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 - birthmark

Pages: [1]
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
« on: April 10, 2014, 02:13:09 PM »
Not only do I condemn Watts, I'm willing to throw in some money in the hope that they'll construct a man in his place.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
« on: March 15, 2014, 06:39:36 PM »
"What is the a priori probability that anything Judy Curry says is correct?"
 An excellent and entertaining question! ;D

Thanks for taking on the Mail's nonsense, Jim.

3
Thanks, prokaryotes.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: Melt Ponds!
« on: August 07, 2013, 12:03:24 PM »
I don't think so, Hans. The camera was there for a long time after the foot prints. But it's in the drink now, no matter how it got there.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/webcams1and2.html

5
There is some discussion of "Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict" http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/07/31/science.1235367 around a couple of websites where I'm active. So far, I can only find the abstract. I'd very much like to read the whole paper, if possible. Thanks in advance.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: W.Meier on Conservative Scientists
« on: August 01, 2013, 07:52:38 AM »
Sod this. Too many self appointed experts indulging in hand waving and sneering at actual scientists.

You all want your methane dooms and abrupt sea level rises taken seriously? Get into the field and collect some data or use what is public domain to write a real paper. Then submit it for peer review. You will rapidly learn why the Eschenbachs and Tisdales of this world stick to blog publishing.

People round here think you can do novel science by skim reading abstracts or looking (eyeballing for gods sakes) maps of methane levels and jumping to conclusions.

You want to play citizen scientist without earning the maths and physics? Cool, join the queue with Watts and friends.

Clearly I am walking in a different direction to the one this forum wants to take. I am from Glasgow. We dont do polite, we do do brutally frank and unvarnished. If I stand my ground round here it will be seen as studs showing over the ball type tackles. (This forum was launched with Cruyff so footballing analogies are fair game), so have fun folks. I will be below the line the in the UK press dishing out the hammer to deniers.
Don't go anywhere, dorlomin. I enjoy your perspective and appreciate what you bring to the discussions.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: July 30, 2013, 02:24:49 PM »
I have what is probably a stupid question. Why was 15% chosen as the standard of measurement for sea ice area and extent? Is there a physical reason or is it merely an arbitrary choice that has been accepted for the sake of consistency?
The satellite sensors and the algorithms have to distinguish land and open water from sea ice. Under some conditions (coastlines, weather) they reported sea ice where it was proven none exists. 15% was a good trade-off between accuracy (report real ice) and usefulness (navigation).
Thanks, a***!

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: July 30, 2013, 11:47:10 AM »
I have what is probably a stupid question. Why was 15% chosen as the standard of measurement for sea ice area and extent? Is there a physical reason or is it merely an arbitrary choice that has been accepted for the sake of consistency?

TIA

9
Science / Re: Who do we listen to? Which science?
« on: July 22, 2013, 12:29:54 AM »
I'm always one for observation over models, particularly when the models aren't performing very well.  Such is the case in the Arctic.

However, to answer your title questions: We should listen to all the credible scientists and all the credible science.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS/JAXA
« on: June 22, 2013, 01:59:32 PM »
SIE is not MELT. It is a proxy for what we're actually after, which is the surface heat energy budget of the Arctic.

All of our other measures are proxies in that sense. For example:

CT sea ice area is between 3 to 6 days behind for this date, compared to the last 10 years.

The annual peak in Mauna Loa CO2 (a proxy for the change in seasons in the N. Hemisphere) was about a week behind average.

All peripheral seas surrounding the Arctic ocean melt out every year (at least in the last 10). Ignore them, they are white noise. Only MYI matters.

The Central Arctic Basin (the only area that counts) is either ahead of, or very close to, the record decline of 2012.

Now, tell me again about the bad weather.
That's the way I see it, too, Lodger. Ignoring those areas where we have high confidence that a  near-total melt-out will occur and concentrating on the CAB paints a very different picture of what's occurring this year. Even if no new record is reached, the set-up for subsequent years looks dismal.

I could be wrong, of course. Sadly, it wouldn't be the first time.

11
Chris, I hope you don't mind that I posted your PIOMAS/Thickness graphic on the Climate Change blog at Weather Underground. I credited you and posted a link to dobat and ASIB. If it's a problem just let me know and I'll take it down.

12
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:21:29 PM »
Wow, that's hot!

Meanwhile, the first named tropical depression has hit Florida and is currently very visible (and beautiful, in its own way) on the wind map:

http://hint.fm/wind/
Andrea put down a lot of rain here in my part of Florida. It's unusual but not unheard of for a tropical system to hit FL for this time of year.

13
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: May 23, 2013, 07:22:45 PM »
"there isn't evidence that a warmer world has less agricultural production potential and there is plenty of contrary evidence"

There is, you just don't want to hear it, for some reason.

The standard figure is that for every degree centigrade of temperature increase, we will see about a 10% decrease in total food production.

