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 - opensheart

Pages: [1] 2
Consequences / Re: Effects of Climate Change on the biosphere
« on: September 11, 2019, 09:10:54 PM »
Washington post article "2C Beyond the Limit - Dangerous new hot zones are spreading around the world".   Some pretty nice graphics

A Washington Post analysis of multiple temperature data sets found numerous locations around the globe that have warmed by at least 2 degrees Celsius over the past century.

Arctic sea ice / Expedition to drift through arctic ocean
« on: June 14, 2019, 04:11:48 PM »

these scientists and several hundred others will launch the largest Arctic research expedition in history: a 12-month, $134 million, 17-nation effort to document climate change in the fastest-warming part of the globe.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 14, 2018, 11:29:55 PM »
I have been Looking at that large area of remaining ice in the Beaufort Sea.   This is not the first time we have seen such a separation or near separation of an area of ice from the main pack.
I think we will see more and more of these separate ice patches in the future.

I am no longer envisioning the ice would retain a large central pack with clear fronts on all sides.   Where long term the fronts would advance and the central pack would shrink,  until the remaining ice is piled up along Greenland and Canada.

Instead I would propose that over years, we will see this central pack slowly dissolve into an increasing number of separate areas or concentrations of ice.    Sort of like the breakup of a super continent into smaller, separate continents. 

Eventually we will be tracking individual patches, for their own extent, area and concentration.   Tracking the ups and downs of each, as we watch the sub-packs fade on their own schedules.

Thus the Blue Ocean Event will come when the few remaining scatterings of ice melt below the combined threashold.   On that day there could be 3 or so separate areas of remaining ice in an otherwise blue ocean.   And those remaining areas of ice could be anywhere in the Arctic Ocean.

Consequences / Re: Why nuclear weapons should no longer be tested.
« on: October 12, 2017, 10:41:57 PM »
As I understand it,  the radioactive fallout will be spread by air and ocean.   It will get spred out.   But not the same as diluted until its not a problem.    A radioactive particle in your lungs is not good, no matter how 'diluted' it was before you breathed in it, or how long it floated around before you breathed it in.

And each such event just adds that much more to the world.

OK, I can see health effects starting soon, lf not already.   I know I have increasing boughts of kidney stones.   And my Urology group started a separate phone channel just to deal with Kidney Stones. 

If the body might have to start permamently compensating, what ever that means,  at levels as low as 430.   And we are at 407, rising 3+ points a year.   We could be touching the 430 mark around 2025,  8 years from now.

Although it would be a couple more years before CO2 was always over 430.   And then it would depend on where on the planet you were.

But the below quote sounds like extrapolation to the nth degree.    I would like to see the evidence to back this claim up.

In the extreme case lifespans could become shorter than the time required to reach reproductive age. This could threaten the viability of human and animal species without interventions such as the creation of artificial living environments.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: September 07, 2016, 08:05:19 PM »
As ice melts on Greenland, the surrounding Sea Surface Temps get cooler.
But I'm not seeing Sea Surface Temps cool just because Arctic Sea Ice melts.
So it would seem to me that melting arctic sea ice is not cooling anything.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 03, 2016, 10:05:45 PM »
I've seen the same 'stall' in temps north of 80 for the past few years.
To me it seems that in both spring and fall, the temps bounce around somewhere close to the -11 C mark.  Which is the 'observational' reported required air temp to get open, wave action, sea water to freeze solid.

Thus I've thought of that -11C temp as a boundary temp between freezing and melting states.  and thus there is some hesitency, or back and forth behavior, before the state changes.   Thus it seems to me to happen in spring as the state changes from freezing to melting and in late fall when the state changes from melting to freezing.

I consider the stall at this range to be Negative feedback,  (Negative is the one that moderates and pulls back to normal, right. Can never keep those straight).

If/when we loose this behavior,  meaning we no longer see a stall at this range. (like the spring temps stay above normal all the way up to 0C. )  I would take that as a bad sign that we have forced our way passed a tipping point of sorts and have lost/overpowered a Negative feedback.

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: April 25, 2016, 10:58:17 PM »
I'm afraid someday many of the powers that be will follow that logic.   
Stop measuring or keeping track of climate change.
Destroy all records.   Slience those who know too much.

What ever the future climate becomes
 that is the way it always was...

Someday the surviving humans will have to do an archaeological dig to discover the climate was once very different.   And they will have to  come up with their own explanations.   
"Those ancient people must have done something really bad for the gods to have curse them so."   A second fall from the garden of Eden perhaps?

Science / Re: Mauna Loa CO2
« on: April 19, 2016, 06:53:45 PM »
Could the poll at the top of this Topic be changed to something like:

"Will we see a daily average below 400 PPM this year"

The Santa Fe Strategy: How Small Cities Can Act on Climate and Inequality

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 11, 2016, 09:14:28 PM »
We just drove from Cincinnati to Washinton DC over April 8 - 10, 2016.
The weather was really weird.   Sat Morning we had snow in and around DC,  But by afternoon one could go outside with a light jacket.
When we drove on the 10th we could see that the mountains of West Virgina had partial snow on them, that wasn't there on 8th.    partial snow in that it was not a continous blanket.   The tops of things melted off quick, but the sides and shadows had snow.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« on: February 18, 2016, 03:20:31 AM »
I would ask a clarifying question about freezing sea water.

