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 - Wherestheice

Pages: [1] 2
1
Consequences / Re: World of 2100
« on: June 09, 2020, 01:48:04 AM »
Time frames are interesting.

The world of 2030. That is doable and extrapolation from today is very possible for that.

2100 is interesting too because it is the usual time frame. If you read the replies a lot are rather abstract. And we get to abstract numbers. Billions dead. Could be. We don´t know and we will never see because we will be dead then.

Meanwhile already people are suffering from global warming and this will only get worse.
Because we did not do enough future generations will have to invest into carbon capture. Building more dams or moving whole cities because of sea level rise etc. 

I wonder how they will explain it to the kids. In fact i am wondering how i would explain in 8 to 10 years or so. I don´t have kids myself but my best friend has them. We discussed a newspaper headline related to global warming when they were small (only one head peaking over the table).

Immediately they asked what that was and he explained it in a general way and they went to play but they grow and grow and learn to read and they will ask: Why?

Which is a bloody good question.

The 3k thread got responses that were even more general then here so it was all mere conjecture.

This subforum is for actual consequences. 2030 and 2100 are good timeframes for a more general discussion but focusing on carbon scenarios is probably more constructive then guestimating billions of death.

With all due respect Kassy, I may not be dead in 2100. By that time I will be 99 years old. Unlikely given everything I know, but maybe I will be around somewhere

2
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: June 09, 2020, 01:46:27 AM »
Simple question: In what year will human population peak? Right now human births outnumber deaths by ~80 million people a year. When do folks think annual human deaths will outnumber births?

I'll throw out 2034.  I recognize that represents a dramatic, unprecedented demographic shift.

Nothing unprecedented, but it will be after 2100.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900

If the human population doesn't peak till after 2100, good lord I will have to pray for every living species on the planet. If we allow that to happen, there won't be much left.

This is why I think we will peak much sooner. The famous study "Limits to growth", is the key to this topic.

3
Consequences / Re: World of 2100
« on: June 04, 2020, 10:26:57 AM »
By 2100, I expect the human population to be below 1 billion. At least 4 C warmer, maybe as high as 6.


4
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: May 27, 2020, 03:09:44 AM »
Subsidised idiots and communists, without them this planet would be in a much better condition.

Replace communist with capitalist and I agree with you

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: DMI Volume
« on: May 02, 2020, 04:07:23 AM »
I contacted an expert from PIOMAS in regards to the differences between DMI and PIOMAS. Here is what he had to say

"There are some factors behind the different results. The key factors are that these two models differ in model physics, parameterization, resolution, and forcing. The different results are generally caused by these model differences. You can consider this as model uncertainty. Hope this answer your question.
Thanks for the interest and best wishes"

Jinlun Zhang

6
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 27, 2020, 11:46:17 PM »
March 2020 surface air temperature anomaly seems to have been 1.18C.  Only behind 2016.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html

Using the 1890-1910 baseline, the March anomaly is 1.51 C

7
I fear the COVID situation will precipitate a BOE or near-BOE this summer as we deal with the ramifications of a 30% drop in industrial output, or whatever it is, and ensuing fall in particulates / SO2.

I suspect Hudson Bay will be a lone redoubt for the sea ice, even if it still melts entirely, which is no guarantee. This upcoming winter, I anticipate a very lackluster refreeze, but a very severe winter across North America in particular, with a situation worse than this spring (or 2018) unfolding in 2021. I could see Eurasia being dominated by warmth and having another very early spring / summer next year, just like this one, while the remnants of the PV plop into Hudson Bay and stay there into May, June, and July.

I wonder how long the SWE will persist this yr, as well.

COVID19  or no COVID19, you always think this is the year of an BOE. Considering we have not even seen an ice free north pole, I think an BOE this year is probably less than a 1% probability(always bear in mind nothing is impossible).

Regarding the snow cover situation. Quite an odd situation has occurred, is the significant gains on the Asian snow cover an error or genuine? I think a colder plunge has headed that way whilst a warm plunge has headed towards the Arctic but it does look quite odd imo.

