Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - MrVisible

Pages: [1]
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 24, 2018, 05:00:18 AM »
The new design shows the animals standing shoulder-to-shoulder, proudly walking in the wild.

No More Cages: New Animal Cracker Packaging Sets The Mighty Beasts Free

The polar bear is gone.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: January 21, 2018, 03:09:18 AM »
Multigenerational lab rat experiments would seem to be a good start. I'm sure professional biologists and pediatric pulmonologists would be able to suggest a wide range of experiments which would help to figure out how resilient we are to the conditions we're creating.

It seems like it's important enough to know whether we're able to survive the atmosphere we're creating that we might not want to just give up before we've even started looking into it.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: January 21, 2018, 12:07:29 AM »
Yes, we will reach that level, using the worst-case, least likely scenario.  Population cannot continue to rise exponentially.  Hence, the most likely value is around 600 ppm, provides no significant mitigation occurs.  Personsally, I do not believe this will continue, as future generations are likely to take greater action.

While your vague reassurances are vaguely reassuring, I'd much prefer seeing actual research on the subject. Given that the survival of the species is at stake.

We're not sure if healthy infants can be gestated and raised in the atmosphere as it will be in 2100.

Maybe we should put some effort into finding out, given the importance of the issue.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: January 20, 2018, 01:07:39 AM »
No noticeable effects have been observed at concentrations below 1%, except for a slightly increase respiratory rate.

That's not true.

Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance

Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06–0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased.

While the paper you posted is a good overview of the field from 2003, a lot has changed since then.

This podcast sums the issue up well, and there's a huge list of citations included.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: January 19, 2018, 06:15:51 PM »
I'm going by the IPCC projections.

Do you have research showing that exposure to CO2 levels no lower than 600ppm, and considerably higher most of the time, does no harm whatsoever to infants and gestating fetuses? Because that would be what I'm looking for here. It'd be very reassuring.

We actually don't know what will happen when we're immersed in high concentrations of CO2 every single day from the time we're conceived. Don't you think we might want to do some research to find out for sure?

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: January 19, 2018, 02:08:14 AM »
The studies that established the 5000ppm threshold for an 8-hour day were conducted on US Navy sailors back in the 1970s, and they specifically state that they don't apply to vulnerable populations.

The recommended desirability of increasing the allowable limits for daily exposure to carbon dioxide is based upon the recognition that work in any unusual atmospheric environment requires normal health and the absence of active medical conditions which would be exaggerated by the work and the environment. By appropriate selection of normal individuals fo work in atmospheres containing CO2, effects can be expected to be minimal and acceptable.

By 2100 we're looking at 1000ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. For our entire history as a species, we've been at 280ppm or less.

So, my point is... Can human babies gestate and develop healthily in an atmosphere with three times the normal quantity of CO2?

I haven't found any research on the effects of CO2 on people, but there's a lot of evidence accumulating that points to the fact that child health is already being affected by climate change in a variety of ways.

Negative birth outcomes linked to air pollution exposure early in pregnancy, study finds

Climate change and the potential effects on maternal and pregnancy outcomes: an assessment of the most vulnerable – the mother, fetus, and newborn child

Air pollution linked to increased mental illness in children

Danger in the air: How air pollution can affect brain development in young children

Global Warming May Harm Children for Life

Whether we survive as a species isn't going to depend on how healthy adult sailors can deal with CO2 on the job. It's going to depend on how well infants can gestate and develop in the atmosphere we're creating.

It seems to me like it'd be worth doing some multigenerational lab rat experiments to see what we're going to be up against.

Science / Re: Earthquakes and climate change
« on: November 19, 2017, 06:10:19 PM »
I think the periodic effect they're talking about is tidal:

Finally, there are also tidal variations in rotation rate and polar motion caused by the near-equilibrium long-period tides, which have periods from about 9 days to 18.6 years. For rotation rate, the dominant contributor is in fact the solid-earth tides."

