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 - wili

Pages: [1]
I have been more or less obsessed with feedbacks since I first understood their significance. These are a good start for this region. For now, I'll just also point out that more open water in the Arctic allows for bigger waves to form, which in turn can more easily churn up whatever ice (or slush) is left.

The larger amplitude waves may also lead to churning of that lower strata of warmer, saltier water up toward the surface. Both of these processes of course melt more ice, creating more open water, allowing for bigger and bigger waves...

We are probably mostly now past this stage, but I suspect that a few years ago, a 'flash melt' event we had was exacerbated by the fact that some old ice as it broke up formed icebergs, some of which went down to considerable depths. When high winds hit the top of these, their much deeper and bigger sub-sea bodies would sway back and forth, churning that deeper, warmer strata up toward the surface.

This is just my theory, and we now will see very little of this, except from icebergs calved from glaciers, since nearly all of the thick old ice is now gone.

Getting a bit off topic perhaps, but as I understand it. But a major reason that poor people have lots of kids in many parts of the world is for security in their old age, and because there is no guarantee how many will make it past infancy. UBI (especially if accompanied by universal basic health care, including reproductive healthcare, and women's rights, including rights of choice, and to an education...) could go a long way in assuaging the kinds of fears that drive people in such precarious positions from having (or attempting to have) multiple kids.

Generally, most of the countries with the lowest birth rates tend to be those where most people have the most economic security, while most of the countries with the highest birth rates are those where most people are not very economically secure.

But perhaps others have different perspectives, or stats with links?

The rest / Re: The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism
« on: April 02, 2019, 02:38:50 PM »
KK, think what?

Any article that talks about fake journalism that doesn't start with the utterly consistent falsehoods coming out of Faux News is simply right wing propaganda. And lo and behold, a quick search reveals that the author is...surprise surprise...a right wing propagandist!

It isn't hard most of the time to figure this shit out. I guess mostly people don't because they're too lazy, perhaps? Or just don't care?

-55 F wind chill here in Minneapolis (-48 C). Most everything is shut down, including postal service. But I'm going out in a few hours to make tons of soup for the homeless and anyone else who wants it. Probably minestrone. Anybody have good recipes?

"...the degree to which aerosols cool the earth has been grossly underestimated..."

That sounds...rather bad!

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: January 20, 2019, 02:46:09 PM »
Sounds like this may be fake news:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Not Fighting ‘For Her Life’ With Pneumonia, Despite Outlet’s Claim

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 13, 2019, 09:24:53 PM »
There will also likely be an increase in biological activity on and in the ocean floor, both microbial and more complex life forms. These are of course hard to model, but could burrow into methane pockets, releasing the gas more quickly than a merely physical model would suggest is possible.

And then there are slopes. I large release at a crucial point along a slope could cause a kind of un-zippering effect, iirc.

I think we can't be complacent about these possibilities, but at the same time they all just mean that we have to double down on reducing our lion's share of the contribution in hopes that the optimists are right and that these more rapid release mechanisms don't end up coming into play, at least at current levels of warming.

Thanks, as always, aslr!

Thanks, as always, aslr

Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: December 31, 2018, 03:10:29 AM »
There is, though, a strong trend in the 'hot daily lows' graph, which is just where one would expect the clearest and earliest trends to be detected in a planet being over-heated by greenhouse gasses (as opposed to, for example, increased insolation).

The rest / Re: The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism
« on: December 21, 2018, 04:52:43 AM »
Again, your source has been described as 'neo-conservative'

You seem to be rather addicted to far-right, white-supremasist, and fake-news sources for your information.

I can't help but wonder if these are the kind of posts Neven wants, crowding out science based, fact based, and non-hate based sources.

I, as do we all, of course, leave it to him. But the more that these kinds of posts and posters are tolerated, the fewer sincere posters are like to frequent this once very valuable forum

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: December 03, 2018, 07:37:29 AM »
Good points, Ktb.

