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
Week of January 19th 2020:

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.


OK, so there's a 2013 paper.

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

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?

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

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. 

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

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.

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.

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?

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?
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?

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"?

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.


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.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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? 

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?

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?

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?

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? 

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.

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?

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 ?


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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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 ..."

Read all about it, copy available at


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.

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."

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 01, 2018, 12:47:11 AM »
Dollar amounts are irrelevant to ecosystems, especially considering that the dollar is a make believe currency with zero backing and zero connection to reality.  Maybe if the dollar was backed by something like, oh I don't know ounces of gold, which have a finite supply and a readily obvious energy input to create - dollar amounts would be more relevant because every time a disaster occurs, the US would lose gold having to purchase supplies from other countries (it's a lot more complicated than that, but this is just an illustration for brevities sake).  In reality, the US basically just uses war as a currency - when we need more supplies, we just use economic hitmen, or literal armies (i.e., middle east) to take other countries natural resources, and print more fairy tale currency (the us dollar) and pretend like nothing has changed.  In reality, the carrying capacity of those regions drops, while the carrying capacity of the US remains unchanged or slightly increases.

When considering the damage that takes place during natural disasters, the correct metric is an analysis of how it affects the ecological carrying capacity of the region.

A disaster like the Harvey storm most likely lowered the carrying capacity of that particular ecosystem, as did the storm in peurto rico.  If less humans are capable of surviving on a plot of land that was ravished by a storm, that's the real cost.

So long as fools use dollar amounts to calculate the cost to a species of animal on this planet, humans - the argument is not based in reality.

This discussion should be focused entirely on how natural disasters affect ecological carrying capacity.  Dollars can be printed (literally just magical fantasy idiot currency on a computer screen) by the FED without any effort, and GDP figures can be manipulated - the entire economic system is based on a fairy tale, literally - it's a fake economy completely removed from reality. 

Climate change is lowering the carrying capacity for humans on this planet in a hurry, and when methane clathrates are released by an ice free arctic, that carrying capacity suddenly drops even further.  When giant cyclones sit in one spot, causing melt downs of spent fuel rods, and irreparable damage to important cities - and cause droughts in the breadbasket regions of the planet, that significantly lowers carrying capacity.

Fairy tale "dollar" figures just represent a rough direction of ecological carrying capacity.  They're just make believe data points that demonstrates make believe trends that are occurring for a species that is artificially above its carrying capacity because of the existence of fossil fuels and technology.

This discussion may wish to identify the fact that dollars are not real, and are not based upon anything in reality - dollars are just digital ideas that have long since been connected to anything in the physical world.   The discussion of near term human extinction needs to focus upon how our ecological carrying capacity is decreasing, not the "dollar costs" of environmental catastrophes.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: February 26, 2018, 02:53:06 AM »
Just out of curiosity, was the recent 80F weather in the northeast US considered a 1 in 500 year event or something along those lines? 

I'd love to know the last time in the geological record that Greenland experienced 43F days in February.

Has it been millions of years?
No. Harpy, you seem to read overhyped sources. Seriously, weather is variable, and "millions of years" includes several warm climactic periods. Let's focus on what we know well, it's scary enough as it is even when sticking to reliable facts.

There were several warm periods of time over the past 1 million years or so based on the ice core data.  The CO2 levels are now MUCH higher than any of those periods. 

Here look for yourself:

I'm not reading overhyped sources - that's a discriminatory statement.  I've actually posted accurate information, not overhyped information.

The problem is not overhyping, it's inaction and conservative approaches to talking about exponential climate change.  We need overhyping right now, because we're in a climate emergency that's unprecedented in the geological record.

So let's try this again:   If CO2 levels are the highest they've been in 2-3 million years (and temperature follows CO2), then is it anything less than logic to ask whether or not current 43F weather in the north pole in February, and 80F degree days in NYC in February are the warmest in a million years?

Some folks around here wouldn't be convinced unless they literally travelled back in time with a thermometer and took the readings themselves.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: February 26, 2018, 01:06:41 AM »
Here's a rough estimate of the amount of radiation that would be released if all the spent fuel rods melted down simultaneously.

1.  Chernobyl itself released more radiation than all detonated nuclear bombs in history.

2.  Fukishima had the potential to release 66 X the amount of radiation of Chernobyl.

3.  Multiply that number by multiple hundreds and we arrive at what earth is going to look like within a decade, if things keep going at their current rate - OR if militaries all over the world don't immediately make plans to dump this spent fuel into the pacific ocean in the very near future. 