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: September 14, 2017, 04:52:36 PM »
The great nutrient collapse

The atmosphere is literally changing the food we eat, for the worse. And almost nobody is paying attention.

I think I have asked this question before but ......what are the dark brown streaks on the ice that appear on the small calved piece but continue along the glacier? Is this till, dirt and rocks that have been ground from the surface of Greenland?

Could be algae.

Walking the walk / Re: Trash
« on: July 16, 2017, 03:10:22 AM »
I posted this on Reddit back in January:

This is going to sound weird.

I pick up litter.

A few months ago, I got a litter stick from Amazon. I put a few trash bags in my pocket, put on gloves, and went out into my neighborhood and got started.

The neighborhood was frankly trashed; most places in my city are these days. Decline of services and all. I can't do this most days, because my health is pretty poor, so it took me a while to finish my first pass. Now, every few weeks I can clean up my neighborhood in a couple of trips.

I fully realize that this makes me the crazy old guy in a hat and gloves on the side of the road, looking vaguely homeless. I don't care.

There are kids in this neighborhood. There are churches. People walk along these sidewalks every day. And now they don't have to think about what a dump the neighborhood is. They don't have to worry about walking around broken glass. They get to think about other things, hopefully better things.

It's changed my relationship with my neighborhood. I know it better. I know people here now; I've got regular stops on my route where they've invited me to use their trash cans. I've had some fun conversations.

And this might be my ego talking, but I think I see more people in the park lately.

Whether this is all coming to an end or not, there are people all around you. They're no less important than they've ever been. I'd argue they're more important than ever. Some of them need your help.

The only happiness I've found is in service to others.

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: June 24, 2017, 11:31:55 PM »

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: June 16, 2017, 07:00:58 AM »
There's a weird mix of excitement and dread that comes with having your hometown show up in the "Places becoming less livable" thread.

This should be interesting.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: May 23, 2017, 05:44:49 AM »
The conclusion of the new Shakhova paper:

Our triple isotope dataset of CH 4 from the sediment and water of the shallow ESAS reveals the presence of CH 4 of microbial origin formed on old carbon with unexpectedly low stable carbon ( δ 13 C as low as − 108 ‰) and hydrogen ( δ D as low as − 350 ‰) isotope signatures down to about 50 m under the seabed in the thawed permafrost. These data demonstrate  that  at  locations  where  a  thick  marine  clay  layer  is present,  this  CH 4 is  partially  oxidized  before  reaching  the seawater.  However,  at  locations  where  ebullition  was  observed from the seabed, no oxidation was identified in the stable isotope surface sediment profile. In that case, and considering the very shallow water column ( < 10 m) in this area, this  microbial  gas  will  likely  reach  the  atmosphere  when sea ice is absent. Our results show that thawing subsea permafrost of the ESAS emits CH 4 with an isotopic signature that cannot be easily distinguished from Arctic wetland emissions when looking only at stable isotope data. This similarity might complicate recent efforts to quantify Arctic CH 4 source strengths on the basis of isotopicand back-trajectory analysis of atmospheric CH 4 . Further in situ work is necessary – specifically on the isotopic composition of CH 4 in gas bubbles  that  reach  the  atmosphere  –  to  better  quantify  the contribution of the ESAS to the global methane budget.

Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: April 27, 2017, 04:46:02 PM »
Did we really just hit 412 ppm as a daily average? In April?


The majority of the scientists and engineers do not have the skills to be concise,  on target and quick on come backs. It is unfortunate...

Those skills take quite a bit of work to master. Debate club in college helps a lot, as does law school or a communications degree. These are people who study deceptive rhetoric the way scientists study science; it's no surprise that scientists are often outgunned in the media.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 18, 2017, 11:29:43 PM »
When the sea ice melts, juvenile polar cod may go hungry

Polar cod fulfil a key role in the Arctic food web, as they are a major source of food for seals, whales and seabirds alike. But the polar cod themselves might soon be the hungry ones. Under the ice of the central Arctic, the juvenile fish are indirectly but heavily dependent on ice algae. As a result, retreating sea ice could have far-reaching impacts on the food web.