Most places say sea/salt water freezes at about -1.8C or -1-.9C or -2C, depending on the salinity.   

There are a couple references in this forum about air temps being -11C. 

At first I was thinking that meant you needed both,  water at least -1.8C and an air temp of -11 or below.   But I was trying to track this down and verify this.   I'm not finding this -11C mentioned other places.   Here on this blog it seems to trace back to 'wayne'.   And searching through his EH2R blog I found this quote:

sea water was so warmed air temperatures needed to be below -11 C.

Which leads me to guess this -11C number may be what is required to freeze the sea when the water temp is wamer than -1.8C.   

Can someone clarify this?

Is there some ratio here, like: salt water at temp X will need air temp of Y to freeze?

Science / Hadley Cell configuration
« on: January 30, 2016, 05:38:40 PM »
Dear Forum,   Hadley Cells have not had a topic in awhile, so it recommended I start a new topic instead of reactivating an old one.

My understanding of planetary circulation systems like Hadley Cells changed today.  I would appreciate your feedback.  Am I on the right track or further from it?

I used to think the number of cells was changeable.  We currently have 3 cells, Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar.   Lower the temperature enough and the Polar would grow and the Hadley would fade until you had just two.  Lower it still more and you would have just one, a Polar cell over a snowball earth.  And by the same thinking, raise the temperature from our current arrangement enough and the Polar cell goes away.  Raise it still more, and we get to a hot house world with just one cell, the Hadley cell which would stretch from the equator to the pole.

But today my understanding shifted.  I'm now thinking that these cells are not interchangeable.  You can't replace one with another.  Because of a bunch of math and physics and things like planetary rotation and axle tilt, you will always have 3 cells, or at least the potential for 3 cells.

They are more like a series of buckets.   There will always be 3 buckets.  You always start by filling the first bucket.   When the first bucket gets full enough it starts spilling over into the second bucket.   Fill the first and second buckets enough and it will start spilling over into the third.
Even a low energy/low heat planet (like a snowball Earth or current conditions on Mars) would still have a Hadley cell.  (It would have the potential for the others, there just would not be enough heat/energy to activate them).    Meaning as soon as a planet gets enough atmosphere and enough solar heat/energy the first cell, the Hadley cell would start up.

As the heat/energy rises, and the original Hadley cell raises its territory above freezing, the heat/energy starts to spill over into the 2nd cell (Ferrel).  Moisture from this 2nd cell would still travel north and rise up near its northern boundary, which would most likely be over the edge of the great ice sheet.  The rising air would dump its precipitation just beyond the edge, which would fall as snow and help build the ice sheet.  But beyond that there would be little heat/energy conveyed.

Raise the heat/energy enough and the 2nd cell fills up enough to start spilling over into the third cell.    Now the polar cell is receiving enough heat/energy that the great ice sheets pull way back and the ground may melt free of snow in the summer.

Raise the heat/energy still more and the 3rd cell fills up enough for its annual average to stay above freezing.   Oh it may still form ice and snow in the winter, but it will all melt out in the summer, there will be no permafrost or permanent ice sheet.

Raise the heat/energy still more, and all the cells will stay above freezing all year long. 

Then no matter how much you raise the heat/energy.   As long as there is still atmosphere,  there will still be 3 cells.  As I read today, even Venus with its extreme heat/energy still has 3 cells.  There is a huge Hadley cell.    There is a narrow “Polar Rim” as they call it.  And then there is a Polar Vortex, a split polar vortex with two permanent (?) centers.

So once there is enough heat/energy to activate 3 cells, there will always be 3 cells in some form or another.  The 1st cell can expand farther from the equator.  The 2nd and 3rd cells can be compressed into a smaller space.  The 2nd and 3rd cells can heat up and become more energetic.  But it is not the case of  one cell being consumed by another.


85 MPH winds
so Alex is officially the strongest January hurricane on record in the Atlantic.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:58:55 PM »
we're actually 8k above 2011..

day   chg  estimate  CT-value
Wed        3.110501  3.110124
Thu -15.9  3.094609  -
Fri  +8.0  3.102642  -

So if Wed we were 8K above 2011
and Thur we decline 15.9k,  which would be 7.9K  below 2011
but then Fri rises 8k,
and with adjustments, margins of error, etc

Are we ending up in a statistical tie with 2011?

Policy and solutions / President Obama Visits Alaska
« on: September 05, 2015, 04:39:50 AM »
I didn't find this posted elsewhere.  I debated where to put this.   I decided to put it here based on President Obama speech at the GLACIER Conference.   I would encourage people to go through this site.  Watch the different videos and particularly find and listen to his speech which is just over half way down the page.

