• @Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    2311 months ago

    It’s been quite some time since I took stats, but wouldn’t six standard deviations put it in the true outlier category? If I’m even twenty percent correct in what I’m trying to communicate, that’s frightening.

    • @coffeeguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      28
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Person who does lots of stats checking in. That’s a good question. We usually refer to Sigma (1-sigma, 2-sigma… 6-sigma) as the probability that an observation could occur by random chance.

      The probability of 6-sigma occurring by random chance is about 1:1-billion.

      So you’re definitely right to characterize it as an outlier. In terms of sea-ice this means that based on our observations of ice extent recorded going back to 1989 (based on the image) it is extremely unlikely we would expect to observe a sea ice extent so far below the norm suggesting something else (climate change) explains the deviation.

    • @Dagnet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2211 months ago

      Been a while since I studied standard deviations but I remember 2 being already an outlier, 6 is a lot of deviation

      • ivanafterall
        link
        fedilink
        711 months ago

        I never took statistics, but 6 is at least triple the deviations of 2, and probably even more for math reasons I neither will nor can get into.

        • @AstroKevin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          211 months ago

          I did take statistics and forgot most of it, but I think I’m totally fine eating 2 hotdogs but the closer I get to 6 hotdogs, the increasingly more difficult it is.

    • Seraph
      link
      fedilink
      1211 months ago

      Correct, outlier until it’s repeated next year and the following. Then we can statistically say we’re fucked.

  • @spaduf
    link
    1311 months ago

    If that’s not a tipping point then I seriously have no idea what’s coming.

  • Pirky
    link
    fedilink
    1211 months ago

    What makes this worse is this is the deviation from the 1991-2020 mean, the hottest period of recording. If we compared with even 1981-2000, it would be even worse.

  • Coskii
    link
    1211 months ago

    Just a friendly and terrifying reminder that it’s currently WINTER in the southern hemisphere.

    Though I would like to see the data compared to other El Nino years.

    • @Ondergetekende@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      511 months ago

      The El nina years are in there (the blue lines) none of them look like this year at all.

      That said, this chart is not the best for understanding the actual extent of the sea ice. It doesn’t show the amount of sea ice, it show how much there is relative to earlier years. The actual amount of sea ice is still growing at the moment, as one would expect in winter. Just not as much as earlier years.

      • Coskii
        link
        111 months ago

        I did look into other articles about the Antarctic ice since this graph was only about how different one bit is to the next, rather than any numbers for it to gain any substantial meaning. From the other article I read, we are losing 150 billion tons of ice per year since 2010… and a factor of 6 change over that is… terrifying.

    • Crimfresh
      link
      fedilink
      811 months ago

      It’s going to be a mashup of 1984, waterworld, and Westworld, at this rate.

    • @whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      My theory is we won’t care even when Louisiana and Florida get swallowed by the ocean but my god New York is fucked and that’s going to make money finally admit the problem.

      Reminder to all, that I don’t care how many levees you build around the above mentioned areas you have lost. We can’t fight the ocean and we can’t fight nature.

      We are going to learn far too late. I for one have my popcorn.

  • @perestroika@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Looks bad. I also suggest looking here for better context:

    https://zacklabe.com/antarctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/

    (Zachary Labe is a climate scientist, Eliot Jacobson is a professor of mathematics)

    My impression:

    Ice extent is far below normal, 2023 is the worst year on recent record.

    Ice volume has not responded dramatically yet (it has inertia) and there exists a year on recent record worse than 2023 - but it will respond soon enough.

    Overall, I’m not sure if plotting a graph with standard deviations as the unit of measure is a good choice. It helps shake people up from sleep - yes. You typically look for standard deviations to determine if something is happening - and 6 deviations is considered solid proof. But to examine the quantity of ice, you measure square and cubic kilometers.

    • WalrusDragonOnABike
      link
      fedilink
      24
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah, why don’t people compare satellite pictures of sea ice now to the satellite pictures of sea ice from 10000 years ago? I’m sure they’re just trying to cover up secrets by not using that data.

        • @GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          1411 months ago

          You are missing the point. You literally said “we’re the hardest species to kill on this planet by FAR given any sort of prep time”. Well, our prep time is running right now. We’ve theorized about this potential catastrophy for almost 2 centuries and have had pretty solid understanding of it happening for half a century. What have we done in that time? Jack shit. Considering we’re just wasting our prep time I certainly wouldn’t be as confident as you are about us surviving. And even if we do survive our lives will be worse off, all because some oil execs chose to run a disinformation campaign so their profits wouldn’t take a hit and people like you with their IDGAF attitude constantly derailing the issue.

          We have a good thing here that we are certain to ruin because apparently we don’t need to make sure that good thing sticks around as just surviving is good enough, right?

          • @RoboGroMo@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            211 months ago

            I agree though it always annoys me when people claim we’ve done absolutely nothing - it’s an incredibly hard problem and people in and out of governments have been working on solutions and implementing them where possible. It takes time to develop workable technologies and to implement them efficiently but in a lot of places this is happening and we should highlight things that are working and showing promise so that good ideas spread, just saying ‘everything is bad and we’re going to die’ isn’t going to convince anyone to get on the right side of things but demonstrating we have lots of great ideas and emerging solutions which offer benefits even beyond climate protections just might.