Note that the last few decades have seen the introduction of the 'Green Revolution' that brought about higher yields through careful breeding of high yield seeds, but also massive inputs of NPK and ff-driven mechanization. The advances and advantages from these strategies have just about played themselves out.

We are now at the second highest price for food for this time of year in modern history, after 2011. Food stores are at historical lows. Maybe we'll luck out and dodge a bunch of climate bullets in the next few years. But the imminent collapse of the Arctic sea ice cap does not bode well for relatively stable climates prevailing in the Northern Hemisphere (where most land is and where most ag takes place.)

Way too much cold or heat, rain or drought, for way too long is what will likely become the norm in most of the major ag regions in the world. If that sounds like a good formula for bumper crops, go long on ag stocks.

Then your standard figure should apply to warming that has already happened and food production didn't decline. Instrumental records show about a 0.6+ degree C higher temperature than the 1901-2000 mean of 13.9 degrees C. Here is a NOAA chart that shows about a 0.6 degree increase between 1980 and 2010, just like the years that had two and a half times more natural catastrophes:



Show me the 6% decline in total food production, between 1980 and 2010! Is there some reason why only future warming causes this food reduction and actual warming that has happened doesn't? Hearing something has nothing to do with believing it.

When someone posted a statement that a warmer Earth was a drier Earth, I didn't hear anyone believing the doomsday forecast correct that statement, which we all should know is wrong. Global land precipitation increased 2% during the 20th Century.
I think one of the things being overlooked in this discussion is that the temperatures being discussed are average temperatures. Reality is that the weather will become increasingly extreme. So the average temperature may only be increased by 2ºC for a given year, but all sorts of extreme weather events can occur -drought, flood, late-season cold snaps, heat waves, etc.

It may only take one extreme weather event per year to wipe out or greatly reduced crop yield in a given region. That, imv, is the real problem.

14
Arctic background / Re: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment
« on: May 22, 2013, 06:17:29 PM »
Thanks for that, Anne. I'll be sure to read it.

15
Maybe, but the doom predicted on that webpage is far-fetched. Frankly,  I think it's a hoax.

16
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: May 09, 2013, 06:39:35 PM »
Agres, that is pretty much the way I see things and on the same time scale.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (May)
« on: May 04, 2013, 01:04:25 PM »
Hello, PIOMAS has updated:
Latest value: 2013-3-1 19.945
Latest value: 2013-3-31 21.612
Latest value: 2013-4-30 21.273

I have updated my graphics at Arctische Pinguin https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/ for the latest data.

Wipneus, thanks for all the work you do on those graphs. I find them interesting and informative. I have a question, is this the first time that the projection for Volume includes zero within the error bars?

18
Consequences / Re: Best case scenarios - Be optimistic!
« on: April 06, 2013, 01:45:55 AM »
Step 1: AGW
Step 2: A miracle occurs
Step 3: We go on our merry way(s).

Sorry, I have nothing more substantive, but I think that basically all optimism in this situation relies heavily on step 2 above.

There is no good news in Climate Change, only bad news that we don't fully understand.

19
Consequences / Re: Personal Consequences - Worst Case
« on: April 02, 2013, 08:08:30 PM »
I want to have some kind of plan or something to be more prepared - at least we are the one's who see it coming, so we should be favored to survice the imminent threats.
Ironically I already made a post one topic over relating to this: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,183.0.html

Anyone who followed the links I put there to what I'm doing would appreciate that I've been preparing for some years now. It is late in the day I think to think about making contingency plans - but better late than never.

Crazy? Perhaps - but nowhere near as crazy as most people from developed nations would think.

Wow- someone's got a plan!

I think that for a single human being (or a small group) it is much easier to survive a 5°C temperature rise than to survive 7 billion human beings fighting for survival!
So climate change isn't the real threat - we all are!
A boat might be a good solution - but I think it would be better to find a save, secret place somewhere - it might be easier to defend and get food.
Bingo, on that last point, wanderer. There are many places even in the US that are remote and difficult to get to but still quite liveable. I know of three or four myself. A solar oven and passive heating, so as not to be noticed, and there's a good chance that no one would even know someone was living there.

20
Consequences / Re: Gut Check Only: Are we F'd?
« on: April 02, 2013, 08:02:52 PM »
Birthmark (#14),
Yep, you got it, FOOD.  That is a big worry.  Cormac McCarthy was so on it with "The Road".  Damn dystopian writers, getting most of it right.  And where will the actual farmable land be?  Thanks to Native Seeds Search and the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, we will have seed, but we can also thank ourselves that we will have no place to grow them without advanced underground greenhouse tech.  Sigh. *crossing fingers the high-speed nomads will not get in*
Well. We'll always have each other, if history is to be believed.  :o

Whatever we do, discover, or ultimately achieve wrt food growing it is unlikely that we will be able to feed over 7 billion hungry human beings.

