« Sabbatical (I hope) | Main | The 11th Key Science Moment of 2016 »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Robert S

Vidaloo: Whoa, you're offside. Apologies in order...

I'm not sure I see a state change here... at least yet. The albedo and thermal effects of ice melt are proportional to the area/volume of the ice, and that's declining gradually. State change in the short term (5 to 20 years) will need a non-linear catalyst... and the clathrates might just be that. Longer term, as ocean heat buffering capacity continues to get eaten up, we could well see a state change resulting from the totality of the gradual changes in drivers (albedo, GHGs, atmospheric moisture, heat buffering capacity, etc.) leading to major changes in processes (atmospheric and oceanic). But saying that that will happen in 2022... we need some theory of the processes by which that might be true, and not simply a linear extrapolation.

viddaloo
If you believe your extrapolations and that the Arctic will be ice-free year-round by 2021 or 2023 or 2025, you also believe that civilisation will collapse (and humanity will probably go extinct under such a scenario), because that's what such a rapid change would mean. No two ways about it.

And if you believe that

Essentially the exact same question as Thursday, so I'll provide my Wednesday answer for the 3rd time.

My app may of course be wrong, but with apps for extent and volume consistently outputting 2021–24 for either daily, weekly or monthly, since November 1st, I would say these 4 years constitute The Ballpark for what we must expect. Things could unravel faster than linear, however, and then the 365 ice–free will be here 2020 or earlier. Or the other way around, there could be mechanisms that slow things down, and we're looking at 2025+.

My apologies to everyone for having to repeat this so many times, but demand seems to be virtually endless.

wayne

The very best way to judge a theory in which ever form it may take, the only way to test it, is to see it come through. There are no peers in this business unless trying to publish a paper taking about 2 years or so. Otherwise the only peer is the future, any person can theorize, propose or suggest extra- or interpolate, not anybody will turn out to be right. I think much like older Spock :), emotions should be involved in the scientific process, it is a one of the greatest High's in existence, ask Dr Stephen Hawking, when one turns out to be right. It also may be nasty when people argue, that too is part of the process. But if a theory turns out flat, one must recognize this. Otherwise there is no perfecting of intended theory. For most contrarians fake skeptics are utterly devoid of prediction skills, this is because their "gut" instincts are nowhere near right, they do not spend a whole lot of time in introspection, another flaw making them poor budding scientists. I would love to share a good high with anyone accomplishing anything, so play it cool guys, argue but be as they say in Jamaica "cool runnings".

AbbottisGone

Wayne,

Vulcans can't do science because they don't care about the question that begs!!

There is an art to science and it starts with why ask 'the' question in the first? Sure, ask a billion questions: but why ask what needs to be asked? What, indeed, needs to be asked? Let's all imagine a universe where random science happens: hey, write that one wayne and I might read THAT! (I venture to say we all might, even!!)

Science(good or bad) fiction is like a graphic(good or bad): helpful (..or not!)

viddaloo
Sure, ask a billion questions: but why ask what needs to be asked? What, indeed, needs to be asked?

To quote myself (the rest of this piece will be aired tonight):

When will the ice be gone and THE BOMB revealed? That is very much the question.

In fact, you don't need ice to be gone in the dark polar night of the winter in order to release this bomb. It's enough that the ice is gone when the Sun returns in April.

That will of course happen even earlier than the first year of no ice at all, even no ice in winter.

What I did in November in order to find the answer to WHEN, was to ask my apps a different question.

Instead of asking the apps when we last saw a similar collapse rate in the PAST, I now asked them how soon in the FUTURE we will lose all ice with that current collapse rate.


wayne

AbbottisGone

Vulcans shed all emotions except one, the pleasure of practicing science:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/12/dramatic-arctic-warming-captured-with.html

Question for you: What would you call the area under Arctic Ocean surface temperature vs time Graph?

Of course it's a very neat sea water area metric!

Neven
Kicking out all the nay–sayers from your forum and blog won't stop the bomb going off, but I'm probably wasting my time already trying to explain this to someone like you.

What you're doing, isn't stopping the bomb either. In fact, it is promoting its detonation. Why worry about an ice-free Arctic in September, when the goalpost is now an ice-free Arctic year-round?

Vid, if I ban you from the blog (like I did from the Forum), it's because you're arrogant and have an unpleasant way of communicating. Not because I don't like the message, or believe your analysis isn't all that interesting, lacks in clarity and should always go with a caveat.

Consider it a final warning. Belated, because I've always defended your presence for the simple reason that you're willing to do analysis and present it. If you had been lazy, I would've banned you a long time ago because of your conduct.

Cid-yama

As I understand, there is already enough heat in the Arctic Ocean for an ice-free Arctic. It just comes down to heat redistribution, and we are already seeing signs of new pathways developing. (See ASIF. ;)

As for CO2 figures stated, the Miocene Climate Optimum had CO2 at @ 400 ppm and was ice free in the Arctic. That was the highest CO2 levels during the Miocene.

Cid-yama

P.S. The Arctic Sea Ice began forming at the start of the Pleistocene Glaciations with much lower CO2 levels.

Cid-yama

It could be argued that the Arctic Sea Ice began forming in the Late Pliocene (just before the Pleistocene Glaciations)but still at much lower CO2 levels than we see today.

The actual boundary is still imprecise.

John Christensen

Neven,

It seems like I have become more successful in lurking than you have yourself.. ;-)

That said; I admire your desire to keep the ship leveled O Captain my captain!

Neven

Consider it a final warning.

I see now that you have selectively quoted me on Twitter to give the impression that I actually believe the Arctic will go ice-free year-round soon and that this will be the end of civilisation. Nice job.

I'm starting to suspect that you are actually a denier troll simultaneously shifting the goalposts and setting up future strawmen.

You have abused this blog long enough. So long.

John Christensen

Neven,

Are you sure the twitter quote was by Viddaloo?

While I agree that he does not seem to be very reflective about the use of extrapolation or the interpretation of annual averages, he has been quite consistent since he opened a blog on Wunderground back in Nov. 2015:

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/viddaloo/comment.html?entrynum=0

But if true, then Dr. Jeff Masters should check the blog account on his site also.

Robert S

Cid-yama: There seems to be a lot of debate about the relationship of CO2 levels to Miocene climatic conditions. See for example http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/449.full, which finds a clear linkage between CO2 levels and temperature, while http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048873/full looks at higher average temperatures under lower CO2 levels. I think we are dealing with complex systems with some elements having long lag times - for instance the influence of vegetation on albedo, discussed in the second article. Because of the complexity of the system, I have a hard time seeing evidence for a sudden massive state change based on a single variable - I think we`ll see multiple variable interlocked changes with different positive and negative feedbacks and lags.

Mind you I focus a lot of my work on complex systems, so I may be blindly expecting my tools to work everywhere. "When you have a wrench the whole world is a nut"... or was that nuts?

AnotherJourneybyTrain

Question for you: What would you call the area under Arctic Ocean surface temperature vs time Graph?

Ans is: It would appear to be open ocean area in the Arctic ...

I have been looking back through the years on that dim 80N page for awhile now and such a change gives me chills so I think that was a nice blog post you made!

More specifically the temps now seem to be ten degrees higher than normal... Whilst it has cooled down it still seems like it can't stagnate above normal levels to this degree without repercussion!

