Peter Wadhams in Murder Mystery?

[Jim Hunt]

In The Times of London today it is reported that:

A Cambridge professor has said that assassins may have murdered scientists who were seeking to reveal how rapidly global warming was melting Arctic ice.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics, said he believed that he had also been targeted but had a narrow escape after a driver of an unmarked lorry tried to push his car off the M25.

Professor Wadhams faced criticism this week after a study contradicted his prediction that Arctic ice was melting so fast that it could all disappear this summer. Asked by The Times for his response to the discovery that the total volume of ice grew 40 per cent in 2013, Professor Wadhams insisted that there was still an outside possibility of the Arctic being ice-free this year.

He then said there were only four people in Britain who were "really leaders on ice thickness in the Arctic" and he was one. The others, he said, had died in early 2013.

He said: "It seems to me to be too bizarre to be accidental but each individual incident looks accidental, which may mean it's been made to look accidental."

He named the three as Seymour Laxon of University College London, Katharine Giles, a climate change scientist who worked with Professor Laxon at UCL, and Tim Boyd of the Scottish Association for Marine Science.

Discuss!

[Peter Ellis]

... oh dear

[Neven]

I'm always in for a good conspiracy theory, and I must admit that it struck me as a huge coincidence that Laxon and Giles - both working on Cryosat-2 stuff at UCL - died within three months of each other (didn't know Tim Boyd, or that he died too). But come on, if this is true, we might as well stop looking at and writing about Arctic sea ice. Especially me! 

Because it would mean that 1) Arctic sea ice is going to be completely lost even faster than it already is (which is really fast), and 2) certain parties want that to happen and are so powerful they can kill anyone who wants to warn the world that it's going to happen even faster than it already is (which is really fast). That means that any hope of solving this is basically futile.

My view is that Wadhams has done a lot of valuable work, was one of the first to speak out about how Arctic sea ice loss would proceed much faster than anyone thought (I mean, who could've predicted something like 2012 just a decade ago? People would've said you're nuts), but the frustration that no one seems to be getting how incredibly serious this is, is making him go all out and throw all caution to the wind.

The irony of all this could be that climate risk deniers are going to use Wadhams to further confuse the public, and further intimidate scientists and students thinking about a career in climate science. But that also depends on what Arctic sea ice will actually do in coming years.

[OldLeatherneck]

Being an Aficionado of murder mysteries, particularly those with global conspiracies and international intrigue, I find this to be a bit incredulous.  I have no doubt that the proponents of BAU would conspire to silence scientists using means that are unethical, deceitful, immoral and at times quasi-legal at best.  However, I doubt that they have resorted to targeted assassinations that are made to appear as accidental deaths.  It appears that Professor Wadhams is under so much stress and facing so many obstacles that it is resulting in some degree of excess paranoia.

Meanwhile, it would make a great movie.  Obviously, Jim Hunt has to have the leading role as the sleuth that has to solve the crimes.  It may even become evident that the co-conspirators are communicating via codes and symbols selectively inserted into posts and graphs on Neven's blog and forum.  What remains to be seen is which of the seductive females vying for Jim's attention is one of co-conspirators and which one is obsessed with saving planet earth.

[Peter Ellis]

Because it would mean that 1) Arctic sea ice is going to be completely lost even faster than it already is (which is really fast), and 2) certain parties want that to happen and are so powerful they can kill anyone who wants to warn the world that it's going to happen even faster than it already is (which is really fast).

3) They can control lightning strikes.

Short of indicting Thor himself, I think it's safe to say Wadhams is pretty far off the rails into la-la land here.  A great shame.

[crandles]

Is this
a) Wadhams believes it sensible to resort to arguments that are a little ‘way out there’ to defend his position
b) times doing a character assassination piece,
c) Wadhams losing it, or
d) Vested interests really wanting to resort to murder to silence people when just letting observational evidence speak for itself seems a much easier and less dodgy way of letting Wadham’s credibility be demolished.

b seems most likely and kindest interpretation for Wadhams?

[Jim Hunt]

b seems most likely and kindest interpretation for Wadhams?