Science / Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
« on: January 27, 2017, 02:16:12 PM »
I think it'll be a while before we get to levels that effect us directly.

More than 1,000ppm before complaints of drowsiness.

People complain about drowsiness (also measurable loss of cognitive ability) at 1,000ppm in the short term; doesn't that make you wonder if the constantly increasing ambient CO2 levels might have some long-term effects?

Most people spend a good portion of their days indoors at 1,000 ppm or higher. 280ppm used to be the norm; now people will never see that in their lifetimes. Soon the ambient level will be over 600, which means increasing your indoor exposure levels even more.

I'm just suggesting that experiments to figure out what that actually does to people would be helpful.

Science / Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
« on: January 27, 2017, 02:57:36 AM »
I know, I got interested enough in the subject to buy a CO2 monitor last year, and I've been surprised at how difficult it is to keep my house below 1000 parts per million.

For millions of years, humans rarely experienced a CO2 level above 400; now it's the lowest we'll ever see. We can see measurable short-term and medium-term effects at surprisingly low levels.

Since we're headed for what, 600ppm at the minimum, it would make sense to me to do some experimentation to find out what sort of effects that will have on us.

Science / Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
« on: January 27, 2017, 01:36:17 AM »
What effects will the surface concentration have on living things? High levels have been shown to make trees more susceptible to insects and disease, but what about other plant life and ocean life?

My question is, what about mammals? Specifically, what about us?

It would be pretty straightforward to run multigenerational lab rat experiments to explore the effects of elevated carbon dioxide on mammals, but I can't find any.

It does, however, take a surprisingly small rise in ambient CO2 to impair cognition in the short term.

This paper is a good discussion of the current state of our knowledge on the subject.

Science / Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
« on: January 25, 2017, 09:56:44 PM »
Does anyone know what's going on with's CO2sc readings?

From what I'm seeing, sometime late on the night of the 23rd, the readings went wonky. It's gone all grey and blue instead of its usual orange and red. I'm guessing a worldwide overnight jump of 30ppm is somewhat unlikely?

Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist to President Donald Trump and co-author of yesterday's inaugural address, used to be in charge of the Biosphere 2 project.

"A lot of the scientists who are studying global change and studying the effects of greenhouse gases, many of them feel that the Earth's atmosphere in 100 years is what Biosphere 2's atmosphere is today. We have extraordinarily high CO2, we have very high nitrous oxide, we have high methane. And we have lower oxygen content. So the power of this place is allowing those scientists who are really involved in the study of global change, and which, in the outside world or Biosphere 1, really have to work with just computer simulation, this actually allows them to study and monitor the impact of enhanced CO2 and other greenhouse gases on humans, plants, and animals."

He went on to found the climate-change denying Breitbart network, and leveraged that to put Trump in the Presidency.

These aren't people who don't believe in climate change. These are people who are using climate change denial as a position of political advantage. It gives them access to a huge bloc of voters who are easily swayed.

Just remember that when they claim not to believe in climate change, they're lying. It calls for different tactics.

Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: December 23, 2016, 05:53:01 AM »
I prefer to get my spiritual guidance from someone who's less of a jerk.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 20, 2016, 09:43:58 PM »
It snowed in the Sahara yesterday.

Photos of Freak Snowfall in the Sahara Look Unreal

Another incident of thunderstorm asthma, this time in Kuwait.

Isn't it winter in Kuwait, and summer in southern Australia?

Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: December 02, 2016, 02:56:23 AM »
If you want to skip the reading in my proposal below, just click on this first link below, and get started in the most powerful method on the planet, to help yourself, your family, your community, and the world.

