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 - Theta

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
I'm going with under 2 mil as I believe conditions are ripe for an ice free arctic

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 11, 2019, 08:52:27 AM »
What about the information itself. Is there any possibility of it actually being sound and if so, will there be any warning signs, because, quite frankly, I find the idea of suddenly boiling alive one day to be frightening.
I am sorry but that source is not based on science. It only seems like science because of some similar terms. There is no information I can discern. "Temperature anomaly of arctic stratospheric methane is now 65 degrees C above normal" - What? Where? How? It's completely bogus.
I recommend not to read such "blogs" and remove them from you favorites list. Sam Carana, Guy McPherson, etc. - keep away. I understand this is frightening, but so is watching horror movies. You must realize this is fiction. It's like those madmen standing on barrels at Hyde Park Corner screaming about the end of the world. Don't listen if you value your sanity.

Point taken, though the statement is notable because nobody else has ever said this before, not even guy McPherson

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 11, 2019, 02:38:54 AM »
What about the information itself. Is there any possibility of it actually being sound and if so, will there be any warning signs, because, quite frankly, I find the idea of suddenly boiling alive one day to be frightening.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 11, 2019, 12:16:54 AM »
Near Future Global Extinction To Be Caused by Methane

Recent data from the Arctic confirm an exponential rise in the temperature anomaly of the Arctic stratospheric methane which is now 65 degrees C above the normal, while it was only 20 degrees C above the normal, 6 to 8 years ago...

The Major Arctic Permian Style, Methane Blowout - Firestorm Event which will cause the release of some 50 Gt of methane from the Arctic shelf and slope (Shakhova, 2010), a 10 Degree Centigrade Rise in Mean Global Atmospheric Temperatures causing a Catastrophic Permian Style Global Extinction Event, is timed to begin on 4th September, 2021 using an Atmospheric Methane Global Warming Potential of 100. This is an end Summer event for the Northern Hemisphere.

Any idea of what the implications of this are with regards forecasting future emissions of methane and whether or not this prediction could actually be true or may even play out in the extreme near term?

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: July 17, 2017, 12:14:28 PM »
"Abrupt emergence of a large pockmark field in the German Bight, southeastern North Sea"

Due to the shallow water depths and energetic conditions at the presumed time of eruption, a large fraction of the released gas must have been emitted to the atmosphere. Conservative estimates amount to 5 kt of methane, equivalent to 67% of the annual release from the entire North Sea.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: July 17, 2017, 12:09:49 PM »
From the linked article....

"Besides the potential for rapidly forming sinkholes and explosions, these bulges also represent a significant addition to greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The release of methane from Siberian permafrost, a gas more than 25 times more potent than carbon in trapping heat in the atmosphere, rose from 3.8 million tons in 2006 to more than 17 million tons in 2013."

Given the rapid development of these methane bumps, combined with a nearly five fold increase of methane emissions in a mere 7 years, it sure looks like we are on an exponential trajectory for NH methane emissions, likely irreversible.

Any idea of what that would mean for the long term trajectory of earth's temperature?

The rest / Re: Jason Group - Earth Turning to Mars?
« on: July 03, 2017, 12:17:27 PM »
mars lost its atmosphere because it cooled, lost its molten center and magnetic field and after hundreds of millions of years, the solar wind stripped it of its magnetic field. 

This 'theory' is not based in reality I would be surprised that Guy Mcphereson supports it, though I give him little credibility, I am sure that he has a stronger scientific background that that!

But in the article guy States that the source is from the pentagon Jason group so that should make it more credible

The rest / Re: Jason Group - Earth Turning to Mars?
« on: July 03, 2017, 01:11:33 AM »
If 450 nuclear power plants go BOOM, will anyone care what happens next?

The radiation and loss of earths atmosphere is a painful death

The rest / Re: Jason Group - Earth Turning to Mars?
« on: July 03, 2017, 12:34:52 AM »
Stuff from Guy McPherson is unreliable and not scientific. After one sentence it's obvious he's a catastrophist. I suggest to avoid.