Those fdd graphs also seem like a good idea but the dmi 80N is truly like a nightmare: I hold my breath before I enter the address in the search panel, seriously I do!!

Jim Hunt

The live stream of the "Arctic Report Card 2016" press conference has just started. More info at:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/arctic-sea-ice-news-from-agu/#ReportCard

NeilT

Robert, the first thing that went through my head in reading your post when I saw

looks at higher average temperatures under lower CO2 levels

was "over what time span".

Whilst your first article links a footnote (24) article which discusses how they found rapid CO2 change (less than a century but), which caused warming, I'm still of the opinion that natural carbon cycles can induce far more warming than we have seen at far lower levels of CO2 "over thousands of years".

If we take the CO2 emissions we have already pushed out there, theoretically, we have stored up disastrous temperature changes for the next 20,000 years. Without some kind of intervention.

So I find it really hard to relate that to what is going on today. Yes they saw 60ppm change in less than a decade. And we saw that in half a decade on top of 90ppm increase in the century before.

Hardly apples and oranges and the nitpicking denialists will pick it apart. Especially if you search the Milankovich cycles and the Miocene as well.

We know that we are not in a strong Milankovich phase. We're pretty certain that we should have started heading off the end of this interglacial into the next glacial.

Yet things keep getting warmer faster and faster and we keep pushing CO2 up there more and more. Forget increasing annually, what we push up _now_ or even 30 years ago, is more than enough now.

The problem I see, now, is that we get one massive variable backed by 2 or 3 minor other changes (solar, oceanic, atmospheric) and things will suddenly change.

Of course the clathrate gun is the biggest potential threat and only needs a small change to set it off.

The question is, once it's fired, do we really need it to keep on firing to make that step change?

Time will tell. Not next year, that's unlikely. In the next 30? Depends on how unstable it is and, sadly, we're not monitoring those conditions at source. Only the net result of them on the surface.

Bill Fothergill

@ Kevin & NeilT

I completely agree that it is easy to find an article - such as that linked to by Neil - which states something along the lines of... "NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable"

That, however, was not what was requested. The statement that I was querying was... "Scientists believe Venus was life supporting for 2 Billion years"

The possibility of extra-terrestrial life (especially at the microbial level) is a topic that has featured several times in the monthly lectures of my Astronomical Society. I was therefore perfectly serious when I requested a citation, as I was unaware of any confirmation of extra-terrestrial life - extinct or extant.

The relevant parts of the above two statements "... was life supporting ..." & "... may have been habitable ..." are not synonymous.

Normally I would have assumed that the latter version was what had been intended, but when someone appears to feel the claim that "ice-free polar regions would result in boiling of the oceans near the equator" is somehow defensible owing to the inherent chaotic nature of the climate system, I felt it was necessary to dig further.

By the way, at the height of the recent huge el Nino, surface water temperatures in the 3.4 region were clocked at just over 29 deg C. The suggestion that these could somehow rise by about 70C is risible.

Hans Gunnstaddar

As some of you may already know, a questionnaire was sent to the energy dept. by the advance Trump troupe asking for names of people at meetings. A fascist routine to intimidate and blacklist scientists and other people of official capacity greatly concerned about GW. The energy dept. has since rejected the demand, and now the dept. (which has been driven into a sense of well deserved paranoia) is trying to copy all data ahead of what they fear may be an attempt once Trump is in office to expunge all that information compiled over many years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.11528059f2d5

'Scientists are frantically copying U.S. climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump'

“Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,” said Nick Santos, an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis, who over the weekend began copying government climate data onto a nongovernment server, where it will remain available to the public. “Doing this can only be a good thing. Hopefully they leave everything in place. But if not, we’re planning for that.”

Elisee Reclus

Bill--

OK, so I was mistaken. So sue me! It has been pointed out to me that with efficient global heat transport mechanisms operating, it is possible that continuous, year-round lack of ice at the poles is theoretically possible without having to postulate extreme heat(perhaps 'boiling seas' WAS an unfortunate metaphor) at the equator.

But more importantly than theoretical considerations, it was pointed out to me that fossil evidence of these conditions exists. I can live with that. I stand corrected. So please cut me a little slack.

I am not a climatologist, and is that really so unreasonable for a non-specialist to believe? I am here to learn and hopefully to contribute,not to pontificate,(I do have academic training and professional experience in both the physical and earth sciences). But I have no intention to stay here and be repeatedly humiliated for a one- off remark.

As I mentioned, sometimes the ponds freeze over briefly in Florida in wintertime, is it really so inconceivable that in a polar sea where the sun does not shine for months at a time only an extremely hot equator could pump enough warm water to keep it melted? Besides, maybe only the top few centimeters were boiling...

The dramatic reduction of summer sea ice extent in the Arctic over the last few decades (as revealed by satellite data) is pretty dramatic. It is a single, continuous, uniform and unambiguous set of data that is quite persuasive. Even with no other evidence, it would have to be explained. It has convinced me that there is a climate emergency, that human industrial activity is the cause of it, that it is potentially disastrous for humanity. I get that.

What I don't know is just how disastrous it will be, how long it will take, or what, if anything, we can do about it. Early on, I was indoctrinated not to accept the catastrophist paradigm in geology (with the possible exception of an occasional dinosaur-killing asteroid). After several billion years of gradualism, not to mention a documented continuous occupation by carbon life forms, I find it difficult to accept that in a few generations, or lifetimes, the planet will become uninhabitable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but perhaps you can forgive my initial skepticism. Until it is demonstrated to me convincingly, I will find it as difficult to accept as...well....boiling equatorial seas.

P-maker

Elisee Reclus – Ivanka, is that you?

Not in order to confuse things any further, but your statement:

"I find it difficult to accept that in a few generations, or lifetimes, the planet will become uninhabitable."

is completely at odds with the sentiments here.

Please go away, write up your lists of all concerned government officials, please do as they did in Australia: shut down one of the world´s leading research organizations, since the debate about climate change was apparently over, and then get back to your dad and tell him, that he is utterly wrong, when he appoints the Exxon chief in order to drill for more oil. The Indians won’t have it, and particularly not in the Russian Arctic.

Neven

P-maker, if the future is set in stone, and it's 100% certain the planet will become inhabitable for humanity, what's the use of telling 'Ivanka' off in that way? How about drinking a glass of good wine and listening to Beethoven? Or is the only satisfaction you have left to have always been right when Judgment Day comes?

P-maker

Neven,

I'll think about the Beethoven thing, and come back with an answer to you valid question tomorrow.

Cheers P

NeilT

Hans, whilst I agree with the sentiment I have issues with always using the word Fascist. Communism has been far more effective over a longer period in snuffing out the truth though danger and intimidation.

Other than that, yep, I'll go with the sentiment. The object of the exercise is to intimidate honest, responsible, scientists into shutting up about the risks to future generations in order to make a quick profit today and a quick boost to GDP.

Never mind the fact that "renewables" is the fastest growing market in the world and the "switch to low carbon" has the highest potential for growth of economy and GDP of any technology out there.

Go Figure!

All apart from the nightmare we're making for future generations.

NeilT

For all of those "we're all dead", I'd just like to say this.