21
Consequences / Re: Gut Check Only: Are we F'd?
« on: April 02, 2013, 02:17:58 AM »
Quote
Topic: Gut Check Only: Are we F'd?
Yes. Yes, we are. That's my opinion, anyway. The other posters in this thread have unsurprisingly zeroed in on the real problem: food. The next twenty to thirty years will be rather interesting.

After that, it gets worse.

Um, I hope everyone is having a great day! (Didn't want to end on such a down note.)

22
Consequences / Re: Venus Syndrome Possibility
« on: March 21, 2013, 11:57:06 PM »
I agree with gfwellman completely.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: Vote with your guts - And if... ?
« on: March 21, 2013, 11:55:49 PM »
"Quite a bit, but..." I certainly won't accuse anyone of exaggeration. This is a unique event. Perspectives will differ based on different information and, since you mention it, gut feelings.

24
@Glenn and OLN,

Excellent summary of the predicament. I don't see how we come to an "equitable steady-state economy" in the best of times. I believe we're looking at the beginning of the worst of times. Between the chaos that climate change has begun to unveil, current global economic frailty and the peaking of our primary energy source, I fail to see a path forward for humanity that does not result in massive die off. We have sorely strained the carrying capacity of this planet under the best of times with inputs of fossil fuel. Once erratic weather decimates crops and sea level rise forces mass relocation and abandonment of critical infrastructure, how do we meet those challenges in an energy deficit? I just hope my reading of the tea leaves is mistaken.
We must be looking into the same cup, my friend. You've summed it up accurately, imo.

I could go for a really good Deus ex machina about now.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: Vale: The artic canary
« on: March 21, 2013, 08:41:23 PM »
This seems like the appropriate soundtrack.


26
I not only watched it all, I was amazed by how much of it I could follow. Very accessible presentations!

Thanks for posting, OL.


27
Birthmark,

Thank you for the kind words of encouragement, and I hope that my message is getting out to the community as the current topic that I am posting about of changes in the Antarctic currents (especially in Antarctic Bottow Water, AABW, related currents) has me especially concerned.
There are just so very many aspects to AGW that's it's difficult for the average person to follow all of them at length. I had sort of thrown the Antarctic into the SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) bin since it didn't look likely to have much effect on what I would experience since I will be a Senior Citizen in a very few years. That's a bit self-centered, I admit, but one has to prioritize in some manner.

Now, after reading your posts it appears that I'll have to learn about the Antarctic as well. I estimate that if I'm diligent in my studies I'll have something substantive to contribute to the topic in about two years. What I've learned from your efforts leads me to believe that you have put your finger on one of the big possible problems --AABW and its effects on currents. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that if the glaciers detach from the sea bottom, then they will increase in speed, possibly catastrophically?

28
Policy and solutions / Re: So when does monkey wrenching start?
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:31:35 AM »
.................. Unfortunately, if you did take action, you would likely cause far more damage by unintended consequences than you might initially think.

While I thoroughly detest everything about extracting oil from the Alberta Tar Sands and the potential construction of the Keystone Pipeline, I would be very much opposed to any subversive acts of sabotage.  The extreme right wing here in the U.S. considers most people concerned about sustainability, the environment and/or AGW to be "Environmentalist Whackos" or "Eco-Terrorists."  We don't need to give them any  more reason to keep thinking that way.

My biggest fear is that if President Obama were to make the correct decision, from an environmental standpoint, the political backlash may be that the anti-science crowd will gain more seats in the 2014 election.  They keep singing the song that the U.S. is awash in gas and oil and their minions keep believing it.

While I don't want to see the pipeline built, I won't lose sleep if it is.  Politically, it may be necessary to keep to keep the powder dry now in order to win the war later.
Not to mention that any such sabotage in the US probably will be considered "terrorism" under the USA PATRIOT ACT, and might lead to a trip to Cuba with no formal charges and no Constitutional protections. One might get tried before a Military Tribunal...or not. It might just be a very extended incarceration.

Count me out of anything even vaguely sabotage-y. I'm allergic to waterboarding.

29
ASLR, I'm greatly enjoying your posts. I haven't looked much at the Antarctic, so I don't have anything intelligent or helpful to say on the subject. I just wanted you to know that your hard work is being read and appreciated...even if it does take me a couple of hours to (partially) digest one of your posts. :)

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic sea ice free (extent)
« on: March 02, 2013, 09:53:27 AM »
A couple of years ago I said 2017. I don't remember what reason (if any) that I picked that year, but I'll stick with it.

31
Are we really sure that agriculture will take such a hit in the short term?
I come from Sweden and what limits us in the northern part of the country is the
cold. My guess is that it is the same for most of northern Asia. There the extra warmth will be
helpful.
The warmth won't be consistent. You'll still get the cold that you've always had, but there will be times of very high temperatures, too. Think of the Russian Heat Wave of 2010. So, it's unlikely that very many places will see agricultural production go up.

I can't speak about Sweden specifically, though. Maybe you'll get lucky.

Pages: [1]