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 - harpy

Pages: [1] 2
1
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2020, 09:10:52 PM »
What's the maximum R0 of this virus from a peer-reviewed published study?

2
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: February 17, 2020, 07:45:00 PM »
How long will the Japanese maintain business as usual, and no Plan B for the Olympics? ...

Well you can get some clue as to how Japan will handle this - look at the way they handled the ongoing radiation fallout and 'cleanup' from the Fukushima disaster.  Not well; not transparently, not effectively, just awful.   

It will not be pretty, particularly with increasing evidence of reinfection causing increased mortality.  In any closed environment where patients are patiently waiting to get over the disease, it seems capable of reinfecting them and it hits harder second time.  We should be very afraid.

The healthcare workers are going to be the most damaged by this entire thing.  Being a worker in a hospital is going to be the equivalent of working at a super-fund site.


3
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: February 06, 2020, 10:12:42 PM »
Can someone please help explain to me

1)  What are they spraying exactly?


https://streamable.com/vzni2

4
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: February 06, 2020, 10:06:15 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/world/asia/coronavirus-china.html

Just note, this article is being deleted on multiple online forums.

New York Times 2/6/20:

Wuhan is told to round up infected residents for mass quarantine camps.Image Inside the exhibition center in Wuhan that now serves as a hospital. Inside the exhibition center in Wuhan that now serves as a hospital.Credit...Chinatopix, via Associated PressA senior Chinese official has ordered the authorities in the city of Wuhan to immediately round up all residents who have been infected with the coronavirus and place them in isolation, quarantine or designated hospitals.]

Sun Chunlan, a vice premier tasked with leading the central government’s response to the outbreak, said city investigators should go to each home to check the temperatures of every resident and interview infected patients’ close contacts.“Set up a 24-hour duty system. During these wartime conditions, there must be no deserters, or they will be nailed to the pillar of historical shame forever,” Ms. Sun said.

The city’s authorities have raced to meet these instructions by setting up makeshift mass quarantine shelters this week. But concerns are growing about whether the centers, which will house thousands of people in large spaces, will be able to provide even basic care to patients and protect against the risk of further infection.A lockdown across the city and much of its surrounding province has exacerbated a shortage of medical supplies, testing kits and hospital beds. Many residents, unwell and desperate for care, have been forced to go from hospital to hospital on foot, only to be turned away without being tested for the virus, let alone treated.



They have had to resort to quarantines at home, risking the spread of the virus within families and neighborhoods.The city has set up makeshift shelters in a sports stadium, an exhibition center and a building complex. Some went into operation on Thursday. The shelters are meant for coronavirus patients with milder symptoms, the government has said.When Ms. Sun inspected a shelter set up in Hongshan Stadium on Tuesday, she emphasized that anyone who should be admitted must be rounded up, according to a Chinese news outlet, Modern Express. “It must be cut off from the source!” she said of the virus. “You must keep a close eye! Don’t miss it!” Photographs taken inside the stadium showed narrow rows of simple beds separated only by desks and chairs typically used in classrooms.

Some comments on Chinese social media compared the scenes to those from the Spanish flu in 1918.According to a widely shared post on Weibo, a popular social media site, “conditions were very poor” at an exhibition center that had been converted into a quarantine facility.



There were power failures and electric blankets could not be turned on, the user wrote, citing a relative who had been taken there, saying that people had to “shiver in their sleep.”There was also a staff shortage, the post said, where “doctors and nurses were not seen to be taking note of symptoms

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: February 05, 2020, 05:09:28 PM »
The Winter of 16/17 was very warm in the Arctic and the ice was crazy record low in volume starting the 2017 summer season. However, that was a warm Arctic / cold continents winter with very deep snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, especially Siberia. Thus, Spring and summer were really late, and there were not many warm punches from the continents, rather the contrary.

This winter is kind of the opposite with this very persistent and strong Polar Vortex. However, note that the polar vortex has displaced the Arctic warm anomalies accumulated in Summer and vented out in Fall, to the high and mid latitudes of the NH. In fact it is really warm relatively speaking, probably one of the warmest Januaries for the NH.
There is an astounding lack of snow cover in Europe, and also a relative lack in America. The heat may come to the Arctic with a vengeance in the form of a very early NH Spring. Pray that it snows soon. An early Spring due to lack of NH snow cover is for me probably the most determining factor to start a warm melting season. True that Arctic winter is being cold and more benign for the ice but Wipneus just showed PIOMAS volume is 5th lowest in record. Not really impressive. 
Edit: Zack Labe reports a January anomaly of 3C !! Not sure if that is global or only Europe...