It is important to remember that we are not just talking about individual species going extinct, but the collapse of entire ecosystems.

On the one hand, driving or even allowing for species to go extinct and for ecosystems to collapse is on a very basic moral level unconscionable.

But if one wants to insist on putting it in the malignantly narcissistic terms of 'what's in it for me,' well, ecosystems provide all sorts of 'services,' both material and im-. As we are already seeing, regional hydrological cycles tend to get very badly disrupted when you wipe out all or even most of, say, a rain forest. And loss of a major rain forest (or most other terrestrial ecosystems) is also going to have quite an effect on the carbon, it will greatly exacerbate gw. Forests also build and stabilize soils, and without them (or a robust grassland ecosystem to replace them), soils will blow and wash away. And we still do kinda depend on soils to grow the vast majority of our food crops.

Some people tend to think, "Oh, well, the pandas are cute, but really, we can live just fine without them." But when we wipe out not just the pandas but the bamboo forests they inhabit (as we are in the process of doing), and do the same sort of thing over and over again throughout the world...which is pretty much we have been doing at an increasing rate...we create havoc of all sorts that will harm not only ourselves, but yet other eco-systems...

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 29, 2018, 01:06:39 PM »
Terry wrote:
MIS 1 = the Holocene, and the numbers increase the further back in time we go. The peak of the Eemian is referred to as MIS - e.
It's easily explained at;

The second suggestion I have is a return to the more collegial air that prevailed at Neven's sites until rather recently. It only takes a few extra keystrokes to write "I believe you may be mistaken" than to scribble "Screw you, you're wrong".

I believe you may be mistaken, as the wiki entry you linked to identifies the Eemian as MIS 5e...

(But it would have been so much more fun to say, "Screw you, Terri, you're wrong...again!!!...or maybe just, "Terry, you ignorant slut!"  ;D )

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 29, 2018, 11:53:58 AM »
whereistheice wrote: "This is why it’s so hard to fix the climate problem. People are so divided on facts."

The most important and basic facts for accepting climate change science are not really in dispute by any scientists in the field:

--CO2 and methane (and of course a few others) are greenhouse gasses
--increased concentrations of ghgs will lead to increased warming of the atmosphere (and oceans...)
--we have released some trillion tons of CO2 (not to mention methane...) into the atmosphere, mostly by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels (=once safely sequestered carbon)
--atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (and other ghgs) have therefore, not surprisingly, increased by over 40% (more of methane and some other ghgs)
--average global atmospheric (and oceanic) temperatures have, also not surprisingly, therefore increased by over one degree C, and they will almost certainly increase by another degree (at least) in the next couple decades.

Few actual climate scientists would disagree with any of this, though, as we have seen, some have concluded that the last clause is...optimistic.

My take is that a methane release is extremely likely, but like all things in the future, we can't know them with absolute certainty. And in the off off chance that there may be some unknown unknown that will prevent it if ghg levels don't get far too high, we ought to be doing all we can to keep ghg levels from going much higher, and to find ways to draw them down as quickly as possible, how ever politically and scientifically unlikely that all sounds at the moment.

But to come back to the initial quote, I don't see CC as a 'problem' that we can 'fix.'

We have already crossed a number of tipping points...eggs that will basically never become unbroken (or unscrambled, if you prefer) that we know of, and we have likely passed other tipping points that we don't know of or can't be absolutely sure yet that we have.

The best we can do now is to try not to continue to make the problem worse (and therefore make it ever more likely that we will cross ever more and ever larger tipping points), and make the situation worse at an increasing rate every year.

Sadly, we are in fact putting more and more ghgs into the atmosphere every year, and so of course atmospheric concentrations continue to go up every year. And there is still not a real sense of urgency that I hear expressed by nearly anyone I know, nor do I see people who are otherwise knowledgeable and concerned citizens, decide to give up flying or meat/dairy eating to try to lessen their own part in this spiraling disaster.

