• Doombot1@lemmy.one
    931·
    10 months ago

    The solution to global warming, then, is clearly to just set up a massive ring of fans all pointed in the same direction in a ring around the North Pole, to keep the jet stream going

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      442·
      10 months ago

      That’s a bit like the investigation into whether lethal bear attacks are because of their teeth or their claws - probably really interesting, but not critical to the question of avoiding the bear.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      8·
      10 months ago

      Interesting. I would love to work on that kind of data model, as there is an interesting thing to point out with the movement of the polar vortex:
      It dips further south to follow along land mass.

      I wonder if the wind currents have an easier time maintaining speed along flat surfaces or if the water being warmer causes pockets of higher pressure further north than usual pushing the vortex to be more unstable looking.

      It feels like it makes sense that the current would be much more stable along a surface that is more consistent and thus loss of ice smoothing the surface would cause it to wobble but inertia still remains the same meaning it needs to push down elsewhere where there is less resistance.

      So I would lean towards ice loss as a cause of changing polar vortex stability but I kinda gave up that ability to do anything about this or study such things a while ago.

    • Slovene@feddit.nl
      8·
      10 months ago

      I was led to believe it’s both. Global warming causes ice loss which contributes to global warming which causes more ice loss which contributes to global warming which causes more ice loss …

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    271·
    10 months ago

    I just hope we’re not seeing the start of a shutdown of the North Atlantic current, which is likely what led to the Younger Dryas ice age, which marked a dramatic climate shift and widespread extinction event over just a couple of decades:

    The change was relatively sudden, took place over decades, and resulted in a decline of temperatures in Greenland by 4–10 °C (7.2–18 °F), and advances of glaciers and drier conditions over much of the temperate Northern Hemisphere. A number of theories have been put forward about the cause, and the hypothesis historically most supported by scientists is that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which transports warm water from the Equator towards the North Pole, was interrupted by an influx of fresh, cold water from North America into the Atlantic.

    Right now, it’s looking like that may have already started: Study: Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. If that’s the case, things will become very hot and then abruptly freeze, not over the course of a century, but virtually overnight.

    e: better link

    • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
      14·
      10 months ago

      The thing I keep thinking about, and I feel like I’ve never been able to properly communicate, is that the machines our society runs on are built to run in a certain temperature range.

      The 2021 texas winter fiasco was a perfect demonstration of what happens when we try to run a society’s machinery outside of it’s expected temperature range. Yes, the ERCOT goofballs were trying to save money by narrowing that expected operating range because “It never gets that cold” and “It never gets that hot”, but my badly articulated point still stands - a system was made to operate in a temperature range outside of it’s capability, and it started to fail. They were minutes away from losing very expensive and hard to replace equipment. What we don’t want is for one of the more competently-run power grids in the world to start to buckle due to temperatures, because the same thing that happened in texas could happen on a larger scale.

      And that’s just talking about the power grid. Anything with a heat exchanger in it, including your car and air conditioner and all the refrigeration that is needed to keep everyone fed, is designed to run in a certain temperature range, and will stop working if you run it outside of that range for too long.

      But wait, we can just design stuff to run in a wider temperature range! We certainly can. But we would have to redesign everything that moves heat around.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      13·
      10 months ago

      When you stop and actually think about our situation you realise how thin our operating margins are, we are at the mercy of whatever the planet does and our safety is subject to immediate dismissal should the conditions change. Worse of course are the random cosmic whims which could wipe us out instantly at any time e.g. comets, the sun going weird, etc.

      • PotjiePig@lemmynsfw.com
        53·
        10 months ago

        It’s a thought that gives me comfort that we, as a species, will be evicted before we can do irreparable damage so that life can continue to evolve without us.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        2·
        10 months ago

        The day after tomorrow was related, but relied on a no longer mainstream idea that the Arctic vortex could become a whole northern hemisphere storm, so big it would liquify nitrogen in its central low

        We really hope that’s not a thing that can happen. It would render most of the northern hemisphere dead

  • BigDiction@lemmy.world
    251·
    10 months ago

    reference

    I was trying to look up why less polar ice causes shifts in the jet stream and this article cites an active debate around our understanding on this.

    The tweet does not really address that point, and makes the cause and effect sound definitive.

    • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      113·
      10 months ago

      What, are you saying a website called X where I can easily share both amateur porn, shitpost, and fight with other keyboard warriors isn’t a solid source for factual information? smh what are you talking about

      Next you’re going to tell me that drinking diesel fuel is bad for my longevity or something.

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
      2·
      10 months ago

      The Xcretion says that less ice “is consistent with” a weaker jet stream, which does not imply a casual relationship. If A causes B and Y, then B is consistent with Y; or, more accurately, we can produce a useful model of the system that includes both less ice and a weaker jet stream, and have it be internally consistent.

    • Pendulum@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

      Which is the flaw of social media science these past few years. Theories evolve as new data is presented and new hypotheses are formed. The average twitter denizen won’t have that, no sir, and will with glee smack you with an outdated textbook with equal zeal as a Bible basher.

      “FACTS DONT FUGGING CHANGE YOU BIGOT” == “THE WORLD IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE”

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    251·
    10 months ago

    HEY!!! Get your science and facts out of here!

    ~ ~Places fingers in ears and closes eyes~ ~ laalalalalalalal

  • SoupBrick@yiffit.net
    203·
    10 months ago

    Y’all ready to be gouged for survival items until money becomes irrelevant?

    P.S. ‘A Capitalist Apocalypse’ would be a fun title for a political comedy song.

    • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
      121·
      10 months ago

      I’ll start writing that play. We won’t even have to splurge on the stage as the wasteland will provide a natural setting.

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    162·
    10 months ago

    Even as the US hits record setting lows, the temperature of the planet as a whole remains above average. If it’s -20°F across the entire US, how hot must the rest of the planet be?