Right, because as the sun incidence increases over the next 30 days, it will act as a positive feedback loop on global warming when all of the landmass is dark and absorbent.

Thank you for pointing this out. 

7
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: January 29, 2020, 07:57:40 PM »
Estimating the effective reproduction number of the 2019-nCoV in China


This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
AbstractInfo/HistoryMetrics Preview PDF

Abstract
We estimate the effective reproduction number for 2019-nCoV based on the daily reported cases from China CDC. The results indicate that 2019-nCoV has a higher effective reproduction number than SARS with a comparable fatality rate.

Can someone link a copy of the PDF here for us to read?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.27.20018952v1

8
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: January 28, 2020, 01:47:36 AM »
This may sound like a stupid question.  Do we know what fraction of humans exposed to the Coronavirus will actually become infected and/or become sick?

That is, if someone is exposed to the Coronavirus, what% chance do they have of becoming infected?

Thanks.

9
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: January 27, 2020, 08:50:01 PM »

We estimated that the mean R0 ranges from 3.30 (95%CI: 2.73-3.96) to 5.47 (95%CI: 4.16-7.10)

10
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: January 26, 2020, 12:28:11 AM »
Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: early estimation of epidemiological parameters and
epidemic predictions

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fz7EwlAJjrZs708YGPym1Xj_3PmysukL/view

Key Findings

Key findings
We estimate the basic reproductive number of the infection (RR0) to be significantly
greater than one. We estimate it to be between 3.6 and 4.0, indicating that 72-75% of
transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop
increasing.


● We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8–5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified,
indicating a large number of infections in the community, and also reflecting the
difficulty in detecting cases of this new disease. Surveillance for this novel pathogen
has been launched very quickly by public health authorities in China, allowing for
rapid assessment of the speed of increase of cases in Wuhan and other areas.

● If no change in control or transmission happens, then we expect further outbreaks to
occur in other Chinese cities, and that infections will continue to be exported to
international destinations at an increasing rate. In 14 days’ time (4 February 2020),
our model predicts the number of infected people in Wuhan to be greater than 250
thousand (prediction interval, 164,602 to 351,396). We predict the cities with the
largest outbreaks elsewhere in China to be Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou,
Chongqing and Chengdu. We also predict that by 4 Feb 2020, the countries or
special administrative regions at greatest risk of importing infections through air travel
are Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea.

● Our model suggests that travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be
effective in halting transmission across China; with a 99% effective reduction in
travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan may only be reduced by 24.9% on
4 February.

● There are important caveats to the reliability of our model predictions, based on the
assumptions underpinning the model as well as the data used to fit the model. These
should be considered when interpreting our findings.

11
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: January 25, 2020, 08:27:22 PM »
This individual claims the R0 of this virus is....  14.0

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=TQnMM-YNJw8&feature=emb_logo


Translation:  I ’m still in the epidemic area of ​​Hankou, Wuhan, and I ’d like to report to you the current epidemic situation in Hubei and even the whole country.

There are now more than 90,000 person-times (Note: Infected person-times?)

What is the chance of this virus being transmitted? After a person is infected, if he is not effectively isolated,

Or if effective treatment is performed, he will infect 14 people around him, so this level is very large.

Now it ’s the time of the Chinese New Year family and friends, relatives, children, and children are all going to the house to reunite the family together for a reunion dinner

The situation is special now. I hope you do n’t go out.

Every year in the Spring Festival, as long as people are safe, everyone can be together anytime, anywhere

Let me introduce you to the situation of medical supplies in Hubei Province

At present, the entire medical system in Wuhan, which integrates the entire medical system in Hubei Province, has passed through our superiors. The health and health committee (Note: these three words are uncertain)

And various administrative departments
 

The municipal government and the provincial government are initiating donations to the society through major media. This material is medical material. For example, the goggles I wear

Wear disposable masks, wear disposable gloves, wear this gown, or even isolation pants.