I find the latter (lack of will to action or even to talk about it) among even my closest friends and family to be even more disheartening than the very high probability that an enormous methane release is right around the corner.

Sorry not to say this sooner--good to have you back, bro! Your posts are always deeply appreciated, and were sorely missed in your absence!

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: November 15, 2018, 05:33:28 PM »
Thanks (as always), vox. I had a feeling that I had seen those doctored and intentionally mis-representing graphs from other denialists and pseudo-sceptics on other sites. Thanks for doing the extra work of actually tracking them down.

I had the impression that this was one place we wouldn't have to put up with non-stop trolling from WUWT enthusiasts. Sadly, some still seem to squeak through. Apparently they've learned that all they have to do is mouth approval of some of the head moderators pet favorite sites (Dore, etc) and positions, and then they can get away with all sorts of crap not usually allowed here.

On another note, I was a bit surprised that this now-fairly-common denialist trope has not yet made it into the "Most Used Climate Myths" over at Skeptical Science (unless I missed it).

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: November 15, 2018, 05:12:50 PM »
Neven wrote "...isn't a cause, but a symptom..."

This is of course a medical metaphor. But even in medicine, there is not always a sharp line between causes and symptoms, at least in the sense that symptoms often exacerbate the problems the original causes generated...the kind of feedback we are well familiar with in climate science.

So yes, we must keep a strong focus on the basic justice issues--climate justice, economic justice, racial justice... But these can be better dealt with in an environment not dominated by a demagogue in the WH constantly and consciously lying about all these issues in quite harmful ways.

Limiting his power and influence--most importantly through the ballot box, but also by shining a bright light on his illegitimacy and corruption--have to be part of the struggle now, however we wish we could all just concentrate on the more basic stuff. (That's my view today, at least. Ask me tomorrow, and I may have a different take on it :) )

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: October 29, 2018, 03:38:20 PM »
At what point can he just be straight out arrested for inciting violence? Wasn't CNN one of the places the bombs were sent? How is this not the same as urging an angry mob to violently attack someone, which is one form of speech that is not protected?

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: October 02, 2018, 06:50:00 AM »
"It's not such a big deal, unless we all want it to be one" it's the people who make a 'big deal' about bullying that are the problem, not the bullies...

Got it.

Just needed to get clarification on that point.

I was clearly confused and deluded on that point.

Thanks so much for clarifying the general attitude prevailing here on such issues.

Good to know what we are dealing with here...

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: September 25, 2018, 11:03:53 AM »
What humans need more than anything else right now is limits--to be limited. Mosquitoes are one of the few creatures effectively putting limits on us.

It would be my great preference if they mostly culled from the top 1% rather than the poorest, but we should still think twice before eliminating one species that is helping to keep our numbers in check, until we are better able to keep our own numbers in check.

We are like deer plotting to rid their island of the last wolves, not realizing that the wolves actually keep the whole population healthier.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: September 13, 2018, 09:46:09 PM »
In other words, they're basically polar opposites!  ;D

The rest / Re: Mueller Investigation & Cohen Investigation
« on: September 01, 2018, 12:21:26 AM »
But as his tweets get ever more deranged, he is convincing fewer and fewer people, even among the basest of his base:

Only 18% think he should pardon Manifort. That means half of the most basic core of his base doesn't buy it when tRump says that Manifort is a great guy and that his loss in court is a sad thing.

This is how it starts. If they finally find one thing that they don't agree with their fearless leader on, inevitably others will follow...

Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: August 31, 2018, 01:09:30 AM »
I have another question. If all this extra heat is accumulating at depth in the interior of the Arctic, won't some of that heat make its way up to the surface over the winter, even if the heavier salty water itself doesn't? Could this be contributing to thinner ice over the winter, with some bottom melt happening? Has any such extra warming of the sub-ice water been detected?

Arctic sea ice / Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: August 30, 2018, 10:05:30 PM »
OK, I went for the dramatic title!  ;D

Replace "imminent" with "could happen at any time" if you wish...