Consequences / Re: General Drought Stuff
« on: August 25, 2015, 12:24:11 AM »
Small farmers in Central America’s “dry corridor” stretching from Panama to Guatemala, including parts of Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, are hardest hit by Central America’s drought, brought on by a particularly strong El Nino climatic effect this year.

Policy and solutions / Re: Legal Approach to Climate Change Resolutions
« on: August 13, 2015, 07:18:11 PM »
You beat me to posting the same artical.

Go Kids...
I would that this would get some publicity and become a talked about issue.

Science / Re: Mauna Loa CO2
« on: August 07, 2015, 07:20:14 PM »
As I understand,  CO2 is not uniform over the globe.  there is more in the northern hemisphere than the southern.   I saw once an animation that showed CO2 swirling around the planet.

And I believe a tropical storm just past north of Hawaii. 

Is it possible that the storm brought up air with less CO2 from down south?

This seemed like the best existing thread to post this under.
Check out the following link to a scientific study suggesting a new understanding of acidification, ocean deposits and athmospheric C02 during the PETM and what that may say about cimate sensitivity to CO2 today.

If the high amount of acidification seen in the Atlantic Ocean had been caused by atmospheric CO2 alone, that would suggest a huge amount of CO2 had to go into the atmosphere to cause 5°C warming. If this were the case, it would mean our climate was not very sensitive to CO2.

But our findings suggest other factors made the Atlantic far more corrosive than the rest of the world’s oceans. This means that sediments in the Atlantic Ocean are not representative of worldwide CO2 concentrations during the PETM.

Comparing computer simulations with reconstructed ocean warming and sediment dissolution during the event, we could narrow our estimate of CO2 release during the event to 7,000 – 10,000 GtC. This is probably similar to the CO2 increase that will occur in the next few centuries if we burn most of the fossil fuels in the ground.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 18, 2015, 09:08:50 PM »
The Hudson Bay and Eastern North America has been cool for awhile.    I've watched the weather maps.  There usually has been two 'fronts' protecting Hudson Bay area.   The lower one has been parked accross Chicago - Cincinnati for a while.   But today it has broken down.   It is upper 90's F. here in Cinci today.  Warmest day thus far this summer.   Feels like 104 F.   And the stationary fronts look like they have turned into warm fronts and are advancing accross Hudson Bay.   If I read the below temps correctly,  melt on Hudson Bay should increase.

Hope this attached picture works.

Science / Re: Mauna Loa CO2
« on: July 18, 2015, 12:11:04 AM »
Is it just me,  or is the Mauna Loa daily, weekly values declining less this June and July than normal?

Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: April 28, 2015, 12:02:33 AM »
If I may offer another perspective.    I do not believe religion in and of itself is bad.   It is my personal opinion that the only thing that could save humanity, or direct the survivors onto a different path for generations to come is a religion.   

Instead I think there are certain avoidable weaknesses in religions that cause them to go bad.
1.     A hieratical structure with an all-knowing, all-powerful, pure good deity on top and a pure-evil being at  the bottom.
         a.   This encourages a king of the hill mentality, or get as close to the king as you can, and dam all the people at the bottom.
         b.   This structure is too easily hijacked by those in power to  say “Thus says the Lord” and demand everyone follow.
         c.   This emboldens followers to believe their position on the top of the truth hill gives them the right to impose, direct, control, destroy those of ‘lessor’ truth positions.
2.   A God, creed, or sacred writ that is perfect.   That is to say it changes not.   Which means its followers cannot allow it to be changed.   Which implies they must keep their world view, culture, society, community on the one true path and not respond to changing conditions.

I would offer the Druids of the Celtic world as a possible example of escaping this pattern.    As I  understand them,  they were an oral tradition only, and not for lack of writing.   They seem to believe wisdom needed to be passed orally.   Which may mean there was an inherent flexibility built in to their system.    Some have suggested that when the Celts knew they were beaten by Rome, the Druids morphed into Christian Clergy.   Debating and losing some critical points of this new faith.    It seems to me that the Druids were whatever their people/times needed/called for them to be.

If you could allow me to propose a seed of a new religion that might be more appropriate to humanity today.
•   No single deity at top or bottom.
•   Divinity is not all-knowing or all-good
•   Instead of any divinity, there is a pool of life beyond.   The Essence of all living beings, humans and otherwise feed this pool.    All mixed together like adding ingredients to a stew.   There is no higher or lower, everyone returns to the same stew.   And from that stew we are all drawn.
•   The state of the souls entering the pool matter.   Dark matter darkens the pool for generations to come.   Light matter lightens the pool for generations to come.
•   Thus the ultimate purpose of life is to improve one’s self.   Work on one’s issues and weaknesses.   Strengthen the good, and reduce the evil.   Be yourself what you wish humanity to become and you will actually influence life to come.
•   That the pool of life is not eternal.   That the life force must be constantly refreshed by returning to real life in this world.     Thus we must maintain the sustainability of this world for generations to come, or else life itself could fail.     There is no concept of leaving this world for a better one.   This is the world our life was given to live on.   

