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 - Ardeus

Pages: [1]
The rest / Re: Animation project on sea ice collapse
« on: November 07, 2020, 11:45:41 AM »

The rest / Re: Animation project on sea ice collapse
« on: November 02, 2020, 08:31:57 AM »

The rest / Animation project on sea ice collapse
« on: October 29, 2020, 05:27:30 PM »
I had just began learning to play "The sunken cathedral" by Debussy, when the idea for an animation appeared out of nowhere in my head.

The script is very simple: sea ice, sunken cathedral beneath the ice, ice melts, methane accumulates on the top of the cathedral, a whale breathes methane and dies, sea floor destabilizes, cathedral implodes, current sweeps the silt and reveals lots of human bones and life goes on.

On text it's not very pretty, but with the images and music it will be very poetic.

I will posting the work in progress here.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: October 14, 2019, 10:41:47 PM »
I consider crop failures the main near term threat caused by the melting of the arctic and the most surreal thing is that the people that agree with me are the "Grand solar minimum" crowd.

You couldn't make this up.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 13, 2019, 04:27:01 PM »
The IPCC's recently released "Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate":

Here's a recording of the associated press conference:

The first 37 mins are rather boring!

And then at 50:00 minutes it gets really exciting when she refers to this paragraph:

"It is very likely that there will be at least one sea-ice free Arctic summer out of 10 years for warming at 2 degrees C, with the frequency decreasing to one sea-ice-free Arctic summer every 100 years at 1.5 degrees C”

What's the reasoning behind this and how does it stand against the trends on the ice volume chart? Saying something like that is just surreal.

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 29, 2019, 09:31:30 AM »
Thanks a lot for digging up that discussion. Good to know that it was a measurement flaw.

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 28, 2019, 12:49:55 PM »
Has more research been done on UV-C in solar radiation reaching the Earth surface?'Antoni_et_al

The reviewer of this paper points that their measurements "must be wrong" just because the atmosphere would prevent UV-C radiation from touching the ground.

With sea ice declining, we get a smaller difference between weather in the arctic and the equator, more water vapour in the stratosphere and less ozone. Less ozone means less UV-C absorption.

If I had to guess what's behind the insect decline I would point at UV-C radiation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 13, 2019, 01:54:58 AM »
     In recent interview Peter Wadhams threw out a concept I hadn't heard before.  With continued loss of ASI there could be a tipping point where polar jet stream doesn't just weaken and wobble, but just goes away completely.  I don't know if that is at all realistic, but if it did happen it would seem to be like Jennifer Francis thesis on steroids, with potential drastic changes in weather patterns, or just weather chaos until new patterns emerged.  I guess there's always a pattern, but if there was a complete loss of polar jet stream steering of weather systems that just seems like crazy town.
Hi Glen, I'd like to read/listen to this interview. Do you perhaps have a link?

I am not sure if Glen was referring to this interview I did, but he did consider the possibility of the jetstream going away. I used a few minutes of this interview in a doc about Lake Tanganyika.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 11, 2019, 12:34:51 AM »
A Disney film about a polar bear cub that lost its mother while the ice was melting and was adopted by a beluga whale will have more impact than a BOE.

Unless there are serious immediate consequences in the lives of several millions of people, the BOE will be just an extra degree in the boiling pan with frog at the bottom.

The BOE is a psychological milestone mostly for people that follow the arctic. Even for people that are concerned with climate change, it's just another piece of terrible news, that are becoming more and more common.

The rest / Re: Good music
« on: July 02, 2019, 06:13:17 PM »
If you like it then you should put a human sacrifice on it.

Archimid, you have not provided one bit of evidence for your extraordinary claims. This is especially hilarious:

"4C over 100 years is worldwide destruction with only the small organisms surviving and patches of humans struggling to survive."

Considering that we have seen 10-15 C changes in midlatitude climate at the beginning and end of ice ages many times in the past one million years alone. And as we now know, these changes happened in a matter of DECADES. The Eocene had 14 C warmer average temps than now, and lo and behold there was life. So this statement of yours is really just hyperbole squared and goes against all evidence from the paleorecord.


"Berlin will have Rome weather for a few weeks, then Siberian weather, for a few more weeks, then Saharan weather for a few more weeks, then it will have Caribbean weather for a few weeks, you name it, it will happen"

Utterly baseless, no model says anything like that will happen, and no paleorecord says it ever happened.

"Agriculture is already being disrupted by changes in seasonality and hydroligic cycles"

Also untrue. There is an overproduction of food globally, no disruption, no shortages.

Thing is, this is just a psychological phemonenon: people always love to imagine and fear a terrible all changing future that will cleanse the world of its sins. The Flood, the Last Judgement, you name it.