Given what some of the UK "Right thinking" press are up to at the moment I'd plump for B too. The Storify so far:

Inconvenient Truths for the Daily Mail and The Spectator

Meanwhile on the streets of Exeter earlier today, they got the wrong guy!

https://twitter.com/mojo90/status/624942350192783360

[Jim Hunt]

The Telegraph picks up the Peter Wadhams story and runs with it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11762680/Three-scientists-investigating-melting-Arctic-ice-may-have-been-assassinated-professor-claims.html

[Prof. Wadhams] admitted it would have been "stupid" to go to the police with his concerns over the three deaths, not least because he was "suspicious" of the authorities - he cited the example of the death of the government’s weapons expert Dr David Kelly.

Would you believe that the GWPF have reproduced it too? Archived at:

https://archive.is/Cqoq9

It seems that the lorry in Exeter did actually kill someone, which retrospectively makes my joke rather tasteless, for which I apologise.

[Neven]

Would you believe that the GWPF have reproduced it too? Archived at:

Like I said: "The irony of all this could be that climate risk deniers are going to use Wadhams to further confuse the public, and further intimidate scientists and students thinking about a career in climate science."

[Jim Hunt]

Like I said: "The irony of all this could be that climate risk deniers are going to use Wadhams to further confuse the public, and further intimidate scientists and students thinking about a career in climate science."

Roger Pielke Jr. just "liked" one of my Tweets. Hence:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/625005294901460992

I've been warned by an IPCC lead author with experience of such intimidation not to get involved. I ignored them!

[Neven]

I understand climate risk deniers like David Rose and Roger Pielke are now tweeting this. I'm seeing it pop up here and there in comment threads by trolls to derail discussion. Could turn into a short-lived shitstorm, that will then be repeated every year or so, like that British guy who said something like British children never seeing snow again.

I wonder if Wadhams really put it the way it ended up.

[Jim Hunt]

I wonder if Wadhams really put it the way it ended up.

Well let's see. According to The Murdoch Times Wadhams was:

Asked by The Times for his response to the discovery that the total volume of ice grew 40 per cent in 2013

yet according to The ToryGraph:

Prof Wadhams, who is Professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, told The Telegraph

Do you suppose they both have tapes of those alleged "conversations"?

[Jim Hunt]

I understand climate risk deniers like David Rose and Roger Pielke are now tweeting this.

So he is. I wonder if Mr. Rose has a tape too?

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/625031479605755904

[Jim Hunt]

Now what do you suppose the Mail & the ToryGraph have been cooking up for Sunday morning?

Booker's piece is out there already. Archived at: https://archive.is/c3Qv8

Snow White's 1st comment at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11763272/How-Arctic-ice-has-made-fools-of-all-those-poor-warmists.html#comment-2156882468

And next there is of course Delingpole over at Breitbart: https://archive.is/6hnaH

Whatever next?

[jai mitchell]

but the frustration that no one seems to be getting how incredibly serious this is, is making him go all out and throw all caution to the wind.

Yes, except for the unmarked lorry trying to push him off of the road.

[Jim Hunt]

Whatever next?

Well there's Watts of course, who summons up the Cook & Lewandowsky demons too: https://archive.is/DS2zl

No point in me even trying to comment there. It seems Dave Stealey feels underappreciated and is hanging up his moderator's hat.

But then there's a surprise! The Wadhams story's come out in the Mail without a David Rose byline: https://archive.is/TQ6Jl

[Jim Hunt]

Yes, except for the unmarked lorry trying to push him off of the road.

Do you seriously believe Wadhams said that in all seriousness? If so, have you read Lewandowsky on "Seepage"?

[Jim Hunt]

The edited highlights of this evening's fun & games:

https://storify.com/jim_hunt/assassination-without-a-lorry-for-dummies

There is of course plenty more where that lot came from.

[anotheramethyst]

i love a good conspiracy theory.  i've read some extremely far out there reports.  i've also come across official reports of whistleblowers who die of 2 bullets in the head, officially reported as suicide.  so climate scientists murdered? possible, not very plausible.  by "the moneyed interests in power?" maybe, maybe not.  this climate debate has indeed wandered into wacko territory, attracting the attention of those extreme right people that do occasionally bomb abortion clinics.  i have heard of extreme amounts of hate correspondence directed at high profile climate scientists, and that by itself will make anyone paranoid (paranoid enough to attribute malice to accidental traffic mistakes even).  if i were a climate scientist quoted in the media, i would certainly exercise caution.  and it could be a smear campaign, but it probably took remarks he actually made and exaggerated their significance.  however, the most important thing, imho, is to recognize this story for what it is, a distraction from the hard science that we all should be looking at.  whether its a conspiracy or an accident, those climate scientists would want us all to watch the climate, and not be distracted by their circumstances, however tragic.

