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 - GeoffBeacon

Pages: [1]
Consequences / Re: Quantifying increased costs of living and CO2 output
« on: October 01, 2019, 01:18:49 AM »
Follow the money:  climate risk is underpriced

"The market's failure to integrate climate science with investment analysis has created a mispricing phenomenon that is possibly larger than the mortgage credit bubble of the mid-2000s"

"a key culprit for the mispriced risk in the U.S. mortgage market is outdated flood maps drawn by the federal government."

"Due to budget cuts, more than three-quarters of the maps have not been updated in at least five years"

"Outdated maps mean far fewer people are required to have flood insurance than are at risk,"

"The gaps are evident: About 70% of all damages to homes that were flooded during Harvey were not covered by insurance"

"the gaps mean the risk is not properly priced. The cost for an average policy in low-risk Green Bay, Wisconsin, for example, is three times that in Gulfport, Mississippi, a town devastated by Hurricane Katrina"

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it aims to fix some of these problems with a major risk re-rating on Oct. 1, 2020."

"Burt�??s bet is that the move will result in significant cost increases. That in turn will lead to home price declines and mortgage losses, which would increase volatility in RMBS prices."

"He expects a correction beginning in the next 6-18 months. "

"Investors also have been taking on more risk. Some RMBS issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae since 2017, called credit risk transfer (CRT) deals, move the risk  of default to the investors. In traditional agency RMBS, Fannie and Freddie cover those losses. "


Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 01, 2018, 07:02:31 PM »
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.

But water is not just stagnant in the Arctic and waiting to warm. While its true that a lot more heat can go into the water once there's no ice to melt, its also the case that the worlds oceans are very large, very deep, and circulating. I find it hard to believe that mainstream science is so wrong on the timescales for a year-round BOE. I'm not saying the current mainstream predictions are gospel and won't change, but 2035 is so at odds with the mainstream view that I find it hard to accept. No ice in winter also means more can escape, does it not? (No really, correct me if I'm wrong - I'm no expert!)

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 01, 2018, 06:39:02 PM »
It is madness. Worse than pure denial of the entire situation. I'm less bothered by those who think it is all an elite globalist ploy to enslave the masses, than I am by those who engage with the data on a daily basis but come to the conclusion that mild solutions will be sufficient to save civilization.  OR for that matter those who think that it is no big deal to change the climate drastically and kill off humanity cuz the earth will bounce back.  Are we really going to successfully prevent nuclear war as everything falls apart? Are we really going to successfully decommission the hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world? Even if you aren't bothered by the collapse of civilization and the horrible deaths of billions of people, the possibility of turning the earth into a planet like venus or mars should give you some pause.

While I agree with your whole post, the quoted graf really resonated with me.  I find it astonishing how many people, many of them real, honest-to-Pete scientists, see the data and the (often conservative yet terrifying) projections, and aren't standing on tables screaming about this mess we've created.  Just as bad are the environmental activists who will argue that you can't tell mainstreamers the full truth about CC or "you'll scare them away".  (I've had that argument numerous times with local enviros.)

Barring some nearly miraculous ramping up of carbon removal and sequestration, there is no way we'll avoid something between horrific consequences and a full-blown, worldwide catastrophe.

As for the topic of this thread, while I missed the voting window, I would definitely have voted for the 2020-2025 period.  Trends plus variability means we won't need some wildly improbable set of events in a given summer to hit <1M km^2.  I would also predict it gets no more than 60 seconds of, "Golly, look at that!" coverage on TV news, with the usual suspects talking about the economic benefits of newly-opened shipping routes every summer.

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: July 30, 2018, 09:04:11 PM »
There certainly is a lot of doom and gloom around here, as usual.  I'll dissent from that, with some predictions that don't involve the near-future collapse of civilization:

1. The first year with a sub-1 million km ice extent day will probably occur in the late 2020s or 2030s. 

2. Insofar as the past 40 years' reduction in September ice extent has induced some fairly subtle changes in northern hemisphere climate during the fall months, those changes will continue and get bigger as the ice extent at minimum shrinks, but there won't be any sudden game-changing effect from crossing the purely arbitrary 1,000,000 km2 threshold.

3. Subsequent years will bounce back (as 2013 did after the 2012 low) but extreme low-ice (under 1,000,000 km2) years will become more and more common until they are the rule, rather than the exception, probably by 2040 or so. 

4. The duration of that annual very-low-ice-extent period will expand during the second half of the century to produce first ice-free Septembers, then ice-free summers.  There won't be an ice-free year in this century, and probably not in the next, either.

5. There won't be any 50-GT "methane bomb".   There was none in the early Holocene when the Arctic Ocean was ice-free during summers.  There was none during the previous interglacial (MIS 5e), when the Arctic was quite warm.  There was none during interglacial MIS-11, when the Arctic was so warm for so long that virtually all the land ice in Greenland melted. 

6. An ice-free Arctic Ocean won't lead to the collapse of civilization. The Arctic is already halfway ice-free in September now, and the effects of that are not particularly civilization-imperiling.

1 Human kind is pushing the process in a way that the world has never experienced before. There is no scientific paper showing any time in paleoclimate when the greenhouse gases have increased so quickly. As James Hansen often say, we are doing a unique experiment at an extremely high speed

"Global mean atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has now passed 400 ppm, a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago, when global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher than today (high confidence). Continued growth in CO2 emissions over this century and beyond would lead to an atmospheric concentration not experienced in tens of millions of years (medium confidence). The present-day emissions rate of nearly 10 GtC per year suggests that there is no climate analog for this century any time in at least the last 50 million years (medium confidence)."

And I think we are now in the process of tipping 410 ppm

2 therefore modelling the tipping points and when and how they are going to happen is dangerously uncertain

3 climate change is coming on top of other major environmental impacts very well described by Elizabeth Kolbert in the 6th extinction published in 2015

4 the tipping points are numerous (see below, and the Postdam Institut website) , and some are "modelled" (with high uncertainty) to be triggered at 2.5°c (e.g. the end of carbone sink role from the rain forest in the amazon... ocean acidification...) this could almost already be in the pipeline due to climate change hysteresis and the evident BAU path that we are continuing

5 There is a risk of multiple or sequential/cascading  tipping points could happen  in close sequences, this was pinpointed in the US climate assessment (chapter 15) to the US congress at the end of last year

6 As an exemple, the synchronicity of blue ocean Arctic sea triggering a much faster Greenland ice sheet melting and rapid permafrost melting increasing further greenhouse gases, with a potential rapid collapse of West Antartic ice sheet, is not to excluded post 2050. While simultaneous collapse of Amazon rain forest and ocean carbon sink is not to be excluded...

Tipping points:

(even if I don't necessarily agree with all the interpretation from Paul Beckwith particularly SRM solar radiation management -probably not feasable-, this somewhat  tie with the great uncertainty pinpoint the US climate report)

Pages: [1]