And add 'nearly' before year-round...but it's still a stunning finding.

But  I don't think the very important "Archived Heat" study that just came out has gotten the attention it deserves here yet.

The crucial bit is here:

Presently this heat is trapped below the surface layer. Should it be mixed up to the surface, there is enough heat to entirely melt the sea-ice pack that covers this region for most of the year.

We've had a lot of discussions about when a BOE could occur, but not too many people have argued that we could see it last the full year starting...any time, basically, given the right conditions.

Basically as I understand it, the (relatively) super-heated surface waters warmed by endless summer sun have sunk (due to increased salinity from evaporation) and migrated under the ice pack. Now that hot, salty water is just 'waiting' for a new GAC or something similar to churn it up toward the surface and melt all the ice it comes into contact with, and keep it melted nearly throughout the year.

Robertscribbler has a video on it here:

I'm gobsmacked, personally. Would love to hear others' reactions.

Here's the link to the original study:

 "Warming of the interior Arctic Ocean linked to sea ice losses at the basin margins" Science Advances (2018)

Science / Re: Sunspots as proxy for TSI
« on: August 26, 2018, 03:50:55 AM »
Rodius, glad you found something useful in our responses.

If you need a one-stop-shop for debunking denialist dummies, try:

Note that 'It's the sun' is number 2, indicating just how worn out and over used that particular lie is.

Also see:

Also, besides the fact that the poles, the night and the troposphere are warming faster than they would if warming was due only to (non-existent) increased solar activity, winters are also warming at a faster rate than summers are--again, the exact opposite of what would happen if the sun were responsible for the increase in global warming.

Science / Re: Sunspots as proxy for TSI
« on: August 24, 2018, 11:12:31 PM »
You don't have to be a solar scientist to see why the 'climate coupling' film is full of crap.

I also couldn't stand the sneering tone, but I only needed to make it through the first minute and a half or so to see where he was going.

It's just the same old tired claim that 'it's the sun.' That it is fluctuations in the sun's strength that completely control the earth's climate. There are many reasons that this is obviously total bs.

I'll just point out for now that all the patterns of warming point to GHG, not changes in insolation, as the culprit:

night warming is greater than day warming even though the sun shines most in the day;

polar warming is greater than tropical warming, even though the sun shines most in the tropics;

troposphere warming more than stratosphere warming, even though the stratosphere is closer to the sun...

There are others such patterns along this line of reasoning that I'll let other elucidate. And that's not to mention that solar activity has been steady to slightly declining over the past few decades, even as gw has started to go into over drive. And all other planets aren't heating up, even though they are all exposed to the same sun...and on and on and on...

I thought that this was one place where we wouldn't have to see the endless repetition of the same old de-bunked and rererererererere...debunked idiocy floated about ad nauseum.

Was there some point to this little exercise that some how eluded me?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 14, 2018, 03:42:44 PM »
eff, if you're interested in learning more about that, you could do worse than to peruse Neven's excellent (as always!  :)) recent blog post on the topic:

The rest / Re: Mueller Investigation & Cohen Investigation
« on: August 14, 2018, 07:30:18 AM »
Yeah, by 'people like that' do you mean the majority of Americans who were and are freaked out about the prospects of a Trump presidency and expressed those concerns to anyone ever?

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 03, 2018, 03:52:08 AM »
"Humanity should have been stepping away from that economy"

Thanks, O. Nicely put. That's my main point.

"blaming Elon for humanity's failures"

I haven't seen anyone doing that. Please point it out if someone has. Otherwise...nice attempt at a strawman.

"Will this save humanity - very probably not."

Again, well put. Let's just say we agree on this, and leave it at that.  :)

ETA: OK, one more shots are not carbon neutral last time I looked. But maybe it was an all electric space shot powered by wind and solar??  :) :)

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 02, 2018, 10:33:01 AM »
What's with the incessant pro-Tesla blind adoration on the forum?

(Fixed that for ya!  ;) )

Movement in the right direction?