Appropriate points could be added for the importance of changing as conditions change.   Adapting as needed to continue the cycle of life.    The concept of limits to growth could be built in.   Diversity in the stew of life would be a good thing, adding different tastes to the stew.   

There could be a concept of ‘night language’ and ‘day language’.   That religion is night language, like the language of dreams.   While science is the day language.   They should co-exist in balance.   Each with its own sphere of influence.  One should not control or oppose the other.   Yes religion is the softer language and should mold around the harder truths of science.   But science should never attempt to purge the night.   That it is essential for humanity to maintain our soft side.   Our beliefs, heart and faith.   These are some of the distinctive attributes that separate us from machines and systems.

Hopefully such a system would focus more soft skills and personhood instead of power and status.  Focus on what is enough.    Perhaps it could focus more on raising all souls equally.  And less on growing layers of social strata from top to bottom.

Perhaps it could even be designed to be self-correcting.   To re-align itself with the peak of the bell curve while respecting, honoring and including the tails to either side.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« on: March 19, 2015, 04:06:11 PM »
Could someone post a good explanation of the following to the glossary thread in the forum.
     CT – Cryosphere Today
Like similarities and differences, how they are computed, what they mean, who usually uses each and why?

NSIDC is referenced in the glossary, but not really defined.
I’m not finding JAXA in there at all
And CT is just defined as Cryosphere Today.

I’m looking for more than just the organization each come from.   When people use these names, they are usually referring to a specific measurement.   So these acronyms come to mean more than just an organization.   They seem to mean a specific kind of measurement done a specific way.   And there seems to be an unspoken assumption that each is to be understood to mean something different.   

Like I usually assume people are talking about NSIDC ‘extent’ graph when they reference NSIDC.   But for some reason, I usually assume people are talking about some kind of ‘area’ measurement when they talk about CT.   But I have followed this blog for a long time and have no idea what JAXA means.

I think a glossary entry defining in one place, the different kinds of measurements people refer to could be helpful.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: March 13, 2015, 03:36:21 PM »
Should we add the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu,  particularly the Island of  Efate

Category 5 Cyclone Pam Bearing Down on Island Nation of Vanuatu

According to some comments:
What is really unfortunate is that Pam is not even moving that fast, just 12mph. Prolonged winds of that magnitude are going to obliterate the island. I hope everyone has evacuated.

To tell the dire truth: Pam decided to rest at the beaches of Efate (or what is left of them): Pictures below with one hour difference :-((((

Amateur guess coming:
The articles suggest that a lot of this new methane is being eaten by bacteria.
Is this not the same area were the Sea Stars and other creatures have recently be wiped out by some kind of bacteria/virus thing.  That is naturally occurring, but for some reason was suddenly overwhelming the Sea Star defenses.

Is it possible that a recent increase in methane is causing a bacterial bloom that is overpowering natural systems of the other creatures living there?  It is possible we have a chain of events here?   Coming together in ways not previously thought of?

copied from a comment on Dr Jeff Masters blog.

200 year flood hits west Norway towns

Rescue crews and volunteers worked through the night to evacuate hundreds of people and limit damage as Voss, Odda and several other towns suffered the worst floods to hit western Norway in more than a century.

Areas hit included the town of Lærdal, which was partly destroyed by fire less than a year ago.

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: October 21, 2014, 06:51:30 PM »
In this age of budget cuts, one must demonstrate superior need to get funding approved.  If one is going to ask for funding, one only wants to ask once.   Cost overruns can be scandalous.   In such environments, spinning the need in the most urgent language possible is normal. 

If turns out to be the one chance to raise the land or build sea walls, etc, at such densely used area, one would want to make sure it was enough to last a good long time.   If one is going to do something, it might as well be big.    Politicians like to approve Big projects for their districts.

Once they ask to address the issue, their solution has to cover everything.   If 20 years from now a Superstorm Sandy storm surge makes a direct hit on the highest tide of the year, Congress is going to ask why they didn’t foresee that when the work was done.    This leads to inflating the best reasonable guesstimate by a healthy fudge factor, just to be safe.

Likewise the published timeframe may be more of a budgetary, resource planning target for getting the work done, than a scientific forecast of what will happen by when.

I would believe their request is worded to have the most chance of approval without it ever coming back to haunt them, rather than what they believe will actually happen.       As such, I highly doubt it was formulated from a vision that a specific event like the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will collapse X amount by Y year.

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: October 17, 2014, 06:26:15 PM »
I would take this to mean a local Sea Level Rise, which is different and can be greater than the global sea level rise.

The rest / An over the top Cli-Fi ... prediction?
« on: September 19, 2014, 12:30:50 AM »
I had a idea-writing fit today and came up with the following mildly entertaining  post.  Since it is kinda Cli-Fi and meant to be more humor than serious, this thread seemed a better place to post it than some other places.

I've heard that the act of observing something can affect the results.  In that vein,  all of the cataclysmic natural events are now under such observation that none of them can happen.

Case in point.  Arctic Sea Ice.  There was so much attention gathered from the 2007 and 2012 record melts, that any further record setting melts will be held off for some time.