I feel like its more like 10% chance of a BOE occuring at any given year now. In 5 years it will probably be 50% in any given year. In 10 years, somewhere in the 90% margin

8
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: April 21, 2020, 12:42:03 AM »
I think this could be a more serious problem for the Arctic Ocean, no?
Quote
The depletion of oxygen in the water column could create or expand oxygen minimum zones in the ocean, which are a threat for fishes and other sensitive organisms.
Have there been studies on this? Could increased methane release create dead zones in the Arctic ocean?

https://phys.org/news/2010-12-undersea-methane-contributor-ocean-acidity.html

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: April 15, 2020, 09:04:25 AM »
I guess apocoalypticists are constantly seeing signs of imminent collapse. And have been since at least Ramses' time. I on the other hand, who am absolutely certain that our human civilisation will survive both Covid-19 and AGW, see amazing resilience and innovative adaptation everywhere.

It's clear we disagree here, but that is okay :)

I simply don't see civilization surviving the possible 4-6 C rise this century, I do think human societies can be rebuilt though in certain regions.

Well, lots of things have the capacity to totally wreck human civilisation. But I do not think it is remotely likely that it will happen this century, or that it will happen because of AGW. A rise of 4-6 degrees is not going to happen.

But a lot of people seem to have an apocalyptic deathwish on behalf of their fellow humans. Myself I find it a loathsome attitude.

Nobody can predict the future, but to say a rise of 4-6 C is not going to happen...... all I can say is the science disagrees. It is most certainly in the realm of possiblity, unless some unforseen circumstance appears.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: April 15, 2020, 08:03:44 AM »
I guess apocoalypticists are constantly seeing signs of imminent collapse. And have been since at least Ramses' time. I on the other hand, who am absolutely certain that our human civilisation will survive both Covid-19 and AGW, see amazing resilience and innovative adaptation everywhere.

It's clear we disagree here, but that is okay :)

I simply don't see civilization surviving the possible 4-6 C rise this century, I do think human societies can be rebuilt though in certain regions.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: April 15, 2020, 04:29:46 AM »
What the current pandemic has shown, is the entire system is very fragile

If by "system" you mean our human civilisation, then I would disagree. For me it is has been a very big surprise to see how resilient the "system" is to these extreme circumstances.

The only reason it appears resilient, is because everything is shut down. Once this all blows over, there will be a lot of wounds. Just another step towards the eventual collapse. This is just my opinion though.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: April 15, 2020, 03:48:55 AM »
I suppose i'll add my two bits.

I think its good to have something to stick to, to define what a BOE is. I.e. the 1 million threshold. It obviously doesn't really mean a whole lot, however, it gives us something to refer too. I have come to the conclusion that whether or not the ice melts below that number between now and 2050 probably won't change the outcome for our civilization. What the current pandemic has shown, is the entire system is very fragile. We aren't even in the summer yet for the northern hem. once the chaotic weather comes, we are in for a true wake up.

The more the ice melts, the more screwed we are in the near term. All we can do is follow the data. I do think there is a good chance we go below 1 mil. km2 this decade though, just based off the volume data

WTI

13
The forum / Re: Who would like to take over the ASIF?
« on: April 10, 2020, 06:00:52 AM »
I am not sure how many people moderate now, or if it is just Neven.

My pitch is we elect a a group of moderators. 3-4 individuals or so. Each moderator would have his/her own task, and this would lighten the load on everyone.

This life is short, and with climate change and environmental collapse it always has the potential of being shorter. I do think you should take a break Neven if it is bugging you. We have built a strong community on this forum, and I think we can all be thankful for that.

14
The people of this country are gonna have to rise up here pretty soon if we want to have any meaningful future.....

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 26, 2020, 05:14:28 AM »
Wow things have really accelerated here recently. Considering the winter maximum was so much higher than recent years, this must mean that it was only very weak ice, and now we are seeing the correction to truly reflect the state of the ice?

16
Consequences / Re: Global Dimming - The aerosol masking effect
« on: February 29, 2020, 05:30:13 AM »
Well there have been multiple studies that show a 35% reduction in industrial activity could lead to a 1 C temperature rise. Guy and Sam both conclude that we are about 1.7 C above the 1750 baseline. But even if we are only 1.2 C warmer, the loss of aerosols is something to be concerned about

17
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 15, 2020, 06:29:36 AM »
Thanks Wherestheice.
-

Are airborne microplastics considered as aerosols?

The billions of rolling car tyres around the world keep on shedding them (emitting) for the foreseeable future.

Seems like they could be, see here... https://earther.gizmodo.com/microplastics-are-airborne-polluted-arctic-snow-reveal-1837239022

"There’s even a chance that the microplastic bits could end up acting like other tiny particles known as aerosols. "

18
But lets be clear that LTG didn't forsee a collapse happening until as late as 2070. So the idea that they predicted collapse in recent decades is false (if that is what you were trying to point out).
Yeah. This propaganda meanwhile has a beard twice as long as Darwin's.

