Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Kristin Poinar. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Kristin Poinar. Mostrar todas as mensagens

quinta-feira, 6 de julho de 2023

Documentário: Colapso - Extinção humana a curto prazo?



A espécie Homo sapiens evoluiu há cerca de 300.000 anos e passou a dominar a Terra de maneira diferente de qualquer espécie anterior. Mas quanto tempo os humanos podem durar?

Eventualmente, os humanos serão extintos. Na estimativa mais otimista, nossa espécie durará talvez mais um bilhão de anos, mas terminará quando o envelope de expansão do sol aumentar e aquecer o planeta a um estado semelhante ao de Vénus .

Mas um bilhão de anos é muito tempo. Há um bilião de anos, a vida na Terra consistia em micróbios. A vida multicelular não apareceu até cerca de 600 milhões de anos atrás, quando as esponjas proliferaram. Como será a vida daqui a um bilhão de anos é uma incógnita, embora um estudo de modelagem publicado em 2021 na Nature Geoscience sugira que a atmosfera da Terra conterá muito pouco oxigénio até então, tornando provável que os micróbios anaeróbicos, em vez dos humanos, sejam os últimos terráqueos vivos.

Se sobreviver para ver o sol fritar a Terra é um tiro no escuro, quando a humanidade provavelmente encontrará seu destino? Paleontologicamente, as espécies de mamíferos geralmente persistem por cerca de um milhão de anos, diz Henry Gee, paleontólogo e editor sénior da revista Nature , que está a trabalhar em um livro sobre a extinção dos humanos. Isso colocaria a espécie humana na sua juventude. Mas Gee não acredita que essas regras se apliquem necessariamente ao H. sapiens.

“Os humanos são uma espécie bastante excepcional”, diz ele. “Podemos durar milhões de anos, ou podemos todos cair na próxima semana.”

Oportunidades para o dia do juízo final são abundantes. Os seres humanos podem ser exterminados por um ataque catastrófico de asteroides , cometer autodestruição com uma guerra nuclear mundial ou sucumbir à devastação causada pela emergência climática . Mas os humanos são um bando resistente, então o cenário mais provável envolve uma combinação de catástrofes que podem nos exterminar completamente.

Escolha o seu veneno
Alguns assassinos de espécies estão fora de nosso controle. Num artigo de 2021 na revista Icarus , por exemplo, os pesquisadores descrevem como asteróides comparáveis ​​àquele de 10 a 15 quilómetros de diâmetro que matou os dinossauros não-aviários atingem a Terra aproximadamente a cada 250 milhões a 500 milhões de anos. Num artigo pré-impresso publicado no servidor arXiv.org, os físicos Philip Lubin e Alexander Cohen calculam que a humanidade teria a capacidade de se salvar de um asteróide do tamanho de um dino-killer, dado um aviso de seis meses e um arsenal de penetradores nucleares para explodir a rocha espacial em uma nuvem de seixos inofensivos. Com menos aviso ou um asteroide maior, Lubin e Cohen sugerem que a humanidade deveria desistir e “festejar” ou “se mudar para Marte ou para a Lua para festejar”. Atualmente, o maior asteróide que os cientistas conhecem com o potencial de atingir a Terra é chamado (29075) 1950 DA. Tem apenas 1.300 metros de diâmetro e uma chance em 50.000 de atingir nosso mundo em março de 2880, de acordo com uma análise de risco de 2022 da Agência Espacial Europeia .

Deixando de lado as rochas espaciais, muitas ameaças à humanidade são de nossa própria autoria: guerra nuclear, emergência climática, colapso ecológico. Nossa própria tecnologia pode acabar conosco na forma de inteligência artificial senciente que decide extinguir seus criadores, como sugeriram alguns críticos da IA.

