Articles about this reference a research paper, but I cannot find it. Anyone have a link? Also, doesnt this happen from almost anything happening on earth? say a mud slide, or volcano eruption? A sports stadium doing the wave?
So far a large portion of the ice melting is sea ice. Because that was already floating and thus displacing water it doesn't actually impact sea level. That's why people always talk about Greenland and Antarctica, two landmasses with huge amounts of ice on them (often kilometers deep). When their ice melts (and it is melting, just slower) you see notable changes in sea levels. This will also accelerate when there's less sea ice around the land keeping things cool
I firmly believe in climate change and global warming.
I do have a question though. The graph presented starts in 1880 and rises linearly from then, with no correlation to a graph of CO2 levels, which had far more exponential growth between 1880 - 2010s, until recently.
As I understand it, the mini-ice age finished in the 1800s. And started in the 14th century.
So, is this actual evidence? There doesn't seem to be any visible acceleration from what was always happening pre-global warming. And can be blamed on the mini-ice age finishing.
Most worryingly is that page, from scientists, doesn't even address that obvious objection. It briefly mentions sea levels have risen from the 1880s, but doesn't at all address that eyeballing the graph it seems quite obviously linear.
Even more misleading is the graph someone else has linked which starts in the 1990s and doesn't show the rest of the data.
If you try looking at the actual numbers or sketching rough tangent lines, you'll see that your "eyeballing" is misleading you. The graph is not at all linear -- the slope in recent decades is several times steeper than at the beginning of the time interval, as the accompanying caption says.
Perhaps you're looking at the graph on a phone screen, which compresses the scale and de-exaggerates the changes?
It's interesting to see a nearly linear trend as far back as the data goes (1880). Do you know of any sources to see how that trend might've looked going even further back in time?
Well, 1880 is right after the industrial revolution. Unluckily we only started keeping good records after we kicked changes into a higher gear. This page has one graph that goes back further [1] (and a bunch of other interesting graphs).
On geological scales we are at or near a high point [2] after the previous ice age
Have an industrial revolution -> get rich enough to care about science -> realize we should track the environment -> start to take measurements and writing them down.
The only other path that leads to environmental tracking is if some order of monks developed an obscure interest in it in pre-industrial times.
> The global mean water level in the ocean rose by 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015, which was 2.5 times the average rate of 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century.
We can measure tiny increments of time to see really small effects on the Earth; it's a testament to how good a lot of our instruments are really.
What's scary to me is that the carbon content of the very air we breathe has increased by a third since the time when my mother was a child. That's hardly a small thing.
Hm… humans (all mammals, really) react with great distress to high CO2 concentrations in the air. Now, the concentrations at which that reaction can be measured are MUCH higher than the current ones. But it does make me wonder whether we are reacting to them subconsciously anyway. That might help explain the increased incidence of anxiety and depression, among many other things.
More like from 0.02% to 0.04%. But at 0.1% people start complaining about drowsiness and at 0.2% you get worse concentration, loss of focus, increased heart rate, etc. Even if it didn't have such bad effects on the environment we live in we should stop pressing down the accelerator.
I once saw a photo of a pair of lumberjacks posing next to a giant redwood tree they had cut down with a long hand saw that they were able to push/pull together, and it struck me how amazing it was that with a tiny bit of metal and ingenuity, a pair of humans could take on a giant piece of nature (I suppose ironically made mostly of carbon) and topple it. It is really impressive what the right force applied to a system can do to destabilize it.
Yes, and one part in ten thousand of the Earth's atmosphere is a very large volume (or mass). But you should be careful when you say things like "increased by a third" because it could confuse a stupid person, who then has to go and look it up.
Nothing about climate change is particularly "intuitive" - you can't see or smell carbon dioxide, and understanding of physics enough to model the greenhouse effect took humanity quite awhile to achieve (though obviously you can stand in an actual greenhouse to get some idea).
But the Earth is a rather large place and making significant changes (I suppose we can argue over what constitutes significant) to its very atmosphere is a profound thing. We are not the first to do so obviously; the first photosynthesizers left their waste oxygen behind which was rather bad news for a lot of the other life on Earth prior to them. I would have hoped that collectively humans might have more agency than bacteria, but when you look at a chart of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is hard to make that argument.
I did play with CO2 a lot when I was a kid, though. I used to buy the little canisters that serve some purpose or other for home brewing, and hammer nails through the ends so they went off like rockets and skittered all over the yard. There was a lot of visible gas, but maybe the expansion of the CO2 made it cold and so I was seeing condensing water? Also I played with the soda stream a lot, I think CO2 has a distinctive taste.
I enjoy referencing the oxygenation event extinction too. Goddam cyanobacteria, messing up the greenhouse for us archaea with their oxygen pollution.
Interesting point about CO2 - I'd assume your thought about condensation is correct, but it also occurs to me to wonder if it's a gas in those little canisters; a lot of the gas systems I've dealt with have a liquid phase somewhere in the loop.
And I didn't think that carbonated beverages had any difference in flavor, but a huge difference in texture/mouthfeel.
Carbonated beverages have carbonic acid in them (H2CO3). Even after all the bubbles are gone a carbonated drink will be more tart than a non-carbonated version of the same drink.
Yes, it's called dry ice because if you look at a phase diagram, a liquid can't exist at atmospheric pressure, so carbon dioxide ice transitions directly from solid to gas (called sublimating rather than evaporating/melting). One of those neat chemistry things.
The world over; humanity has put more carbon into the air by weight than the total sum of all that we've built on the surface, and it's still accelerating. It's a rather awesome testament to humanity, but not exactly in the positive sense given that the externalities are beginning to bite.
we have people choosing between heating and food, today, in Britain. we have children going without food today, in Britain. we also have the greatest economic equality in a very long time.
This is hardly accurate. It's the global poor who are most impacted by a (hypothetical) slowing economy.
Sure, some billionaire won't get that third yacht.
But it's the several hundred million women in Africa doing their family's laundry by hand who suffer much more, by far.
What we need is oodles of economic growth, in as green a way as possible. AKA, solar, batteries, nuclear, and so on. And what that means is more and better tech, more and better deployment of capital.
Here's a link to global CO2 levels [0]. As I understand it, it's live data from satellites.
You can see it's lower (redder) where forests and plankton are growing, and higher (whiter) elsewhere. You'll also notice that it's pretty much the same everywhere - the range is only 400 - 450 ppm.
that's not a sphere, those hammers are changing distance to his core by more than 50% of the total distance, ice caps on earth do not reach the same % difference in height