What are you calling propaganda?

19
The most famous is the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth , 1972. It has many iterations ever since. They basically predicted a huge slide of civilization in the 2010-30 period (industrial production collapse, food scarcity, etc). there have been many like this .

And obviously the first one was Malthus, who wrote his works in the early 1800s. His disciples updated it and always expected a collapse in the near future

And I would argue civilization is definitely sliding as we speak. But lets be clear that LTG didn't forsee a collapse happening until as late as 2070. So the idea that they predicted collapse in recent decades is false (if that is what you were trying to point out).

As for Malthus, I don't know anything about his predictions, but it sounds like he had the general idea that to many people will be a problem, and I agree. But that was hundreds of years ago. The world is facing a collapse, and we have data to prove it this time. It is not a question of if, but when.


20
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:09:50 AM »
Also this.... "the climate and extreme event responses to a removal of anthropogenic aerosols, from a world with around 1.5°C GHG‐dominated warming. Global surface temperature is predicted to increase by 0.7°C (multimodel mean, model range is 0.5–1.1°C), while the land surface warms by 1.0°C (model range 0.7–1.6). As sulfate is the dominant aerosol surface temperature driver for present‐day emissions"

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076079

21
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:05:57 AM »
Maybe this paper can help straighten things out a bit?

Their conclusion is that a 35-80% reduction in human emissions would cause a 1 C rise in temp.

And it looks like they don't include BB in their calculations.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50192


22
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 14, 2020, 07:03:59 AM »
James Hansen gives the number of  0.75 ± 0.25°C per W/m2.

So the -0.9 W/m2 number from AR5 would give ~0.68 degrees C of warming masked by aerosols.

Using the -1.45 W/m2 number from the new paper linked above we get ~1.1 degrees C.

Either way you've got to believe we're well over 1.5C of warming already (plus additional warming from last 10 years of emissions). I'd say (and no one has shown how to get another answer from the math) realistically we're approaching ~2.5C of warming locked in. That means we're desperately scrambling (or we should be) to avoid hitting 3C based on our emissions over the next 2 decades.

Source with Hansen's number:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf

Ah okay, I see. Thank you for explaining. Yeah I don't see us staying below 2 C at this point.The new target needs to be avoiding 3 C.

In that paper that you linked that had the -1.45 W/m2 figure, do we know how much the natural aerosols are blocking? Vs how much the human related aerosols are blocking? I think the latter part of that question is the most important part of this whole discussion.

23
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 14, 2020, 06:12:19 AM »
Can someone explain to me what -0.9 W/m^2 means in regards to temperature?

24
Nanning,
People have been predicting some sort of global collapse for decades now.  Nothing close has ever materialized.  Some individual countries have gone sour, but even the worst years have not come close.  I seriously doubt we will see any sort of collapse in the near future.

Can you provide one credible example of an expert predicting that civilization was supposed to collapse in recent decades? Because I can't think of any. However, many experts are now saying collapse is possible, if not likely on our current course.

25
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 07:43:08 AM »
...
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

...
Sam
Those statements by Sam I bolded are not vindicated by physical facts. There is little cause for such alarmism.

Quite to the contrary. The CO2 in the atmosphere, along with several other key warming gases will take millennia to reduce to prior levels assuming current ecosystem functions. And that only happens if the climate doesn’t shift before that can occur. As the climate shifts, the ecosystems shift, and those basic functions are put at risk.

What should be amply clear (and is) even to young people, let alone to those of us with more life history behind us, is that we are already seeing an ultra rapid shift in progress.

We see that with the rapidly vanishing arctic ice. We see it with the methane boiling out of the clathrates on the arctic plains. We see it with the collapse of the tundra globally. We see it with the warming of the ocean surfaces sufficient to doom coral reefs within the next decade or two. We see it in the hyper rapid acidification of the oceans which doom most shelled creatures. We see it in the very rapid melt on both Greenland and the West Antarctic sheet. We see it in the rapid loss of mountain glaciers and ice all over the world, and with the quite soon loss of the glacial ice supporting a billion people in South Asia. We see it in the destabilization of the atmospheric circulation with massive swings in heat transport both north and south from and to the arctic resulting in climatic chaos in the northern hemisphere beginning. We see it in droughts, fires, deluges and worse. .... and in a thousand other ways ....