I'm more interested in the insider who states it.

The rest / Jason Group - Earth Turning to Mars?
« on: July 03, 2017, 12:13:35 AM »
Apparently, an insider from the Jason Group has stated that a meltdown of 450 nuclear power plants will destroy the atmosphere and turn earth to Mars. Given the chaotic nature of recent days, I thought I'd post the article about it and ask about it here (since this forum is very knowledgeable in the area of the dynamics of the atmosphere).


Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: July 03, 2017, 12:05:55 AM »
Interesting perspective. I would have thought that given the amount of crises that Gail describes, it is likely that economic downfall (quite rapid) would lead to a complete loss of oil production.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: July 02, 2017, 05:38:16 PM »
Thought I'd put this here because of its relevance to energy. According to Gail Tverberg, we're due an economic collapse in the next few months. This could have a major effect on oil consumption and may stop all oil from being consumed altogether.

The rest / Re: Presentation of Climate Change in News Media
« on: May 06, 2017, 07:19:03 PM »
@Jai Thanks for the neat graph, it correlates with a lot of what other researchers point out with regards how news on Climate Change is driven mostly by events (either new reports, conferences or things moving faster than normal, for instance the Arctic Sea Ice melt). With regards Climategate, it is interesting how the interests of conglomerates have influenced the way climate is shown in addition to other reasons (economic problems, lack of education and the fact that climate change does not seem to be as immediate as other problems like those in the economy).

@Neven News on the Arctic seems to have increased, especially with the strange winter in the Arctic and the poor growth during the refreeze period. With regard responses to Climate Change news, perhaps the lack of coverage or the fact that many stories point to the 2050s or 2100s being the point at which certain disasters take place, are why there is a lack of a response in addition to other issues like how certain news stories tend to mess with the debate, for example, how various tabloids responded to a blog post regarding the publishing of a report regarding the hiatus in warming:

@Gerontocrat Brexit, pollution and social justice appear to be the biggest and most near term issues at this point in addition to how the country itself is focusing less on the environment.

The rest / Presentation of Climate Change in News Media
« on: May 06, 2017, 12:12:37 AM »
Hello, my name is Liam, I am a media student in my final year and I am currently writing a dissertation about how Climate change is depicted in news media, both mainstream and on alternative media (blogs and message boards). There is a lot of knowledge about Climate Change on this forum, so I thought that I would open a thread asking about the opinion of this community with regards how Climate Change is shown in the news media along with the reasons for why it is shown in a particular way.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 10, 2016, 03:13:21 PM »
New paper that states that earth could warm up to 7C within human lifetimes;topic=1053.1550;last_msg=93367

Global mean surface temperatures are rising in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The magnitude of this warming at equilibrium for a given radiative forcing—referred to as specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S)—is still subject to uncertainties. We estimate global mean temperature variations and S using a 784,000-year-long field reconstruction of sea surface temperatures and a transient paleoclimate model simulation. Our results reveal that S is strongly dependent on the climate background state, with significantly larger values attained during warm phases. Using the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 for future greenhouse radiative forcing, we find that the range of paleo-based estimates of Earth’s future warming by 2100 CE overlaps with the upper range of climate simulations conducted as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Furthermore, we find that within the 21st century, global mean temperatures will very likely exceed maximum levels reconstructed for the last 784,000 years. On the basis of temperature data from eight glacial cycles, our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections.

Also, news sources stating that with this, we could end up with Venus Syndrome type warming if we don't stop with our emmissions (economic difficulties will put a stop to them, but with the self-reinforcing feedbacks set in, I'd say Venus is already baked in and most likely this decade or century))

But, if leading scientists writing in one of the most respected academic journals are right, planet Earth could be on course for global warming of more than seven degrees Celsius within a lifetime.

And that, according to one of the world’s most renowned climatologists, could be “game over” – particularly given the imminent presence of climate change denier Donald Trump in the White House.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: September 14, 2016, 09:09:22 AM »
... it seems to me that we may have passed the tipping point for the earth to turn into venus.
According to a National Geographic interview, not possible.  Feel better?