This material is extremely accurate. Our current medical staff must come back to the front line when they come down from the clinic.

I am now equivalent to recording this video with everyone on the FireWire, in order to make everyone accurate.

I stress again that during the Spring Festival holiday, do n’t go out and stay in your own house, otherwise I ’m desperately ahead

Not just to keep my dad, my loved ones, healthy

I hope everyone can understand, I also know that some relatives are not in the group, please see the news of me, call each other and inform

It must be done. I hope everyone can raise awareness. This is a political task.

And I ’m reporting very bad news. This new type of coronavirus has undergone the second generation mutation

In other words, in the first generation of mutation, we can treat it symptomatically.

Then when the second-generation mutation occurs, this is terrible, and its chance of infection is not one person to one person, one person has the disease and infects 14 people around him.

Then it is pour burst (note: these five characters are uncertain)

I hope everyone remembers, do n’t go out, do n’t go out, do n’t meet, do n’t have dinner

thank you all

12
Week of January 19th 2020:

13
Consequences / Re: Global Dimming - The aerosol masking effect
« on: October 30, 2019, 02:19:41 PM »
Re: Hansen, aerosol forcing, 2013

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7091-0973-1_2 , technically in published 2012, but has extensive discussion of aerosol effect

Hansen and Sato, Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change, A. Berger et al. (eds.), Climate Change, Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

2013 was his royal society paper too, but the one cited above has better review of aerosol.

sidd

OK, so there's a 2013 paper.

That rebuttal discounted Hansens research without being able to remember any details?

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 26, 2019, 12:38:52 AM »
I think that the anomalous temperatures by the Greenland "crack" offer the most compelling evidence for the connections between the sun, albedo, ice and open ocean.

That "crack' was much more than a crack. It allowed the ocean to absorb vast amounts of solar power that is now being irradiated out. Larger earlier cracks will make this anomaly stronger and last longer. At some point, the ice will thicken enough to reduce the anomaly

Which temperature anomalies are you referring to, exactly?

15
Consequences / Re: Global Dimming - The aerosol masking effect
« on: October 13, 2019, 01:43:59 AM »
Harpy,

There's a forum in the Science section about aerosols.  We've shared many papers on the subject.

Recently, someone went to a talk by a scientist specializing in aerosols and asked about the warming that would occur if we stopped producing man-made aerosols suddenly.


Did the question about a possible spike in warming from reduced aerosols with the reduction in fossil fuel burning come up?  If so, what was the answer?

Yes, I actually asked about Hansen et al.'s 2013 paper on aerosol masking, and the effect that immediately stopping production of sulfates via oil/coal/etc. Dr. Haywood said he respected Dr. Hansen, but believed that the warming effect would not be as great or as rapid as Hansen described. Additionally, Dr. Haywood said that sulfates would be replaced with other aerosols that occur naturally, the names of which escape me.

That's not even the correct year of Hansen's paper. 

16
Consequences / Global Dimming - The aerosol masking effect
« on: October 09, 2019, 09:31:40 PM »
There's a number of published papers demonstrating that the removal of the aerosol masking effect, AKA global dimming, will result in a rapid increase in global average temperature.  Above our current level, within a short period of time (weeks to months).

Depending on the reference, the figures apparently range from approximately 1C-3C of global average temperature rise is being "masked" by aerosol particulates in the atmosphere. 

Below are a number of peer-reviewed articles, and essays that focus exclusively on this subject, and propose varying numbers for the aerosol masking effect.

Hansen's 2011 Paper entitled, Earth's energy imbalance and implications informs us of a 1C global average temperature is not being fully realized due to the aerosol masking effect.

References:

Earth's energy imbalance and implications  https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html

Cooling from atmospheric particles may mask greater warming  https://www.sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/research-cooling-from-atmospheric-particles-may-mask-greater-warming/

The roles of aerosol direct and indirect effects in past and future climate change
 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50192

Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low-level clouds
 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6427/eaav0566

The Aerosol Masking Effect: A Brief Overview  The Aerosol Masking Effect: A Brief Overview


17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 13, 2019, 05:36:23 PM »
Thanks Jim. Animation for (most of) this melting season from week ending mar25-sep2

My pleasure Oren!

Note in particular all the red stuff disappearing down the Nares Strait this year.