Hefaistos, that you apparently choose not see these and myriad indicators is only evidence of your own willful and reckless blindness.

Greta Thunberg is still a young person. Yet she sees clearly, where you do not. She sees the indicators and clearly and concisely called out the leaders of the world in Davos. She is right. You are wrong.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. And perhaps if we bend every effort, destroying civilization as we know it in the process, we might now barely be able to salvage something of the world we know. Personally, I doubt that is possible any longer. We waited too long. We were too slow to learn. We were and remain too blind to see. And the CO2 trends from Mauna Loa speak volumes to that at megaphone levels. We are not in any way doing what must be done. Instead we argue about slowing the rate of increase of the rate of increase. That is insane.

Worse leaders of major countries are already throwing out efforts to reduce emissions and are instead increasing the rate of burning of oil, coal and natural gas, while also slash burning the lungs of the world. That is beyond insane.

The CO2 already in the atmosphere is catastrophically high. Under the most optimistic business near usual trends, we don’t even slow the increase, let alone stop it, and reverse it. Under these conditions, we will release the 1,600 Gigatons of carbon in the permafrost. And we will boil out the clathrate on the arctic plains, both in the very near future. Either of those take the situation completely out of human control.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. The continued heat input caused by the warming gases will assure that there is heat enough and time enough to do that. But that is meaningless in the time scale of the catastrophe we face. The continued heating of the Earth from the gases in the atmosphere will assure it. And the changes in the surface biosphere and atmosphere will not wait for that equilibration to finish.

Our rate of change now makes the PETM look obscenely slow. And yet the PETM is the definition of rapid climate change. We are now in the early stages of an ultra rapid climate shift. And that is obvious for all to see except for the willfully blind.

In time, the Earth may shift back to this mostly precariously stable point between hot house and ice house conditions. These have been rare in Earth’s history. The orbital balances could bring us back to some stable place with ice remaining in the Antarctic. And perhaps in half a million years there may be ice in the arctic again. But it is also possible that we continue on a runaway to hot house conditions, having pushed over the climate and ruined the world we know.

I worry more about the highly unstable transition. Creatures can adapt to hundred millennia scale changes. Decade scale changes are another matter entirely. Worse, the impacts of the collapse of whole ecosystems may have dramatically more important transient impacts on O2, pressure, temperature, rainfall, circulation, CO2, methane and other parameters that may drive many species and even whole genera extinct.

Sam

I agree with you Sam, the world is in extremly dire straights now. Anyone who says otherwise isn't paying attention

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 06, 2019, 12:36:25 AM »
Very nice Gerontocrat.  The open water graphs look more like a phase change occurred around 2007 that anything else.  The volume shows a smoother change.  Either way, the indcation is that a BOE is not imminent, and may not occur at all.

Bruh......Do you need a pair of glasses? Because I think your not understanding this stuff

The percent open water has not increased in over a decade.  Do you see the purple trend line in the volume graph?  Neither graph is popinting towards a BOE anytime soon.  Perhaps you need to borrow my glasses to see them more clearly.

See a trend??

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 05, 2019, 08:11:36 PM »
Very nice Gerontocrat.  The open water graphs look more like a phase change occurred around 2007 that anything else.  The volume shows a smoother change.  Either way, the indcation is that a BOE is not imminent, and may not occur at all.

Bruh......Do you need a pair of glasses? Because I think your not understanding this stuff

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: August 23, 2019, 10:12:04 AM »
I disagree

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 22, 2019, 09:35:10 AM »
I doubt this storm will provide much melt,  it is both geographically and temporally in the wrong place for a large melt caused by dispersion or compaction.

The 2012 storm was earlier and over the central Arctic  while this is later and mainly over land.

I'm new to this board and while there is a fantastic amount of data and science on here it surprises me that there is so much desire for melt and records rather than just watching it and learning; it should be about what happens, or potentially happens, not what you want to happen.

From what I can tell, I don't believe many here WANT record lows and melt. Because many here understand what that means for the planet. I think really what it is about is interest.