[Jim Hunt]

The most important thing, imho, is to recognize this story for what it is, a distraction from the hard science that we all should be looking at.

Fabricated or not, the story is obviously designed to be a distraction from the science. However in this case, if there is any truth whatsoever in their latest attempt to assassinate the character of Peter Wadhams, then the Great British gutter press have been hounding the partner of the late Professor Seymour Laxon of CPOM/UCL.

Utterly beneath contempt.

[Stephen]

The bit about the truck (or lorry) driver murdering cyclists could well be true.  But it doesn't mean it's got anything to do with climate science.  The worldwide resurgence in the use of bicycles for both recreational and commuting purposes has really stirred up anger among a certain group in the motoring community who believe that the roads are for cars and trucks but NOT bicycles.  Combine that with the difficulty of proving intent in fatal "accidents" and you have the perfect murder.

It's a serious problem, but nothing to do with climate science.

[Neven]

but the frustration that no one seems to be getting how incredibly serious this is, is making him go all out and throw all caution to the wind.

Yes, except for the unmarked lorry trying to push him off of the road.

Oh come on, if someone wanted to shut Wadhams up, he'd be long dead by now.

Fabricated or not, the story is obviously designed to be a distraction from the science. However in this case, if there is any truth whatsoever in their latest attempt to assassinate the character of Peter Wadhams, then the Great British gutter press have been hounding the partner of the late Professor Seymour Laxon of CPOM/UCL.

Utterly beneath contempt.

Yes, this is really bad. The reporter should never have asked Laxon's wife for a reaction. That's sick.

But Wadhams must have said something that the reporter could use.

[dorlomin]

I had warned people to be careful of Wadhams and the AMEG.

This is particularly the case in London, which has the unenviable position of being the epicentre of lorry-related cycling deaths in the UK. Last year, 10 out of 13 fatal cycling accidents in the capital were women, and eight of them were killed by HGVs, according to the cycling campaign group CTC.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/may/13/cycling-lorries-women-road-deaths

Woman and left turning lorries has been a huge problem in London for years. Dr Giles death made the news as part of a long running saga with these trucks.

[Jim Hunt]

Dr Giles death made the news as part of a long running saga with these trucks.

See also: UCL loses second researcher this year on this very forum.

Ignore ICK's graphs though, whilst recalling that The Times of London is also "one of Mr. Murdoch's fine newspapers"

[ccgwebmaster]

I don't think the reports about what Peter Wadhams said should be taken at face value.

[Neven]

Fair enough, but then he should speak out and explain where that reporter got the idea from that Wadhams thinks there's a conspiracy to kill scientists who know too much about the actual state of the ice.

[jai mitchell]

Because it would mean that 1) Arctic sea ice is going to be completely lost even faster than it already is (which is really fast), and 2) certain parties want that to happen and are so powerful they can kill anyone who wants to warn the world that it's going to happen even faster than it already is (which is really fast). That means that any hope of solving this is basically futile.

I find it very interesting that you can muse whether it is true or not, with the implications being that powerful forces WANT the arctic to melt out.  (this theme is very interesting if you look at the fact that powerful forces actually knew about global warming as early as the 1950s and the JASONS scientific advisory team published secret studies in the mid 1970s showing that it would be a significant issue in coming decades)

But at the same breath say this:

Yes, except for the unmarked lorry trying to push him off of the road.

oh come on, if someone wanted to shut Wadhams up, he'd be long dead by now.

[Neven]

I find it very interesting that you can muse whether it is true or not, with the implications being that powerful forces WANT the arctic to melt out.  (this theme is very interesting if you look at the fact that powerful forces actually knew about global warming as early as the 1950s and the JASONS scientific advisory team published secret studies in the mid 1970s showing that it would be a significant issue in coming decades)

I once had a friend who was really into conspiracy theories, and so naturally, when I told him about AGW and he researched on the Internet (for about 20 minutes), he immediately became convinced it was all a hoax. I tried to persuade him writing a long e-mail  about how neatly AGW fitted in with his other conspiracy ideas (Illuminati/NWO wanting to destroy the world) and made more sense than the 'gubmint wants to steal our guns, freedom and money'.