Uma guerra nuclear total poderia facilmente destruir a humanidade, diz François Diaz-Maurin, editor associado de assuntos nucleares do Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. A última vez que os humanos lançaram bombas nucleares uns sobre os outros, apenas um país, os EUA, tinha ogivas nucleares, então não havia risco de retaliação nuclear. Não é o caso hoje – e as bombas são muito maiores. Essas bombas, que atingiram as cidades japonesas de Hiroshima e Nagasaki em 1945, continham o equivalente a 15 e 21 quilotons de TNT, respectivamente. Juntos, eles mataram cerca de 110.000 a 210.000 pessoas. Uma única arma nuclear moderna de 300 quilotons lançada sobre a cidade de Nova York, por exemplo, mataria um milhão de pessoas em 24 horas, diz Diaz-Maurin. Uma guerra nuclear regional, como a entre a Índia e o Paquistão, poderia matar 27 milhões de pessoas no curto prazo, enquanto uma guerra nuclear em grande escala entre os EUA e a Rússia poderia causar cerca de 360 ​​milhões de mortes diretas, acrescenta.

A ameaça à própria existência da humanidade viria depois da guerra, quando a fuligem dos grandes incêndios provocados pelos bombardeios alteraria rapidamente o clima em um cenário conhecido como inverno nuclear. O medo de um inverno nuclear pode ter diminuído desde o fim da Guerra Fria, diz Diaz-Maurin, mas pesquisas mostram que as consequências ambientais seriam graves. Mesmo uma guerra nuclear regional danificaria a camada de ozônio, bloquearia a luz solar e reduziria a precipitação globalmente. O resultado seria uma fome global que poderia matar mais de cinco bilhões de pessoas em apenas dois anos, dependendo do tamanho e do número de detonações.

A morte por contaminação ecológica ou pela emergência climática seria mais lenta, mas ainda dentro do possível. Os humanos já estão enfrentando estressores de saúde devido à poluição crônica que foi exacerbada pelo calor adicional trazido pela mudança climática, diz Maureen Lichtveld, reitora da Escola de Saúde Pública da Universidade de Pittsburgh. Temperaturas mais altas forçam as pessoas a respirar mais rapidamente para dissipar o calor, o que atrai mais poluição para os pulmões. A emergência climática também aprofunda os problemas existentes em torno da segurança alimentar – por exemplo, secas persistentes podem devastar plantações – e doenças infecciosas. “A interconexão das mudanças climáticas e as desigualdades e desigualdades na saúde em geral é o que está afetando nossa população global”, diz Lichtveld.

terça-feira, 6 de julho de 2021

Comprehensive Ice Sheets Gateway Helps Address Sea Level Rise


Researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) recently teamed with colleagues at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Tufts University to publish a special issue paper entitled Building a Glaciology Gateway to Unify a Community in the Concurrency and Computation journal. The article provides detailed information about the Glaciology Hub known as the GHub science gateway, which is powered by the HUBzero® Platform at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), located at UC San Diego.

“We are happy to assist the GHub team in achieving their goals, especially given the critical nature and societal importance of melting ice sheets,” said HUBzero Director Michael Zentner, who is also the director and principal investigator (PI) of the Science Gateways Community Institute and director of Sustainable Scientific Software at SDSC. “The multidisciplinary nature of ice sheet science is an ideal case of what the HUBzero platform is designed to support.”

As GHub co-PI Kristin Poinar, a geology professor at UB, explains, “Sea level rise is a grave concern, making ice melt rates an important area of study. The Greenland Ice Sheet in particular is melting and calving ice at an alarming rate—the equivalent of all of the water in Lake Erie every two years. This has raised the global sea level by more than one centimeter over the past 20 years.”

According to lead author Jeanette Sperhac, a scientific programmer at UB and also co-PI on the project, “GHub is a collaboration and analysis space for ice sheet scientists that hosts datasets and modeling workflows—providing access to codes that enable tool building.”

The workflows mentioned by Sperhac allow for rapid data analysis, ice sheet model validation and uncertainty quantification, and this helps scientists more completely catalog the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica and how they are changing. The information is not only used by researchers but also by education communities, policy makers and the general public.

“Predicting future ice sheet change requires a tremendous effort across a range of disciplines in ice sheet science, including expertise in observational data, paleoglaciology ("paleo") data, numerical ice sheet modeling and widespread use of emerging methodologies for learning from the data, such as machine learning,” said Sperhac. “Fostering collaboration between disciplines has helped us create GHub and we are grateful to the HUBzero team for helping make that happen.”