Not really after reading the link since all it states that Venus is more likely to happen and that the only caveat in the model is the lack of cloud modelling which is minor when compared to the fact that we don't have anymore negative feedbacks like trees and the oceans are not absorbing heat anymore.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: September 13, 2016, 02:50:17 PM »
At some point we need to stop "blaming it on El Nino"

That blame game will end SOON.  We may plateau at about the current level for a SHORT while....but there are too many feedback effects that are now in play to slow this train down.

Even for a finance guy like doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure out that all that heat has to go somewhere....and without a La Nina to transfer some of that heat to the ocean...temps will continue to push upward.

This is what frightens me most. There are so many positive feedbacks in the system that it seems to me that we may have passed the tipping point for the earth to turn into venus.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: September 05, 2016, 10:54:29 PM »
Soaring Ocean Temperature is greatest hidden challenge of our generation:

Warming is already causing fish, seabirds, sea turtles, jellyfish and other species to change their behaviour and habitat, it says. Species are fleeing to the cooler poles, away from the equator, at a rate that is up to five times faster than the shifts seen by species on land.

Even in the north Atlantic, fish will move northwards by nearly 30km per decade until 2050 in search of suitable temperatures, with shifts already documented for pilchard, anchovy, mackerel and herring.

The warming is having its greatest impact upon the building blocks of life in the seas, such as phytoplankton, zooplankton and krill. Changes in abundance and reproduction are, in turn, feeding their way up the food chain, with some fish pushed out of their preferred range and others diminished by invasive arrivals.

With more than 550 types of marine fishes and invertebrates already considered threatened, ocean warming will exacerbate the declines of some species, the report also found.

The movement of fish will create winners and losers among the 4.3 billion people in the world who rely heavily upon fish for sustenance. In south-east Asia, harvests from fisheries could drop by nearly a third by 2050 if emissions are not severely curtailed. Global production from capture fisheries has already levelled off at 90m tonnes a year, mainly due to overfishing, at a time when millions more tonnes will need to be caught to feed a human population expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050.

Another notable quote I found on this article (that may be more useful for the temperature thread than here), states that without the ocean acting as a heat sink, the earth's temperature would be 36C rather than 1C.

The ocean has absorbed more than 90% of the extra heat created by human activity. If the same amount of heat that has been buried in the upper 2km of the ocean had gone into the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth would have warmed by a devastating 36C, rather than 1C, over the past century.

This is actually quite worrisome as the article also makes the point that methane from the ocean seabed could degass and "cook" the planet. So the warming of oceans is both a problem for food and for the future of the planet as well, since the 36C temperature rise is becoming likely with the ocean no longer acting as a heat sink.

Consequences / Re: Peter Wadhams
« on: August 21, 2016, 05:24:38 PM »
However, I have, like some others here, the feeling that we have already blown past population, co2 levels, and biodegradation on levels incompatible with survival of many humans or other life forms on the planet so I am just an observer who is greatful to be 65 years old and with no children. Civilizations have failed before, only thing different this time is a supposedly intelligent species appears to be causing it.

What you're saying Milret is pretty dire, but unfortunately true. Our success as a species in some ways will end up causing our demise, unless we are able to change course very quickly. Based on our track record so far, the odds of that are very long.

I don't think we can change course at this point. The man has already fallen off the cliff, awaiting the impact.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: August 21, 2016, 03:01:49 PM »
The linked National Geographic (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch) article is entitled: "Ocean Slime Spreading Quickly Across the Earth".  Such trends were not suspected as recently as a year or two ago, but I guess that such news is so disturbing (certainly it is to me) that even Rupert Murdoch cannot suppress it:

Extract: "Toxic algae blooms, perhaps accelerated by ocean warming and other climate shifts, are spreading, poisoning marine life and people."

Wasn't Guy McPherson featured on National Geographic with Bill Nye? If they're willing to show the man who predicts the death of everything and everyone within months then it's not too surprising that they would have an article about algae blooms.