But it backfired, he went to WUWT and became even more convinced that it was all a hoax. I'm still hoping he'll call me some day and say I was right (more or less).

Sorry for the off-topic.

I'm not seeing any contradiction there, jai. Look, I'll put it together:

Because it would mean that 1) Arctic sea ice is going to be completely lost even faster than it already is (which is really fast), and 2) certain parties want that to happen and are so powerful they can kill anyone who wants to warn the world that it's going to happen even faster than it already is (which is really fast). That means that any hope of solving this is basically futile. And 3) It's a miracle that Wadhams still lives, because those parties under 2) would have quickly gotten rid of him, Maslowski and that silly blogger called Neven.

[anotheramethyst]

sadly, even if it is true, we can't do a thing about it.  the single most important thing a scientist can have is credibility.  this is even more true for climate science.  if you want to promote climate science AND be able to say things might get worse than the IPCC predicts, you just can't talk about conspiracies, aliens, chemtrails, reincarnation, or bigfoot, even if you somehow manage to have really convincing evidence to back up the claim.  just between us, yeah i do think some people might want wadhams to be more quiet.  but i also think lorries/trucks have really large blind spots, and very few people will sacrifice their careers and risk jail time just to prove a point.  if you want to prove there's a conspiracy, search the archives for these murdering truckers and see if you find them rich or poor from the subsequent loss of a job and probable lawsuits.  i prsonally dont think wadhams would get murdered because even much of the scientific community views him as a little out there.  neven should be more worried, except i think cyber warfare and not real warfare is the danger here.  but since we r getting paranoid together, here's my contribution. 

my parents r pot smoking hippies, and i learned a lot about the psychology and tactics of "the man" from them.  the relevant info here at this forum is this:  when the dea busts a bunch of hippie pot dealers by infiltrating them, they send in 1 person to gain credibility.  he hangs out a while and soon introduces dea undercover agent #2, and vouches for him "yeah hes cool."  agent 2 does the same for agent 3.  agent 1 disappears.  its actually the 4th or 5th dea agent that actually busts everyone, so they can keep people "in" all the time, and the initial agents who first broke in are long gone with reputations still intact.  i think about that a lot when i see conversations on this forum when you have a bunch of new and semi new people agreeing with eachothers denialist-sounding talking points.  maybe i'm paranoid too

that said, i think letting even creepy denialists stay is a good idea simply because everyone here knows the science well enough to make denialism look delusional pretty quickly.  (trolls, on the other hand just waste time and space).

[Jim Hunt]

The full text of Professor Peter Wadhams complaint to IPSO this morning, plus a slideshow of the back story so far, can now be seen at:

Professor Peter Wadhams Complaint to IPSO

[jai mitchell]

I agree,

it is conspiratorial thinking that predicates global warming denial, this has been very well documented with several different studies over the years.

Maybe wadhams just had a run in and with the very unusual deaths of two key researchers in the Cryosat-2 area, just after they had developed a good depth/volume analysis that verified the piomas winter values, must have given him a jolt.  Of course, If I was him I would think that there was a vast body of illuminati climate scientists who have been working to ensure that there is sufficient doubt and that the actual impacts of the (near term) climate shift are not understood until it is too late!

[Anne]

Thanks for posting that, Jim. It makes shocking reading. I've just referred some Wadhams-mockers on Facebook to your blog for his complaint.

[Jim Hunt]

It makes shocking reading. I've just referred some Wadhams-mockers on Facebook to your blog for his complaint.

Thanks Anne, and it does indeed.

In the latest news an article by John Vidal in the Guardian says that the Times say they have a recording of Ben Webster's interview with Prof. Wadhams, and the Telegraph interviewed him as well:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/professor-peter-wadhams-complaint-to-ipso/#comment-210935

The slideshow gets ever longer!

[ccgwebmaster]

In the latest news an article by John Vidal in the Guardian says that the Times say they have a recording of Ben Webster's interview with Prof. Wadhams, and the Telegraph interviewed him as well:

I'm reminded of this matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothing

The media (and news aggregators) will steal stories rampantly without bothering to fact check or even re-check the original source. Even supposedly reputable outlets fall into this trap. Just as well he's taken a stand early, with how fast these things travel around.