2015 will be another boring year where the ice refuses to melt as much as people think it should for the circumstances.  2016 will be another such disappointing year.   Yes the minimum will be less,  It may even tie the record.   But considering how conditions were conducive to a record melt it will be a disappointment.  And no amount of re-analysis will be able to break the statistical tie.

But all eyes will be on 2017.  It will be the 5th year.   2007 to 2012 was 5 years,  so 2017 should be a record smashing melt.  The Arctic Sea Ice blog will explode with record activity.   The sea temps will be record high.   The Air will be record warm.   The high pressures will be record highs and the artic cyclones will be record cyclones.   But the ice will not disappear.  The entire Arctic Ocean will be covered in 16% ice but no less.   And the minimum will come in at an attention crushing 3rd or 4th lowest.

By that time or shortly thereafter, the majority of the climate change believers will lose their faith.   No matter how high CO2, Methane, are other GHG's are, the planet will just not be responding.   Even when China cleans up their air, and all the aerosols fall from the sky, temps will not go up.    In fact even the El Nino prophets will go silent as yet another perfect El Nino set up goes bust.    Obviously the earth's climate sensitivity is much lower than we thought.

At which point, the IPCC will disband and even Box,  Hansen and  Shakhova won't complain much when climate change research is slashed to zero.  Skeptical Science will surrender their symbolic Climate Change Laser Pointer to WUWT.   Humanity and its scientists will find other more interesting pursuits. 

Then after the last satellite as gone quiet, after the last polar research station is shut down, after the last GHG measurement is taken, and no one bothers to graph global temperatures anymore.   Then and only then will everything start busting loose.   Global temps will sour by double digits.  “Tropical” storms will rival Jupiter’s Great Red Spot.   The Hadley Cells will collapse.  Every ice sheet with disintegrate.  Every source of co2 and methane will burst forth.  Methane sink holes will open as far south as Kansas.   Hydroxyls will disappear.  All large bodies of algae fill water will belch forth clouds, not of rain but of toxic gasses.

Civilization will hang in the balance.  Depending not on geoengineering, or worldwide carbon emission reductions, but on whether humanity can re-establish enough intense, long term, worldwide observation and statistical analysis to stop climate change dead in its tracks, before Mother Nature wipes out humanity's capacity to do so.

All that to say, that no matter how discouraging, or obvious that its never going to happen at disaster movie speeds, we all have to work together to keep up the good fight of climate observation and analysis to keep  the climate monster down to a routine and manageable level.

Consequences / Re: anyone elses weather radar tripping ?
« on: September 11, 2014, 05:23:37 PM »
Here in Ohio, it is heavy overcast, with rain and drizzle at times, so the scattering on our radar  might be legit.  I do see some scatttering on the local radars.   But then, isn't that fairly common over cities?

I voted for the 5,250 to 5,500 range.
Partly because I see a 'rebound' for 2 years after the 2007 melt.
Partly because I'm feeling we are going to learn something about the 'tail' of sea ice melt.
And partly because I'm tired of reading all the posts that say "according to the forecasts  some huge amounts should melt out next week."   
It does not seem to matter what the CO2 or methane is,  nor how thin or fragmented the ice is, nor how much heat has been pumped into the arctic ocean,  more often than not the sea ice just does not melt out acording to the 2 hour disaster movie timeframe we are accustom to.

Walking the walk / Re: Stashing away 'care' packages for survivors
« on: June 08, 2014, 04:37:13 PM »
what about taking a block of wax,  in room temp, solid state;  drilling a hole in it with a common drill bit.   Just big enough for the seeds of choice.   Dropping seeds in the hole, then adding a small amount of soft wax.   Just warm enough to be able to press into the hole and seal it.   

Wax would be soft enough for someone to get them back out when they wanted to.   

Or perhaps even better,   dip sealed packages of seeds in wax.   Would that not protect the package from degrading.    Or wrapping the seed package in saran wrap and then sealing with wax.

Would laminated paper/picture instructions keep?

Walking the walk / Re: Stashing away 'care' packages for survivors
« on: June 05, 2014, 11:08:01 PM »
Seeds has been mentioned a couple of times.   How can seeds be kept long term?   Could they be stored embedded in something like wax?   

Walking the walk / Re: Stashing away 'care' packages for survivors
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:33:01 PM »
I would rather not debate a collapse here.   There are plenty of places to debate that.
Regardless of whether there is a posible collapse, or the severity of the collaspe, there are people now who believe in a collapse.   There are people who are used to getting things done who have a growing fear that nothing they do will make any difference.  My first thought for this thread is to give a gift to the people now.   To give them something to do.   Something an individual can do and feel like they did something to directly affect the people they are most worried about 50 years from now.

If someone does lay up such buried treasure there are several possiblites.
1.  It is never found.   Does not matter if anything collapses or not.   No one ever finds it.
2.  It is found but not needed.  The people then can say,  "Oh look what those people 50 years ago were worried about.  Ha, Lets put it in a museum."
3.  It is found and useful.   Who knows how useful, but it is put to good use.
4.  It is found, and would be useful, if people knew what to do with it.   This is truly the worst case.