Our technological advancement will ensure 1 or 2 billion will always survive. Elysium may not be possible in Space for our current technological level, but it sure as hell is possible under the sea and under domed cities with subterranean food production.

What my heart bleeds for is the other 8-9 billion (as it will be then), who don't make the cut.

Our species, as we know it today, will be forced into a regimented and regulated existence where a small elite will rule, directly, over the masses who support them.

Personally, I would have thought this was something to strive against. Especially with the Constitution of the US.

Apparently I was wrong in that assumption.

Sad.

Elisee Reclus

For P -

Either you're not listening, or you stopped reading halfway through my post--

"The dramatic reduction of summer sea ice extent in the Arctic over the last few decades (as revealed by satellite data) is pretty dramatic. It is a single, continuous, uniform and unambiguous set of data that is quite persuasive. Even with no other evidence, it would have to be explained. It has convinced me that there is a climate emergency, that human industrial activity is the cause of it, that it is potentially disastrous for humanity. I get that.

"What I don't know is just how disastrous it will be, how long it will take, or what, if anything, we can do about it."

Catastrophism is out this century. The burden of proof is on you.

Luv,
Ivanka

Jim Hunt

A recording of this morning's AGU press conference about the R/V Lance's 6 month expedition embedded in the Central Arctic has now been made available:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/arctic-sea-ice-news-from-agu/#NICE2015

Lots of interesting stuff. By way of example:

One winter storm raised the air temperature from -40 F to +32 F in less than 48 hours, while the moisture in the air increased 10 times. All of these factors significantly warm the surface of the snow, even in mid-winter, and slow the growth of ice.

Robert S

NeilT: I think you're right on in stating that: "If we take the CO2 emissions we have already pushed out there, theoretically, we have stored up disastrous temperature changes for the next 20,000 years."
The number of variables and lags in the system are such that we don't know when the CO2 that we have already released into the system will reach its full effect... but we're sure we aren't there yet.

You raise an important issue in noting that we aren't doing sufficient monitoring to even know what's happening... and this is true not only with the clathrates, but with permafrost, albedo, etc. I think it would be extremely fruitful to identify the 10 most important areas where improved monitoring is needed, so that we could begin to press for funding. The ones that come to mind for me are:
- Clathrate emissions both at source and at surface.
- Emissions of CH4 from permafrost across the tundra regions of the world
- Soil CH4 and C dynamics. I've done a lot of work on this one, and the level of our ignorance is frightening
- Global albedo change (daily, to allow us to begin to understand feedback loops with precipitation, economics, etc.)
- Forest C dynamics in tropical ecosystems.
- Global atmospheric moisture
- Greenland/antarctic ice sheet change.

What else?

Many of these we have research data on, or even monitoring data, but not the kind of widely available real-time ongoing data that would allow us to begin to make the connections between variables in the system.

I definitely believe that if we are to survive the coming changes as a society, detailed real time ecosystem data will be critical to allow us to manage where we can. I'd love to see cell phone level microtechnology aimed at these problems, to allow affordable massively distributed monitoring networks.

Maybe the first step is to make available all of the data we are currently collecting - everything from single site monitoring to global data - in a single standard format geodata site. Then we can turn loose a generation of geodata miners and hackers.

Hans Gunnstaddar

So noted regarding the use of the word 'fascist', NeilT. In any case, here is an article regarding record Arctic temp. in 2016:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/the-arctic-where-tillerson-and-exxon-want-to-drill-shattered-temperature-records-in-2016/?utm_term=.6cff83d278e2

'The Arctic just had its warmest year on record ‘by far,’ scientists report.

"Air temperatures were 2 degrees Celsius — 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — higher than their 1981-to-2010 average in the months between October 2015 and September of 2016, a time period that coincided with a strong El Nino event, NOAA reported.

“The average surface temperature in the Arctic from January until September of 2016 was by far the highest we’ve observed since 1900,” said Jeremy Mathis, who directs NOAA’s Arctic Research Program. “And this is a critical point, there were record temperature highs set in January, February, October, and November of 2016.”

wayne

Thanks so much Another

I find the area under the temperature curve being Ocean really cool. For years I pondered the integration of temperature graphs, how abstract a concept, but in the Arctic, sea ice made it instantly obvious.

"More specifically the temps now seem to be ten degrees higher than normal... Whilst it has cooled down it still seems like it can't stagnate above normal levels to this degree without repercussion! "

These temperatures so high despite unhinged David Rose attempt to make current La-Nina sooo cold, how sordid a proposition, it flunks the Arctic test. Therefore it's a positive feedback loop, very very difficult concept for contrarians to fathom.

1> Less sea ice = more clouds = warmer temperatures (sea and air) = less accretion = less anticyclones forming = longer lingering cyclones = perfect heat engines = more open ocean releasing long stored heat = near surface interface more adiabatic = more Southern in origin cyclones intruding the Arctic Ocean >>>return to 1 >l.

Complex as it may seem it's absolutely easy to understand, unless you are convinced that humans have nothing to do with it. ........ lol, another good on! They will never understand that last point.

navegante

It was a nice bet by Viddal, who was/is expecting nice returns

P-maker

Neven,

Beethoven’s 5th Symphony was the only one I could think of. According to Wikpedia, it was well received in 1808 – including these kind words from a guy called Hoffmann:

“Radiant beams shoot through this region's deep night, and we become aware of gigantic shadows which, rocking back and forth, close in on us and destroy everything within us except the pain of endless longing—a longing in which every pleasure that rose up in jubilant tones sinks and succumbs, and only through this pain, which, while consuming but not destroying love, hope, and joy, tries to burst our breasts with full-voiced harmonies of all the passions, we live on and are captivated beholders of the spirits.”

I do enjoy music from time to time, as you may very well know, but not right now.

When ‘Ivanka’ puts up statements like: “Everything will be fine 100 years from now”, I must react.

Every day is ‘Judgement Day’ in my view. I consider Arctic oil exploration rigs weapons of mass destruction.

Please think about what would happen, if the Chinese – for some odd reason – decided to spray soot over Himalaya in order to get rid of the remaining glaciers before 2035. The Indians would be furious and fight back to avoid the drowning of millions of people in their low-lying valleys.

In principle – Moscow and Washington DC have now joined forces and will attempt to spray oil over the remaining Arctic sea ice floes. Who cares, you might say: “ Sit down, have a glass of wine and listen to some music”. Not today Neven. Never!

Neven
- Clathrate emissions both at source and at surface. - Emissions of CH4 from permafrost across the tundra regions of the world - Soil CH4 and C dynamics. I've done a lot of work on this one, and the level of our ignorance is frightening - Global albedo change (daily, to allow us to begin to understand feedback loops with precipitation, economics, etc.) - Forest C dynamics in tropical ecosystems. - Global atmospheric moisture - Greenland/antarctic ice sheet change.

What else?

Ocean heat flux into the Arctic. Very important.

Rob Dekker

Neven said


P-maker, if the future is set in stone, and it's 100% certain the planet will become inhabitable for humanity, what's the use of telling 'Ivanka' off in that way? How about drinking a glass of good wine and listening to Beethoven? Or is the only satisfaction you have left to have always been right when Judgment Day comes?

Mmm. Neven, that does not sound like you, especially not against a rather mellow comment by P-maker.
And it certainly does not sound like you on sabbatical.