 In the event of societal collapse of some form, a nuclear war may break out - if a nuclear bomb is dropped on a nuclear reactor, you're looking at 66X Chernobyl, and the vaporization of the spent fuel rods combined with the high altitude smoke of the nuclear blast would result in this radiation traveling all over the world. 

So during a nuclear conflict, the world will have to cope with a nuclear winter AND thousands of Chernobyl's worth of radiation being released simultaneously around the world...  yeah, good luck surviving that if you're not in a bunker.

Not trying to scare anyone, but this is reality.  This information is not my own pet theory - it's simply a realistic calculation based on information provided from Fukishima.  Do we want to acknowledge that we're all going to die from radiation sickness if the grid goes down, or if we want to keep pretending the threat doesn't exist?

I provide a solution:  dump all of these spent fuel rods into the pacific ocean and bury them somewhere near the subduction zones.  Obviously this isn't going to happen, and the grid will go down, these spent fuel rods will melt down and we're all going to die.  Even worse, this is going to happen in the near term.  This is not some distant threat.  This is an immediate existential threat and no one seems to be taking it seriously.

I feel like I'm wasting my time and my effort writing these comments, it's not like this is going to change anything.  Our fate is sealed, and I think most everyone on this thread has more or less acknowledged that at minimum, most humans on this planet are going to die in the near term.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: February 25, 2018, 09:18:27 PM »
Just out of curiosity, was the recent 80F weather in the northeast US considered a 1 in 500 year event or something along those lines? 

I'd love to know the last time in the geological record that Greenland experienced 43F days in February.

Has it been millions of years?

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: February 24, 2018, 05:17:55 PM »
Dear Harpy,

Increasing the font size does not make your argument more convincing.
Indeed, for this person, it is a right old turn-off. It reduces the discussion to a mere shouting match - my font's bigger than your font - yah-boo and sucks to you.

By the way, you will never convince me that the radiation from unlooked after spent fuel rods will kill us all. Many, but not all.



Fair enough, I'm still new here - I'll take your suggestion. 

Well, millions of tons of spent fuel rod material melting down catastrophically and radiation that lasts for hundreds of years spreading around the world will most likely not kill the folks in bunkers surrounded by concrete walls.  But as I've written, they'll all die from suicide, disease, injury, murder, and malnutrition over the decades as they all go insane and run out of supplies that cannot be replenished.  Until they die, our species is technically not extinct - it's more like the last Tasmanian Tiger in the zoo, just waiting to die from unnatural causes.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: February 24, 2018, 04:43:36 PM »
I am seeing so much denial really on here. It's how people think tho, we don't want to admit we are going extinct. It's not how we are wired (most of us). I've woken up. I'm about to invest in a 2K Sq foot bunker and i'm mentally preparing myself. I recommend you all do the same. Even if this is all bs, its best to be prepared!

Denial and stubbornness are impressive aspects of human behavior.  These two factors are a large part of the reason that our species has managed to expand to all areas of the planet (infinite growth, human ingenuity!), and it's also the reason we're not preparing for our extinction (infinite growth will last indefinitely, human ingenuity will save us regardless of the climate!). They're characteristics of our species that have evolved to permit us to survive unusually dire situations, but with modern technology they've boomeranged and are now leading to our imminent demise.

Humans can survive in a bunker for a period of time, but if you re read my post you'll recall that humans did not evolve in bunkers, and cannot survive in confined spaces with any sort of quality of life. Many who live in situations like maximum security prison (which is basically what you're existence is going to be) die miserable early deaths from illness.    Think of that situation, WITHOUT modern medicine - life expectancy will drop precipitously.  I hope you have windows, you're going to need them from going insane.

Remember what I wrote earlier:  the surface of earth is going to be contaminated for hundreds of years, and plutonium will be all over the surface for even longer. Even if you and your family survive the first couple hundred years of Cesium 134, 137 - your children will still have to deal with plutonium.  If you ingest plutonium in large enough quantities, you're pretty much guaranteed cancer - and if you eat an animal that ate plutonium, you're still going to get cancer.  Expect an absolutely miserable existence for hundreds - thousands of years.  After that, global warming and feedback loops will continue for thousands and thousands of years, getting worse and worse over time.  You're not looking to survive a nuclear winter here, you're trying to survive a multi million year process.

Interestingly, the truth is that right now, near term catastrophic extinction is avoidable.  If all of the large governments and military organizations worked together to remove spent fuel rods from flimsy cooling ponds powered by diesel generators, and worked on a plan to bury them in the bottom of the ocean near the subduction plates - or even just dump them somewhere with current and depth, the catastrophic melt downs that will contaminate the surface of the planet can be avoided.  This is, of all the problems we face, the easiest to solve, technically.  Just dump hundreds of millions of tons of spent fuel rods in the ocean - the alternative is the extinction of nearly every life form on this planet when the diesel fuel runs out.

