Critical system of Atlantic Ocean currents could collapse in 2030s

It always sucks when the AC goes out.
And the next time I have to write a position description, I will steal this phrase from the article, "Using exceptionally complex and expensive computing systems"
to make "a good knowledge of MS Word, and Excel" sound more cutting-edge
 
Last edited:
jake gyllenhaal storm GIF
 
I think "As early as the late 2030s" really means "as early as the early 2030s." The scientists can't say the second because it's not supported by the science that we have now, but anyone paying attention knows that estimates have been pushed forward as we have learned more and more about climate non-linearities with positive feedback. As the Earth gets warmer, it sets off warming processes that accelerates the warming.

I'm not a climate scientist. That's my take.
 
I think "As early as the late 2030s" really means "as early as the early 2030s." The scientists can't say the second because it's not supported by the science that we have now, but anyone paying attention knows that estimates have been pushed forward as we have learned more and more about climate non-linearities with positive feedback. As the Earth gets warmer, it sets off warming processes that accelerates the warming.

I'm not a climate scientist. That's my take.
One aspect of climate change and the warming taking place across much of the globe, and particularly in the Arctic and northern latitudes, that received too little attention is the melting of permafrost.

At 10,000-11,000 feet in the Rockies, ground that’s been frozen for centuries or longer is thawing. As it thaws, metals such as zinc, copper, cadmium, lead, iron, nickel, mercury, and arsenic are released into meltwater and move into streams and rivers. As the metals interact with water and oxygen, they go through a weathering process and release sulfides into the water…..dramatically increasing the acidity of rivers and streams…..to the point that fish, wildlife, insects, and insect eggs can’t survive in the water. The water becomes unsafe for wildlife and humans to consume or use.

We’re going find parts of the Earth that we considered pristine wilderness unhealthy and possibly uninhabitable a lot sooner than expected.
 
This is the problem in making Greenland Green Again.

Climate change means heterogeneous, unpredictable, and extreme changes as CO2, solar radiation, ocean currents are all connected.

Add in ice loss in Antarctica which could massively raise sea level.

We need a "Man on the Moon" 10 year Energy project to make fusion power for power plants a reality. We have the superconductor magnet technology now.
 
One aspect of climate change and the warming taking place across much of the globe, and particularly in the Arctic and northern latitudes, that received too little attention is the melting of permafrost.

At 10,000-11,000 feet in the Rockies, ground that’s been frozen for centuries or longer is thawing. As it thaws, metals such as zinc, copper, cadmium, lead, iron, nickel, mercury, and arsenic are released into meltwater and move into streams and rivers. As the metals interact with water and oxygen, they go through a weathering process and release sulfides into the water…..dramatically increasing the acidity of rivers and streams…..to the point that fish, wildlife, insects, and insect eggs can’t survive in the water. The water becomes unsafe for wildlife and humans to consume or use.

We’re going find parts of the Earth that we considered pristine wilderness unhealthy and possibly uninhabitable a lot sooner than expected.

There aren't many glaciers left in Glacier National Park.
 
This is the problem in making Greenland Green Again.

Climate change means heterogeneous, unpredictable, and extreme changes as CO2, solar radiation, ocean currents are all connected.

Add in ice loss in Antarctica which could massively raise sea level.

We need a "Man on the Moon" 10 year Energy project to make fusion power for power plants a reality. We have the superconductor magnet technology now.

Possible. Another option is fission technology. More downsides than fusion but it's ready right now.
 
We need a "Man on the Moon" 10 year Energy project to make fusion power for power plants a reality. We have the superconductor magnet technology now.
We have pumped so much money into fusion power over the years. I don't think a lack of commitment is the problem. And it's because fusion had been the next greatest thing for the last 20 years of last century, if not longer, that there won't be any will -- among scientists or the public -- to go all in.

The universe runs according to laws of physics (if they are even laws, though that's a philosophical discussion) that DGAF about us. As a race, we're pretty smart but maybe we're not smart enough to master all of its secrets, and in some cases there might not be anything to master. Will we ever make a mind-machine interface that allows people to control machines with their minds in a meaningful way? I'm not talking about paraplegics who have been able to use implants to replicate very simple movements. That's surely meaningful to them, but it's far from the technologists' dreams. Will we get there? Who knows.

I can't tell you whether fusion is going to be a technological bridge we can't cross, or if fusion research simply had a very long gestation period before producing results. But I think we have to take the former possibility seriously. After 40 years, we are still very far from fusion being a viable power source.

And is it even necessary?
 
Possible. Another option is fission technology. More downsides than fusion but it's ready right now.
As you might or might not know, fission technology would be vastly inferior to fusion technology not only in terms of downsides, but also in terms of power output. The principal downside of fusion is, as you note, that it's not here, and might never be.

I have a hard time getting excited about nuclear power. It's possibly because conservatives have been abusing nuclear power for a generation in bad faith, using it as an excuse to do nothing at all about the climate. "Oh, we would support decarbonization, but we have do it with nuclear" as if it's an either-or. The point for conservatives has always been to attempt to position themselves in the adults in the room instead of sand-blinded ostriches they actually were (and are).

Way before trolling was a thing, way before it was a named and familiar means of antisocial human interaction, nuclear power was the ultimate troll job. White men in suits would go on TV or write articles in newspapers about how nuclear was absolutely necessary for our economy and it was nuclear or nothing. They knew very well it would be nothing, because liberals and the general public were scared of nuclear power -- especially after Chernobyl. Especially after the problems communities and the nation faced with radioactive, decommissioned nuclear plants and nuclear waste. So every one of those Bush administration mfers who would say, "we need to replace oil with nuclear" while never lifting a finger to actually make nuclear a reality -- they were all trolls. They were gaslighters. They weren't interested in anything other than pumping oil, and saw nuclear as a way of fracturing (hah, hah) the environmental movement and discrediting that movement in the eyes of the public.

This isn't to say anything pro or con the technology itself. I'm just saying that the political meaning of nuclear power has, for most of my adult life, been an excuse to do nothing about climate. The conservatives held nuclear up as the perfect and consciously used it as the enemy of the good, so they could look less unreasonable than wild-eyed cranks who said that climate change was actually about sun spots. The political meaning of nuclear power has always been, "conservative white men who actively shill for the fossil fuel status quo are well-educated and dispassionate analysts, where as liberals are just clueless hippies."

IOW, for most of my adult life, nuclear has been a con job, a trap to catch people with a less sensitive BS meter than mine (or millions of others like me). I am not interested in falling into the trap again.

I am eager to make common cause with nuclear power activists -- but it has to be common cause. That's not always how the other side sees it. On the other board, there was a poseur energy-expert who had weird philosophical objections to solar and wind power, saying they weren't even energy sources and a whole bunch of other crap. But, he said, he supports nuclear, and so should I. No way. I'll get on board with nuclear only if the nuclear folks get on board with solar and wind and a new grid and all the things we need to do cut our emissions as rapidly as possible, before more of our oceans become hot tubs, before the Amazon rain forest dies, before the Greenland ocean current reverses, before substantial parts of the US become uninhabitable because of heat (to say nothing of areas closer to the equator).

If you are for nuclear but not those things, then you remain an enemy of the human race and there will be no common cause with me. I will use you transactionally, just as you've been using environmentalists transactionally for two generations.
 
Back
Top