I agree that climate change is truly a huge danger and we need to deal with it quickly, but what you describe is utter unscientific nonsense

The Earth system has predictably proved time and time again that it is far to big and complex for computer models.

I honestly believe that subconscious evaluations of our current situation and predictions for the future are as trustworthy as current computer models.

Will anyone on this forum be surprised if we have a BOE in the next 3 years?

Can anyone expect climate patterns not being disrupted after that?

That being said, the BOE is a psychological milestone. No one knows for sure if we even need a full BOE to get changes in weather patterns that will disrupt agriculture to the point where it will create a few hundred millions of refugees.

At 4 degrees C, industrial civilization already has collapsed, the arctic ice will be a distant memory.

Without arctic ice, there will be little difference in temperature between the north pole and the equator (the jet stream won't exist by then).

Large scale agriculture is no longer possible under these conditions due to drastic change in weather patterns. This will get hundreds of millions of people on the move.

I won't be surprised if all this unravels before you manage to get your game out.

The rest / Re: Good music
« on: June 23, 2019, 02:21:31 AM »
I was the first person I knew to be a Lene Lovich fan .. even had to buy new copies of albums .. overplayed .. b.c.

I can't see the song you picked.

The rest / Re: Good music
« on: June 22, 2019, 10:09:04 AM »

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 18, 2019, 11:25:26 PM »
Well, here is a scientist who votes for 2022:

I talked with Peter Wadhams last year and he also described a similar scenario, both for the timing of the BOE and for the effects on weather patterns.

I did this interview for a doc about Lake Tanganyika, so part of the interview focuses on the effects in Africa.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 17, 2019, 06:35:23 PM »
Has any research been done on how climate patterns will change after there's no ice in the arctic during summer or all year round?

The rest / Re: Wildlife
« on: June 10, 2019, 01:30:08 PM »
I just finished a doc series about Lake Tanganyika. Here's the trailer of the 7th chapter:

Peter Wadhams and Guy McPherson were a bit surprised that I wanted their input for a Lake Tanganyika doc, but they went along :)

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 01, 2019, 01:54:08 AM »
I didn't find any mention of the words "ice" or "arctic" in that article.

These days, whenever I read about climate projections, I can't imagine how the authors can not include the existing data on arctic ice volume.

I honestly fail to understand how anyone doing any climate related research can simply ignore it.

The rest / Re: Poetry
« on: December 30, 2018, 01:00:20 PM »
I took a poem by Stevie Smith and I created 6 songs. I had the opportunity to present it live :)

The poem is about a drowning man. His friends thought he was waving from the sea.

Nobody heard him, the dead man,   
But still he lay moaning:
I was much further out than you thought   
And not waving but drowning.

Poor chap, he always loved larking
And now he’s dead
It must have been too cold for him his heart gave way,   
They said.

Oh, no no no, it was too cold always   
(Still the dead one lay moaning)   
I was much too far out all my life   
And not waving but drowning.

The subject is so dark that I had to be in an extremely good mood to tackle it.

The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: December 19, 2018, 03:13:29 PM »
I did an interview with prof. Peter Wadhams for a doc series I am working on about Lake Tanganyika and I am only using a few excerpts. He did find it strange that I wanted his input on the fate of Lake Tanganyika :) but the interview is of course mainly about the arctic.

Here's the full interview:

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 03, 2018, 11:28:18 PM »
Truth is we're on uncharted waters and the systems we're trying to model (climate and biosphere) are too complex, so it's impossible to make predictions accurate enough to serve as  base for any decisions.

Here's a quote about Environmental Impact Analyses
suggesting AGW is nothing new, just 'larger' in scope:

Environmental impact analyses are often challenging because they call for making projections with incomplete information. Methods of assessing the impacts typically include both objective and subjective information making it difficult to quantify. Therefore, the methods are frequently seen as complex and, oftentimes, controversial. Despite being a requirement for many development projects, the function of an environmental impact statement is merely procedural. There is no specific legal force of action if information stemming from an environmental impact analysis confirms that a particular project may harm the environment. As a result, it is often left up to the courts to rule on whether risks to the environment are overstated or not.
The U.S.A. (at least) appears to contain a large number of people (and the resulting state and national governments) who somehow believe we cannot know enough to justify our doing anything different than what we've "always" done.  Probably something to do with stages of grief.

From an old [January 2017] EPA website: Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA)

The Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA) project quantifies the physical effects and economic damages under multiple climate change scenarios. The goal of this work is to estimate to what degree climate change impacts and damages to multiple U.S. sectors (e.g., human health, infrastructure, and water resources) may be avoided or reduced in a future under different levels of future global emissions. CIRA advances the estimation of climate change damages by bridging the gap between climate modeling and economic effects, presenting both physical and monetized damages.

