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 - Ymir

Pages: [1]
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: April 29, 2015, 11:32:57 PM »
The Druids apparently learned vast amounts of lore, orally, over twenty years, I asume they must have started before their teens. It's only possible to do that if you have a vadt substrata of peasant types to grow all the food you're going to eat. I'm afraid they must have been hierarchical, though my understanding is that humans have been since we discovered agriculture. The civilisation at Catal Hyuk in Turkey may have been an exception.

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: April 18, 2015, 11:38:30 PM »
Another question, that may be a bit simplistic: I've read that the last time we were at 400 ppm of CO2 the temperature was 3-4 Celsius warmer and sea level was many metres higher, does that mean that we are inevitably heading to at least those conditions, once the time lag in warming catches up with CO2 levels? I appreciate that it may be considerably more complicated than that and that the amount of CO2 is still in ncreasing each year.

Could I also ask how much warming is locked in? The figures of 1.5 sound ludicrously low to me but my understanding is limited.


Consequences / Re: Limits To Growth Predicts Collapse in 2015
« on: April 09, 2015, 03:12:13 PM »
That is interesting but doesn't it predict collapse begining this year? Annyway, I suppose we won't really know for another few years but itheir projections sound plausible.

Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: April 09, 2015, 03:10:02 PM »
You have to wonder why *ALL* the religious myths have end–times chapters, even the Norse one, the Ragnarok, and perhaps be thankful that you live in so–called interesting times? It's a played–out cliché, but the chinese symbol for crisis also means opportunity..

And I think all the gods know we need a fresh beginning.

Ragnarok is siumltaneously a rebirth/recreation. Unlike Christianity and I presume Judaism and Islam. Something that makes me a little cautious about proclaiming the Wnd of Days is that civilisation seems to have an inherent tendency to believe The End is Nigh, "The End of Time" by Damian Thompson addressesis about this. I wonder how many people thought The Black Death, both World Wars etc were the end of the world? Although, I do think this situation is different as the effects we are having on the Earth are far more profound than anything that has happened previously.

There does seem to be a contradictory heads in the sand impulse in most people who simply can't or won't contenance that everything can go to hell very quickly. Maybe those of us that do accept it are a little "odd"? Not necessarily in a bad way.

Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: April 09, 2015, 12:27:10 PM »
This was one of the first threads I read, like everyone else I am morbidly fascinated by this horrifying process and gravitated here for some End Times Porn. I don't have anything to add in terms of the science, I've read a fair amount on climate change and related phenomena in the past year or so and have gone from an "End is More or Less Nigh" to an "It's Already Started" mindset, which seems to be what many here believe. The final nail in the coffin (even before coming here  ;))was reading Bill Mckibben's "Eaarth" a couple of months ago, so named because his point is that the planet we took for granted throughout our species' existance no longer exists.  That articulated something that I had been unconsciously thinking for some time.

I appreciate that many people here may have been thinking this for some time but it has been a little strange to dispassionately watch how fucked the human world is and in my specific experience,  how fucked the UK is under the Tories and think this pales compares to what is imminent. I've always been a pessimist, at least when it comes to humanity as a whole and have taken more of an interest in the environment, so it's not as if I was completely blinkered before.

Of course, I could be wrong now, as could everyone else here, though I doubt this. Something that staggers me and makes me most "doomy" is the sheer logistics of what we face. Climate change alone is potentially cataclysmic but soil degradation also sounds  sounds like it could be on its own. The mass species die off were are currently experiencing again sounds like it could do for us, as we simply don't know what the kock on effects of loosing "X" amount of biodiversity is. Not to mention ocean acidification.

There's also economic collapse, which ruination of the natural world will eventually bring anyway but  we may not have to wait that long, there are inumerable blogs/lectures/books on the imminent "financial apocalypse" many of which may be correct. I'm making my way through the "Collapse of Empire" thread and had only recently become aware of the appalling state of America's infrastructure, which brings to mind the phrase "fur coat, no knickers".

I'm not especially worried for myself, I'm not far from middle age, don't have children and don't intend to, I've long since though it was selfish and immoral to have children, given the state of the world. I am worried for the children of family members and friends.

It's refreshing to come here and "meet" so many other people who are equally as pessimistic and as cynical about "our" ability to deal with this mess and who are not of the tinfoil hat "OMG IT IS THE BIBLICAL/OTHER ENDTIMES PROPHECY!" and/or "IT IS THE SATANIC/ALIEN ILLUMINATI!" variety. I occasionally wonder if I may be turning into one of the tinfoil hatters, I suppose that wouldn't be all bad, there are plenty of badly made, fact free youtube videos to keep them entertained.