Thanks for pointing that out.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 12, 2019, 05:06:39 PM »
The extent graphs are a tease this year

I'd like to see what the multi year sea ice looks like from a photograph during this time of year for comparison.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 11, 2019, 04:31:57 PM »
What's the official minimum then?

Currently, according to JAXA data, it is 4,158,349 km^2. Achieved on September 4th.

The extent data is misleading, at best.  The rank matters little - what matters is the sea ice thickness and the condition of the ice in general.

Unfortunately, the sea ice extent graphs are given the most attention rather than sea ice thickness and fragmentation (and sea surface temperature).

The sea ice extent is a dubious measurement, as highly fragmented slush should not be considered "extent", but it does seem to get included.  Therefore, the "extent" of the low quality single year ice of 2019 is compared against the "extent" of the multi year ice of, say 1995 - which is incorrect - it's comparing apples to oranges.

We need to be focusing on the multi year ice, sea ice thickness  - not the "extent" data.

On that note, how's that multi-year ice doing in 2019?

20
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 17, 2019, 03:40:04 PM »

And when the initial conflicts are over, people start dying in droves. Is this a world you want to live in?
@gerontocrat
Are you being sarcastic/realistic or do you have a cunning plan? Are you Hannibal Smith?
The people die in droves straight away. Biggest problem is safe and sanitary disposal of the corpses, especially in the cities.

Is this a world we want to live in? Like you think we've got a choice?

Am I being sarcastic/realistic or do I have a cunning plan?  That's for me to know and for you to hope you do not find out.

Am I Hannibal Smith? No. The bullets are real.

Which pathogens are spread from dead corpses that poses such a big threat?

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 27, 2018, 03:13:20 AM »
October 21-25.
I have read here in the past how ice must grow from the coast or adjacent to existing ice, therefore once we get a blue ocean situation the refreeze might be very delayed (if at all). This animation is a fine example of how given enough cold temps over enough time the surface of open water will freeze even when not adjacent to any coast or other ice.

That's not what I'm observing.

Ice is growing from the pre existing ice outward towards the shores, at least for now.  Maybe this is because we're early in the "freezing season"?

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 24, 2018, 09:12:42 PM »
The only part of the laptev that's freezing is the distant borders with the central arctic ocean?  I didn't see any ice along the cost. 

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong image?

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 24, 2018, 06:17:11 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 22 October (5 day trailing average) =  4,704,631 km2

Total Area gain on this day 118 k,
- 11 k less than the 2010's average on the day,
Area now
- 862 k < 2017 and
- 813 K < the 2010s average

Peripheral Seas gain       12 k,
Central Seas     gain       102 k,                                 
Other Seas       gain         3 k, (Okhotsk -1 k Hudson +4 k)

Peripheral Seas
Baffin                           gain  12 k  increase accelerating.
Greenland Sea              loss     1 k
Bering                          loss/gain     0 k

CAB Seas
Beaufort Sea                       gain    20 k
Canadian Archipelago (CAA) gain    11 k
East Siberian Sea (ESS)       gain    33 k ,
Central Arctic Sea                gain    17 k,

Chukchi                              gain      9 k

Arctic temperature anomaly staying at around +3  celsius until Friday? But as darkness descends temperatures continue to drop like a stone. Freezing has taken hold in the Central Seas. Attention switches to the pace of freezing and where it is happening.

Meanwhile GFS beyond Friday days predicts very high +ve anomalies from +4 to nearly +6 by end month mostly in an arc from the eastern edge of the CAA all around the Arctic to beyond Novaya Zemla, while north of Greenland at average temperatures. (but GFS has form for wild expectations beyond 5 days).  Hansen predicts big spike in temps over the next few months from the Al Nina to El Nino transition. If all that pans out all bets are off.

NSIDC Daily Extent at 20th October 6.565 million km2 and despite an extent rise of 189 k is still lowest in the satellite record by a 163 k (c.f. 2007), and a slim 18k (c.f. 2016) and-
- 0.947 million km2 < 2017
- 0.891 million km2 < 2010's average (2010-2017).

A record low is very likely to continue even with average extent gain. But will extent gain be average, below average, or above average ?

When Gen starts saying things like if x then "all bets are off", I start paying closer attention.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 22, 2018, 06:16:29 PM »
Do you have a graph of the previous years, rather than just some average line?