Consequences / Re: Peter Wadhams
« on: August 21, 2016, 01:04:36 PM »
His latest views have been captured in this article:

 If he is saying that science is not entirely sure of the life span of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere AND that Nasa has already admitted that the atmosphere needs to be scrubbed of CO2 then shouldn't we be preparing for imminent market panic?

 (Surely if Nasa is saying that the atmosphere needs to be scrubbed of the CO2 already in it and we don't know how to do that then a critical mass of people are going to realise that sooner rather than later!)

I agree, it seems that the current state of affairs are going to fall down when people realise just how hopeless prospects are for earth and the human race. I bet the powers that be will try their best to keep things as calm as possible, but eventually, things will fall apart and the earth will burn

The rest / Re: Europe - Collapse dynamics
« on: June 26, 2016, 02:02:51 PM »


The gap between your view and mine may be too large to bridge. I believe I am trying to come to terms with the physical reality of climate change and still envisage a quality of life that most people would like. That may now be impossible but to give it a try we must cut consumption and therefore cut production so I warm to silkman saying

Climate change I’m afraid won’t get a look in though the resultant recession may seem to solve the problem for a while.

But this won't cut consumption nearly enough. The consumption we must cut includes

  • Building with concrete and steel
  • Driving cars
  • Flying in planes
  • Eating beef and lamb
  • &etc

So no new concrete cities. In my mind (&elsewhere) I plan idyllic green settlements where I don't have to live next to motorists. They have wooden houses, most food locally produced, clean air, lots of bicycles &etc.

If real climate disaster is to be avoided consumption must be cut quickly as our remaining carbon budgets are tiny and production cannot be decarbonised quickly enough.

After BRexit I feel ashamed to be British but the EU's plans for cutting emissions have been pathetic. Any Brexit recession in Europe will be tiny compared to what is required by the physics of climate change.

Physics trumps politics and economics.

Yes. Physics wins, humanity looses.

Seems a brexit recession is enough to cause global dimming loss and the death of earth well before 2030

The rest / Re: Europe - Collapse dynamics
« on: June 24, 2016, 06:10:53 PM »
As much as I'd agree that getting out of the European Union is a good thing for the people and the environment, it is kind of redundant now that we are kind of at a point where the knock off effects of the Brexit are just going to bring about the destruction of the earth itself through multiple different apocalyptic consequences:

Yes it's good to fight for something good, but it can also be a waste of time.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: June 24, 2016, 06:01:32 PM »
New link by Guy Mcpherson where in the text he states that in 23 years, the mixture of aerosol decline + moistening of the upper troposphere could lead us to 23C in a few months/years

Moistening of the upper troposphere plus “other feedbacks” (of which there are many) plus loss of global dimming take Earth up to 23 C in a few months or years. Ignoring more than five dozen self-reinforcing feedback loops, that’s the highest global-average temperature Earth has attained during the last two billion years.

He'll make the.second great dying great again

Consequences / Re: "blue ocean" in the Arctic
« on: May 14, 2016, 08:47:54 PM »
Cate I can't help you with what a Blue Ocean Event will mean in the Arctic; but if the linked Scribbler article is correct, we may not need to wait until 2020s to find out:

Extract: "This is climate change, folks. Pure and simple. And if such a pattern of extreme heat continues, it may wipe out practically all the ice by the end of this melt season. This week, it looks like that dreaded event will grow still more likely if this predicted insane heat break-out into the Arctic emerges. An event many scientists thought wouldn’t be possible until the 2070s or 2080s as little as ten years ago. A Blue Ocean Event that is now a very real risk for 2016."

It's quite frightening to think that we could see the arctic devoid of ice this year. Not knowing the implications is worse, especially now with everything dying and on fire.

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: May 11, 2016, 11:26:36 PM »
Interesting, I was under the impression that it would be weeks to months.

You can study the linked Hansen et al (2013) if you want to understand the response rates & inertia of the various Earth Systems:

Cool, thanks

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: May 11, 2016, 11:11:53 PM »
The linked "Bits of Science" article indicates that global dimming could be masking 50% of GHG potential warming:

So, from my understanding of this article, if industrial civilisation collapsed tomorrow, we would instantly hit 2C?

