this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
41 points (97.7% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5054 readers
441 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
41
A Wild Plan to Avert Catastrophic Sea-Level Rise | The collapse of Antarctica’s ice sheets would be disastrous. A group of scientists has an idea to save them. (www.theatlantic.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'll note that this falls into the realm of highly-uncertain efforts with a significant chance of failure. It shouldn't be considered as an alternative to ending fossil fuel use, but at most, something to reduce the harm we've already caused.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Summary:

But then, in the geologically abrupt space of only a few decades, this great river of ice all but halted. In the two centuries since, it has moved less than 35 feet a year. According to the leading theory, the layer of water underneath it thinned, perhaps by draining into the underside of another glacier. Having lost its lubrication, the glacier slowed down and sank toward the bedrock below.

/.../

“The beauty of this idea is that you can start small,” Tulaczyk told me. “You can pick a puny glacier somewhere that doesn’t matter to global sea level.” This summer, Martin Truffer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, will travel to the Juneau Icefield in Alaska to look for a small slab of ice that could be used in a pilot test. If it stops moving, Tulaczyk told me he wants to try to secure permission from Greenland’s Inuit political leaders to drain a larger glacier; he has his eye on one at the country’s northeastern edge, which discharges five gigatons of ice into the Arctic Ocean every year. Only if that worked would he move on to pilots in Antarctica.

It's not wild at all. :) The plan makes sense from a physical perspective, but should not be implemented lightly because:

  • it's extremely hard work and extremely expensive to drain water from beneath an extremely large glacier
  • it doesn't stop warming, it just puts a brake on ice loss / sea level rise