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 - TeaPotty

Pages: [1]
This in-depth research raises more important questions than answers. Trying to wrap my head around it.

"We review the scientific evidence behind three leading hypotheses on the influence of Arctic changes on mid-latitude summer weather: Weakened storm tracks, shifted jet streams, and amplified quasi-stationary waves. We show that interactions between Arctic teleconnections and other remote and regional feedback processes could lead to more persistent hot-dry extremes in the mid-latitudes. The exact nature of these non-linear interactions is not well quantified but they provide potential high-impact risks for society."

"Future impacts from extreme weather are likely to be most pronounced in summer, as most ecological activity and agricultural production takes place in this season. Though the uncertainties are large, changes in atmosphere dynamics have the potential to cause rapid transitions at a regional scale leading to surprises for society. In summer synergistic effects between thermodynamic and dynamic drivers of extreme weather could act in the same direction to cause very-extreme extremes. Recent summers have seen such anomalous weather and these events are not well understood. This presents risks for society and in particular for global food production, given that the major breadbasket regions are located in the mid-latitudes with many crop types vulnerable to heat extremes"

"The current literature provides robust evidence that AA influences mid-latitude summer circulation substantially by weakening the storm tracks. The uncertainties to do with other dynamical aspects and with how dynamical changes ultimately affect regional weather conditions are admittedly large. Nevertheless, we identified several possible feedback mechanisms for how storm track weakening can lead to persistent and therefore extreme weather in the mid-latitudes. Several studies suggest that Northern Hemisphere summer weather is indeed already becoming more persistent"

Consequences / Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: October 30, 2014, 05:02:41 PM »
Most people who understand the nature of our Climate crisis, and the rate at which we are pushing ourselves deeper into an extinction threat, understand that the public must be informed. The question is not about "scaring" the public or not, but rather how can we educate the public about our Climate Crisis, while hastily mobilizing people to save our future.

How many people are even remotely aware of our looming extinction crisis and what this means for our way of life? I doubt even 10%. Some Scientists still congratulate themselves for standing up to deniers nearly every day, an increasingly pointless waste of time, as reality is already revealing obvious climate change even to the least educated. How about we instead start a public discussion of how many people this planet will be even capable of supporting in 50 years?

Unfortunately, it seems most mainstream Scientists are beholden to the bourgeois upper-class academic environment. They often open their mouth to show their loyalty to the current conservative corporate culture, and then arrogantly proclaim that this conservatism is inherent to Science. This of course boosts their credibility with the "Very Serious People", and they get bonus points for attacking "alarmism". Then there's also the pro-corporate fad of "objectivism", where pretending that you lack any opinion or humanity is somehow sacred. Of course, their never is any credibility loss or career damage if one is wrong on the conservative side, even if extremely wrong (2C by 2100 anyone?).

So here we are, playing Russian Roulette on our planet with an increasingly loaded gun, with mainstream Scientists seemingly content with measuring our chances for survival (so the 1% can decide how many they are willing to let die), instead of focusing their efforts on sounding the alarm for the now .

I'd like this thread to be a collection of opinions and articles on this subject. The point is not to attack Science, but rather discuss the current culture controlling & shaping it for maximum profit, and the consequences of remaining obediently silent. Time is running out...

Climate Scientists Aren’t Too Alarmist. They’re Too Conservative: (Chris Mooney)

Scientist David Spratt recently gave a great lecture on our crisis:

Scientific reticence and sea level rise (James Hansen)

Will Climate Science ultimately be used to save our species, or only help the wealthy escape personal harm?

Why does IPCC report use carbon levels, temperature rise, market risk, etc to convey threat, but not project death toll from catastrophes, lack of food and water, overpopulation sustainability?

I'd also like to point out... a few days ago we found out West Anarctica is in irreversible collapse, and most major coastal cities now have their fate sealed. Most of society heard nothing or very little about this, & many Scientists can think of nothing better but writing articles of comfort, further distancing the threat from themselves and others. Truly willful and continual enabling of the masses to the same behavior that got us here so far, stamped in approval by Science.

In my opinion, society is now an Idiocracy, where Science &Technology are subverted to feckless greed, and Carbon fuels The Market we worship in servitude to our deaths.

Science / Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and speaking out
« on: December 15, 2013, 03:53:02 AM »
Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and speaking out

Bravo to Gavin Schmidt for speaking out, and being so spot on:

Climate researcher and blogger Gavin Schmidt offers scientists an alternative to ‘saying nothing, doing nothing, being nothing’. What are the ‘rules’ of engagement and why?

Whether or not scientists should speak out on policy matters related to their fields continues to be controversial... Why is that?

Part of the answer, Schmidt said, is that scientists fear that advocating for a policy — related to climate change, for example — is a threat to the public perception of their objectivity. The truth is, everyone comes to the table with their own perspectives, and scientific advocacy at its simplest is an argument for what we should do in the face of scientific facts, Schmidt said.

In today’s political and cultural climate, science gets politicized when scientific results appear to impact a vested political, ethical or moral interest, Schmidt said. (I would add to this short list: “economic.”)

In that respect, scientific results are regarded in the public realm only to the extent that they project onto some political, ethical, moral — and economic — question.

...It’s important for people who know things not to give up the public sphere to people who don’t know things.

Scientists who choose to communicate widely cannot avoid advocacy, Schmidt said. “You can’t be a science communicator and pretend you have no values. What instead you need to do is accept them.” If scientists don’t, people will choose for them what values they hold, he said. “You’re much better off owning that, and telling people what you’re advocating for.”

More and more scientists are “sticking their heads above the parapet,” and the people taking potshots at them are not as numerous as scientists might think.