[EDIT] Also worth noting how easily manipulated audio is.

[skanky]

In the latest news an article by John Vidal in the Guardian says that the Times say they have a recording of Ben Webster's interview with Prof. Wadhams, and the Telegraph interviewed him as well:

I'm reminded of this matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothing

The media (and news aggregators) will steal stories rampantly without bothering to fact check or even re-check the original source. Even supposedly reputable outlets fall into this trap. Just as well he's taken a stand early, with how fast these things travel around.

[EDIT] Also worth noting how easily manipulated audio is.

See also churnalism.

[Jim Hunt]

I have been known to rant against churnalism in my professional capacity:

http://www.V2G.co.uk/2014/06/the-open-source-electric-vehicle-hall-of-shame/

[Jim Hunt]

I called The Times switchboard this morning and asked to speak to Ben Webster. I didn't get very far:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/625969240630251520

No, sorry. I’m going to have to go because the other line is ringing, but if you call back later he’ll be in.

All right, but that’s not very helpful, whoever you are.

[crandles]

David Rose ‏@DavidRoseUK  Jul 25
@ret_ward why not focus on the real issue: that a Cambridge prof appears to have gone mad, and is causing distress to families of deceased?

Pretty disgusting IMHO. It is obviously the papers that are causing distress to the families of the deceased and I see no evidence Wadhams is doing so.

also
'Gone mad' seems a little strong assuming he has put in a reasonably coherent complaint to IPSO.

If a professor did go a little 'off the rails' and was influencing government policy then there may be a public interest argument in making that information available. This hardly seems to apply, AMEG suggestions that geoengineering must be commenced is being ignored by governments and reaction is that it would be a bad idea.


Do you think Wadhams was specifically targeted for a character assassination piece and deliberately given the rope to hang himself? I guess that isn't easy to prove one way or the other.

Just because Wadhams has complained doesn't necessarily mean Wadhams didn't effectively do this to himself either.

I am not sure I would want to defend Wadhams too publicly or too staunchly in case IPSO finds there is no merit in the complaint. i.e. I am not dismissing the possibility that tapes basically exonerate the papers showing Wadhams brought it on himself.

[Jim Hunt]

I finally managed to speak to Ben Webster, who told me he had no comment to make and that I should speak to The Times’ Director of Editorial Communications. She tells me nothing new:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/professor-peter-wadhams-complaint-to-ipso/#comment-210951

Thanks for your voicemail. This is the statement we have issued on this story:

A spokesperson for The Times said:

“We have a recording of Professor Wadhams making these statements. Another newspaper subsequently reported that he had made similar comments to their journalist. We stand by the story.”

Scroll down a bit and you'll no doubt note that The Independent joined in the fun yesterday as well

[Jim Hunt]

Do you think Wadhams was specifically targeted for a character assassination piece and deliberately given the rope to hang himself?

Have you checked the Storify? That was my initial premise, and Mark Brandon (who had a bit of a barney with Prof. Wadhams not so very long ago) seems to think so too. As it was put to me on Twitter earlier today:

I don't endorse Wadhams, but Ben Webster has a history:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/18/climate-journal-chief-editor-responds-bengtsson
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/19/now-its-timesgate/

[skanky]

Do you think Wadhams was specifically targeted for a character assassination piece and deliberately given the rope to hang himself?

Have you checked the Storify? That was my initial premise, and Mark Brandon (who had a bit of a barney with Prof. Wadhams not so very long ago) seems to think so too. As it was put to me on Twitter earlier today:

I don't endorse Wadhams, but Ben Webster has a history:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/18/climate-journal-chief-editor-responds-bengtsson
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/19/now-its-timesgate/

From your second link, JM's advice should probably be SOP for all scientists.

[Jim Hunt]

JM's advice should probably be SOP for all scientists.

This is true, but I suspect that in this instance Prof. Wadhams probably wasn't geared up with the appropriate technology. I wonder if Ben mentioned that he had his recording apparatus turned on in this instance? If so it certainly sounds as though he didn't turn it off when he said he would.

[TerryM]

It appears as though the good professor has, at the least, been the victim of character assassination.