Considering both lag-time and the current positive PDO phase, it is safe to say if we stopped GHG & aerosol emissions tomorrow, we would exceed a 2C increase within 6 to 7 years.  However, this article assumes that ECS is about 3C; so if ECS is higher, then the coming increase would also be higher.

Interesting, I was under the impression that it would be weeks to months.

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: May 11, 2016, 10:58:28 PM »
The linked "Bits of Science" article indicates that global dimming could be masking 50% of GHG potential warming:

So, from my understanding of this article, if industrial civilisation collapsed tomorrow, we would instantly hit 2C?

Policy and solutions / Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« on: March 28, 2016, 09:04:38 PM »
Nuclear power plant capacity factors are 3 times that of renewables the storage requirement to reach 90% capacity would at least add another 1/4 of total emissions associated with an equivalent 24/7 production cycle.  It would take about 14GW of ADDITIONAL buildout to facilitate a transformation of the Transportation/Manufacturing and Electric Power generation sectors to fossil-free (energy devoted solely to production, distribution and installation of infrastructure)

kWh to kWh comparisons do not include capacity factor comparisons, that is my point and the reason that an equivalent buildout would be 4X the embedded emissions.

A grid buildout for centralized Nuclear for the manufacturing hubs needed for this transformation would work on the current system without additional storage requirements.  Then using this energy the grid could be transformed for distributed generation associated with the renewable buildout (that is the ultimate goal)

LCOE for solar is 2.5 times as much as nuclear on a kWh basis, wind is slightly (20%) less but, again, the overbuildout needed for equivalent capacity factors quadruples this renewable cost (at least-storage is still much too expensive).

The costs associated with the climate induced destruction that is CERTAIN without using nuclear as the source for this 16 Trillion dollar mobilization for transformation of our entire nation's emission portfolio is well beyond the INSIGNIFICANT risk associated with a major nuclear accident from Gen 3 nuclear production during this transformation.

Using the current fuel mix to generate the renewable energy required for this transformation (14GW) would mean creating 42GW of renewable generation + additional storage (to allow a 24/7 manufacturing cycle).  Doing this with the current fuel mix would necessarily produce a 4C climate response.  Using only renewable energy for the transformation would mean starting out with 5 hours per day production and would extend the timeline of the transformation from 15 years to over 60.

our option is indeed nuclear (as a source for national transformation) or roast.

But nuclear requires energy that we no longer have, as the economy is buckling under serious pressure at this point. The only rational move is to either close down all nuclear plants and give up on the project, or risk every single human being having their skin peeling off or getting ripped apart by cannibals as the entire biosphere is destroyed by spent fuel rod fires after the imminent economic collapse.

Policy and solutions / Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« on: March 27, 2016, 06:45:09 PM »
Also is the cost of relocating millions of people in the event of another Fukushima factored in to the cost of nuclear? And the lives lost from these displacements? And the endless cleanup/patch up necessary after such? Or, as Japanese officials now admit they think was a possibility, the need to totally (or almost) abandon a major industrialized country like Japan?

Bob wrote: "[nukes] buy us some time to replace fossil fuels first"

That seems reasonable, but we don't know when collapse might come. The faster we mover toward carefully and systematically shutting these things down, starting with the oldest and least secure, the more likely it is that we may be able to avoid multiple Fukushimas in the face of a society that has completely ceased to function.

I agree. If it was possible for nuclear to become the next cheap and easy to access form of energy, then it would be quite beneficial as it would solve all of the present economic problems that can tip society over the edge. However, it is not cheap and is reliant on the power grid which is reliant on oil, so it must be taken down. The only problem I have with the idea of decommissioning Power Plants en masse, is the fact that it takes decades for to decommission plants safely (fuel rods are too hot to relocate), and in my opinion, society itself doesn't even have a year.