The link is to, and he also recommends the Maharishi University of Management.

It's not just lightning causing the ozone. From this article:

Pan, who works on atmospheric chemistry at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., found that as thunderheads rise to heights up to 50,000 feet above the Earth’s surface, they cause ripples in the boundary between the troposphere—the lowest layer of the atmosphere—and the stratosphere—the next layer above it. Those ripples can actually tear a gap in the boundary layer on the front of the storm, allowing ozone-rich stratospheric air to pour down to the troposphere.

It just strikes me that something changed as of 1983, and a change in the pollen doesn't seem likely. At least, not a mutation that spread world-wide within a few years. And we know that the atmosphere has been changing a lot in recent years, and we've been getting more frequent and more severe storms.

I've been seeing stories about the episode of thunderstorm asthma that took place in Melbourne on the 21st. All the articles I've seen attribute the cause to pollen, even though from some of the early stories, a lot of the people affected didn't have hay fever.

This paper found that pollen and fungal spores didn't seem to affect people during thunderstorms, while ozone did.

Thunderstorms bring ozone down to ground level, and the symptoms people describe certainly seem to correlate with ozone exposure.

This has only been happening since 1983, so it seems odd to me that pollen would only recently develop this peculiar capacity to explode during thundertorms.

I was hoping that the weather enthusiasts would care to discuss whether it would be possible for a thunderstorm to increase ozone at ground level to lethal concentrations for at-risk individuals.

*Edited to fix links.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: November 24, 2016, 01:16:42 AM »
I did a little digging into thunderstorm asthma, and found this paper:

Asthma admissions and thunderstorms: a study of pollen, fungal spores, rainfall, and ozone

The effect is more marked in warmer weather, and is not explained by increases in grass pollen, total pollen or fungal spore counts, nor by an interaction between these and rainfall. There was an independent, positive association between ozone concentrations and asthma admissions.

The rest / Canada military probes mysterious Arctic pinging noise
« on: November 05, 2016, 12:54:42 AM »
The pinging noise is reported by locals to have reverberated around Fury and Hecla Strait in a remote part of northern Canada.

The Canadian military has investigated a mysterious pinging sound coming from the sea floor in a remote region of the Arctic, officials have told the BBC.

The strange noise is reported by local people to have frightened animals away over the past few months.

Any ideas?

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: September 18, 2016, 01:44:09 AM »
Wow, you're not kidding. Here's what they look like on in the CO2sc and COsc views under Chem. They simply dwarf the emissions coming from Japan.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: September 03, 2016, 11:12:34 PM »
Two more outbreaks of anthrax hit northern Siberia due to thawing permafrost

Crucially, the study also established that the infection started in thawed, contaminated soil, rather than emanating directly from decades-old poisoned reindeer carcasses or even human remains in graveyards, as was earlier believed.

This, in turn, means that controlling new outbreaks in a warming climate  is virtually impossible, other than by mass vaccinations of people and animals.

We had a rain bomb here in Tucson the other day. I haven't found video of that one, but

Permafrost / Re: Question from a newbie
« on: June 27, 2016, 09:09:48 AM »
Yup, the second one was a volcano. The first turns out to have been the wildfires north of Lake Baikal.

Thank you!

Permafrost / Question from a newbie
« on: June 26, 2016, 10:14:46 PM »
I was looking at Climate Reanalyzer last night, checking the CO2, and I saw a blue spot over Russia. I went back and found that in the past few days, I can see blue areas of high-CO2 concentration developing over Russia every so often.

If you look at the attached gif, there's one that pops up at 59.93n, 99.47e on June 22, and another that comes up at 56.50n, 156.80e on the 24th. Both spike to over 450ppmv, then dissipate in the wind currents. The later one recurs in the same spot.

Checking the maps for these areas, there's pretty much nothing there.

Could someone please let me know what these are?,38.40,708/loc=156.803,56.498

Pages: [1]