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.

Topics - harpy

Pages: [1]
Week of January 19th 2020:

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.


Earth's energy imbalance and implications

Cooling from atmospheric particles may mask greater warming

The roles of aerosol direct and indirect effects in past and future climate change

Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low-level clouds

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

According to this study:

More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas - Germany.

Notable highlights from the study:
"Our results demonstrate that recently reported declines in several taxa such as butterflies [7, 25–27, 58], wild bees [8–14] and moths [15–18], are in parallel with a severe loss of total aerial insect biomass, suggesting that it is not only the vulnerable species, but the flying insect community as a whole, that has been decimated over the last few decades. The estimated decline is considerably more severe than the only comparable long term study on flying insect biomass elsewhere [28]."

Anecdotally, anyone who lives in the northern hemisphere can tell you that when driving there are FAR FEWER insects splatting on the windshields compared to just 10 or 20 years ago.  I've personally noticed a dramatic decline in insect population in the Northeast US in just 10 years.  It seems likely (although I don't have any data so this is an anecdotal claim) that across the entire northern hemisphere insect populations have declined by this same 75% level. 

The important take home consequences of this study (i.e., my thoughts):

1.  There are no pesticides being used in the reserves in which this study was carried out, therefore it's almost certain that the cause is somehow related to other factors, i.e., exponential temperature rise.  I personally live in an area with zero agriculture, and have noticed a dramatic decrease in insect densities as well.

2.  Insects have existed on this planet far, far longer than primates.  If insects cannot survive a 1.5C rise in global average temperature (above the 1750/1850 pre industrial baseline), it's difficult to imagine primates surviving much longer.  Especially considering that primates require insects to survive.

3.  Insects represent the foundation of the food-chain for all northern hemisphere biomes, with a 75% decline, it's likely that over the next several years die offs in many of the major larger terrestrial vertebrates will take place at a similar clip. 

We're only at 1.5C above pre industrial baseline as of 2018.  75% decline in the biomass of any population of animals on the planet is extreme, especially considering that it's across all families, genus and species of insects, not just a single group.  It appears as if the insect organisms cannot keep up with the exponential rise in global average temperature in the northern hemisphere.  Insects are ectothermic invertebrates, which means that they are particularly well adapted to (but also sensitive to) variations in temperature.  If an ectothermic invertebrate can't keep up with climate change, its difficult to imagine that endothermic vertebrates like mammals will survive.

This appears to be the prelude to an extinction level event that is unprecedented since the Permian mass extinction.

The insects are the canary in the terrestrial coal mine (similarly, Coral reefs are the canary in the oceanic coal mine), so to speak - mammals (i.e., humans), reptiles, amphibians, and birds are next. 

Consequences / Apes love fire -> fire makes profit -> fire kills apes.
« on: February 17, 2018, 09:21:34 PM »
The only way to provide power to all 7.6 billion cancer apes and reduce carbon emissions to zero is renewable energy + nuclear energy. Yes, nuclear energy is not zero emissions, but the cancer apes have 400+ nuclear reactors that can easily be upgraded to eliminate safety concerns. (. ).

Once the power plant is online, carbon emissions are next to nothing. Nuclear waste is an issue, but CO2 emissions are an even bigger issue - cancer apes can solve nuclear waste (at least for now), they cannot solve CO2. Close to 20 or 30 Nuclear power plants exist, and are in the process of being decommissioned because the cancer apes are scared of things they can't see. These just need to be turned back online and repaired/upgraded - screw the unnecessary rules and regulations, just stop emitting carbon - turn all reactors online immediately and shut down all natural gas and coal plants.

Every country needs to start tripling their nuclear fleets, get to at least 50% nuclear power by 2030, and 25% renewables and 25% fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia has committed to building 16 nuclear power plants by 2030, if a shitty little country like SA can build 16 nuclear power plants in 10 years, then the united states and china could easily build 200 in the same time frame.

Renewables are self explanatory, wind, solar, and geothermal energy will never be able to provide baseload power of nuclear energy, but with a massive nuclear fleet, wind and solar will do the rest. 10 years is plenty to reallocate all resources to going to zero carbon emissions, but there's no motivation - the apes are having too much fun.

Unfortunately, this plan, or even a plan that moderately resembles this plan, will never happen.

So the cancer apes will party like its 1999 until they can't grow their winter wheat because it's 50-60 degrees for 3 weeks in March (or February. ) followed by an "arctic vortex" in early April (or March) that kills everything. Virtually all the grains on Earth are produced in the northern hemisphere, and the arctic is now 5-7 degrees Celsius above the 1980 average. ( ), and no cancer apes even know how much warmer the Arctic is right now compared to pre-industrial civilization. If it's not the arctic vortex that prevents the apes from growing grains, it's going to be the droughts that are already forming:

As a result, within a short period of time most of the cancer apes will be rotting corpses. Turns out it's just damn hard to grow crops when you have unpredictable weather patterns and screwed up freeze thaw cycles. Turns out that if you can't grow crops, the animals you require to survive like cows, and chickens have a hard time staying alive themselves. The cancer apes were having too much fun bother themselves with protecting their environment. They preferred relatively unattractive pieces of green paper over concerns of their sustainability.

The cancer ape's Eulogy is going to go something like this:

Cancer apes are scared of advanced technology they can't understand like nuclear energy and renewables, so they choose to stick with FIRE - fire is GOOD for cancer apes, GOOD FIRE BURN BURN BURN - FIRE makes the computers go ZOOM, FIRE makes airplanes and most importantly- FIRE makes economy, FIRE MAKES PROFIT!

Consequences / Sea level rise and nuclear powerplants
« on: February 09, 2018, 01:18:00 AM »
There's probably at least 100 nuclear power plants around the 10 meter mark above current sea level.  How rapidly do you folks predict that sea level would rise if there was a catastrophic melting of Greenland or antarctic ice sheets over the next 5 years?

The concern I have is that most if not all of these nuclear power plants at sea level have spent fuel rod containment facilities, and if they lose power to the nuclear fuel rods we have a Fukishima event X100 (or however many cannot be successfully decomissioned before sea level rise inundates the facilities).

Not only this, but when you lose 1/4 of all nuclear power plants on earth, suddenly large swaths of the population no longer have power, and you have rolling brownouts and utter chaos as population attempts to move inland.

Is there any likelihood that sea level would rise quick enough to cause any issues with these powerplants?

There's currently a substantial area of continental united states undergoing a moderate to severe drought.  The size of the area is currently abnormally dry to severe drought is roughly 1/3 of the entire United States.  Here's a link to the US drought monitor.

If this continues into the summer months, I cannot imagine that there's going to be a healthy wheat harvest this year from the united states in 2018. 

I'm not sure what is grown in the South and midwest, but it doesn't look like there's going to be much grown there if this persists for the next 12 months.

I'm looking for a graph showing CO2 values and temperature values over the past 1 million + years.
I usually see just CO2 or JUST temperature.

1.  Is there a credible source of CO2 and temperature overlaid on the same graph (or just individual graphs for both temperature and CO2 with the same x axis) for the past 10+ million years or even just 500 thousand years anywhere?

2.  Is there a direct correlation between CO2 levels and global average temperature levels?

Pages: [1]