30
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 26, 2019, 01:15:02 AM »
Ken Feldman is why I left this thread. He is a toxic clown either trying to pass some hopium agenda or is he to scared of these kind of topics. Ken, I recommend you go back to rambling on about electric cars, because at least there you’re not annoying.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 15, 2019, 01:52:27 AM »
Saying the arctic will go ice free before 2030 is just as valid as saying it won’t

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 08, 2019, 07:38:19 AM »

It looks as if the line will continue downward in at least as steep an incline as the rest of the years which will make 2019 the record lowest extent!
...
I'm starting to take near term human extinction forecasts more seriously!

You'll come to see that the Arctic is out there to fool you. Noone in my experience can forecast, not even a single year but the next month either.

As for extinction, I don't believe in that. Humanity is quite versatile.

Extinction is the rule
Survival is the exception
~ Carl Sagan

33
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 27, 2019, 02:17:38 AM »
This will be my last time posting on this thread, as well as ASIF.  The real reason I come to ASIF is for info on the ice. Point is, many posters here lack either urgency or understanding of the entire situation we find ourselves in. I would like to point out I mean no ill will towards people i disagree with. So thanks for all the contributions everywhere. This is a good forum, filled with many good people.

34
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 12, 2019, 07:38:57 PM »
Latest paper from shakova, with a hefty list of researchers

https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2018-229/tc-2018-229.pdf

35
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 08, 2019, 10:16:04 PM »
"Given the contentiousness of this topic in the scientific community, it may
even be contentious for me to say that there is no scientific consensus on
the sources of current methane emissions or the potential risk and timing of
significant methane releases from either surface and subsea permafrost. A
recent attempt at consensus on methane risk from melting surface
permafrost concluded methane release would happen over centuries or
millennia, not this decade (Schuur et al. 2015). Yet within three years that
consensus was broken by one of the most detailed experiments which
found that if the melting permafrost remains waterlogged, which is likely,
then it produces significant amounts of methane within just a few years
(Knoblauch et al, 2018). The debate is now likely to be about whether other
microorganisms might thrive in that environment to eat up the methane –
and whether or not in time to reduce the climate impact.

The debate about methane release from clathrate forms, or frozen methane
hydrates, on the Arctic sea floor is even more contentious. In 2010 a group
of scientists published a study that warned how the warming of the Arctic
could lead to a speed and scale of methane release that would be
catastrophic to life on earth through atmospheric heating of over 5 degrees
within just a few years of such a release (Shakhova et al, 2010). The study
triggered a fierce debate, much of which was ill considered, perhaps
understandable given the shocking implications of this information (Ahmed,
2013). Since then, key questions at the heart of this scientific debate (about
what would amount to the probable extinction of the human race) include
the amount of time it will take for ocean warming to destabilise hydrates on
the sea floor, and how much methane will be consumed by aerobic and
anaerobic microbes before it reaches the surface and escapes to the
atmosphere. In a global review of this contentious topic, scientists
concluded that there is not the evidence to predict a sudden release of
catastrophic levels of methane in the near-term (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017).
However, a key reason for their conclusion was the lack of data showing
actual increases in atmospheric methane at the surface of the Arctic, which
is partly the result of a lack of sensors collecting such information. Most
ground-level methane measuring systems are on land. Could that be why
the unusual increases in atmospheric methane concentrations cannot be
fully explained by existing data sets from around the world (Saunois et al,
2016)? One way of calculating how much methane is probably coming from
our oceans is to compare data from ground-level measurements, which are
mostly but not entirely on land, with upper atmosphere measurements,
which indicate an averaging out of total sources. Data published by
scientists from the Arctic News (2018) website indicates that in March 2018
at mid altitudes, methane was around 1865 parts per billion (ppb), which
represents a 1.8 percent increase of 35 ppb from the same time in 2017,
while surface measurements of methane increased by about 15 ppb in that
time. Both figures are consistent with a non-linear increase - potentially
exponential - in atmospheric levels since 2007. That is worrying data in
itself, but the more significant matter is the difference between the increase
measured at ground and mid altitudes. That is consistent with this added
methane coming from our oceans, which could in turn be from methane
hydrates.