Crandles, I don't have any evidence and was just asking a question, I don't have the levels of knowledge of most or all of the regular posters and so am here to learn more than anyting else . I had forgotten about the rate of warming from the equator decreasing as the poles warm up.

  Specifically, the acceleration of Greenland ice will increase a hundredfold once the arctic sea ice completely melts out in Mid June around 2065.

2065? If the sea ice is gone at the end of the summer melt some time in the next few years - as seems to be generally believed here, then surely it wouldn't take anywhere near 40 years until the arctic is ice free all year round?
Ymir, it's important to remember that an ice–free minimum just represents one single day of ice–free conditions (or virtually ice–free in most mentions), and that this day comes after a long spring and summer melt. It's very difficult to use common sense or words like 'surely' for what happens next after that, or more specifically for the duration from the 1–day ice–free to 365–day ice–free state. That's why I've used numbers and statistics, and trendlines. According to these, the transition would take from 10 to 15 years, based on official Piomas sea ice volume. If correct, the next decade will be the last one for hundreds if not thousands of years to see any sea ice in the Arctic that hasn't started in the increasingly busy calving front of a glacier.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. 365 day ice free around 2065 but the process from 1 ice free day is 10-15 years?


2065? If the sea ice is gone at the end of the summer melt some time in the next few years - as seems to be generally believed here, then surely it wouldn't take anywhere near 40 years until the arctic is ice free all year round?

6 months of darkness allows a lot of heat to escape to space and once the heat is shed the rate of ice growth is fast when the ice is thin. 2065 seems quite plausible to me as a date for ice <1000000 Km^2 in June.

There are quite a few believing <1000000 km^2 extent for a day in the next 4 or 5 years but get real:

Volume is currently more than each of the last 4 years and barely below 2010. Max volume trend will still be downwards but it is looking to be very slow now we have cleared out a lot of old thick ice that takes time (that is no longer available) to grow thick. If the max volume is only heading downward slowly there is no reason to think min volume will head down quickly.

Although there is six months of relative darkness, what about the warmth within the ocean? Isn't that increasingly being fed up into the artic from the south?

  Specifically, the acceleration of Greenland ice will increase a hundredfold once the arctic sea ice completely melts out in Mid June around 2065.

2065? If the sea ice is gone at the end of the summer melt some time in the next few years - as seems to be generally believed here, then surely it wouldn't take anywhere near 40 years until the arctic is ice free all year round?

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: April 05, 2015, 12:00:48 AM »
Thanks, so making civilisation "carbon neutral" is only a first step? I'm ambivalent about geo engineering, it sounds like a great way to make things worse. I've read too many scientists say its too risky.

Consequences / Re: CA Drought Emergency Declared
« on: April 04, 2015, 05:22:34 PM »
All they have to do is cut off the farms and they'll be fine.  Consuming 80% of the state's water and only contributing 2-3% to their GDP, something's got to give.  But the political will for that will probably take extreme catastrophe to emerge.

I assumed that the state produced a lot of crops? It's not part of the U.S. "bread basket"?

Good point Vergent, I had no idea that's what did for Rome. In Eaarth, Bill Mckibben cites an estimate of 500 billion dollars needed to make America's sewers fit for the future, that sounds like a catastrophe in the making, with or without drought.

Consequences / Re: CA Drought Emergency Declared
« on: April 04, 2015, 04:03:36 PM »
Theatlantic has the following:
One thing to consider - when water stops running from the faucet, people tend to go through a very steep learning curve; but do we really want to get to that point?

I believe we  need to. Most people will only act when they are personally affected. It is not, however,  enough for the faucets to go dry but the connection to AGW must be  explicit.

How far away from that are we? I've read that the state has "year of water left", so could another year or two of the same conditions see California turn "biblical". Reading the thread it sounds like there is some slack the system and it being the World's wealthiest country actions can be taken to relocate people/get water "in" but how practical are those actions on this scale?

The rest / Re: Cli Fi
« on: April 04, 2015, 03:51:56 PM »
Sorry, I actually meant to write "very general genre", damn autocorrect.

I agree that overly specific genres are a bit weird. They become like a kind of sexual fetish.