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 22, 2018, 04:27:49 PM »
Update:


26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 15, 2018, 03:21:03 PM »
I don't really get cci gfs 2m anomalies. It doesn't seem to match EC and GFS models on meteociel at all. Yeah sure there are some positive Temp 850hPa anomalies on meteociel as well, but nothing dramatic, and there are even some negative fields on the map. While on the other hand when I go to cci GFS it shows half of Arctic "burning in red", especially the Russian side. Now my question is, is that because there is so much open water compared to average there. So the 2m temps stay much higher than they should because there is no ice? Like in May or June when Temp850hPa explode for days but 2m temperature stays around 0C (32F), because of the ice over that area, just the opposite right now? That came to my mind cause the biggest difference between cci temp 2m and meteociel EC, GFS, temp850hPa is on the Russian side (Laptev and ESS) even though we have "pretty stable vortex" (compared to last 5 years), and cold air hanging there. I mean cci has Russian coast (the land) close to the average around day 7 (somewhere below, somewhere above), and it seems to follow meteociel GFS very well, but the seas are "burning".

Comparison, same date, same model (GFS 6z)




I mean look at the Bering Strait 850hPa anomalies, they are the highest on meteociel, but cci 2m seems to follow that very well, perhaps because there shouldn't be ice there anyway, compared to the average?

This is an interesting set of questions I'd love to hear the opinions of some of the experts here.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 13, 2018, 04:30:20 AM »
100 wm2ish. It is not insignificant.

How does the area under the curve compare for the different latitudes?

 I can try to eyeball it but perhaps someone with direct knowledge could give me a hint?

Apologies if this is a stupid question, maybe this belongs in the stupid questions thread.

Thanks.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 12, 2018, 10:15:33 PM »
If this becomes true, it should be named "Abrupt Climate Change" for Bering and Chukchi Sea.
Very much so. Even now, even with shorter days, because of the lack of ice cover both of those seas are still picking up isolation and downwelling longwave radiation.

That radiation is not enough to stop the refreeze, but is a very substantial increase to the seas annual heat capture.

Meanwhile, outgoing heat out of the atmosphere is limited by physics and *can't* increase except in smaller increments determined by temperatures in the upper atmosphere.  As a metaphor, we are increasing the flow of water into a tub without changing the size of the drain.


How much radiation is absorbed in October versus the summer months?

You indicate that this amount of absorbed radiation is "very substantial".  Can you please back up your claim with some evidence?

Thank you.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 10, 2018, 08:42:30 PM »
How much extent gain has taken place in the arctic thus far exactly?

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: September 28, 2018, 06:17:15 PM »
Interesting.

31
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: September 25, 2018, 10:04:05 PM »
Where is this projected to hit? 

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: September 25, 2018, 08:59:57 PM »
Can we have an updated arctic temperature chart vs month?  I don't remember the name of the chart, but it has a red line overlaid on the historical average.


33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: September 17, 2018, 09:00:46 PM »
Does the sun just rotate around the edge of the horizon in the arctic for the 24 hours of sunlight?




34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: September 17, 2018, 07:39:48 PM »
What location does that graph refer to? 

12 hours of sunlight in March?

This is wrong.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: September 17, 2018, 06:53:12 PM »
How much longer will the arctic circle continue to get sunlight? 

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 04, 2018, 08:06:32 PM »
I think this graph shows best when we can expect BOE


One generally wouldn't fit a linear regression to a complex system (nor expect it to be the best fit)

Hence, those linear fits are meaningless.

Do you have any reference that the arctic was ice free during the Holocene?

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: meaningless freezingseason/melting season chatter.
« on: August 09, 2018, 05:59:42 PM »
Is there an updated sea ice concentration graph for August 9th?

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 07, 2018, 05:39:22 PM »
Is the entire arctic (minus some small locations) really less than 2m thick right now?

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The ice is much thinner than 2012
« on: August 02, 2018, 06:51:16 PM »
How are those two models different? 


40
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 29, 2018, 01:31:29 AM »
Record low:

Unlikely to impossible on July 17th.

Real possibility.  July 28th.




41
Arctic sea ice / Re: Don't read this thread
« on: July 08, 2018, 11:27:28 PM »
But...but Guy McPherson says that 2018 is probably it. 

