2? Use flora, preserve the oceans and lower CO2 output. Don't go around plopping scrubbers everywhere. Shit needs maintenance, power and chemicals to keep running.[/QUOTE] Yeah they need maintainence, good thing we have over 7 billion people on Earth that could be trained to maintain them, power is such a non issue considering we can set up renewables to power the thing and chemicals are also a non-issue since chemicals are literally everywhere. Seriously how is removing CO2 from the atmosphere counterproductive in any way whatsoever when it's currently acidifying our oceans and contributing to the climate change directly? [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Megadave;47385245]Let's plant shitloads of hemp, not only does it save trees, it can be produced in massive quantities (which would make it total shit to smoke), and then harvested and used for paper and other wood products, this would greatly reduce the cutting of trees, and also replace a fair deal of CO2 in the atmosphere. It can also be grown to maturity in a short ass time so they can be up and running in no time.[/QUOTE] This, this is the shit we need to be doing, we also need to stop our forests and rainforest from fragmenting and breaking down. This is all shit that is well within our technological grasp right now but there's no popular drive to get to it. Honestly if I won the lottery pretty much every penny would be spent getting us off coal as fast as possible and onto local renewable power generation. Or we should just slam funding into effective wireless energy transfer so we can set up satellites to beam solar power back down to earth.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47385284]No it's not, trees take forever to grow and when they die they release their carbon again, we don't have time for sorta okay measures any more, this is genuine existential risk here, trees won't cut it. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] Yeah they need maintainence, good thing we have over 7 billion people on Earth that could be trained to maintain them, power is such a non issue considering we can set up renewables to power the thing and chemicals are also a non-issue since chemicals are literally everywhere. Seriously how is removing CO2 from the atmosphere counterproductive in any way whatsoever when it's currently acidifying our oceans and contributing to the climate change directly?[/QUOTE] Power is a huge issue, and will always be a huge issue. You can't use nuclear power everywhere, such as unstable regions (parts of Africa, parts of South America). Solar power only gets you energy during the day, there's no efficient way of storing energy. Producing the right chemicals releases all kinds of pollutants (aside from, again, costing energy). Another fun thing, most of the stuff used in the scrubbers is pretty toxic, so you'll need to deal with that. By the way, of those 7 billion people on Earth you can realistically only use a fraction, due the need for education. Removing the CO2 from the atmosphere using the brute force method you're proposing, might just end up pumping more of the stuff in the air than you actually get out of it. Right now, geoengineering is a pipe dream. Maybe in a decade or two the technology will actually be developed enough for it to be deployed globally.
[QUOTE=judgeofdeath;47385359]Power is a huge issue, and will always be a huge issue. You can't use nuclear power everywhere, such as unstable regions (parts of Africa, parts of South America). Solar power only gets you energy during the day, there's no efficient way of storing energy. Producing the right chemicals releases all kinds of pollutants (aside from, again, costing energy). Another fun thing, most of the stuff used in the scrubbers is pretty toxic, so you'll need to deal with that. By the way, of those 7 billion people on Earth you can realistically only use a fraction, due the need for education. Removing the CO2 from the atmosphere using the brute force method you're proposing, might just end up pumping more of the stuff in the air than you actually get out of it. Right now, geoengineering is a pipe dream. Maybe in a decade or two the technology will actually be developed enough for it to be deployed globally.[/QUOTE] Actually we can force algal blooms which absorb sizable amounts of CO2, skim that shit from the oceans and you can stop it from being released and hell even make use of the algae, worrying about neurotoxins being produced shouldn't be a problem if it's done correctly considering harmful algae make up about 2% of all known species. We absolutely have the capabilities right now to work against the damage we've done. In terms of power we have methods of storing solar water, pumped water storage which is incredibly efficient as far as energy storage goes as well as being about a decade away from worthwhile supercapacitors. We deal with lots of toxic materials, they don't really matter as long as we manage them well and don't just start dumping them. The 7 billion people part obviously requires education, that's why I said you train them?
Given the right condition, and by using carbon-free sources of energy, we could convert CO2 into pure carbon and oxygen. We can then turn the carbon into activated charcoal, to capture more CO2, and repeat. When we have enough activated charcoal, we can pump the CO2 through quick lime, to form limestone, a useful building material.
[QUOTE]This would particularly affect areas such as the British Isles, France and the Nordic countries, which are warmed by the North Atlantic drift.[/QUOTE] europe is fucked it seems.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.