Policy and solutions / Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« on: March 25, 2016, 07:59:01 PM »
Well put, folke_kelm.

On top of those excellent points, it must be pointed out that we are almost certainly headed for total or near total collapse of civilizations.

In such cases, nearly every part of the built infrastructure will be vulnerable to neglect at best and terrorism at worst.

Neglect a solar panel or windmill and nothing much happens, and even intentional harm won't bring about essentially any widespread damage or threat.

The same cannot be said about any nuclear plant.

The faster we close down and dismantle all nuclear plants, the better.

The collapse of civilisation is something that worries me a lot about the nuclear power plants because I subscribe to the idea that it'll happen overnight, and when it does happen, nobody will be monitoring them, so spent fuel rods are likely to go up in flames and spread radiation everywhere on the planet, thus doing damage that rivals that of Climate Change and an asteroid combined. At least, that's what I get from the OurFiniteWorld Comment Section.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:14:37 PM »
In the linked article Scribbler provides evidence for the position (that I support, see images) that the climate experience in February 2016 is: "…. a foretaste of what could very easily happen on a 5-15 year timescale in the annual measure if fossil fuel burning and related carbon emissions do not radically ramp downward."

Extract: "… we’ve just experienced a month that was more than 1.5 C hotter than 1880s averages. It’s not a yearly average in this dangerous range — but likely the peak reading from a very intense El Nino combining with the growing base forcing of human climate change. That said, it’s a foretaste of what could very easily happen on a 5-15 year timescale in the annual measure if fossil fuel burning and related carbon emissions do not radically ramp downward."

When we talk about ramping down Carbon Dioxide, would that include shutting down coal plants as well? Wouldn't the loss of global dimming, from discussions seen in the Aerosol thread, severely outweigh the benefits of stopping fossil fuel production? Or does the lack of fossil fuels emitted by humans outweigh the potential temperature rise (1 to 3C)

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 13, 2016, 11:51:49 AM »
Since we're talking about projections, I thought I would put a video here from Guy, who erred on the side of most drama, and has put forward a bunch of projections regarding temperature. I'll put down some timestamps so people won't have to go through the video as he spends time talking about Human Extinction, when all I want to do here is point to the temperature projections as to not derail the thread.

27:17 - 8 to 16C by 2024 or 2034:

Isn't 1.5 degrees the point where permafrost degrades suddenly.

This is quite frightening given that we can't tell where the temperature may go now and it makes me wonder if this pulse of heat will be the one that sets off the clathrate gun which would turn earth into a hothouse, eliminating all life.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: February 29, 2016, 04:07:53 PM »
Maybe even warmer than Venus...perhaps...Venus in Furs??? '-)

Really, we have got to be the most masochistic species ever to have evolved. Of course, sadistic, too.

It's too bad that it's too late for us to change our behaviour :(

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: February 29, 2016, 08:48:26 AM »

The linked article talks about how carbon dioxide alone could lead to earth becoming Venus.

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: February 23, 2016, 10:19:05 AM »
It must be here stated that the GHG Radiative Forcing values include the lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks in their calculation.  These associated feedbacks represent about 3/4 of the total forcing produced by a given amount of GHG emissions.

To my current understanding, I have looked but not found definitive proof, the radiative forcing values associated with aerosols are ONLY associated with immediate effects and the lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks are not included in their calculation.

If the total anthropogenic aerosol radiative forcing term is -0.5 W/m^2 then these feedbacks would produce the effective warming of +2.0 W/m^2 if those aerosols are removed.

If indeed the anthropogenic aerosol values are -2.4 W/m^2 then with the removal of those emissions, within about 10 years, we would see an effective forcing of +9.6 W/m^2.

iff this is true then our collective geese are truly cooked.

Taking this factor alone into consideration means that we shouldn't dismiss it as an outlier because it basically means that there is no way to actually fix the problems that we face with Climate Change because if we stop burning fossil fuels, then Guy McPherson's statements on 4C within weeks, are guaranteed and we'd be dead within months or a few years. So, what we have is a hopeless situation where the best we can do is give up on fighting Climate Change and continue on hoping that by prolonging the lifetime of civilisation, we can find some kind of miracle technology, but even that seems unlikely with civilisation just about to fall off the cliff into oblivion with the economy in shambles.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: January 23, 2016, 10:32:39 AM »
New research indicates that a 2 degree rise in temperature would result in a massive jump in temperature by 2030.