“A significant bottleneck is slowing progress in understanding ice sheets and sea level rise—it relates to a lack of open communication and knowledge accessibility between the wide range of scientific communities involved,” continued GHub PI Jason Briner, a geology professor at UB. “GHub is designed to reduce this bottleneck.”

To date, the team has developed eight computational tools and hosts the Ice Science Modeling Intercomparison Projects (ISMIP6) dataset, totaling seven terabytes. With over 75 researchers already utilizing the data from GHub to conduct their studies, the GHub team is now working with these users to integrate additional tools with crucial datasets stored at locations such as the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Funding for GHub was provided by the National Science Foundation (2004826).

About SDSC

The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) is a leader and pioneer in high-performance and data-intensive computing, providing cyberinfrastructure resources, services and expertise to the national research community, academia and industry. Located on the UC San Diego campus, SDSC supports hundreds of multidisciplinary programs spanning a wide variety of domains, from astrophysics and earth sciences to disease research and drug discovery. SDSC's newest National Science Foundation-funded supercomputer, Expanse, supports SDSC's theme of "Computing without Boundaries" with a data-centric architecture, public cloud integration and state-of-the art GPUs for incorporating experimental facilities and edge computing.

terça-feira, 21 de novembro de 2017

Ice Apocalypse


In a remote region of Antarctica known as Pine Island Bay, 2,500 miles from the tip of South America, two glaciers hold human civilization hostage.

Stretching across a frozen plain more than 150 miles long, these glaciers, named Pine Island and Thwaites, have marched steadily for millennia toward the Amundsen Sea, part of the vast Southern Ocean. Further inland, the glaciers widen into a two-mile-thick reserve of ice covering an area the size of Texas.

There’s no doubt this ice will melt as the world warms. The vital question is when.

The glaciers of Pine Island Bay are two of the largest and fastest-melting in Antarctica. (A Rolling Stone feature earlier this year dubbed Thwaites “The Doomsday Glacier.”) Together, they act as a plug holding back enough ice to pour 11 feet of sea-level rise into the world’s oceans — an amount that would submerge every coastal city on the planet. For that reason, finding out how fast these glaciers will collapse is one of the most important scientific questions in the world today.

To figure that out, scientists have been looking back to the end of the last ice age, about 11,000 years ago, when global temperatures stood at roughly their current levels. The bad news? There’s growing evidence that the Pine Island Bay glaciers collapsed rapidly back then, flooding the world’s coastlines — partially the result of something called “marine ice-cliff instability.”

The ocean floor gets deeper toward the center of this part of Antarctica, so each new iceberg that breaks away exposes taller and taller cliffs. Ice gets so heavy that these taller cliffs can’t support their own weight. Once they start to crumble, the destruction would be unstoppable.

“Ice is only so strong, so it will collapse if these cliffs reach a certain height,” explains Kristin Poinar, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “We need to know how fast it’s going to happen.”

In the past few years, scientists have identified marine ice-cliff instability as a feedback loop that could kickstart the disintegration of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet this century — much more quickly than previously thought.

Minute-by-minute, huge skyscraper-sized shards of ice cliffs would crumble into the sea, as tall as the Statue of Liberty and as deep underwater as the height of the Empire State Building. The result: a global catastrophe the likes of which we’ve never seen.

Ice comes in many forms, with different consequences when it melts. Floating ice, like the kind that covers the Arctic Ocean in wintertime and comprises ice shelves, doesn’t raise sea levels. (Think of a melting ice cube, which won’t cause a drink to spill over.)

Land-based ice, on the other hand, is much more troublesome. When it falls into the ocean, it adds to the overall volume of liquid in the seas. Thus, sea-level rise.

Antarctica is a giant landmass — about half the size of Africa — and the ice that covers it averages more than a mile thick. Before human burning of fossil fuels triggered global warming, the continent’s ice was in relative balance: The snows in the interior of the continent roughly matched the icebergs that broke away from glaciers at its edges.

Now, as carbon dioxide traps more heat in the atmosphere and warms the planet, the scales have tipped.