In any of those cases,  the people who prepared and placed it can feel like they did something special.  something IN ADDITION to their efforts to make the world a better place now.   Sort of both a now and later effect, to double their possible contributions to the future.

And would not just the process itself.  The process of planning, preparing and doing such a thing be an act of more long term thinking.   A practical way for individuals to start thinking in terms of generations from now. 

Walking the walk / Re: Stashing away 'care' packages for survivors
« on: May 23, 2014, 06:14:03 AM »
I'm wondering if we should start hiding away such useful items.   Not necessarily for us, but for someone who might come after us.   It would be like sending a care package to future people.

People often feel the problems are too overwhelming.  There is nothing they can do that would make a difference.    Could creating such stashes be an answer?  Something the individual could do, that would be a significant aid to future generations?   

Nothing extravagant.   Just some hand tools,  wrapped in plastic?  Or painted with extra protective coatings?   Or seeds sealed in something?    Just hidden away somewhere where they would keep.

Is this a good idea?   Are things truly grave enough to warrant it?    Would it give individuals something they could do?   Someway to extend their influence into the future?   And would it be useful to people in the future?

Walking the walk / Stashing away 'care' packages for survivors
« on: May 23, 2014, 06:13:31 AM »
Suppose you had the ability to build a time capsule that would be opened say 50 years from now.  But this was not your ordinary time capsule.  Not one where you leave something cute to be found 50 years from now.   And you were not leaving notes or picture of what your life was like now.   No this was a special purpose time capsule.

This time capsule would be open by survivors.   People who had survived what ever bad things happened in the next 50 years.   They were coming to your time capsule looking for things to help them survive in the world they find themselves in.

What would you put in this time capsule?  Tools?   Seeds?   Books?      What things do we have now, that if put away and protected would be the most helpful to them then?

The forum / problems accessing Neven's Blog
« on: May 19, 2014, 08:00:15 PM »
Anyone else getting the following error when trying to get to  ?

Error 522 Ray ID: 12d227af96a60168
Connection timed out

"Contact your hosting provider letting them know your web server is not completing requests. An Error 522 means that the request was able to connect to your web server, but that the request didn't finish. The most likely cause is that something on your server is hogging resources."

I'll add my .02.   My wife is a microbiologist who works at a governmental place having something to do with Environment, Policies and Actions.    She occasionally reads things in this blog (and elsewhere) that I send her.  And sends me news articles she finds.     But she does not spend much time keeping up with the minute by minute details and discussions.    Like she knows enough to know things are changing and things are probably going to be bad.   I think she would say: Soaking in more details than that is really not necessary.   We know enough to make choices.  Hybrid car, rain barrel, combine trips, recycle, etc.   And she is all over the new Solar Road idea listed here in a separate discussion.  So there is more of a filter,  less news-lust and more living out what you know.

Great question, It certainly gets to the heart of several controversies.   I'm thinking of climate change, tobacco, lead, creation/evolution, the earth at the center of the universe etc.

I've just watched the Cosmos episode on the history/science of lead in gasoline, so that is fresh in my mind.   But there certainly have been others before Climate Change.   Like Coal, Tobacco, Lead paint,  the earth at the center of the universe, etc. 

At first people with money,power,resources hire and direct research to further their own money,power,purposes.  And they are quite pleased with the results.  But they take it as a personal insult if the same science turns against their money,power,purpose.  Which is really sad.

We may complain about the system.  About how Science should be pure, and everyone should listen to it.   That all the problems are because of how The Powers That Be misuse the system.  And how Science wins in the end.  But it takes so long.

So we focus our efforts on educating the masses.  Somehow believing that if enough people just understood, things would change.

Isn't there a disconnect there?  Were we not just complaining that things are done for the people at the top?   I mean if the major payers, supporters, users, opposers of science are the top 1%.   Why are we trying to reach the 99%?   Should we not accept how the system works and seek to influence the top people?

I don't mean confront them,  I mean nudge them in the right direction.   Taylor the information to them.  Why is it in there interest to do something?   Why don't we focus our efforts on becoming one of their inner circle advisers.  And seek to say just the right things, in just the right way, to lead them to take an action, for their own interests, that would also help save the planet?

Which would have more impact?  Convince the 99% that something should be done, or Convince the top 1% to order the 99% to do something.

Its just a thought...

I would edit my comment.
A thought in the middle of the night
often seems wrong in morning light.

Such an idea is worryingly manipulative.
And we seek to educate the common people because we want a world where educated common people make a difference.


Arctic sea ice / Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« on: April 24, 2014, 06:49:27 PM »
I don't really understand it either.