So long as these spent fuel rods DON't melt down, I'd argue that we may in fact have longer than 10 years.  Is this going to happen?  Of course not, that would make too much sense.  There's too much money to be made!  Look at that stock market!  Infinite growth doesn't have a budget for trillions of dollars needed to safely transport these spent fuel rods to the pacific ocean and bury them in subduction zones! 

Good luck, you'll live longer than the rest of us on this forum.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 24, 2018, 06:45:16 AM »
A new (open-access) dimension for sub-sea clathrate destabilisation - it seems to be tied to increased sedimentation rate, which is rather alarming.

Of course, one of the major impacts of melting permafrost is dramatically increased erosion rates and sediment transport onto the shelves. Not sure about you folks, but this is a potential feedback that hadn't even crossed my mind...

Oh, just another one of the hundreds of other positive feedback mechanisms related to abrupt climate change. 

This is one of the most fascinating yet terrifying threads I've ever read.  In the future I'm going to have to re read this thing a second time.  If only we could get every politician in congress to read through this thread at least once....

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: February 24, 2018, 04:27:22 AM »
I don't believe that our current culture can cope with the climate change that's already in the pipeline. Billions will die, but no extinction.
Bruce is the only person I know of that is seriously exploring alternative food technologies, but he is assuredly not the only person learning and teaching new methods of feeding ourselves. He may not survive, and eating acorns may not be the path, but someone, somewhere will be able to subsist on whatever is left after the debacle, and he, or his followers will feed themselves, reproduce, and the species will persist.

Humans, cockroaches, jellyfish, & perhaps oak trees and piggies. Together into the future.

The biggest problem in this thread is that people correctly document catastrophic outcomes that are real threats, but they don't indicate how those lead to *extinction*.

So I want to make this point clear again: Extinction is the death of every single member of the species. If one mating pair survives, it's not an extinction. It's a catastrophe.

The major issue is not just climate change, it's the combination of climate change and radiation from the spent fuel rods from 450+ nuclear reactors melting down catastrophically and contaminating the entire globe.  The dose of radiation that's going to be emitted into the atmosphere will most likely kill off anything on the surface that cannot burrow under ground and stay there for hundreds of years.  The most dangerous radioactive isotopes have half lives that will contaminate the surface of the planet for hundreds of years. 

Bunkers exist, and this is a major argument on this thread for the avoidance of extinction.

Let's just explore that option for a short period of time here:

1.  All it takes is one cataclysmic event in the bunker, like a virus to wipe out the rest of the species.
Last time I checked, humans didn't evolve underground in bunkers.  I already posted this but I'll post it again because apparently ppl don't read my posts:  how are humans going to even survive a few decades underground and get all the required nutrients and vitamins from a diet of canned goods and meals ready to eat?    Decades to centuries...that's a long time, to date humans have NEVER lived underground in a bunker for even a fraction of that length of time.  no experiments have been done, at least not in the public domain to prove that humans can survive that long in a confined place.  Humans can barely survive in the international space station for a period of 6 months to 1 year, how do you expect them to survive in bunkers for centuries and centuries ?  This isn't a science fiction movie, this is reality.  In reality humans need to walk around, eat food, spend time in the sun and eat a variety of food sources in order to successfully breed.  Without modern infrastructure to go to hospitals and heal bacterial infections and recover from viruses, they will slowly die from self inflicted wounds, malnutrition, disease, and injury. 

2.  Due to radioactivity all over the surface of earth, it will take hundreds of years before anything that resembles food for humans is not full of cesium 134, cesium 137, strontium-90, and plutonium-241 (which decays into Americium-241), and the other radioactive isotopes that result from spent fuel rods melting down.  I've already posted links in above comments regarding the isotopes that are released.  The radiation load from the spent fuel rod meltdowns is massive - it's not Fukishima it's fukishima X 1,000,000 - no one even knows how many millions of tons of this highly unstable waste exists on the planet.  Do some research into spent fuel rod cooling ponds - many of these facilities are 5X at their recommended capacity right now, because there's no where else to put the stuff.  They are maintained via deisel generators that can run out of fuel, resulting in catastrophic meltdowns that will make Fukishima seem like a new years eve celebration.  The number of spent fuel rods is something in the order of multiple millions of tons of this stuff (that is metal that resembles lead in density - it's heavy and cannot be moved easily because it's thousands of degrees C), and once it gets hot it doesn't stop, sets the material on fire and evaporates water turning it into hydrogen gas causing explosions - then just a constant dose of radiation being emitted indefinitely from hundreds of locations all over the globe.