You mean to say I shouldn't have maxed out all my credit cards?




42
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 08, 2018, 01:50:04 AM »
" ... If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years,  ..."

Of the thirteen citations provided, which ones support this claim ?

sidd

https://imgur.com/a/Ko8M5

Edit:  Apparently the image doesn't work or isn't self explanatory.

Copy this sentence:   60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years

Paste into google search.  Press enter.

Considering how easy this was, I'm posting an equally low effort response to a low effort question.


43
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 07, 2018, 10:34:09 PM »

What is this, now you're trying to change the title of the subject because you disagree with the content of Dr. McPherson's message?

Near term human extinction is the subject being discussed, not human population reduction by a large degree.  That's not what Dr. McPherson proposes, he proposes near term human extinction.


Dr. McPherson, the fount of all wisdom.

What is the Yankee expression?

Ah, I remember. " Three strikes and you're out".  Goodbye.

I hate to say this, but this post seems off topic.  It also appears to be an ad hominem attack.

44
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 07, 2018, 10:23:44 PM »
i know that the title is eye-catching and perhaps that's how it was meant to be :-)

i'm just proposing to consider to change the title into something like: thread to human population or thread for a significant drop in human population.

thing is that is see the tile and command-W it is :-) i'm sure i'm not the only one, while the topic as to which amount human race is threatened by events that could happen or have to be expected, is very interesting indeed.

there will be no human extinction due to global worming or total loss of sea-ice etc there are risks as to feeding and inundations etc. that could indeed reduce the number of humans living on planet earth.

if extinction will happen it would be indirectly, by events that could be triggered or boosted by climat change and it's effects.

i would gladly see this topic discussed further but without spending too much energy on explaining why extinction due to climate change won't happen within reasonable time and beyond that we simply can't see.

too much interaction and unkown feedbacks and/or their significance are part of the game.

What is this, now you're proposing to change the title of the subject because you disagree with the content of Dr. McPherson's message?  Because it's "shocking" so to speak? 

Near term human extinction is the subject being discussed, not human population reduction by a large degree.  That's not what Dr. McPherson proposes, he proposes near term human extinction.

 Dr. McPherson admits that there's going to be survivors in bunkers.

It's the analogy of the last Tasmanian tiger in the zoo - yes, Tasmanian tigers didn't technically go extinct until that last member finally died of unnatural causes in the zoo.  I've posted previously about my personal opinions about how long humans can reliably survive in isolated locations and in bunkers.

The subject seems appropriate considering that we're discussing and debating (hotly at times) the extinction of humans.  In my opinion, there are a couple of posts here that are basically stating  "humans have accomplished so much, and are not like other animals, therefore will be an exception" - that level of reasoning is not ideal, in my opinion.



45
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 07, 2018, 08:19:21 PM »
That's an objective statement not name calling.  We're not talking politics here, we're discussing reality.    There's not two sides to this argument.  There's reality, then there's deniers who deny reality.

That's it.  This is a climate emergency, and we have people pretending that nothing is wrong.  Anyone that denies the emergency is denying reality. 

Typical, ignoring the argument and focusing on "rules".  Typical avoidance tactic.

It's the same as folks who can't quit smoking, even though they have cancer.  They'll argue that it's one of the other factors that is causing cancer, never not the cigarettes.  Cigarettes are fine, there's 100000 other way to get cancer, and it's probably one of those. LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE.  Couldn't possible be the pack of cigarettes they've been smoking for 30 year, NEVER.  It's that one time in college they drank too much, or all the year they spent breathing in smoke at work, or that one time they touched lead paint, this or that, etc etc. 

But no, not my precious cigarettes. Just replace cigarettes with addiction to fossil fuels, and cancer as the climate emergency caused by CO2 levels.



46
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 07, 2018, 08:01:09 PM »
Seriously, what's with all the climate change deniers on this forum?  Aren't you people supposed to be over at Alex Jones's message boards?

There's a lot of very interesting responses in this thread, but the deniers (you know who you are) tend to say "I don't think, or that can never happen, or humans are invincible".

The baseline temp is wrong, we're at 1.5C over baseline, not 1 or 0.8 or whatever you're using.  1.5C.  Stick to the facts.  Baseline is PRE Industrial.  We're measuring changes that have occurred since industrialized civilization, not since some date ranges two centuries later. 