            Auke Hoekstra from the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands said: “Many young people are depressed because they feel climate change cannot be stopped. We want to offer them hope by showing that our world can get all its energy needs from renewables at a price below that of fossil fuels. When we first proposed this we were ridiculed, but this paper shows our ideas are now scientific mainstream.”.

            from a study showing we can reach 100% renewable energy usable globally before 2050, and that’s just based on current rollout of existing technologies using existing methods and economies - automated construction tooling and fully-automated fabrication is going to greatly boost the rate at which adoption of new technologies can happen, and that’s without any black-swan developments which might come about especially through the use of AI r&d tools (such as those making huge leaps in chemistry and pharmacology currently) - though again as the study demonstrates we don’t even need these things to come about, and while our focus absolutely should be on protecting the ecology and climate of the planet we probably don’t even to have everyone onboard because transition to wind and solar is economically sensible too.

            ”Renewable energy technology is advancing rapidly, increasing the energy return on investment for renewable energy production; conversely, as fossil fuel reserves are depleted, they actually yield a decreasing return on investment as time goes by. Thus, if viewed in simple net energy terms, without even considering the climate change arguments for renewable energy, investing in renewable energy makes better physical and business sense than investing in fossil fuels.”

            • Dr Marco Raugei Senior Research Fellow at Oxford Brookes University

            Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay already obtain all their electricity from Renewable sources (hydro mostly), Sweden is getting close to 70% and very much on track to reach it’s target of 100% before it’s 2040 goal, Costa Rica is up at about 98% Renewables, Scotland ~97% with them on track to generate 50% of overall energy consumption (transport, heat, electrical) from renewables - big industrial countries are making huge progress too, Germany is now over 50% renewable and heavily ramping up the rate of adoption, on par with China who are also just over 50% and increasing rapidly (after heavy investment in technology and infrastructure to facilitate this change) - even the united states now has [slightly] more generation from renewables than coal AND more nuclear than coal -

            Calling this ‘jack shit’ is absurd, and it’s only one strand of all the things people and governments have been working on, we’re working hard to understand the problem, monitor it, develop and implement solutions which allow us to try and keep things working for everyone and keep everyone alive. It’s not like we can just turn off oil or something, not only would millions die but it would undoubtedly start endless wars which would result in even more widespread chaos and climate destruction while ending all the positive steps people are working on. It’s an incredibly difficult challenge but we’re equipped to deal with it and if everyone that cares tries to pitch in a bit and work towards a better world then it’s absolutely possible - defeatism and doomerism isn’t going to get us anywhere.

            • @gutternonsense@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              6
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Do you want to survive the next 50 years? Yes, the planet will be fine. Do you want some semblance of government that can manage day to day migration crises for want of food, lack of water, and oh yeah, continuous war over basic resources. But yes, the planet will be fine.

              What about your children or if no child, your families descendants or any future human for that matter to enjoy what we’ve been spoiled with for our entire lives? And yes, I know… The planet WILL be fine. But we won’t be and a lot of other species will go well before us… Many have gone already.

              • @Strawberry
                link
                311 months ago

                This person is so enlightened that they probably don’t see the difference between stubbing one’s toe and global nuclear annihilation

                • @Strawberry
                  link
                  311 months ago

                  So you’re frustrated by climate change alarmists because even if civilization collapses there will still likely be humans in a cave somewhere, and the octopus might have a shot at taking over the world?

                  Fortunately most people aren’t so horribly misanthropic; we actually care what happens to people.

        • Lols [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          11
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          pretending that scientists’ warnings and fears are exclusively about how climate change will ‘kill all life on the planet’ is entirely disingenuous

          sure, there was still life after chicxulub. 75% of all species disappeared off the face of the earth, incomprehensible amounts of death and suffering, but there was still life

          sure there will probably still be life, and humans, by the time this is done. the earth will be left unrecognisable, we will lose serious parts of global ecosystems, the number of animals going extinct will rise even more, diseases will thrive, food shortages will be everywhere, some cities will become uninhabitable, there will be ridiculous civil unrest, incomprehensible numbers will die

          but yeah therell probably be humans left

          • WalrusDragonOnABike
            link
            fedilink
            211 months ago

            there will be ridiculous civil unrest, incomprehensible numbers will die

            If things get desperate enough direct conflict between nuclear powers of basic resources like food and water could be a thing as well. Sure, life will survive. Microbes for sure. Abyssal creatures probably won’t notice too much of a difference if they aren’t oxygen starved before then (not sure about how much of a risk that is)? Some species or plants and animals are hardy enough to survive and some will get lucky.

            • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              211 months ago

              I wish I could comprehend what point you’re actually trying to make.

              On one hand you’re criticizing climate change folks over being alarmists. On the other hand you admit that modern day civilization is pretty much fucked.

              Are you in capable of seeing that people are scared that very soon they could be starving to death? I think about this every day and there isn’t a single thing I can do about it. I can’t change how the world works. I can’t change our emissions. Instead I just sit here and watch the world burn. Meanwhile I can’t help but think about my future in which I’ll likely be literally burning and starving to death.

              Yet you can’t understand the sensationalism over it and why regular people are alarmed? You can’t possibly be this daft.