The research states that worldwide temperature extremes could be 6 degrees

Under a business as usual scenario, the world is not expected to see global average temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial times until the 2040s. However, new research shows that this may not be the case, and temperatures may rise far more quickly than expected.
In this latest study, the researchers found worldwide warming extremes over land generally exceeded the rise in the commonly seen scenario. In fact, it exceeded it in some instances by as much as 6 degrees Celsius.

Permafrost / Re: This is not good.
« on: January 20, 2016, 06:49:34 PM »
A couple of thoughts ...

Methane is going to be a serious short/near term forcing problem because of how it will amplify current changes.  As yet though, I've failed to see convincing arguments which support assertions massive prompt conversion of clathrates will take place.

I also think the permafrost thaw may be the bigger issue in this regard.  More carbon, longer duration release.

Sadly, our lack of action will be the headache of people 5-10 generations down the road.  Our chldren and grandchildren will just be getting the foretaste.

The current El Nino and possible full on melt of the Arctic Sea Ice, as a result of the warm winter in the Arctic along with the possibility of a summer that is very conductive to melt, would lead to the rapid degassing of Methane from the Arctic Ocean.

Also isn't permafrost on-par with Methane hydrates, or am I misinterpreting that?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015/2016 freezing season
« on: January 20, 2016, 02:36:09 AM »
Keep an eye on it Buddy. I'm looking forward to see the first MODIS tiles when the daylight returns.


Another gust of warmth deep into total darkness.

Yup, about 4 days out, 0C across almost half of 80N, possibly including the pole. Once in a season is an anomaly.  Twice I think constitutes climate change.

Also relevant - after the unseasonably warm fall and start to winter, a major Arctic outbreak is going to descend on the US Eastern seaboard, bringing what forecasters are calling a textbook Northeaster.

A persistent powerful high pressure system over Quebec is driving are out of the Arctic, helping it's evil twin - the remnants of Alex, still carrying hurricane force winds - to shove heat into the CAB.

Now *thinking* about that spring melt, what if we see a repeat of this storm... In April?

Yah, I'm worried.  Who needs June melt ponds if you can substitute open water and deep heat from Ekman pumping? Besides, we could end up with both. (oO)

Things appear to be a lot scarier in the arctic than what we encountered in 2013, 2014 and even 2015. We seem to have entered a new phase for the arctic, the only question that remains now is, how bad will the melt season be as this year is lion my like "the" year where we lose all of the ice.

Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: January 13, 2016, 03:53:27 PM »
This seems like a good place for this.

There Is a New Climate Change Disaster Looming in Northern Canada

...........For decades, mine operators in Northern Canada have stored waste rock and tailings waste—the "pulverized rock slurry" byproduct of mineral processing that's filled with skeevy chemicals like arsenic, lead, and mercury—in frozen dams reinforced with permafrost, an option far cheaper than constructing artificial structures to house the goop. But if such walls thaw, allowing air and water to interact with the highly reactive tailings, widespread "acid mine drainage" (AMD) could occur. Such a process can generate sulphuric acid and result in the leaching of heavy metals into nearby soil and water sources.

"Permafrost degradation is going to affect everything," says Magdalena Muir, research associate at the University of Calgary's Arctic Institute of North America. "When you have frozen infrastructure, you don't have to build an artificial structure and probably get used to not having to worry too much about breaches. But as soon as you have soil that behaves just like any other soil, you have all the issues you'd have in southern Canada."

The Canadian mining sector produces around one million tons of waste rock and 950,000 tons of tailings per day. As a result, the prospect of widespread AMD could be disastrous for the Canadian North: such scenarios would obviously be nightmares to contain, with the remoteness and cold climate seriously impeding cleanup. Think the Deepwater Horizon of the Arctic, except not nearly as visible and minus the dead dolphins to draw attention to the disaster. And like methane bubbling out of the permafrost, the situation only gets worse as it unfolds.