A wholesale collapse of Pine Island and Thwaites would set off a catastrophe. Giant icebergs would stream away from Antarctica like a parade of frozen soldiers. All over the world, high tides would creep higher, slowly burying every shoreline on the planet, flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.

All this could play out in a mere 20 to 50 years — much too quickly for humanity to adapt.

“With marine ice cliff instability, sea-level rise for the next century is potentially much larger than we thought it might be five or 10 years ago,” Poinar says.

A lot of this newfound concern is driven by the research of two climatologists: Rob DeConto at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and David Pollard at Penn State University. A study they published last year was the first to incorporate the latest understanding of marine ice-cliff instability into a continent-scale model of Antarctica.

Their results drove estimates for how high the seas could rise this century sharply higher. “Antarctic model raises prospect of unstoppable ice collapse,” read the headline in the scientific journal Nature, a publication not known for hyperbole.

Instead of a three-foot increase in ocean levels by the end of the century, six feet was more likely, according to DeConto and Pollard’s findings. But if carbon emissions continue to track on something resembling a worst-case scenario, the full 11 feet of ice locked in West Antarctica might be freed up, their study showed.

Three feet of sea-level rise would be bad, leading to more frequent flooding of U.S. cities such as New Orleans, Houston, New York, and Miami. Pacific Island nations, like the Marshall Islands, would lose most of their territory. Unfortunately, it now seems like three feet is possible only under the rosiest of scenarios.

At six feet, though, around 12 million people in the United States would be displaced, and the world’s most vulnerable megacities, like Shanghai, Mumbai, and Ho Chi Minh City, could be wiped off the map.

At 11 feet, land currently inhabited by hundreds of millions of people worldwide would wind up underwater. South Florida would be largely uninhabitable; floods on the scale of Hurricane Sandy would strike twice a month in New York and New Jersey, as the tug of the moon alone would be enough to send tidewaters into homes and buildings.

DeConto and Pollard’s breakthrough came from trying to match observations of ancient sea levels at shorelines around the world with current ice sheet behavior.

Around 3 million years ago, when global temperatures were about as warm as they’re expected to be later this century, oceans were dozens of feet higher than today.

Previous models suggested that it would take hundreds or thousands of years for sea-level rise of that magnitude to occur. But once they accounted for marine ice-cliff instability, DeConto and Pollard’s model pointed toward a catastrophe if the world maintains a “business as usual” path — meaning we don’t dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

Rapid cuts in greenhouse gases, however, showed Antarctica remaining almost completely intact for hundreds of years.

Pollard and DeConto are the first to admit that their model is still crude, but its results have pushed the entire scientific community into emergency mode.

“It could happen faster or slower, I don’t think we really know yet,” says Jeremy Bassis, a leading ice sheet scientist at the University of Michigan. “But it’s within the realm of possibility, and that’s kind of a scary thing.”

Scientists used to think that ice sheets could take millennia to respond to changing climates. These are, after all, mile-thick chunks of ice.

The new evidence, though, says that once a certain temperature threshold is reached, ice shelves of glaciers that extend into the sea, like those near Pine Island Bay, will begin to melt from both above and below, weakening their structure and hastening their demise, and paving the way for ice-cliff instability to kick in.

In a new study out last month in the journal Nature, a team of scientists from Cambridge and Sweden point to evidence from thousands of scratches left by ancient icebergs on the ocean floor, indicating that Pine Island’s glaciers shattered in a relatively short amount of time at the end of the last ice age.

The only place in the world where you can see ice-cliff instability in action today is at Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland, one of the fastest-collapsing glaciers in the world. DeConto says that to construct their model, they took the collapse rate of Jakobshavn, cut it in half to be extra conservative, then applied it to Thwaites and Pine Island.

But there’s reason to think Thwaites and Pine Island could go even faster than Jakobshavn.

Right now, there’s a floating ice shelf protecting the two glaciers, helping to hold back the flow of ice into the sea. But recent examples from other regions, like the rapidly collapsing Larsen B ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula, show that once ice shelves break apart as a result of warming, their parent glaciers start to flow faster toward the sea, an effect that can weaken the stability of ice further inland, too.