47
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 02, 2018, 10:16:13 PM »


3.  This brings us to 2.5C over baseline (we're at 1.5C above baseline right now).  Civilzation will utterly collapse at 2.5C over baseline



So in effect you are saying that if global average temps go up 1 (ONE!) degree C from current levels, civilization will collapse.

Why would that happen?

Correct.  Modern civilization is on the brink of collapse right now.  Without any changes in global average temperature from today, civilization will collapse utterly - and most apes on this planet will die. Albeit it may be a much slower collapse (i.e., may take decades rather than years).

As other members here have accurately pointed out, all it would take is consistent years like 2015, 2012, 2017  to collapse the United States economy - which would collapse the world economy, and most likely collapse civilization.  A decade with yearly catastrophic hurricanes decimating entire countries and portions of states, and droughts like the one CA experienced in 2015.  This is not sustainable, even without a further temperature rise.  Have a look at the CA precipitation amounts for 2018.  CA supplies virtually all of the nuts and green vegetables for the united states and much of the world.  Groundwater doesn't last forever.

Human population is also not sustainable and it's extraordinarily unlikely that human population will simply plateau at 8 billion and stay at that level indefinitely.  Nature doesn't work like that.  Apes are not an exception.

Factor in an ice free arctic, and now how will the agricultural regions in the world avoid climate extremes that prevent agriculture from being produced sufficiently to support 7.5 billion+ apes?

Collapse of civilization is ensured at 2.5C above baseline - it's ensured at 1.5C above baseline, and it was ensured even at 0.5C above baseline.  It's just going to happen a heck of a lot quicker at 2.5+C above baseline.

At 3.5C above baseline...I have a hard time imagining this planet at 3.5C above baseline.   


How a collapsed civilization handles 450-500 spent fuel rod containment facilities?  As far as I know, there's no plan for this outside of business as usual.

-and it will not take decades for the aerosol effects to be removed.  Aerosols do not enter the stratosphere, they stick to the troposphere, and are removed from precipitation events.  This process would only take, at most, a couple of months. 

+1-3C if civilization collapses due to removal of global dimming aerosol effect, and civilization is going to collapse.  I don't see any way that we experience anything less than a catastrophic drop in human population by 2026 or 2030.  Extinction?  I don't know .  There's going to be bunker idiots and folks who try to live in the tundra, but that won't last long with lethal doses of radiation, and/or half the year where the sun is not shining.  Good luck growing radioactive wheat in the arctic. 

Too many factors are working against large apes.

The age of the large apes will end soon, and that applies to all of us on this forum.  It's been fun debating this subject, but our fate is sealed.  It's a matter of when, not if at this point.  Unless something fundamentally changes in regards to human population, ecosystem collapse, spent fuel rods, and arctic sea ice thickness and extent - the fat lady has begun to sing.  It's going to be a beautiful and horrifying song, might as well try to enjoy yourselves.


48
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 02, 2018, 05:36:50 PM »
Oren, now you're resorting to name calling towards Dr. McPherson.   

The thermal inertia of the glaciers on land in antarctica and greenland have little to no effect on the temperatures in that chart.

Here's the factors that matter (feel free to refute these claims, this is what Dr. McPherson is discussing - the evidence has been posted earlier in this thread, feel free to revisit):

1.  Arctic sea ice is very thin, and the extent is the lowest on record - an ice free arctic will reduce albedo in that chart, resulting in an increase in global average temperature - let's say even by .50C (a conservative approach). 

2.  an Ice free arctic is going to warm the arctic ocean and allow warm currents to penetrate these waters from the south, which will lead to methane clathrate release.  Let's be conservative and say just 0.5C in a short period of time.

3.  This brings us to 2.5C over baseline (we're at 1.5C above baseline right now).  Civilzation will utterly collapse at 2.5C over baseline, leading to:

4.  Let's say a conservative estimate of 0.50C from lack of global dimming.

Now we're at 3.0C over pre industrial baseline.

At 3.0C over baseline, the effects from increased water vapor will increase temps again by another oh, 0.5C (lets be conservative here).

Now we're at somewhere around 3.5C above pre industrial levels within a short period of time ( by 2030).