DNC votes unanimously to no longer accept money from fossil fuel companies

Now if they can only wean themselves from the Wall Street and Big Pharma teats!

It is much more likely that human pedestrians will have chips implanted in their brains to automatically keep them from stepping in front of these cars.

What a wonderful savings of life and injury this will represent!

A wonderful world awaits us. We only have to allow ourselves to be 'adjusted' enough to fit well into it!  :)

Since someone mentioned Ayn Rand, I thought I'd post this, perhaps to lighten the mood?

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."  :)

Consequences / Re: Qué se ficieron ?
« on: May 23, 2018, 03:38:59 AM »
Few developed countries are as bad as the US wrt homelessness. But The Netherlands could do even better if they stopped their moves toward criminalizing squats (mostly a result of racism as immigrants become a bigger and more visible part of the mix in some squates, according to my daughter who is living there now).

Consequences / Re: Forests: An Endangered Resource
« on: March 27, 2016, 05:50:38 PM »
Are you thinking of Wendell Berry's:

“We thought we were getting something for nothing,

But we were getting nothing

for everything.”

Consequences / Re: Hansen et al paper: 3+ meters SLR by 2100
« on: July 24, 2015, 11:04:38 PM »
Good point about risk assessment, LfdL, and nice take down of Refkin, sidd.

Here's a nice summary of the paper by rs:

    Warning From Scientists — Halt Fossil Fuel Burning Fast or Age of Superstorms, 3-20 Foot Sea Level Rise is Coming Soon

    First the good news. James Hansen, one of the world’s most recognized climate scientists, along with 13 of his well-decorated fellows believe that there’s a way out of this hothouse mess we’re brewing for ourselves. It’s a point that’s often missed in media reports on their most recent paper — Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms. A paper that focuses on just two of the very serious troubles we’ll be visiting on ourselves in short order if we don’t heed their advice.

    The way out? Reduce global carbon emissions by 6% each year and manage the biosphere such that it draws carbon down to 350 ppm levels or below through the early 22nd Century. To Hansen and colleagues this involves a scaling carbon fee and dividend or a similarly ramping carbon tax to rapidly dis-incentivize carbon use on a global scale. Do that and we might be relatively safe. Safe, at least in the sense of not setting off a catastrophe never before seen on the face of the Earth. That’s pretty good news. Pretty good news when we consider that some of the best climate scientists in the world see an exit window to a hothouse nightmare we’re already starting to visit upon ourselves.

    The bad news? According to Hansen and colleagues, even if we just continue to burn fossil fuels and dump carbon into the atmosphere at a ‘moderate’ pace some of the terrifically catastrophic impacts of human caused climate change are not too far off.

    It’s worth noting that the 5-9 meter sea level rise during the Eemian occurred in the context of global temperatures that are now similar to our own (1-2 C above 1880s values).

    But it’s also worth considering that the underlying CO2 and greenhouse gas conditions for the current age are far, far worse.

    As the undersides of ice shelves erode and more fresh water laden ice bergs are pulled out into the ocean, these ice bergs begin to melt en mass. This massive ice melt develops into an enormous and expanding pool of fresh water at the surface.

    And its this troublesome demon that traps heat in the deeper ocean levels.

    So, in other words, as the ice from the land glaciers floats away and melts it traps and focuses more heat at the base of these great glaciers.

    It’s an amplifying feedback...

    In the worst case (5-10 year melt rate doubling times), it’s possibly

>>3 meters of sea level rise by mid Century, perhaps

>>7 meters by end Century under business as usual fossil fuel emissions.

    Even in the more moderate cases (10-20 year melt rate doubling times),

>>1 meter of sea level rise by mid Century and

>>3 meters or more of sea level rise by end Century is not entirely out of the question

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather
« on: May 21, 2013, 01:53:54 PM »
Thanks to prokaryotes at cp for this link:

Humid air and the Jet Stream help to fuel more intense thunderstorms/tornadoes

Pages: [1]