This closer look at the latest data on methane is worthwhile given the
critical risks to which it relates. It suggests that the recent attempt at a
consensus that it is highly unlikely we will see near-term massive release of
methane from the Arctic Ocean is sadly inconclusive. In 2017 scientists
working on the Eastern Siberian sea shelf, reported that the permafrost
layer has thinned enough to risk destabilising hydrates (The Arctic, 2017).
That report of subsea permafrost destabilisation in the East Siberian Arctic
sea shelf, the latest unprecedented temperatures in the Arctic, and the data
in non-linear rises in high-atmosphere methane levels, combine to make it
feel like we are about to play Russian Roulette with the entire human race,
with already two bullets loaded. Nothing is certain. But it is sobering that
humanity has arrived at a situation of our own making where we now
debate the strength of analyses of our near-term extinction."

https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0095-z

https://arctic.ru/climate/20170809/655109.html

36
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 08, 2019, 02:23:56 AM »
S&S took their measurements at methane seeps during the summer and then estimated what the entire ESAS methane release would be annually.  Subsequent studies have shown that those estimates for the entire ESAS are too high.

I'm not denying anything.  I'm telling you what the peer-reviewed science says.  You're the one who's denying it.

And your only willing to look at one side of the picture. There is no consensus that the Arctic methane isn’t a threat. There are papers that conclude what your saying, and there are papers that conclude what I’m saying. My only worry is we all conclude it’s a not a problem or a problem for the grandchildren then we lose the opportunity to do something about it if it is a threat. There is no time for hope, or wishful thinking. We need to do something now. The very existence of our species is on the line.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: January 29, 2019, 01:55:02 AM »
DMI N80 hit the mean line in winter for the first time since 2015.

This is QUITE significant, I think. Not spozed to happen anymore.

I wouldn't call it significant at all frankly. Weather is variable, even more so in the Arctic.

38
Anyone got the doi for the Bevis paper on GIS ? i searched the PNAS site but it didnt appear for 2019

Re: Wolf: I think i agree with Wolf's results on CO2 at high concentrations increasing sensitivity. What I don't trust is the cloud albedo feedback bit.

sidd

Wouldn't a warmer planet cause the cloud albedo to lessen, due to there being more water vapor in the atmosphere, causing clouds to have more rain droplets, therefore making them darker. This isn't my field of study, but that makes sense to me

39
The rest / Re: 2019 Predictions
« on: December 22, 2018, 08:04:49 PM »
I’ll be the doomer and say we will get near ice free conditions, As well as learn a lot more about the arctic methane.

40
The rest / Re: Immortality
« on: December 18, 2018, 04:43:14 AM »
Worst idea I’ve heard in a long time. If humans became immortal, the destruction of the planet now would look like child’s play

41
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 15, 2018, 05:50:41 AM »
Beckwith is pretty much a scientist though, and often references the U of Ottawa climate lab in his videos.

"He is in a Ph.D. program, with a focus on Abrupt Climate System Change (atmosphere, oceans, Arctic, methane…)."

Some of his material is helpful, but the problem with whipping people into a frenzy is that it's unsustainable. Too much leads to either defeatism, or even a strange kind of climate change denial.

If everyone treats the the problem as something for the grandchildren to worry about, then we’re all dead.

42
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 03, 2018, 10:10:24 AM »
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century
We (US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel) could launch a nuclear attack on the developing world and halt food exports. That would probably kill off 5-6 billion humans pretty easily. Thereafter, China would still be mostly extant, leaving enough human labor for whatever may be, and we could position troops across Central America, Gibraltar, Turkey, and the Himalayas for any would-be migrants, guaranteeing an invigorated military-industrial complex and lots of jobs for the Middle Classes. Everyone wins! (except for most people currently alive, but whatever).

The only nuclear powers that need to be targeted are India and Pakistan, that could be done pretty easily as their missiles only have limited range, so a first strike with no retaliation would be quite easy for the US. China can have all their land after the fact as long as they maintain population and promise not to increase.

If we go down that road, just nuke everything

43
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 02, 2018, 10:30:44 AM »
Watch this


44
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 29, 2018, 02:35:10 AM »
This is why it’s so hard to fix the climate problem. People are so divided on facts.

One way to make sure people have the facts is to check incredible claims on credible websites.  I recommend these.

Real Climate:  http://www.realclimate.org/

Skeptical Science: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Both great sources, but when it comes to Arctic methane, I tend to side with the Arctic methane specialists. A lot of those that argue against the methane release, aren't always actually working in the Arctic.

" In a global review of this contentious topic, scientists concluded that there is not the evidence to predict a sudden release of catastrophic levels of methane in the near-term (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017). However, a key reason for their conclusion was the lack of data showing actual increases in atmospheric methane at the surface of the Arctic, which is partly the result of a lack of sensors collecting such information. Most ground-level methane measuring systems are on land. Could that be why the unusual increases in atmospheric methane concentrations cannot be fully explained
by existing data sets from around the world (Saunois et al, 2016)? One way of calculating how
much methane is probably coming from our oceans is to compare data from ground level
measurements, which are mostly but not entirely on land, with upper atmosphere
measurements, which indicate an averaging out of total sources."