Jim's link to Prof. Wadhams complaint cleared the air for me. Wadhams does not believe that attempts were made on his life & those claiming otherwise have a well known propensity to defame anyone advocating a governmental response to global warming.


Terry

[Jim Hunt]

Continuing a conversation from the ASIB, here's an ethics handbook for aspiring journalists:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/

[Jim Hunt]

Meanwhile, The Independent virtually printed the “WadhamsGate” conspiracy story on Monday without talking to Peter Wadhams first. I badgered them for a bit and they have now communicated with him. They amended their story as follows:

[JER]

Slightly off-topic but relevant, to emphasize how crazy the crazies really are:

At the 2011 AGU meeting in San Francisco I was interviewed by Jonathan Amos of BBC News regarding an incident of polar bear infanticide and cannibalism on the rapidly-melting summer sea ice in Svalbard that I observed and photographed in July 2010. A scientific paper focusing on the incident and possible connections to the effects of climate change in the Arctic, on which I collaborated with renowned polar bear biologist Ian Stirling, had just been published prior to AGU. The BBC News story, including an audio excerpt from Amos's interview of me, went online quickly, and numerous other media outlets then picked up the story and it got quite a bit of coverage. (BBC News story: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16081214. And if you care to see a sad bloody scene, many of my photographs of the incident are on my website here: http://www.lifeonthinice.org/#s=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&p=3&a=0&at=0. The scientific paper is here (scroll down to find it): http://www.aina.ucalgary.ca/scripts/mwimain.dll/144/proe/proarc/se+arctic,+v.+64,+no.++4,+Dec.+2011,*?COMMANDSEARCH.) Within just a couple of days of the BBC article being published, I received several raging, vicious, obscene emails, including two death threats. Needless to say, I didn't respond to any of them.

I render no opinion regarding what's going on with Dr. Wadhams, but I can say based on personal experience that the denier community includes some frighteningly irrational people who seem capable of just about anything.

[F.Tnioli]

I'm always in for a good conspiracy theory, and I must admit that it struck me as a huge coincidence that Laxon and Giles - both working on Cryosat-2 stuff at UCL - died within three months of each other (didn't know Tim Boyd, or that he died too). But come on, if this is true, we might as well stop looking at and writing about Arctic sea ice. Especially me! 

Because it would mean that 1) Arctic sea ice is going to be completely lost even faster than it already is (which is really fast), and 2) certain parties want that to happen and are so powerful they can kill anyone who wants to warn the world that it's going to happen even faster than it already is (which is really fast). That means that any hope of solving this is basically futile.

My view is that Wadhams has done a lot of valuable work, was one of the first to speak out about how Arctic sea ice loss would proceed much faster than anyone thought (I mean, who could've predicted something like 2012 just a decade ago? People would've said you're nuts), but the frustration that no one seems to be getting how incredibly serious this is, is making him go all out and throw all caution to the wind.

The irony of all this could be that climate risk deniers are going to use Wadhams to further confuse the public, and further intimidate scientists and students thinking about a career in climate science. But that also depends on what Arctic sea ice will actually do in coming years.

Yes, Wadhams is a damn legend, to me. How many times he crossed the Arctic in submarines, measuring the ice right then and there? Dozens? Granted, age takes its tall, but i still believe in Wadhams' mind. He still sounds reasonable, doesn't he, and given his experiences and knowledge, this is one of few voices which i will always listen-to carefully, no matter that he at times says things i am not in agreement with.

Now about the bold (my doing) part of the quote. Neven, excuse me, but that single line of yours really makes me curious now, i just gotta ask you few things... Those things, and i'd be happy even if you would only give most short, "yes/no"-like answers:

1. how exactly there is a "hope" of "solving" (=preventing) big blue Arctic happening quite soon "anyways" - let's be generous and say within next 3 decades, - and then persisting (for increasingly large portion of summer/autumn times) in the Arctic? I mean, no matter whether things you said above are true or not, - isn't it that the hope is dead already, anyways? For me, it quite is; please enlighten me, if you may!

2. do we not have much over 550 ppm CO2e in the athmosphere right now, with no signs of stopping further growth?

3. is there any doubt that 500+ ppm CO2e in the athmosphere causes Blue Arctic, given sufficient time for the new equilibrium to set in?