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: April 04, 2015, 03:47:45 PM »
I've been very slowly making my way through several threads, I'm probably months of reading behind the level of debate frequently occurs on here. I have a question that is pethaps overly simple and this seems the best thread to ask it in. If carbon or the amount of carbon remains in the atmosphere for 500-1000 years and is causing warming for all, or at least a significant amount of time; is reducing emissions actually going to achieve much? Given the amount we have already spewed out? I mean isn't there already enough to heat the atmosphere by a number of degrees C. and won't that increase remain for that 500-1000 years?

Edit- and in that case aren't we fucked, sooner or later, probably sooner?

The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: March 31, 2015, 09:30:12 PM »
Do I have to type a screen capture and answer questions every time I post, or is it because I'm new? Do all posts have to be OKed by a mod before they go up, or again is it because I'm new?

Hi Ymir, and welcome. You have to jump through hoops on your first three comments (anti-spam measure), unless I release your profile before that, which I'm going to do straight away.

Thank you.

The rest / Re: Cli Fi
« on: March 31, 2015, 09:28:44 PM »
Thanks viddaloo, is there enough mileage for a series? I've not seen the Fargo adaptation either.

I recently discovered London has a post apocalyptic book club, looking at their reading list, it's a big and very genre "genre".

Consequences / Re: six degrees
« on: March 28, 2015, 02:54:31 PM »
So, is this different to what Jai Mitchell is saying? Heat effects becoming "fully engaged" after ten years?

In layman's terms we are only now experiencing warming from carbon released in the 70s?

The rest / Re: Cli Fi
« on: March 28, 2015, 12:26:39 PM »
Lots of interesting recommendations here, read the Guardian article a while ago.

The Drought and The Drowned World by Ballard are enjoyable, quick reads, he's proving to be one of the most prescient novelists of the last fifty years or so. I recently read The Death of Grass, written in the early Fifties by John Christopher, a highly resilient and adaptive virus devastates world grain and rice supplies, beginning in China. It spreads to the UK and civilisations more or less disintegrates overnight, apocalyptic narratives are almost passé nowadays but this is all the more shocking for being written in fifties stilted "stiff upper lip, what" prose.

Consequences / Re: six degrees
« on: March 28, 2015, 12:16:46 PM »
So the 30-40 year lag simply isn't true? And does all carbon not re absorbed continue warming for a minimum of 500 years? I have only recently of atmospheric carbon's 1000 year lifespan. Does that mean we are going to get anthropogenic warming for at least 500 years from today? In which case, Guy McPherson sounds closer to being correct than Hansen or Mckibben?

I apologise if my questions might be a bit basic, I'm not a scientist and on a very steep learning curve on the forum!

Consequences / Re: six degrees
« on: March 28, 2015, 01:12:20 AM »
For a given pulse of CO₂ emissions that linked (open access) reference indicates that the maximum mean global surface temperature increase will occur after about one decade (see also the attached image). Hopefully, this information will help people to believe that they will see the fruits of their labor to restrict CO₂ emissions, within their life-times:

Katharine L Ricke and Ken Caldeira, (2014), "Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission", Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002

Abstract: "It is known that carbon dioxide emissions cause the Earth to warm, but no previous study has focused on examining how long it takes to reach maximum warming following a particular CO2 emission. Using conjoined results of carbon-cycle and physical-climate model intercomparison projects (Taylor et al 2012, Joos et al 2013), we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years. We evaluate uncertainties in timing and amount of warming, partitioning them into three contributing factors: carbon cycle, climate sensitivity and ocean thermal inertia. If uncertainty in any one factor is reduced to zero without reducing uncertainty in the other factors, the majority of overall uncertainty remains. Thus, narrowing uncertainty in century-scale warming depends on narrowing uncertainty in all contributing factors. Our results indicate that benefit from avoided climate damage from avoided CO2 emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission. While such avoidance could be expected to benefit future generations, there is potential for emissions avoidance to provide substantial benefit to current generations."

I have repeatedly read that there is a 30 to 40 year time lag between carbon emission and the warming it causes, this isn't the case then?

The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: March 26, 2015, 01:18:39 PM »
Hello all, discovered the forum a few days ago and have been lurking, decided to join in. There doesn't seem to be an introductions thread? I though this looked like the closest thing.

I'm male, 37, living in London, not a scientist, my BA was in English and Drama, background in education. Have been reading a lot about climate change/ocean acidification/mass species die off in the last year or so, this place looked like the discussions were reasonable and realistic, though I inevitably have limitied understanding of the science behind issues like ice melt and so on.

Do I have to type a screen capture and answer questions every time I post, or is it because I'm new? Do all posts have to be OKed by a mod before they go up, or again is it because I'm new?

Pages: [1]