"This closer look at the latest data on methane is worthwhile given the critical risks to which it
relates. It suggests that the recent attempt at a consensus that it is highly unlikely we will see
near-term massive release of methane from the Arctic Ocean is sadly inconclusive. In 2017
scientists working on the Eastern Siberian sea shelf, reported that the permafrost layer has
thinned enough to risk destabilising hydrates (The Arctic, 2017). That report of subsea
permafrost destabilisation in the East Siberian Arctic sea shelf, the latest unprecedented
temperatures in the Arctic, and the data in non-linear rises in high-atmosphere methane
levels, combine to make it feel like we are about to play Russian Roulette with the entire
human race, with already two bullets in the chamber. "

http://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

45
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 28, 2018, 08:24:34 AM »
The Eemian was warmer in the Arctic than current temperatures and we probably lost most of the sea ice during that time (ie. things were worse icewise than today) and yet there was no runaway CH4 feedback, so it is hard to argue that this time is different. Why didn't we have Arctic Methane feedback then?

The key distinction is that the warming today is from Greenhouse gases being higher and occurs 'twenty-four seven', namely the cooling at night is much less (diurnal variation smaller); in the Eemian the tilt of the Earth was much greater so there was much more seasonality, thus winters were much colder so the sea ice extent, thickness, and thus volume could build up much more, and the summers were warmer in the daytime, however the cooling at night was much greater than now (less greenhouse gas [GHG], more diurnal variation); net result is that the ice was much more durable in the Eemian. Greenland temps were higher during the daytime, but cooled off much more during the nighttime in the lower GHG concentration world.

Another thing to think about it time. The length of time for the methane pulse is very important here. If most of the methane came out in a decade, for example then within a subsequent decade or so most of the methane will have been broken down to CO2 and H20 and also been dispersed/distributed around the planet, away from the pulse source area in the Arctic. The CO2 produced would have been small (CO2 stayed within 180-280 ppm range). It takes about 50 years or even more (depending on the snowfall rate and surface melt rates) for snow at the surface to be compacted into firn that closes off the air spaces creating the bubbles in the ice that are reservoirs of the methane and other atmospheric gases. Because of that 50 year bubble closure time, the large pulse of methane that was burped out of the marine sediments and terrestrial permafrost would be long gone and not result in a detectable signal in the ice core record. Just because the record does not capture it does not mean that it was not produced.

The levels of methane in the atmosphere currently are higher than they have been in at least 400,000 years. Here are some links as well.

https://m.phys.org/news/2012-06-climate-cold-arctic-eemian.html
https://m.phys.org/news/2012-06-climate-cold-arctic-eemian.html

46
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 26, 2018, 07:19:05 AM »
Even at the lower end of estimations, it is the rate of change that is significant.

Any science on how lomg it will take ?

Don’t remember where, but I heard something like 6 weeks

47
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: November 25, 2018, 05:42:49 AM »
Bbr - does the "oncoming ice age" really have to be inserted into every thread?
I apologize, I will create a new thread for everyone's guesses re: political map of the world in 2100. I did not intend to make it about ice age just severe climate change (although obviously in my head that is where much of the NHEM is heading).

Let me know when the ice age comes :P

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 18, 2018, 04:21:10 AM »
This thread as well as most threads on this forum need reliable information. bbr can bring up good points at times but bbr makes to many predictions and thinks pretty wild. For example there is no ice age coming

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 17, 2018, 06:17:57 AM »
JAXA extent for October 16th: 5,780,697 km2

An increase of 63,202 km2

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 17, 2018, 12:30:12 AM »
During the melting season, I looked to post a brief analysis of the ADI-NIPR (JAXA) daily value, after 20 minutes of having the update made by ADI-NIPR. I think that it was appreciated, because there are some people like me, that cannot wait to know what it is happening.  ;)

But during the freezing season, I think that it is not important to have my post so “immediately”. Gerontocrat makes a great analysis possibly two hours later. So, I am thinking of suspending my posts until the next melting season.

No stress Juan, your work here is crucial to the understanding of what’s happening in the Arctic. You have done a wonderful job and you have my respect. Everyone needs breaks and vacations. You do you

Pages: [1] 2