4. do you know of any technology which exists, or at least realistically could be developed and applied on sufficiently large scale, in order to produce tremendous energy nesessary to break up CO2 in the air to its components (namely carbon and oxygen), releasing oxygen into the athmosphere and burying (NOT re-using) solid carbon? In particular, the only realistic hope in this regard known to me, which is fusion, - do you have any data indicating that well known specialists' estimates that world-scale implementation of fusion power could not happen during next ~35 years, due to ongoing, massive and possibly unsolvable problems with fast neutron flux effectively destroying integrity of inner-side reactor structures?

5. do you agree that the most realistically feasible way to "urgently" prevent Blue Arctic event - temporarily, - quite obviously is dispersing certain specific Welsbach compounds at high (10+ km) altitude from jet liners and/or military jets?

6. If you do, then do you also agree that mankind's ability to do so on a sufficiently large scale is likely to end together with large-scale civilian and military jet planes' usage as soon as worldwide number of flights will be massively reduced because of fuel (primarily, oil) supply decrease (exhaustion) and related economical factors?

7. Have you ever calculated amount of "built-in" into existing infrastructure future CO2 emissions, based on number, estimated total power, and expected mean time before retirement of coal power plants of the world, and if you have, what's the figure? Isn't it stunning?

I mean, every last one coal power station - from Germany to China and beyond, around the globe, - has an owner allright, often investors and actioneers, too, and all those folks are quite dead-on to squeeze every last bit of profit outta their little (and large alike) coal power stations, i imagine. So,

8. it sadly happens that together, above described "coal power station owners" bunch, together with their business partners, are tremendously more powerful in terms of finance, legislation lobbying, legal protection, etc than all we environmentalists combined, no?

Just an example of how "but we must secure those profits!" is more than ensuring Arctic Blue planet, you know - there are plenty more.


Seriously, please do give me hope, if you can... I want to hope. But never false hope, Neven. If there is really none, i'd prefer to go as realist with no false hopes. I believe it's better than pink glasses. Others may disagree, of course, may be they are right, but for myself person, this is how i prefer it be. Thank you much, at least for reading!

[Juan C. García]

1. how exactly there is a "hope" of "solving" (=preventing) big blue Arctic happening quite soon "anyways" - let's be generous and say within next 3 decades, - and then persisting (for increasingly large portion of summer/autumn times) in the Arctic? I mean, no matter whether things you said above are true or not, - isn't it that the hope is dead already, anyways? For me, it quite is; please enlighten me, if you may!

2. do we not have much over 550 ppm CO2e in the athmosphere right now, with no signs of stopping further growth?

3. is there any doubt that 500+ ppm CO2e in the athmosphere causes Blue Arctic, given sufficient time for the new equilibrium to set in?

Forecasting is like trying to know what is ahead of us, when we are driving looking at the rear view mirror. It is a good exercise and humanity should do it the best it can. But the true is that we can not known what will happen in the future.
So let's do our best and hope that the future will resolve this, even that we do not have hope now, looking at the rear view mirror.

[F.Tnioli]

...
Forecasting is like trying to know what is ahead of us, when we are driving looking at the rear view mirror. It is a good exercise and humanity should do it the best it can. But the true is that we can not known what will happen in the future.
So let's do our best and hope that the future will resolve this, even that we do not have hope now, looking at the rear view mirror.

You propose two distinct things.

Let's do our best? Yep, let's! I agree on this one.

Let's hope that the future will resolve this? Nope. Can't. For me, that is - i can't hope for this. "Future" is a span of time. It can't "resolve" things, by itself. It takes a force to make an action. Now, you see, there are presently two main forces which may resolve lots of things, on Earth: Nature and Man.

For all we know, Nature won't be able to resolve Man's mess - this we know not only from rearview mirror (mega-fauna, etc), but from large amount of analysis for dozens of specific parts of the global man-made mess. In a nutshell, Nature resolve things via a process which we call evolution of species, but this process operates massively slower than we humans make messes.

This means, the only force which could possibly resolve "this" - is Man himself. Your argument about rearview mirror is solid - yes, we humans "might" change in the future enough to resolve own own planetary mess, that's, i guess, possible, - yet once again, it's not only knowledge of the past which kills the hope. It's also knowledge of the present. If you know what mankind is, who majority of humans are, who most influential of humans are, what are impacts of those both "classes", and what it takes to change most of them enough for the task, - and i dare think i know quite a fair bit on the subject here, - then i fail to see how could you have the hope for the "future will resolve".