Neven
Who cares, you might say: “ Sit down, have a glass of wine and listen to some music”. Not today Neven. Never!

P-maker, I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm just saying that if you believe that it is a 100% certainty that civilisation will soon collapse and the human species goes extinct, there might be better things to do than to get everyone to agree to that on some small blog in cyberspace.

When ‘Ivanka’ puts up statements like: “Everything will be fine 100 years from now”, I must react.

You should read better, that's not what 'Ivanka' says. 'She' says: I don't know just how disastrous it will be, how long it will take, or what, if anything, we can do about it.

Nobody here is saying it's impossible there will be a disaster, and as we can't know the future, we shouldn't do the opposite and say there will be a disaster, and there's nothing we can do about it.

There will never be a moment of absolute control and a perfect plan that will allow us to solve a problem like AGW in the best possible way. We are just too imperfect, as a species, as a society and on the individual level. The best we can hope for, is that somehow we muddle through. And we do that by honestly trying the best we can.

Rob Dekker

Neven, where is that twitter feed from viddaloo that you mentioned as the cause to ban him ?

Neven
Neven, that does not sound like you, especially not against a rather mellow comment by P-maker. And it certainly does not sound like you on sabbatical.

I don't have a problem whatsoever with P-maker and I'm very happy to have him as a commenter here and on the ASIF, but calling someone 'Ivanka' is not something I consider 'mellow'.

As for the sabbatical: It's not really a sabbatical, it's just a break from blogging, so I have some more time to reduce my personal impact on the planet some more (as it's still way too big). I'm not going to work less, probably more. So, no relaxed Neven for a while yet to come.

Look, things are a total mess. Arctic sea ice loss and AGW in general are as depressing as things get. Things will most probably not turn out well. People are going to suffer, evil things will be done, it will be ugly. It's the human condition projected outwardly. It's the conflict within all of us on display in the real world.

But my point is simply this: If one thinks all is hopeless, there is no point in going on line and tell people off when they say that we cannot know the future, and that there might be some hope that we can muddle through this. All that does, is create a kind of paralysing fatalism that further ensures that all is hopeless.

I'm just not going to do that. I don't want to be paralyzed, spending 12 hours every day behind the computer, looking at a trainwreck, getting worked up all the time and then die from a stroke or heart attack before the age of 60.

I want to do things, work at solutions and increase that chance of us muddling through. If that means I'm in denial, fine. I like to choose my own illusion. Believing that all hope is lost is an illusion as well, with just different psychological motivations.

This blog was never set up to promote doom and gloom, but to increase awareness and get people to break free from the collective illusion of consumer slavery.

That's also why I'm taking a break. To get my focus back.

Neven
Neven, where is that twitter feed from viddaloo that you mentioned as the cause to ban him ?

I don't want to promote it, as that is obviously viddaloo's goal. I'll send it to you by mail.

Whether he's a denier troll or an extreme alarmist troll, is irrelevant. The trolling leads to the same result.

Rob Dekker

Is that really you speaking, Neven ?
P-maker never said that all is hopeless.
Yet you suggested he did.

And where is that twitter feed from viddaloo that you mentioned as the cause to ban him ?

Neven
Is that really you speaking, Neven ? P-maker never said that all is hopeless.

To me it seemed that that was what his words implied.

Elisee Reclus said:

It has convinced me that there is a climate emergency, that human industrial activity is the cause of it, that it is potentially disastrous for humanity. I get that.

What I don't know is just how disastrous it will be, how long it will take, or what, if anything, we can do about it.

To which P-maker replied:

Elisee Reclus – Ivanka, is that you?

Not in order to confuse things any further, but your statement:

"I find it difficult to accept that in a few generations, or lifetimes, the planet will become uninhabitable."

is completely at odds with the sentiments here.

This implies that P-maker believes the opposite of what Elisee reclus wrote, is true. Namely, that the planet will become uninhabitable.

Elisee reclus then repeated the text I just quoted. P-maker then stated:

When ‘Ivanka’ puts up statements like: “Everything will be fine 100 years from now”, I must react.

I don't mind the back and forth, and the misunderstandings. But I wanted to seize the opportunity to stress again that doomerism doesn't make sense and is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Not meaning to say that P-maker is doing this. It's not about him, I don't have a problem with him whatsoever (or with Elisee reclus). I just wanted to stress my point as this seemed to have become the central theme of this thread.

Back to work now.

Rob Dekker

Neven, we crossed posts.
Thanks for the twitter link.
Yes, that person misrepresented your statements, and Jim rightly points out. Not sure if that person is viddaloo though.

Also, why did you suggest that P-maker said that all is hopeless ?
P-maker never said that.

Every ton of CO2 into our atmosphere makes things worse.
So every minute counts, and it will get worse the longer we wait.
Not particularly the right time to drink a glass of wine and listen to Beethoven.

Rob Dekker

Reclus said

What I don't know is just how disastrous it will be, how long it will take, or what, if anything, we can do about it.

None of us knows how disastrous it will be. We just know that it will get worse if we continue our emissions of greenhouse gasses. And it will take a very long time before we restore CO2 levels to 'safe' levels of 350 ppm or so where we KNOW that no catastrophies will happen. And what we can do about it is that we can reduce our emissions.

Neven

It is the right time to drink good wine and listen to classical music, if you are convinced that things are 100% hopeless. That's much better than go to this blog and get angry at people when they say they are not 100% sure that things are 100% hopeless.

That's my point. If P-maker doesn't believe that things are 100% hopeless, then he shouldn't drink good wine and listen to classical music (or at least not all the time), but get to work. Like we all must.

Jim Hunt

Rob - I am sure.

Neven - Don't forget those pesky cyclones. At the risk of getting off the topic of Arctic sea ice volume:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/arctic-sea-ice-news-from-agu/#NICE2015

Lots of interesting stuff. By way of another example:

Winter storms caused the sea ice to drift so fast that it increased mixing of the water beneath the ice. Deeper, warmer water was mixed up closer to the sea ice, causing it to melt from below despite winter air temperatures that were below freezing.

wayne

First of all. Paris Climate Accord was very good, it was a great moment in humanity, a true symbol of hope, the agreement is a few months old. However, the people who fear the New World Order dictated by the poor old veto plagued U.N., deemed the tool of the Antichrist, these people have teamed up with the polluters. Many of these are drenched with paranoid delusions who believe that the anti pollution people, us, not one of these, wants oil. But on the contrary oil products will be required for the billions yet not born, just not needed in a stupid internal combustion engine for everybody way. Einstein's and fellow scientists photo electric effect will save the world so slow in deploying this superb revelation. Saudi Arabia has potentially nothing on their desert neighbors poorest Saharan countries, ll this sand, silicone, all this sun brought to you by climate is gold, the poorest will soon realize they are the richest if they just start solar paneling.

However this blog and a few others likewise, are the only thing on the internet championing science. These vanguards for a better world blogs are severely dwarfed in numbers by the conspiracy theory trolls. The latter rather large group also work for nothing or for a few dimes on u-tube, until some politician promotes them in order to gain votes.

I think we need to continue simply expressing the light at the end of the tunnel many dwell in, support good science, support peace and good will, after all it is Christmas time!

wayne

"fast that it increased mixing of the water beneath the ice."