For scientists to sustain a credible and effective presence in the public sphere, they must, above all, be honest — to their science and to their values.

During his talk, he flashed a great quote on the screen, which sums up much of the talk: “To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.” — Aristotle

What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?

Science / Tyndall Center: The Radical Emission Reduction Conference
« on: December 06, 2013, 05:31:50 PM »
Kevin Anderson and the Tyndall Center have an event soon:

The Radical Emission Reduction Conference
London, 10-11 December 2013

Conference Program

Conference Speakers' Abstracts

In the video, Kevin Anderson discusses how in a matter of 5 years of further inaction, we will be discussing avoiding 3°C-4°C temps.

James Hansen's new paper shows a 15% reduction rate if we delay decarbonization till 2020:
Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature
As discussed above, keeping global climate close to the Holocene range requires a long-term atmospheric CO2 level of about 350 ppm or less, with other climate forcings similar to today’s levels. If emissions reduction had begun in 2005, reduction at 3.5%/year would have achieved 350 ppm at 2100. Now the requirement is at least 6%/year. Delay of emissions reductions until 2020 requires a reduction rate of 15%/year to achieve 350 ppm in 2100. If we assume only 50 GtC reforestation, and begin emissions reduction in 2013, the required reduction rate becomes about 9%/year.

*gulp*  :o

Global Warming Amplified by reduced Sulfur Fluxes as a result of Ocean Acidification:


Climate change and decreasing seawater pH (ocean acidification)1 have widely been considered as uncoupled consequences of the anthropogenic CO2 perturbation2, 3. Recently, experiments in seawater enclosures (mesocosms) showed that concentrations of dimethylsulphide (DMS), a biogenic sulphur compound, were markedly lower in a low-pH environment4. Marine DMS emissions are the largest natural source of atmospheric sulphur5 and changes in their strength have the potential to alter the Earth’s radiation budget6. Here we establish observational-based relationships between pH changes and DMS concentrations to estimate changes in future DMS emissions with Earth system model7 climate simulations. Global DMS emissions decrease by about 18(±3)% in 2100 compared with pre-industrial times as a result of the combined effects of ocean acidification and climate change. The reduced DMS emissions induce a significant additional radiative forcing, of which 83% is attributed to the impact of ocean acidification, tantamount to an equilibrium temperature response between 0.23 and 0.48 K. Our results indicate that ocean acidification has the potential to exacerbate anthropogenic warming through a mechanism that is not considered at present in projections of future climate change.

Relationship between DMS concentration and pH based on data from mesocosm experiments:

Changes in annual mean pH and annual mean model fluxes between the years 2090–2099 and 1865–1874:

Changes in annual zonal mean of top-of-the-atmosphere radiative forcing and of DMS emission between the years 2090–2099 and 1865–1874.

Also in Time magazine:
...and Yale 360:

Consequences / Hurricane Sandy - A Product of Climate Change?
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:03:59 PM »
I am starting this thread to collect the gradual evidence released proving what most of us already know: Hurricane Sandy is just a taste of things to come.

I was particularly irked by this:

Hurricane Sandy had little, if anything, to do with climate change. It was a rare weather event that could have occurred with or without climate change. It's possible that climate change has slightly increased the probability of such an event. It's also possible it has decreased the probability. Far worse hurricanes have hit Long Islands before climate change. Such as the Long Islands express in 1938.

That's some really bad logic from AndrewP, and a false argument I hear quite often.

Our climate has already changed, and its rate of change is accelerating. Thats a fact.
So really, there is not a single weather event today that u can clearly say is not effected by climate change.

The Climate HAS changed. Its changed enough that even recent public polls show that people experience it enough to accept it as a part of their reality already.

Also, Sandy has been addressed multiple times, and established that its damage was definitely a product of climate change:

Quote from: Journal of Quaternary Science link=
RSL rise will raise the base level for flood heights in New York City and exacerbate flooding caused by future hurricanes

This is without even discussing all other countless possible influences on how storms are shaped now, in our new evolving climate. To imply that expected climate-change induced weather changes are somehow an outrageous suggestion is only an embarrassing show of your true agenda.

How about the fact that near-Sandy level flooding (7-8 ft) will have an 11-17% chance of occurring every year by the 2020s.
Climate Risk Information 2013 (Page 21)

Also just recently:
Mayor Bloomberg Outlines Ambitious Proposal To Protect City Against The Effects of Climate Change To Build A Stronger, More Resiliant New York

So... I beleive the debate of how much worse climate change has made Sandy is an interesting one. But the suggestion that this is business-as-usual, or that climate change is unrelated, is offensive to all those who lost property or loved ones in my hometown of NYC.

The forum / Guardian Article about ASI
« on: August 12, 2013, 02:49:43 PM »
Global Warming, Arctic Ice Loss, and Armchair Scientists
Armchair scientist Neven provides valuable insights into the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice:

While these institutions gather and make available important Arctic information, a wider community has taken a very active role in interpreting the data. These "armchair" scientists play a particularly important role in telling the rest of us what the data actually means for our future.

Perhaps the best example is the Arctic Sea Ice blog which was started in 2010 by Neven, a 38 year old freelance writer who set up the blog to draw more attention to the Arctic and create a central place for the exchange of information and ideas concerning Arctic sea ice.

People like Neven, who can provide clear descriptions to the larger public are doing a great service. This is particularly so because scientists who are employed at major research institutions are often not trained in communication and such activities are not rewarded. I view these complementary activities and viewpoints an exciting development in the larger conversation about climate change.

Pages: [1]