From what I can guess at, it kinda maps the Equator of the Earth.   The different sections are different parts of the Earth the Equator goes througth.    Section 1 begins with Longtitude 0 in Africa.  then as you move east you leave Africa and come to the Indian Ocean,  Which is the bottom two sections of the graph.   Then as you leave the Indian Ocean, you come to Indonesia and various Islands.   This is the right sections of the graph.   then when you clear the Islands you come to wide open ocean, which is the top sections of the graph.   
But here my idea breaks down, for if the top seconds are just the Western Pacific, then the last section, section 8, would have to cover the Eastern Pacific, South America, and the South Atlantic all the way back to Long 0 in Africa in one small section.  That's almost half the planet.   so my guess must be wrong.

I gather that the closer a point is to the center, the weaker 'it' is,  and the farther from the center the stronger 'it' is.   But I don't know what the center circle is suppose to represent.  Some sort of threshold perhaps?

Clarification and explaination from those who know would be appreciated.

Here is a site for looking at the jet stream over time.

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?
« on: April 03, 2014, 07:32:45 PM »
According to some maps of effects of El Nino, Cincinnati Ohio USA usually gets more rain as the jet stream moves north over the easter half of the US.   

Right now, here in Cincinnati, we are in the middle of a @30 hour rain event.   Wave after wave of light, moderate and heavy rain.

A couple days ago, it was dry enough here to have a grass fire along the expressway.  Now we have flood watches.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: March 18, 2014, 12:39:48 AM »
Could the cold that builds up on the “Cold Continents” stay on the cold continents as long as they are cooling faster than the ocean?  Then as the northern hemisphere starts getting more solar energy, the continents are no longer cooling faster than the oceans, or perhaps start to reverse and warm up, the cold moves/spreads off the continents and onto the not so fast warming ocean.    Hence we see the pattern that the ice extent is sluggish through the whole freezing season until the end.   Then we see a sprint for the finish line and the ice extent grows significantly right at the end.

Consequences / Re: Why Survive? Reasons to be cheerful............
« on: August 14, 2013, 01:21:57 AM »
I do find myself dreaming and hoping that humanity can learn.    And in a specific sense.   I wish we could look at the history of our species and find the fundamental flaws with our economics, religions, society.   then I wish we could think up ways to avoid those mistakes and make diferent mistakes.

To me the absolutely most horror filled outcome imaginable is to start over and make the same mistakes again.

Therefore my personal reason to survive is because I think I could make a difference in bending a new society a different way.

I would also include a link to the most beautiful, uplifting, inspiring and hopefilled video series I know of: (Your-Milage-May-Very)

Consequences / Places becoming less livable
« on: July 09, 2013, 07:29:23 PM »
How about a thread for stories/new clips about places that are becoming less livable.

I would start with these two:
I wonder if the picture in the first one is really a picture of current conditions in Phoenix, AZ.

Yes I would like to see a collaborative online space.

I tried my hand at uploading one of my powerpoint decks to google docs.  I think this is the link.   Can people try it out and see if it works?

Walking the walk / Re: Threat Levels
« on: May 30, 2013, 12:40:45 AM »
I don't like the "how much people should be afraid" question? I think responses grounded in rational thought are more likely to be productive, especially with a situation that requires long term thinking.

Perhaps fear by itself is the wrong word.  Could there be a balance point where people have enough concern/fear to move them to invest in long term thinking?

I wanted to stay away from purely scientific thresholds, like 400 PPM CO2.  The system seems to have so much lag time and so much variability built into it, that such thresholds could be passed without immediate impact to individuals.  I wanted to set thresholds that were more real/meaningful to the average person's awareness.  Hence the idea of using the flooding of New York City as a threshold.  More people are probably more aware of that incident and its impacts than melting arctic sea ice.

"Proportion of global population living in a socially collapsed environment" would be a great statistic if it existed and was a common household term.  The food price index might be a great stat that does exist and perhaps could become more of a common household term.

I think young people are consumed with experiencing and achieving things in their life.  Thus they care about climate change in terms of how much of a threat is it to them experiencing and achieving what they want to do.

Once they marry, and start a family, they care about their kids.  And their kids care about experiencing and achieving things in their life.  Thus family people have a huge push from their kids to keep everything going.  They don't want to be the parents that deny their kids a significant part of life.  So they keep everything going.

It is not until kids are grown and gone, and people start thinking about grandkids that they really start experientially caring about what the future will be like for future generations.  But that only lasts for a brief window, which closes when they face getting through their own retirement/old age.

So people have this huge drive to fulfill their own experiences/achievements for themselves or for their kids.

Thus to make a lifestyle change, you have to prove it to them in their terms.  It has to be in terms of life goals, experiences, and achievements for themselves and their kids.

Thus I think the flooding of New York City is a good threshold because:
  • It is a place people could conceive of visiting.  They could envision themselves going to a Broadway play, if the Broadway Theater were open.  It is kind of hard to do that if the city is flooded.
  • The same is true with showing the city to their kids, seeing the site of the World Trade Center, or UN headquarters, or Empire State Building or whatever.
  • They can conceive of people making their career there.  Perhaps someone they know has worked there.  Perhaps their kids might work there.
  • They know their own retirement stocks are traded there, which means they are personally affected when the stock market was closed for 2 days.
So it is an event that can cut through all the science and be something they notice and feel a personal connection to.