Darn ! Jim,

Another geophysical feature I forget to include in my Arctic Ocean positive feedback equation. Yes of course, under the ice is often more rough than above , well brought up mate!

Jim Hunt

More from (outside) AGU. A Xmas present for Wayne:

wayne

Christmas card Jim!

Such beautiful lab coveralls fashion, salt of the Earth people, thanks!

Neven
However this blog and a few others likewise, are the only thing on the internet championing science. These vanguards for a better world blogs are severely dwarfed in numbers by the conspiracy theory trolls. The latter rather large group also work for nothing or for a few dimes on u-tube, until some politician promotes them in order to gain votes.

Maybe we should take it to them. Maybe I should ask Infowars or some such if I can write about Arctic sea ice there.

Hmmm, something else to ponder this coming year. I don't know myself if I'm joking or not.

wayne

Neven,

You do have an idea how important your website is? Don't you?
It is the light which sends the polluter vampires back in their coffins!
The best way to get the conspiracy theorists to back off their stupid ways is of course to confront them in a strange very amicable way...

AnotherJourneybyTrain

Wayne, I'm pretty sure Jim was pointing out on his blog that there was indeed no la nina on the horizon!

AnotherJourneybyTrain

Neven, I do believe you should give yourself the festive season off atleast. You can't save the world by your self: I'm always writing that book so I should know. you will come back with a renewed focus like you say: the first step to Chi-gung is FOCUS, and only once you've focused on how to relax then the second step comes easily: RELAX!

I recommend stout and Django Reinhardt.

Specifically I recommend the song at 21:40 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szNJ6DqrqoA&t=5816s w/stout.

Have faith in others: I'm about to read a book called "Atlas Shrugged". If I read it that's: no more reading as it's 1000 pages in small print but I always wanted to read it. I was almost disappointed when my Auntie told me it was her favourite book and she had a spare cope. "Yeh, thanks.......!", I enthusiastically offered in a sort of gulping motion.

Lol, life needs to be lived: don't sweat the small stuff Neven!!

wayne

Hi Another,

Haa but there is, at the start of any La-Nina there should be less clouds worldwide, including the Arctic, this has occurred last spring, there was a huge big blue event which had impacted last summers melt, it caused a waring of the open ocean. Then ENSO went topsy turvy, now back to La-Nina mode. David Rose's graph completely simplifies the wrong impression because he neglects the holistic analysis, La-Nina also cools in part because there is less clouds, the winter approaches and poof! It is colder. It gets colder when there is less clouds during winter, go figure, a reporter should know that, may be not?

Jim Hunt

Wayne - You wanna argue with the BoM?

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/post-truth-global-and-arctic-temperatures/#comment-216633

Jim Hunt

A.N.Other - You wanna be careful what you read. Atlas Shrugged is the bible of many a "skeptical" libertarian.

wayne

I go by NOAA Jim:


http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.12.12.2016.gif

Look at the nice equatorial waves, all colder blue. In my opinion, that is the source area of a great deal of cloud seeds. When same zone is much warmer, the seeds exceed height of tropopause, overshoot then spreads world wide like equatorial volcano eruption. It may be BOM neutral because of other areas included in their prescribed zone. By the way, the Arctic has had less obscuring clouds lately, but a great deal of streamers, very low clouds from myriad leads, these effectively warm the surface.

Jim Hunt

NOAA say "A transition to ENSO-neutral is favored during January-March 2017."

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Only a minor disagreement amongst the experts?

wayne

no not really Jim,

It may be neutral as per definition, but it has La-Nina aspects which are important. The holistic approach requires to look at everything.
I am all ok saying it is neutral spiced with a flavor of La-Nina. If the 3.4 zone if all yellow (slightly warm) except the equator , all combined neutral, but La-Nina at the equator is a better define. Numerical illusions are important factor to consider.

wayne

" Although some very weak La Niña-like patterns continue (such as cooler than normal ocean temperatures and reduced cloudiness in the central and eastern Pacific), La Niña thresholds have not been met."

BOM well said +

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4

Its been at the borders for a while..... Quite opposite to say last January
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.1.14.2016.gif

Elisee Reclus

What it something I said?

The global climate machine, like the national economy, has many moving parts. In an attempt to understand it, it is inevitable that multiple (and contradictory) interpretations of its fundamental driving forces will arise, many of which will be defined by partisan interests
rather than honest differences in opinion or methodology.

But even within the most sober and scientific assessments and proposals, when data is sparse or complex it is inevitable that a gradient of opinions and interpretations will arise, particularly if the correspondents come from different backgrounds and levels of competence. Some disciplines simply see the world differently. An engineer and a scientist view nature and reality (whatever the hell THAT is)in distinct ways, even though their academic preparation, the curriculum of courses where they matriculated, is identical. Psychology and culture play a bigger role than we like to admit.

Even within the disciplines, differences in perspective sometimes override questions of mere competence. Have you ever wondered why astronomers and biologists often have such contrasting views on astrobiology and SETI? We all tend to overlook how much questions of individual background, and even personal taste and temperament, affect our objective judgement.

I followed the debates on this blog long before I chose to participate, mostly because I felt I was insufficiently informed about climate science. But I felt this forum was a cut above the rest, and Neven's leadership and guidance exemplary. But after only a short participation I have found myself misinterpreted, attacked and even insulted--not so much because of my ignorance (after all, I am here to learn) but because I refuse to immediately and totally subscribe to a point of view that is
so unforgiving as to be almost religious, or ideological.

I particularly resent the implication that because I do not immediately and completely agree with one particularly alarmist view, I must therefore be a denialist and some sort of fundowacko Fascist climate skeptic. (Yes, Neven, sometimes the F-word does apply, Godwin's Law notwithstanding).

Ivanka

Neven

Don't take it too hard, Ivanka. This is how it goes on the Internet. Besides, P-maker probably misinterpreted your words a bit, and then I misinterpreted his, and so on.

I think we can all agree that Arctic sea ice loss is a very serious issue, perhaps the most important on the globe right now, collectively speaking. And that's the core of this blog.

NeilT

Jim I read

"skeptical" vegetable.

Clearly my mind moved libertarian to vegetarian and then vegetable...

But if the cap fits...

PatrickLogicman

Friends, netizens, Arcticians, lend me your ears.

"I think we can all agree that Arctic sea ice loss is a very serious issue, perhaps the most important on the globe right now, collectively speaking. And that's the core of this blog."

Well said, Neven.

The Arctic climate has almost certainly entered a new phase. That is no cause for excessive worry. The climate system, like all natural systems which contain an element of chaos, will enter a new valley of relatiive stability. We must remember that in the past when the climate went from one stable regime to another it was without human interference.

Previously, variations in solar output and variations in orbit, tilt etc. produced effects which depended solely on natural rates of, e.g. ice growth / melt and CO2 emissions / uptake.

We are now in a climate phase which has for long been influenced by human activities. Even before the rise of agriculture our ancestors were almost certainly burning peat, rather than wood alone. We humans have been affecting the atmosphere, hence the climate, for thousands of years, and old habits die hard.

But our current stage of global knowledge increases the chance that our global output of greenhouse gases will decline as we switch to wind, wave and solar power.

If Trump continues with his anti-science and anti-China policies he will ensure that the world will turn more and more to China for leadership in science and technology.