"Once a chemical process is underway—let's say, the oxidization of mining waste and leaching of heavy metals and acid drainage—it's much, much harder to stop that chemical process than just preventing it from the outset," says Ugo Lapointe, Canadian coordinator for MiningWatch. "It has its own momentum once it starts. Also, the plume of contamination downstream or underground are much harder to clean up and control once it starts, it's very, very costly."....

Kind of eliminates any idea of migrating north to avoid climate chaos

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: January 12, 2016, 06:14:54 PM »
Kind of scary, especially since Gail Tverberg thinks that the oversupply issue could cause oil to dip below $10.

There is no way oil will be profitable at $20 anyway, let alone $10

Also, I don't think this financial crisis will be resolved, once we hit the crisis, civilisation could be down overnight, which could be a good thing for nature, or a bad thing as humanity slaughters one-another for canned goods, and slaughters nature for resources.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: January 10, 2016, 09:29:32 PM »
Oil price needed to balance budget Iran: $138 Venezuela: $120 Iraq: $114 Russia: $100 Saudi: $92 Current: $33.5

Don't know if it is valid or not, just impressive. They do not count the price to put them back in earth... !?
As the oil price drops countries like Russia and USA are just pumping more to trying to cancel that effect a bit. Strange economic behaviour but such it is. At which oil price the budget would ballanced in USA or importing countries like France or EU? Maybe the effect of oil-price is overrated if compared to the budget alone.
Let us just hope for high prices because it maybe could lower consumption. On the other hand, if all countries do what they promised in Paris some weeks ago and reduce consumption regardless of the price of oil, then oil price must go down forever... 
So I would conclude the price of oil does not matter at all in respect to AGW or GDP or such in general. The profits/losses of the producers are just cancelled by the inverted effect of the others.

Isn't lack of oil consumption from demand destruction the reason we are experiencing these price drops in the first place?

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: January 10, 2016, 03:44:30 PM »
This is not about survivalists hiding out in caves with canned goods. In a 4C warmer world, even a 6C warmer world, there will be habitats which will be favorable for human habitation as well as the means to access food and potable water.

Would that still be the case in terms of rapid climate change? I can understand the point that we would still have habitat if we had let's say, slower methane release or less climate feedbacks that are rapid (i.e human aerosol reduction from societal collapse), but from what I can see, we are about to enter a period where the change will be rapid, and ecosystems wont be able to adapt fast enough to provide habitat for humans to either farm (due to increased weather volatility), or hunt (due to animals becoming extinct).

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: January 07, 2016, 08:26:28 PM »
New post by Gail Tverberg concerning oil prices.

What is notable is that she sees oil oversupply affecting prices fully either by 2016, or 2017/18.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: January 01, 2016, 01:29:13 AM »
and just because some "Guy" says that, you want to believe it? Come on, the human brain can do better than doomsday babble and world's end phantasies.

Except what he says is reasonably true in terms of global dimming as the following article, ( states, a study carried out notes that there was a temperature spike of 1.8 degrees following the cessation of air traffic following 9/11. Now, if American planes alone can increase the temperature that drastically, how bad can the cessation of ALL industrial activity be for the temperature, so it is reasonable to assume that we will hit 4C instantly which is extinction, especially with how abrupt the rise is.

I am aware of the conflict within the linked article, but that cannot be counted on for reasons discussed by the article itself as the second study that indicates that the first study was incorrect, only analysed naturally occurring clouds, and not contrails. In addition to this, although literature does not say that Guy's drastic temperature increase could occur, climate change literature tends to be extremely conservative, so they can't be counted on either.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 31, 2015, 08:50:50 PM »
I guess this is COUNTER to the thought of "hell freezing over"... ::)

But hey, at least there's more traffic here since the refereeze season DoD something exciting

Pages: [1] 2 3 4