The DefCon idea is for each person/family to make their own list of things they care about, depend on or want to do someday.  And then decide what steps they will take when those things are disturbed for the first time.

The Flooding of New York City by Sandy was a single event.  It will be a good long time before New York City is shutdown.  But it can function as trigger point, where people realize once it has happened, it can happen again.  Where they should consider what adjustments they should make now that it has been proven that the weather/climate can interrupt/shutdown their stock market investments.  Perhaps they should be learning how to diversify their future into other things besides having a retirement fund.

Instead of depending on investments to provide one with enough income to buy what ever one wants/needs.  Perhaps one should also be learning how to obtain what one wants/needs without investment funds.  Like learning how to grow something themselves.

The events are going to happen.  The common man is going to notice them.  But if they do not have a system in place before the event happens, that says I will take X action when Y event happens, then they will not capitalize on the event.  They will let it come and go without making any changes, because who knows if this was a significant enough event to warrant a change.  Who knows if this is the ‘tipping point’.  Maybe they should wait and see if something gets worse first.   

There is always this tendency to think, that was bad, but it is over, and now we are past it.  Things will get back to normal now.  Everyone is focusing on getting back to normal.  I should just focus on getting back to normal too.  So they let the event pass without changing.

Some people have “change thresholds” built in better than others.  Some people know that when certain things happen or fail to happen, then it is time for them to change jobs.  People have thresholds set for their relationships.  If someone cheats, the relationship does not normally continue as-is.  And they know those things in advance.  Thus it is taking that same kind of thinking and applying it to a personal response to climate change.

People devise their own lists of thresholds, of things they care about and matter to them.  If they have a framework to write out what they would change/start doing differently when that threshold is first crossed, then all they have to do is follow their own plan.  They won't panic and do too much too soon.   But neither will they not do anything until it is too late.   

Mostly it can give the individual some re-assurance that they took the appropriate actions at the appropriate times.  So that afterwards they will not look back and wish they had done something different at a certain point.

And, oh, by the way, whatever list you come up with, you are already in DefCon 4.  So if you are not doing your DefCon 4 actions/responses, you are behind.  You are doubly behind if you don’t even know what your DefCon 4 actions/responses are yet.

Walking the walk / Threat - Response Levels
« on: May 25, 2013, 06:08:57 AM »
I've been struggling with ...  I guess it is: "how much people should be afraid."
On one extreme there is the  Near-Term-Extinction view. On the other end of the spectrum, there is the "its all just cycles" or someone will figure something out and we will be OK, so I don't have to do anything.

I'm thinking the truth is somewhere in between.    That people should be concerned.  That people should take action.   But how much action is appropriate?   Don't want to tell people to quit their jobs, sell their possessions and wait for the end on a mountain top.

I've been playing with the idea of a DefCon system.   The US Military uses the system to categorize the threat level and appropriate preparedness  actions.   In the system, '5' is peace.  '1' is war.

So in climate change,  '5' would be no threat at all, and no action is necessary. (well OK, no more than the normal have some batteries and flashlight in case the power goes out)  '4' would mean something has happened, or enough has happened to justify some increase in preparedness.   '3' would mean more seriousness, etc.

I'm thinking the system would be based on things that actually happen.   Take action when something actually happens, not when it is predicted or feared to happen.

For instance if two or more of the following things actually happen, then it would justify moving to DefCon 4:

  • When the Arctic Sea Ice melts down to 1/2 it's normal size
  • When a storm floods New York Subways for the first time
  • When there is a heat wave/drought that rivals the Dust Bowl years
  • When all of Greenland experiences melting, more than what is accumulating
  • When the US average temperature is a whole degree above normal for a whole year
  • When blocking weather patterns get to be the norm
  • etc

And what steps are appropriate for DefCon 4?  How about:
  • Learn to plant and grow something,  anything, just for the skill
  • Look into getting a rain barrel, just to help water the garden/trees
  • Try canning something,  anything, just for the practice.  Perhaps have a canning party at church.  where everyone trys their hand at it while some experienced people lead.
  • Try making a candle, or mead or wine
  • Try making a quilt, or sewing something.
  • collect some how-to books
  • etc
In short, DefCon 4 is a elevated risk when one seeks to expand one's how-to knowledge.   We are not trying to totally live off the land yet.  But we are taking a refresher course on low carbon ways of doing things and seeing which ones appeal to us.   Perhaps start them as a light hobby.  But nothing where our neighbours would think we are strange.

DefCon 3 would be where these hobbies get serious.   We start investing serious time and money in skills, equipment that would help us or provide something we can barter with.

DefCon 2 is when we start taking serious action.   That's when we move out to our place in the country or what ever.

DefCon 1 is when everything falls apart and we now have to make it with what ever skills and stuff we have prepared.

A system that would control fear and provide a framework for planning and action.   Where one is not too far out in left field too early, but neither is one caught flat footed too late.

Does this sound like a usable approach?

Pages: [1] 2