Solar panels, wind turbines and wave power devices will continue to be made, just not in the USA.

As to the loss of Arctic ice. Any politician with an ounce of common sense will eventually come to realise that there can be no economy without food production. As soon as it becomes obvious that global food production is impacted severely and negatively by Arctic warming you may expect to see a great deal of money poured into the search for solutions.

One possible solution is to use solar or wind power to create, by electrochemical means, carbonate rock in the sea in such places as will tend to slow the export of Arctic ice and the import of warm waters.

Remember: human ingenuity knows no bounds. If we can put men on the moon we can sure as shooting put rocks in the Arctic.

In conclusion, let me ask my fellow Arcticians to please not waste valuable time arguing - that is what politicians are paid to do. ;-)

NeilT

Patrick, you are an optimist and I wish you well with that. I, on the other hand, am a pessimist.

In my experience of looking back on Humanities greatest triumphs and failures, I see that Human ingenuity has known many bounds, or at the best self limitations.

What I have found that knows no bounds at all is human stupidity. That, I have found, is an endless well to sup from.

I prefer the other motto. Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst. If it meets in the middle it might just work.

Hans Gunnstaddar

"Remember: human ingenuity knows no bounds. If we can put men on the moon we can sure as shooting put rocks in the Arctic."

In this particular situation it would seem likely that we do have bounds, from the standpoint that GHG's have been emitted into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution and now suddenly some kind of Geo-Engineering, carbonate rock generated via renewables is going to shift that 150 year momentum back the other way? If we begin to use renewables on that scale then how does FF get replaced?

At this point it would be like swatting a swarm of gnats with a knitting needle. What is probably our best bet is to ramp up renewables on a war type scale, but the danger there is they may in part get used to accommodate greater economic growth. As much as most countries have now come to terms with this emergency, there's also the hell bent intent to get as much out of the techno-industrial machine to build, construct and continue business as usual, to let the population rise to 10 billion, to find ways to increase crop production to feed all those new people, and so on. The steamroller is moving forward and all efforts are to get it going faster and build it bigger, so that doesn't bode well for a reverse momentum shift, at least not in the short term and that's really all the time we have remaining.

NeilT

UN-Enlightened self interest....

Which has been the problem all along.

PatrickLogicman

Hans: it was not my intention to suggest electrodeposition as a means to extract vast quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.

What I intended to suggest was that coastal protection methods could be adapted to slow down the export of sea ice. Rather than use CO2 intensive concrete, artificial limestone could be made using quite trivial amounts of electricity generated by wind or solar power. We are looking at kilowatts here.

Any artificial reef or other obstruction can tip the balance in favour of the longer retention of shore-attached or bay-trapped ice. Just as barriers are used to reduce the force of water in rivers, so barriers can be used to slow ice export.

Even small floating barriers can be effective, such as are used on rivers to trap oil and debris.

The only obstacle to ice loss mitigation is the fact that the oil industry sees ice loss as a good thing. Were that not so, by way of example, even a partial barrier across the Kara Strait would retain over 800,000 sq.km of ice.

Engineering solutions are possible, but political backing remains improbable.

http://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Shore_protection,_coast_protection_and_sea_defence_methods

Hans Gunnstaddar

Ok, I see your idea now, PLM, and not sure how much or long it would delay the inevitable blue ocean event, but you're right, political backing improbable.

AnotherJourneybyTrain

The people lead: governments follow.

We can say all we want about it being a mixed markets problem that comes down to the rules and regulations of commerce set down by our governments but all they need is taxes to pay for the defence of sovereign borders.

Markets provide goods and services: goods and services which are demanded by the people! There is no way to dodge the fact that the people lead.

NeilT

Poles apart AJbT. This is how it happens

http://www.history.com/topics/hoover-dam

Governments are there to do the things we can't and lead to produce what we need. As in the Hoover dam project, initially the farmers tried and failed. Then the Government defined the need, anticipated the benefits and enabled the growth and prosperity by building the dam.

That is how it is supposed to happen.

Where we, the people, are supposed to lead is by punishing governments for not doing that.

Sadly in an effective polarised, 2 party system, as there is in the US, the options to punish one party or another are limited without an act of self harm.

But this is the very job of governments. To do the things we can't. Safety, security, health, transport etc, etc.

Saying it is our job to lead is wrong. push, maybe, lead? No. We can't, we gave the tools to lead to the Governments.

AnotherJourneybyTrain

The tools to lead weren't given to government: governments are borders and all systematically collected tax dollars go into sustaining those borders. Life resides within those borders and if it's vacuous then it disintegrates according to the arrow of time.

r w Langford

To chill out---
Instead of Atlas Shrugged try The Invention of Nature by A Wulf. It is a biography of Alexander Von Humboldt. The book won countless awards and is hard to put down. Humboldt had a mountain of an intellect and whose positive influence is still felt today two hundred years later. Reading it is sheer pleasure. In combination with a piano sonata by Schubert and Egg Nog it gives warmth and faith in a bleak time.

Elisee Reclus

The problem with markets is that they have invisible hands...you only know they're there when you feel them picking your pockets.

And for Mr Langford...

As a geographer, I have great respect and admiration for Humboldt. Did you ever hear the story about the German geographer Karl Ritter? He used to give lectures on Humboldt's travel journals, and Humboldt used to attend...and take notes!

But Humboldt didn't invent nature. Nature was invented by the pre-Socratic Ionian philosophers over two thousand years earlier. For the first time in human history, the idea arose of a world that was not run by spooky forces, spirits and magic, a world outside the realm of dreams and gods. Maybe they didn't get the details or the methodology right, but they got the ball rolling in the right direction.

It was a world that ran according to rules, and that was accessible to human observation and reason. A world that existed whether we were there to witness it or not, a world that was indifferent to us, neither benign nor hostile. It could not be negotiated with or lobbied or cajoled. But it could be understood, and to a certain extent, exploited and manipulated. It was a world where everything that was not forbidden was not only possible, it was mandatory. Nature was what provided the fundamental backdrop to all human activity, and even the gods, if there were such a thing, had to deal with it just like we did.

This had never happened before, or since. Even the Platonists, with all their shadows and mysticism, never managed to shake this fundamental idea, and it is still with us. It is the origin of all science and Western Man's major contribution to world civilization. It really is all we have, everything else is phoobah. The universe is matter and energy interacting in space and time.

"In reality, nothing exists except atoms and the void."--Democritus

I gave up on Atlas Shrugged when I was an adolescent. It was a lot like cocaine. It just made me think about real estate.

John Bilsky

When reading Atlas Shrugged bear in mind the timeframe during which it was written. Definitely pre-AGW awareness. I found the book difficult to put down after I got through the first 3 or 4 chapters. Ayn Rand was an incredibly logical thinker and were she to be alive today and reading this blog, I suspect she would be a huge ally to the cause.
As far as solving the problem(s) associated with AGW & planet wide ice loss.... welllllllllll...... I suspect fecundity will trump ingenuity. (No reference intended) Stated another way, I suspect that the gestation period of a human being is less than the gestation period of effective solutions and solutions are outnumbered. HOWEVER, I also suspect that those of us who know what's coming (to whatever degree it can be known) are the ones who will be best poised to be ready for the consequences (whatever they may be). It sure is a schoogly situation. Lets not fight over the potential ramifications for society because it's too easy to be wrong; leave that for Face Bait & Twitter. Rather, lets stay focused on the science and the facts.
My 2¢ for the day.