The chart that whereistheice posted is a worst case scenerio, I'll give you that Oren.  But a conservative estimate brings us to 3.5C above baseline within 10 years if we get an ice free arctic and methane clathrates are released in large quantities.

If nothing else happens at 3.5C above baseline, then humans could probably survive in some remote areas of the planet for a while if they bring livestock and seeds with them.

But you know that once we hit 3.5C, the positive feedbacks that will be triggered at that point will be self reinforcing and will not stop for tens of thousands of years.

Whereistheice asked for someone to prove this data wrong, and I've seen no evidence that Dr. McPherson's claims are wrong - if anything, his claims are becoming more and more accurate as temperatures continue to skyrocket and the arctic continues to head straight for ice free territory in short order.

I see many posts that basically conclude:  "he's a liar, that can never happen".

3.5C above baseline by 2030, that's a conservative value, it could be far higher than that by 2030 - and even at 3.5C above baseline, the thermal inertia of greenland and west antarctic glaciers will not matter.

Most humans are dead at 3.5C above baseline, some may still be alive - extinction by 2030?  Maybe not, but 95% die off by 2030, that's more realistic in my opinion.

49
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 01, 2018, 05:29:39 AM »


In the body of the paper :

"Some have argued that estimating the global value of ecosystem services is meaningless, because if we lost all ecosystem services human life would end, so their value must be infinite ..."

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Read all about it, copy available at

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/19113/Costanza_et_al_GEC_2014_%2B_SI.pdf

sidd

This quote from the paper essentially nails it. 

Ecosystem is completely seperate from economy - and therefore economy, in my view, is nothing more than a religion.  Talking about money and value and cost, etc is meaningless unless these costs factor in the effect of "economic" activity into the carrying capacity of large apes.

Large apes have destabilized the atmosphere to the point that the planet itself is now self reinforcing.

This process is basically the societal equivalent as going into your family safe deposit box, getting your great grandfathers gold coins and your great grandmothers jewelry - bringing them to a pawn shop, selling them for 15% of what they're worth -  and buying some black tar heroin with it.

We're trashing resources that are priceless in exchange for, essentially, a religious experience.

B-but...for a short period of time 401k, IRA, and money market accounts experienced incredible gains! 

I hope that felt good, you stupid apes.

50
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 01, 2018, 01:00:07 AM »
GDP measures activity. It does not care what that activity is. Making weapons and armaments, killing people with them so as to produce demand for more increases GDP. Some might say that this does not increase the assets / wealth of a country.

Having to use a portion of GDP to replace assets has an opportunity cost - the opportunity to use that activity to create new assets, i.e. to increase a country's wealth (though these days more likely to be used for consumption of ephemera).

Some might say that by looking at GDP growth as the prime measure of economic success has effectively disguised that many countries are poorer in terms of wealth as the basic infrastructure required for the countries to function has decayed.  To my surprise Trump's call for 1.5 trillion iron men to be spent on infrastructure is probably a pretty good guess.

My guess is that the wealth of Puerto Rico, Lousiana, Florida, and California (to name a few obvious examples) has been and will be permanently and substantially reduced by natural disasters  and other climate change influenced events even as GDP continues to rise and again quoted as economic success.

Economics - the price of everything and the value of nothing

Yes, I agree that economics is basically examining fantasy prices, while ignoring value or at least distorting it greatly.  However, economics is not based in reality - and certainly not connected to the planetary processes that make life possible (at least the ecological costs are simply not considered in an economic model, which makes all models of economic activity irrelevant and simply a religious exercise).  Economics is nothing more than a cognitive exercise that humans carry out to make sense of our species activity.  In reality, all that matters is ecological carrying capacity of all species on this planet.  If any metric of activity does not take into consideration ecological carrying capacity, then it is not based in reality - it's just a cognitive exercise.

Economics is a religion, nothing more.

Humans have been overly zealous about or economic religion to such an extent that we've set into motion the destruction of the ecological carrying capacity for our species on this planet.  It's now just a matter of waiting for:

1). The planet's positive feedback loops to collapse civilization

2). Which leads to the removing of global dimming

3.  Which leads to further accelerated positive feedback loops, and the melt down of spent fuel rods - ultimately removing what little ecological carrying capacity remained on this planet for large apes.


"Yes, the planet got destroyed.   But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
https://imgur.com/gallery/tsCYc

Pages: [1] 2