3. I think a discussion regarding technicalities, like having a couple of small pockets of humans here and there in bunkers living off of vitamin pills and protein powder is missing the broader theme here - the truth is that climate change is happening so rapidly at this point that anything larger than a small rat is going to go extinct.  With the radiation dose, small rats will die too.  Nothing can adapt quick enough to survive this extinction event......well - bacteria can, and small organisms like fungi, algae, and ...yes maybe jellyfish can as well - but nothing that humans would be able to identify as food.  Certainly not pigs, unless they're underground - but pigs need sun, and without sun pigs will be using up the vitamin pills that the humans need.  Pigs chickens, rabbits even - all require food themselves - how are you going to feed these things underground in a bunker with limited supplies of vitamins and minerals and food? 

Only the KT extinction resulted in climate change this rapid, and the result was 70% die off of all species, most of which were not much larger than moles and rats.

How do you expect something large like an ape to survive on a diet of radioactive cockroaches and radioactive jellyfish for thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years, on an earth that continues to get warmer and warmer and warmer and warmer? The time lag for Co2 and temperature is hundreds and of years - the globe will continue to warm for a VERY long time, and that's not counting feedback loops.

4.  I'm not going to lie and say I think every single human will die near term- there's going to be some idiots who go into bunkers and think they can outlast climate change.  Technically, we won't be extinct until these idiots slowly die off over the decades and centuries (I doubt they'll last that long, but hey - you never know how perserverent humans can be - they might even breed and continue to propagate under these circumstances, but again it will all be for naught as the surface will remain radioactive for centuries, if not millennia). 

I suppose it's theoretically possible that while in the bunker these folks may figure out some way to produce food, or just eat other humans in such a way that they continue to survive for decades, if not hundreds of years. 

Climate change will outlast these feeble attempts at survival.  This isn't a nuclear winter they're waiting for to end, it's the death of an entire surface of a planet.  It took millions of years for earth to recover from the permian extinction, and that extinction event took thousands of years to unfold - not 250-300.  The permian extinction also didn't include megadoses of radiation emitted in a sudden fashion.   Does it seem possible that these bunker billionaires, military personnel, and politicians, etc etc -  will be able to survive for millions of years, first underground for centuries, and then subsequently on the surface of a planet that resembles mars with no food sources other than other humans, red green algae, slime molds, and ...maybe, if they're really lucky - some cockroaches, nematodes, and poisonous species of jellyfish?

I think not.

Arctic background / Re: Baltic Images
« on: February 24, 2018, 02:36:07 AM »
Which city is this?

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: February 24, 2018, 01:09:33 AM »
Here are just 3 of the factors that will cause human extinction in the near term, detailed in Guy's essays and Presentations - and backed up by peer-reviewed scientific studies (or a quick google search about spent fuel rods):

1.  The melt down of hundreds of spent fuel rod containment facilities.  These facilities cannot be without power for more than a day or two before you have Fukishima events all over the world simultaneously.  Any number of events can cause one of these facilities to lose power for un unprecedented length of time, leading to an extinction level event without the below 2 factors.  I challenge everyone here to do some research into spent fuel rod containment facilities.  Even the QUICKEST facilities require FIVE YEARS of constant electricity supply to prevent catastrophic melt downs.  That's FIVE YEARS of constant electrical supply or you have an extinction level event within a week or two (at most - Fukishima only took a couple of days) after losing power, and there's hundreds of such sites all over Earth, some in extremely unstable regions. 

2.  Methane clathrate release in the arctic during a blue ocean event. Increases global average temperature by .5-1C within a short period of time.  Natalia Shokova et al details the amounts.  Dr. McPherson details this in his essay.  If those methane Clathrates are released even partially, we could experience a sudden increase in global average temperature in the northern hemisphere which will trigger even more positive feedback loops, and even more methane clathrate release.  Do some research into methane clathrates - they're not very deep, and there's gigatons and gigatons of them just sitting there.

  3.  The reversal of global dimming via coal power plant aerosols (and shipping aerosols from container ships). If civilization collapses, the collapse of global dimming will increase the temperature of earth by ANOTHER 1-3C within a month or two.  Civilization will collapse, and when it does there's a guaranteed 1-3C rise that will happen almost immediately.  Dr. McPherson links to the Global dimming study, check it out for yourselves.

When you factor in all 3 of these, and the fact that civilization cannot control any of these 3 factors particularly well, it's hard to imagine a situation where humans don't go extinct in a short period of time of any one of these 3 factors from occurring. 