“If you remove the ice shelf, there’s a potential that not just ice-cliff instabilities will start occurring, but a process called marine ice-sheet instabilities,” says Matthew Wise, a polar scientist at the University of Cambridge.

This signals the possible rapid destabilization of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet in this century. “Once the stresses exceed the strength of the ice,” Wise says, “it just falls off.”

And, it’s not just Pine Island Bay. On our current course, other glaciers around Antarctica will be similarly vulnerable. And then there’s Greenland, which could contribute as much as 20 feet of sea-level rise if it melts.

Next to a meteor strike, rapid sea-level rise from collapsing ice cliffs is one of the quickest ways our world can remake itself. This is about as fast as climate change gets.

Still, some scientists aren’t fully convinced the alarm is warranted. Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, says the new research by Wise and his colleagues, which identified ice-cliff instabilities in Pine Island Bay 11,000 years ago, is “tantalizing evidence.” But he says that research doesn’t establish how quickly it happened.

“There’s a whole lot more to understand if we’re going to use this mechanism to predict how far Thwaites glacier and the other glaciers are going to retreat,” he says. “The question boils down to, what are the brakes on this process?”

Scambos thinks it is unlikely that Thwaites or Pine Island would collapse all at once. For one thing, if rapid collapse did happen, it would produce a pile of icebergs that could act like a temporary ice shelf, slowing down the rate of retreat.

Despite the differences of opinion, however, there’s growing agreement within the scientific community that we need to do much more to determine the risk of rapid sea-level rise. In 2015, the U.S. and U.K. governments began to plan a rare and urgent joint research program to study Thwaites glacier. Called “How much, how fast?,” the effort is set to begin early next year and run for five years.

Seeing the two governments pooling their resources is “really a sign of the importance of research like this,” NASA’s Poinar says.

Given what’s at stake, the research program at Thwaites isn’t enough, but it might be the most researchers can get. “Realistically, it’s probably all that can be done in the next five years in the current funding environment,” says Pollard.

He’s referring, of course, to the Trump administration’s disregard for science and adequate scientific funding; the White House’s 2018 budget proposal includes the first-ever cut to the National Science Foundation, which typically funds research in Antarctica.

“It would be sensible to put a huge effort into this, from my perspective,” Pollard says. Structural engineers need to study Antarctica’s key glaciers as though they were analyzing a building, he says, probing for weak spots and understanding how exactly they might fail. “If you vastly increase the research now, [the cost] would still be trivial compared to the losses that might happen.”

Bassis, the ice sheet scientist at the University of Michigan, first described the theoretical process of marine ice-cliff instability in research published only a few years ago.

He’s 40 years old, but his field has already changed enormously over the course of his career. In 2002, when Bassis was conducting his PhD research in a different region of Antarctica, he was shocked to return to his base camp and learn that the Larsen B ice shelf had vanished practically overnight.

“Every revision to our understanding has said that ice sheets can change faster than we thought,” he says. “We didn’t predict that Pine Island was going to retreat, we didn’t predict that Larsen B was going to disintegrate. We tend to look at these things after they’ve happened.”

There’s a recurring theme throughout these scientists’ findings in Antarctica: What we do now will determine how quickly Pine Island and Thwaites collapse. A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries. That’s a decision worth countless trillions of dollars and millions of lives.

“The range of outcomes,” Bassis says, “is really going to depend on choices that people make.”

terça-feira, 17 de outubro de 2017

O que há debaixo do manto de gelo da Gronelândia?


O manto de gelo da Gronelândia é imenso, misterioso... e está a derreter! Usando tecnologia avançada, cientistas revelam os seus segredos pela primeira vez e o que eles encontraram é incrível: debaixo do manto de gelo há um vasto aquífero com um volume de água de de gelo do tamanho do Lago Tahoe. Será que essa água fica lá ou será que ela vai para o oceano e contribui para o aumento global do nível do mar? Acompanhe a glacióloga Kristin Poinar em sua jornada por esta terra congelada e esquecida e descubra!