Given expectable time frame (=mere decades) during which Man would still exist in an environment which allows for any large activities not directly related to immediate survival of the fittest, and the time frame needed for Man to change enough, that is. We _ran_ out of time on this one, and very much so. If that'd be the way to go - for practically everyone to change so much that he'd care about Gaia at least the same amount he cares about his own self, and correspondedly spend at least the same amount of effort for Gaia as he spends for his own well-being, - then we'd have to start changing, and fast, early 20th century at latest, possibly even 19th century. Because human generations have memories and beliefs, and it takes quite a few to change cultures so dramatically. Nowadays, this path won't prevent thermal maximum and massive correction of human population of Earth - and in particular, won't prevent Blue Arctic Earth. Too little time left for it to work.

This is not rearview mirror i talk above about... This is side windows. And that's quite better way to judge where we're heading, you know. Especially since the road is quite straight - in many regards, geophysical, chemical, astronomical, etc - for thousands/millions/billions years already, depending on specific feature.

This all is IMHO. Please do demonstrate if there's anything arguably wrong with it. I am willing to learn.


P.S. Please do note, in this and previous posts, i am talking about specific hope - namely, the hope that complete melt of summer/autumn Arctic sea ice would not happen in observable (this century) future. In other words, i discuss the hope that Blue Arctic won't happen. Not having this specific hope - so far, this is so in my case, - in no way means i don't have _any_ other hope. Certainly not the case! I do hope humans will survive. I do hope Nature won't be a complete goner. I do hope humans will change, after thermal maximum, and will become beings who are able to improve their own environment as they go instead of deteriorating it. I do hope intellect is not terminal nor useless mutation. And i do hope there is more good than bad in us humans. May be some of those hopes are pink glasses? Could be. But none i could demonstrate being such. I'd like to think my hopes are quite big, you see. So don't take it wrong, ain't no EMO kid here.

[crandles]

3. is there any doubt that 500+ ppm CO2e in the athmosphere causes Blue Arctic, given sufficient time for the new equilibrium to set in?

Removing ice cover causes ice to grow back in 2 or 3 years and I believe that would happen now at 580 CO2e. The time to equilibrium is fairly short for ice. There is much longer period for ocean temperatures and maybe hundreds of years after 500ppm CO2e would give months of ice free arctic but that is a long way off compared to short term equilibrium of ice level.

Not that it makes much difference to your argument:

Solar and wind are cheaper than ff if comparing before investment in either or after investment in either Unfortunately the comparison is after investment in ff plant and before investment in solar/wind. FF plants even if not able to squeeze out profits, they will still want to squeeze whatever cash they can back out from the investment. (It could become OK to run at a loss if the depreciation is larger than the loss so the operation is cash positive.)

Even with good incentives to overcome above and take ff plant out of use with renewables over next couple of decades, aerosols would then plummet and within a few years of that we could well have a month of ice free Arctic.

It is unclear how disastrous that would be. There is certainly chances of large amounts of methane and CO2 being released but there are also chances that such emissions won't increase all that dramatically for quite a while. Lower ice levels allow more heat to be vented to space in the Arctic winter. That can't do enough to balance the heat budget and rearranging distribution of heat probably isn't good, but if the imbalance is lowered a little.... the effects are unclear and maybe not catastrophic for quite a long time.

That the Arctic will soon be ice free seems to me to be a relatively poor reason for a 'we're all doomed' conclusion. Rising ocean temperatures seem much harder to stop without taking lots of carbon out of the atmosphere and the effects of destabilising West Antarctic ice sheet seems more certain in its effects so that seems more convincing to me.

Perhaps that is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But it does allow more time and who knows what will happen with technology that might become available that is able to bring atmospheric carbon levels down. I am dubious of miracle cures but lots of investment in renewables might lead to surplus power during sunny windy days that can be channelled into providing energy for genetically modified/artificial organisms that convert atmospheric carbon to soot or something else that is easily buried.

Maybe I am too optimistic - lots of things have to turn out well for the outcome to not be too terrible.