The peer-reviewed CIRA reports and analyses demonstrate that global action on climate change will significantly benefit Americans by saving lives and avoiding costly damages across the U.S. economy.
So apparently, the Earth's climate and biosphere, albeit complex, are not too complex to apply models that forecast consequences of different future behaviors (BAU or Green BAU or nuke everything in sight, etc. edit: see, for example this ASLR post). We use either this information or an old Farmer's Almanac (or do what Uncle Jeb did, cause drilling an oil well made us rich 100 years ago) to serve as the bases for the decisions we actually do make.   We do make decisions that have consequences on our future.  Should we only use data and analyses from the First Century, Common Era (conducted in the Middle East) or should we reach out to the best and the brightest, despite their (our?) acknowledged shortcomings?

And then we'll fight about it in the courts.  (Ahh, the American way!   :o :-\ :'()

A terrible thought occurred to me recently: had Hitler won the war, we wouldn't be discussing near term human extinction.

He would have turned the planet into his arian eden (a process that would have made WW2 a footnote in history) and as soon as the first studies came out concerning global warming, he would have implemented the necessary measures probably decades ago.

He would have had the power and the will to make it happen. A psychotic sociopath lunatic could have steered civilisation  away from the path to extinction.

This leads me to think that the democratic/capitalist system is terribly ill fitted to deal with climate change.

If indeed there will be hundreds of millions of climate refugees, which countries will be better prepared to deal with the issue and prevent the collapse of civilisation? Democracies or dictatorships?

In the meantime, there's big money to be made in any catastrophe and the people who can potentially earn the most with carbon reduction in all its forms need to be enlisted as soon as possible to push to make it happen asap. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the fossil fuel corporations.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 03, 2018, 11:20:10 AM »
There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

Is this just looking at insect collapse? Ignoring the quality of life changes that would result from extinction of pollinators, there is too much coming together all at once for humans to not be massively impacted.

If we look 10-20 years in the future we will be facing: Ice free arctic, global warming/climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, fishery collapse (already ~90% in past 50 years), terrestrial animal collapse, insect collapse, amphibian collapse, habitat decimation and fragmentation. It is simply too much that will occur, or has already occurred, all at once in such a short time span. Each of these has its' own cascades and resulting impacts.

And if you read the article that the above video was based on, you would see recommendations that are short sighted and frankly inappropriate. For instance, one of the experts recommended increased reliance on fishing to feed growing populations if complete pollinator collapse occurred. Well how is that supposed to work if we have already seen declines of up to 99% of some of the staple fish.

I will concede that using the broad brush of climate change as the only reason for declining populations is premature. More likely to be habitat destruction and fragmentation, declining fertility rates, increased use of pesticides, etc. Of course climate change is likely to be an additional stressor placed on insect populations.

Truth is we're on uncharted waters and the systems we're trying to model (climate and biosphere) are too complex, so it's impossible to make predictions accurate enough to serve as  base for any decisions.

When there's no ice in the Arctic, how will the jet stream behave? Will it even disappear in the following years? How seriously and how quickly will climate patterns change? Will we still have 3 climate cells?

No one has the answer to these questions yet and the speed at which changes will happen will be crucial to the outcome.

Unfortunately we won't know how serious it will be before we're right in the middle of it.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 03, 2018, 12:38:17 AM »
Watch this

I am not convinced about the temperature increase being the cause yet. It has been too small over the past decades to justify this massive reduction in the insect population.

I hope that the people reseaching this issue keep all options on the table and don't settle too easily on climate change just because it's the most obvious explanation for a global phenomenon.

There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

We are nearly there and cutting whatever is left in half won't have a big impact.

Soon someone will come up with an economically feasible alternative to insect pollination.

With so many wild biomass disappearing,  something is going to fill these empty spaces in the biosphere.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 02, 2018, 12:52:03 AM »
We have been bombarded with the word extinction for decades, usually applied to this or that species.

We know that the biomass of humans+cattle represents 96% of the total biomass of mammals.

We also know that the fish stocks have been declining for a long time.

There are now more chickens than wild birds.

Can we live happily without wild mammals, birds and fish? I guess we can.

Can we live in a world where insects are functionally extinct?

It was agriculture that set the base for our civilisation and it seems logical that agriculture will be our Achilles heel.

There's little data available on their decline, but the data available suggest that this may happen in the next 10-20 years.

Since there's little information on the reason they are disappearing (it's not pollution or loss of habitat, because it's happening in protected areas), for now we can only predict what will happen based on the little data available on their numbers and biomass.

Pages: [1]