Elisee Reclus

"Those of us who know what's coming " may not have as much of an advantage as we'd like when crunch time comes.

When the Roman Empire fell, people lost military security, law and order, public works, potable water and sewers, safe and well-maintained roads and a host of other advantages of civilization. But in every village in Europe there were people who could grow food, weave cloth, train draft animals, work metals, build houses, and conduct the necessary functions of village life. Even more important, they lived in close proximity to neighbors whose skills complemented or supplemented theirs.

A breakdown in civilization for us would leave us helpless. Most people don't even know how to start a fire or make rope, much less run a farm. Even our most skilled and productive farmers today would be helpless without chemicals, machinery, irrigation, electricity and so on. How many farms today have a plow and harness in the barn (and the skills to use them) much less a team of oxen trained to pull them. And OUR barbarian hordes will be armed with automatic weapons.

Like in our global climate machine, there are many feedback mechanisms in a modern society that will allow it to absorb stress and bounce back. But there will come a point where the slide becomes unstoppable and irreversible, and it will accelerate down from there. It won't stop at a pastoral 19th century level, or a bucolic medieval level, or even a new Bronze Age.

I think only places like rural India, with an ancient and entrenched agricultural village culture, will be able to avoid sliding back into a paleolithic world.

I remember having this same discussion once with my programmer colleagues at work. We asked each other what our "19th century skill" was. One of us knew how to raise and breed horses and how to train them. Another knew how to sail, and could navigate by the stars. Still another was a black powder enthusiast, and could cast his own bullets and blend his own gunpowder. When we asked Liz what her 19th century skill was, she thought about it for a long time and finally answered, "Golf."

Susan Anderson

It is infuriating that people feel entitled to attack Neven, whose open mind, generosity, community building, and amazing work have earned worldwide recognition. His patience with Vidaloo was part of that but I agree these attacks and misrepresentations are V's shameful loss; he owes a heartfelt apology to Neven.

There are real enemies about (I'm in the US) and fighting with each other is meat and drink to them.

Neven has not taken what I would call a sabbatical, but he did say he'd like to have a little time to take care of other important matters in his life. It shocks me to see abuse of Neven's work and hospitality here.

John Christensen

I fully concur with you Susan; the value of this blog stems from Neven's character, being insightful, communicating clearly, but most importantly from a high degree of respect for other people's opinion.

We can all learn from that, as the respect for other people will be necessary in making progress from this situation.

The other character trait coming to the forefront now is the optimist/pessimist dimension, which a lot of the comments are hinting at.

What Neven seems to be searching for, is the elusive combination of being aware of the situation, being respectful to others, while avoiding the pessimism - avoiding falling into despair.

That may just require a glass of good wine and music at times..

wayne

Viddalloo's main message, his daily yearly graph average is worth pondering. He has his own blog for those who want follow ups. I personally think that it is very efficient to be polite, some here have not been so much inclined to be so, but this is rare. I draw the line on where fake skeptic's usually do, distort science and\or inject mix political opinion and when confronted from said critic, they attack the person criticizing them.

Speaking as such, I wish Ivanka best of luck to get through to her father about proper science and the future of our common planet. It seems she has had absolutely no success whatsoever yet, not one person we would deem an environmentalist yet alone a scientist? has been assigned to a high level position, some on TV claim the EXXON chairman being the greatest guy on the environment they have so far!

Remko Kampen

"Or is the only satisfaction you have left to have always been right when Judgment Day comes?"

At this stage? No, it is about half of it. The other half is given by the fact that we right now earn the right to kick back into the floods all those who will cry 'We didn't know! You didn't warn us'!'.

Remko Kampen

AnotherJourneybyTrain will start reading the cognitive dynamite of the author who never understood her own philosophy (remember that always while reading Rand).

Jim Hunt

Susan - Hear, hear!

John B - Ayn Rand allegedly didn't much care for "Libertarians":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_libertarianism#Rand.27s_view_of_libertarians

RWL - Agreed.

Getting back to the science of melting sea ice, if I may? The first few papers from the N-ICE2015 expedition are available (paywalled) at:

http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/issue/10.1002/(ISSN)2169-9291.NICE1/

A freely available introduction can be found at:

Arctic Research on Thin Ice: Consequences of Arctic Sea Ice Loss

Much of our current knowledge of Arctic sea ice stems from the former old-ice regime, and we need new knowledge to understand the system in its current thinner state and to improve our capacity to predict its future.

wayne

"and we need new knowledge to understand the system in its current thinner state and to improve our capacity to predict its future."

Hi Jim

The current thinner state is not quite in place, the densest pack zone is about to vanish. A few more melt season dispersion of the densest pack area would make for a new thoroughly fluid icescape. I see much of the old world left in a narrow area just North of Greenland and CAA.

NeilT

AJbT, Sorry you are very close to my lecture about "human rights" as opposed to the benefits of society and the responsibilities of those within society. But it doesn't belong here.

Ivanka, regardless of how technologically forward or backward you are, if the climate is not there to grow food, then you starve.

If you want to check that, try Australian droughts, US crazy weather, Canadian wildfires, Russian wildfires.

When the climate moves, the ability to sustain life moves too.

It is one of my constant refrains. If the climate won't grow food then people die. There are over 1m climate refugees in the horn of Africa right now. Drought cycles have moved from 10 years to 18 months.

Back to the ice.

It's growing, slowly. I'm wondering if we'll get a new year end low on extent or if 2010 will retain that record??

If it is a new low, the next checkpoint is the march/April max. That should be interesting.

John Bilsky

Jim H.

You are correct about Ayn Rand & libertarians. Objectivism was her forte´.

Neil T.
"If the climate won't grow food then people die. " Nailed it. But lets not forget that the climate was much warmer during the age of dinosaurs. Plenty of fodder for discussion there.

Elisee,
Lets get working on those 19th century skills. :-)

And back to the ice.
It is becoming painfully more obvious where things are going. But because the timing still isn't clear nor are the consequences, there is plenty of room for debate about the future. It's one of the things we do best as humans. Since the purpose of this blog is not to include such lengthy debates, can anyone recommend such a "place" to carry on such discussions where the contributors are generally rational, respectful & scientifically grounded?
You know... similar to the folks who post here. :-)

Factual knowledge is more satisfying when it can be applied to our daily lives and I suspect there is an underlying current of this need being held back with many lurkers & contributors here. "What does it mean for me and my family & friends?" is the pregnant question we crave to see give birth.

OK... I'll shut up now and get back to dealing with the cabin fever that winter always brings.

Jim Hunt

John B - The Arctic Sea Ice Forum would seem to fit your bill perfectly?

Perhaps start here:

Walking the walk

John Bilsky

Thanks Jim. Much appreciated.

NeilT

John,

There is a very large difference between non mechanised animals and mechanised animals.

Non mechanised rise and fall with the available biosphere.

Mechanised animals push the base biosphere to new limits. Once nature moves the base biosphere lower, the limits change.

Whilst in a natural cycle which changes over hundreds to thousands of years, the normal birth cycle can cope, in a machine driven cycle and changes in decades, the birth cycle can't.