Here's some extremely basic examples of how just these 3 factors alone (there's hundreds of other positive feedback loops that I'm not even considering here, this is just 3 of the big ones):

For example, if global dimming is eliminated, you have #2 take place, which leads to #3 which leads to certain extinction. 

Or if you have #2 take place, you likely lead to #3, which will lead to #1 taking place which leads to certain extinction. 

Finally, if you have #1 take place, you have #3 and then #2 take place, which ensures extinction.

Now just remember, there's hundreds of other positive feedback loops I haven't even discussed here. 

Quite frankly, I have yet to see a single post that refutes any one of these 3 factors.  All I see are "well that's an unknown, or that's never happened before, or we can't predict the future".  Most posts here are aimed at claiming that 10 years not right and that for that reason Dr. McPherson is wrong - but who cares if he's wrong by a couple of years?  There's evidence that these factors do exist, and we're just pushing the pedal down harder and harder on global emissions and doing nothing.  For this reason, it seems highly unlikely that we're going to survive as a species.   

In regards to Dr. McPherson's evidence - he's just presenting the global dimming study and Shakova et al.s study.  In regards to nuclear spent fuel rods, he's just talking about information that's publicly available.  Do a quick google search on spent fuel rods, you'll find links on the public domain.  The global dimming and methane clathrate papers have already been published - the information about temperature changes due to global dimming and methane clathrates has already been calculated and then verified via peer review.    Guy lists these papers right in his essay.  There are peer-review published papers documenting this evidence, and they've never been proven wrong.  Mostly just ignored.

This is a dire emergency.  We don't have until 2100 to fix our problems, we probably don't even have until 2020 - we need to fix them tomorrow, and even if by some miracle all the countries of the planet got together to figure out the global warming problem - it's probably too late at this point for the vast majority of humans on this planet.  If we don't do something about those spent fuel rods immediately, and figure out some way to cool the arctic immediately, we're all going to die in the near term. 

It's not going to be a pleasant death either - we're not all going to be holding hands and walking into the sunset together.  It's going to be horrendous, unimaginably horrifying and happen in a sudden catastrophic fashion - radiation sickness combined with starvation and dehydration is not a pleasant way to go.  The good news is that humans can survive without water during radiation sickness for only a couple of days, so the pain will be short.  I recommend an alternative plan for anyone reading, if you know what I mean.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: February 22, 2018, 04:00:19 AM »
Near term human extinction? No way. There are places such as Cheyenne Mountain were thousands of humans will survive for decades even centuries.  99.99% reduction in world population, maybe, but not extinction.

99.99% population reduction places human population at pre-historic levels, where it has benn for 99 % of the existance if humanity. We live in extraordinary times.

That said I belive 99.99% is only posibble if we go to war. If we try to survive these changes the population reduction will be much less. If we seriously prepare for it might even be good for most.

 Humans are very adaptable and we have lots of resources. Many of those resources will be gone with the ice but we have vast reserves. The number of people that fail to adapt is unthinkable, but many will adapt, specially when all available resources are redirected towards surviving.

What you're suggesting is that humans will have to live underground in a bunker for, most likely thousands of years before the radioactive isotopes on the surface and in the atmosphere decay into stable elements.   Even if the half life total of the isotopes was only 100 years, and humans had to somehow survive in that mountain for 100 years - that's something like 2 or 3 generations.  It's pretty tough to get the necessary vitamins and nutrients in an underground bunker. Humans need those to survive and reproduce, how are they going to manufacture vitamin D for centuries?  Thats' just one vitamin humans essentially need to be on the surface of the planet to obtain. 

In reality, it will most likely take thousands of years for the consequences of 450 spent fuel rod containment facilities melting down to decay naturally into harmless elements.  The amount of radiation thats going to be released is something on the order of like 1000000 chernobyls (I don't think anyone outside of the UN and the military/intelligence agencies even knows how many thousands upon thousands of tons of spent fuel rods exist in cooling ponds).

Your post certainly demonstrates a commendable level of optimism for your species.

I'd suggest doing some research into spent fuel rods:

Here's some of the radiactive isotopes released from a melt down:

You're looking at hundreds of years, and if there's sufficient plutonium - thousands of years.

The exclusion zone for chenobyl is thousands of square kilometers.  That was a relatively small amount of radiation compared to the events that are going to unfold if all of the nuclear fuel rod containment facilities melt down. 

So humans need to immediately move all of these spent fuel rods, dump them in the ocean and bury them close to the tectonic plates that are converging to prevent them from ever reaching the surface...or spend 250+ years in bunkers, most likely dying from vitamin deficiencies and malnutrition in a few decades. 

Pages: [1] 2