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 - liefde

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 13, 2019, 01:05:37 AM »
The main drivers seem to be constantly disregarded in these projection graphs;
- Energy is still accumulating (by 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of heat every second) globally. That heat is not going to disappear. It will reside in oceans (bottom melt) and on the surface (top melt). In addition to that greenhouse gases are expanding as well, not disappearing.
- Ice melt is contact-surface related. The smaller the surface becomes, the more it is surrounded by melt-potential. It's not a linear curve, it's an exponential one.
- The two cold poles are not separate, they are part of the same energy system. The lower the ice down South, the higher the impact up North. There are no signs either of the poles show long-term growth (and how could they?).

Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: July 23, 2019, 04:09:48 PM »
Exciting to see if ARPEGE is correct about Thursday. If so, it will mean the 40℃ barrier will be broken for BeNeLux. It's not that records have never been broken before, but the records have always clearly been outliers, these aren't outliers anymore. No real surprise, to be honest, with earth's surface accumulating 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of heat every second. Energy going in, not out into space, thanks to the growing blanket of CO2, H2O, CH4, CFCs and N2O.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 01, 2018, 12:52:40 AM »
Have we any idea what is forcing the warm air?  Is it the tropics?  The Gulf Stream?

I smell another change happening and I can't figure out what the proximate cause is.
The dramatic and non-stop rise in CO2, CH4, Halocarbons, N2O. How anyone still questions that is beyond me.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 01, 2018, 12:41:00 AM »
A quick glance says that is a model study.  Care to demonstrate any skill at all in the models?
Assuming you can read; Care to read it again?

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 01, 2018, 12:32:40 AM »
A scenario of year-round ice-free Arctic can only be reached (IMO) by further a northward reach of the warm ocean currents.
I keep reading this dreamy misconception everywhere. People seem to be forgetting about the fact that the quantity of heat energy required to melt 1kg of ice (of just below freezing) to 1kg of water (of just above freezing) would raise the temperature of that same 1 kg of water to 80 degrees Celsius. This means that as soon as ice is gone, and there is heat energy (i.e. Sunlight), the oceans will be very hot at the surface (provided that surface T will also keep on rising as it does) all around the Arctic circle. It already is super anomalously warm, by the way. So when the sun is gone at the polar caps, all it needs is a little flow from warmer lower ocean currents to keep it from freezing up, and/or surface winds blowing the warmer (sun-heated) waters Northwards. Considering all the additional feedbacks, I'd say year round ice free poles could be a reality around 2035 at the very latest.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 08, 2018, 12:09:12 AM »
Only an crackpot would believe in 6K warming till 2028. But what am I saying, also only a crackpot would believe in extinction of the entire human race till 2030. My friend, get horror movies that do not falsely pretend factuality, there are good ones with better visual effects than a doomsday prophet who lost his marbles.
Do you still stand by this ridiculously optimistic view, plinius?

If a 76% decline of insects was observed in 27 years in German nature reserves, the ‘decline’ would reach 100% in 35.5 years (conservatively, ignoring ecosystem collapse feedbacks). Meaning *all* insects in these nature reserves could be gone by 2027. Oh, and plants are in decline too. These are all assuming linear decline rates, while all we observe is exponential rates of change. That’s not good for human survival prospects.

If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years, wouldn’t the remaining 40% also disappear in the coming 30 years? We’re not significantly changing that course of events, are we? And wouldn’t we, humans, then be part of those remaining 40%? If not: What bees do we expect pollinate our crops? Are we going to create sufficient artificial biospheres in time for it to actually function as a stable fake-earth, a replacement habitat? Do we know enough to get the details right? Where are we getting the resources and funding for that? Who gets to go inside that fake-earth when wet-bulb temperatures or radiation levels become too high? We can’t shut down all our nuclear facilities in time for it not to cause extinction level dosages worldwide, can we? There’s no miracle cure for thyroid cancer, or protection of the water-column against cesium-137 and iodine-131. So, you may well be able to hide and survive a little longer, but not more than a couple of years until the cancer kicks in.

We have built a life of growth and prosperity, with ridiculous energy usage patterns, based on finite (and soon-to-max-out) resources with no equal replacement in sight. This is uncharted territory, and the fact that generations have experienced the fossil-fueled upswing holds no predictive power over our future. Just because growth has been thematic does not mean it will always be there. The failure of most people to treat this possibility seriously is disheartening, because it prevents meaningful planning for a different future. We can all hope for new technologies to help us. But this problem is too big to rely on hope alone, and in any case, no practical technology can keep growth going indefinitely.

Let's, optimistically, assume we'll have a year round ice-free Arctic (ignoring Greenland) in 2024, which seems entirely plausible considering what the jet-streams seem to be doing lately. Do you have any idea what that will do to sub-sea permafrost?
It adds up. And, according to Semiletov and Shakhova:
"For the permafrost, the past three decades is not a huge period of time, because the processes, the consequences of which we are studying right now and have to deal with, started long long ago. This was triggered by natural warming associated with replacement of the cold climate epoch with the warm interglacial period and followed by permafrost inundation by sea water. Scientists agree that submerged permafrost would eventually start degrading, but how soon and at what pace this degradation would occur became the major point of disagreement between them.
It was suggested by some scientists that subsea permafrost would keep its integrity for millennia, which means that in the areas submerged less than 1000 years ago (as we investigated in our study) it should not have occurred yet. Our study proved that not only has it already occurred, but it has been progressing to higher rates, which have almost doubled since this degradation started.
It is most likely that we are now dealing with the consequences of when natural warming is enhanced with anthropogenic warming, and together they are accelerating the pace of natural processes. This appears to be continuing the processes of permafrost degradation at levels that we have never observed before."

You do realize that methane has 34 x the CO2 equivalent GWP over a 100 year span? We're already at 1840 ppb total column CH4. This used to never be higher than 800 ppb for the past 800000 years. This is a new IR bounce blanket trapping even more heat than CO2 and H2O are already doing.
Either way, assuming it takes about 2 years more before enough CH4 has left the clathrates and other frozen carbon storage locations to make enough of an impact, we could reach +4Celsius above baseline around ~2027. That's not going to bring equilibrium for cold spots anywhere on the planet. It basically means stormy warm moist weather everywhere, too little water in the ground and only artificially grown crops remaining. Trying to feed 8 billion humans is not going to work, in 2027.


Pages: [1]