At a projected 9 billion people, at current birth rates, that's a lot of hungry people.

wayne

Yes the dumb dumbs are at it again:

"NYT Blames Winter Chill on Global Warming | Watts Up With That?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/16/nyt-blames-winter-chill-on-global-warming/
7 hours ago - I don't need to it's is here at WUWT forEVAH! AndyG55 ... So if the globe warms it must get colder, and if it gets cold then it must be get warmer."

How stupid, and yes I am being polite, I have much more %$#@$&* words that I refrain myself from saying, being Canadian
and proud of our reputation of being mild mannered like Jim Carrey for instance :), not manure(d) like fake skeptics specialists at having no clue about what they are talking about:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/12/polar-vortex-spin-off-vortices-cold.html

It is cold in some parts, Using WUWT logic London Ontario may have a well below average -7 C, brrr , start of the ice age, but London UK is well above average +10 C along with the rest of Europe.
So I have only one swear word to say to those wonderfully predictably almost always wrong NWO loonies: slots.....

Jim Hunt

Dumb and dumberer Wayne!

My teachable moment at "Steve Goddard's" has fallen on deaf ears:

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=sudden+stratospheric+warming

Wow. Jimbo can type a google search

MUCH progress from the brainless twerp !!

WACCy!!

Susan Anderson

Just came across this, cited by Monbiot, which I think applies:

Raymond Williams said “to be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing

(Monbiot was being self-critical.)

A little late, but I agree with Neven that we have too much clever-clever labeling of people with whom we do not agree. It continues to alienate people rather than encouraging them to open up. I did not find Elisee Reclus deserving of the label Ivanka, though she took it in good part. She did an exit under Neven's Sabbatical post that seemed clear enough to me.

wayne

Yes Jim,

It must be so, ultimately even if they fake being dumb, what they do is excessively irresponsible, therefore stupid.

The Polar Vortex is said to be back but it is rather vortices because the Arctic is much warmer:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/12/polar-vortex-spin-off-vortices-cold.html

P-maker

Susan,

I did not try to play ”clever-clever” last Tuesday.

It had been a really lousy day at work. A promising project had just poured more than a million Euros down the drain, and there was nothing I could do about it.

Bill Gates and his mates had just announced their one billion USD ‘Breakthrough Energy Ventures fund’ and I had looked in vain for anything related to wind, solar and bio.

On top of that, I read on the Forum that Trump had appointed the Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as new Secretary of State in order to harvest a 500 billion USD windfall contract for drilling with Putin in the Russian Arctic.

I mean, look at the scale of these numbers!

On top of that, I had to read through ‘Ivanka’s’ refusal to accept that any major changes in Arctic sea ice volume would happen “… in a few generations, or lifetimes…“.

In this country, life expectancy for women is close to 80 years and a generation is normally close to 30 years. Thus, when Elisee Reclus, or whatever her name is, tries to tell us that we will be just fine over the next 60 to 160 years, I felt obliged to tell her, that she was not aligned with the main part of the crowd here.

I’ll admit, that I was provoked by her remarks: “sue me!” and “ponds freeze over briefly in Florida” , but I still don’t regret asking her to back off for the time being. I hope you will concur that emotions are allowed, but when they disturb the facts, we should all be ware and help each other to keep a steady course through muddy waters.

Neven

BTW, I wouldn't assume Elisee Reclus is a 'she', just because of the Elisee.

Jacques Élisée Reclus (15 March 1830 – 4 July 1905) was a renowned French geographer, writer and anarchist.

Jim Hunt

As per my Xmas card above, climate scientists donned their white coats and protested outside the Fall AGU conference last week. I've just published a video of the demonstration and documented the current parlous state of the Cryosphere:

Paraphrasing the AGU protest only slightly:

Sea ice has no agenda. It just melts:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/810075453981605888

Out of the labs & into the streets?

Any chance of a "retweet" or three?

Susan Anderson

Oh boy, mud on face, apologies all around and especially to P-Maker. And in trying to avoid making more work for Neven, instead I learned something new from him. (Ivanka would not know to use such a moniker.) While wholesale condemnation makes enemies, and one could tritely say one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar, there are times when a good vent is the only way.

P-maker, I saw that about Gates and was equally upset about it. It's another argument against the concentration of wealth.

The process of education continues. I have a large bet on with a persistent "denier" that climate change it will be impossible to deny by November 2035. I doubt we will be able to meet then, in fact, the disruption is likely to be so severe (and I may be too old to make the rendezvous).

As day follows day, life goes on, and since it's not an immediate emergency we all get by without creating the worldwide action plan that is increasingly essential to halt this looming degradation. Sure as shootin', we'll get stupid geoengineering and every other destructive form of magic thinking before anyone will give up their mod cons.

Speaking of learning things. I find the fora daunting but enjoy it when someone here points to a relevant item. So please do link there to help us hangers-on.

Elisee Reclus

Many thanks to Neven and Susan for the kind words.

As for Mr P-maker, I'm afraid that nothing I could do or say could force him to revise his rigorous and objective scientific assessment of my gender. Or of anything else, for that matter.

For the record, Reclus is merely my nom de guerre. My real name is Pyotr Kropotkin.
No doubt you have seen my likeness:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/spoonflower/public/design_thumbnails/0144/5823/rrrmrnatural_worldcompletelyinsane_preview.png

P-maker

Neven,

Thank you for posting a link to that old French chap. Apparently, the real Reclus was banned from the curriculum, when I studied geography. I assume he was either a positivist or too deterministic to be edible at that time.

However, your link also provided wonderful links to a subject new to me – Bioregionalism - and further links to wonderful initiatives, such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(bioregion)

This gave me great hopes for the future, and you could even compare the Cascadian region - "a land of falling waters." - with your home turf – the Arctic region – “a land of melting ice”.

Concerning the fake Reclus, you should not worry. I had enough information to look up a couple of her books on the Internet, and even if she decides to register under a new name, I am sure I will be able to recognize her writing style.

Cheers P

Rob Dekker

Pyotr Kropotkin, where are you posting from, and how does that change your outlook for what Arctic sea ice reduction means for your future ?

Neven

I don't believe Ivanka's real name is Pyotr Kropotkin. I suspect it is Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin. ;-)

Elisee Reclus

Rob Dekker--

I was born and raised on the W coast of Florida, although I lived and worked on environmentally-related jobs for over 20 years in other parts of the USA, including Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Oak Ridge Tn, and Silicon Valley. I have been a resident of SE Florida for the last 20 years. However, I once briefly sailed N of the Arctic Circle. Does that make me an expert?

I am a retired geographer and cartographer, but my last job was for municipal government and I have been professionally involved with official preparations for sea level rise and emergency management. My house is 13 km from the sea, at an elevation of two meters above MSL. There is salt water flooding and intrusion in our wells in nearby communities every time we have an astronomical high tide. And should a spring tide ever coincide with a hurricane, there is a good possibility my home could be directly affected.

I do not believe I will ever be directly affected by sea level rise in my lifetime. But I cannot rule it out, either. I know enough physics to know that many outcomes cannot be predicted with a simple binary decision. All we can do is assign a probability. As for indirect effects of sea global warming and sea level rise---well, I can see that all around me right now.

Yes, I have a horse in this race.

Neven--

Bakunin?

No tan calvo que se le vean los sesos.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)