QuoteZachary Labe, a PhD student at the University of California at Irvine who is studying Arctic sea ice and extreme weather, tweeted that air temperatures over parts of the Arctic have been more than 18 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal.
Quote“The overall trajectory is clear â€" sometime in the next few decades, maybe as early as 2030, we’ll wake up to a September with no Arctic sea ice,†said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), in Boulder, Colo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/10/27/arctic-sea-ice-is-at-a-record-low-and-could-in-spurts-disappear-within-our-lifetimes/
(http://i.imgur.com/14IH0vW.jpg)
That little red line is nowhere near where it has historically been. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is
very bad.
What makes things worse is that we're nowhere where we need to be to effectively do anything about this problem. The US has done little to its curb emissions (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-04/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-economic-1990-2014.png), a situation that's unlikely to change for the better under Donald "Chinese hoax" Trump and a Congress where US Senator Jim Inhofe tried to disprove climate change by throwing a snowball in the Senate. And now we're in a very dangerous situation because of this denialism-fueled inaction.
It's okay, the EPA guy thinks global warming is silly, so we are in great hands.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 19, 2016, 05:31:40 PM
It's okay, the EPA guy thinks global warming is silly, so we are in great hands.
Another Trump of doom.
It's odd that climate change is hitting an uninhabitable areas first where it's mostly out of sight/out of mind. The permafrost is melting? Who cares? Permafrost is mostly useless, right? Arctic Ice? What good is that unless you're a polar bear? In addition, it strikes me odd because the brutal climate of the poles seemed like it would better resist change than the more moderate climates. The extreme conditions at the poles would seem to perpetuate the extremes. Doesn't happen that way apparently.
Quote from: SGOS on November 20, 2016, 07:31:31 AM
It's odd that climate change is hitting an uninhabitable areas first where it's mostly out of sight/out of mind. The permafrost is melting? Who cares? Permafrost is mostly useless, right? Arctic Ice? What good is that unless you're a polar bear? In addition, it strikes me odd because the brutal climate of the poles seemed like it would better resist change than the more moderate climates. The extreme conditions at the poles would seem to perpetuate the extremes. Doesn't happen that way apparently.
Those environments are in a precarious balance most of the time. Add a lot of BTUs, say from one degree warmer every day in the summer, and things tip quickly.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2016, 07:47:03 AM
Those environments are in a precarious balance most of the time. Add a lot of BTUs, say from one degree warmer every day in the summer, and things tip quickly.
It stands to reason that the extremes would be most susceptible. And I actually realized this years ago when I wintered in Alaska. The government was already planning on how to react to warming. I wintered in a fishing village, where there was a lot of concern about the future of the salmon industry. I actually saw more concern about warming in Alaska than anywhere in the lower 48. All the planning was not about prevention, but about responding, but at least they were planning. I thought it was unusual that a redneck state like Alaska would even be concerned. But then the fishing industry was already troubled by the fact that it was suffering first in the lower 48, followed by a devastating hit in British Columbia. Alaska would eventually see it too. Of course, not all of that was from warming. The fishing industry has a history of depleting it's own resources, just as most other extractive industries.
While the Arctic is unusually warm, Siberia is unusually cold (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/18/while-the-north-pole-warms-beyond-the-melting-point-its-freakishly-cold-in-siberia/?tid=pm_local_pop).
Up to 60°F colder than normal in some areas. And this has been going on for weeks.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 20, 2016, 10:34:14 AM
While the Arctic is unusually warm, Siberia is unusually cold (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/18/while-the-north-pole-warms-beyond-the-melting-point-its-freakishly-cold-in-siberia/?tid=pm_local_pop).
Up to 60°F colder than normal in some areas. And this has been going on for weeks.
It's good to keep in mind that weather isn't climate.
The effect of a long-term climate shift is anomalous short-term weather.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 20, 2016, 11:59:07 AM
The effect of a long-term climate shift is anomalous short-term weather.
Yep, and odd highs and lows need to be seen in the framework of long term trends, not highly significant data in their out right.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2016, 12:46:40 PMYep, and odd highs and lows need to be seen in the framework of long term trends, not highly significant data in their out right.
Got a decent historical comparison for the arctic, couldn't find one for Siberia but the article did point out that the Siberia data is extremely atypical in much the same way that the arctic data is extremely atypical. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is more at play here than the normal changing of seasons.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 20, 2016, 12:58:51 PM
Got a decent historical comparison for the arctic, couldn't find one for Siberia but the article did point out that the Siberia data is extremely atypical in much the same way that the arctic data is extremely atypical. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is more at play here than the normal changing of seasons.
We've been warned. There's a site in the middle of the Sahara, several thousand years old, that shows hippos playing in a lake.
Quote from: SGOS on November 20, 2016, 07:31:31 AM
It's odd that climate change is hitting an uninhabitable areas first where it's mostly out of sight/out of mind. The permafrost is melting? Who cares? Permafrost is mostly useless, right? Arctic Ice? What good is that unless you're a polar bear? In addition, it strikes me odd because the brutal climate of the poles seemed like it would better resist change than the more moderate climates. The extreme conditions at the poles would seem to perpetuate the extremes. Doesn't happen that way apparently.
Melting permafrost releases a bunch of in-soil methane. There are pockets of this also on certain ocean floors (Gulf of Mexico). Releasing this methane, in the polar regions in particular, is what drives ice ages (by increasing greenhouse gases naturally).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming
Then why we still got ice cubes? How long before a Republican actually asks that? Oh, I forgot, Trump's in office. You can expect that from the head of the EPA in a year or two, I'm guessing.
Quote from: widdershins on November 22, 2016, 11:43:48 AM
Then why we still got ice cubes? How long before a Republican actually asks that? Oh, I forgot, Trump's in office. You can expect that from the head of the EPA in a year or two, I'm guessing.
If we are talking about ice cubes that are man made, not the expensive kind cut from Alaskan glaciers (novelty items) or the local kind cut from New England Winter ponds ... then you need to remember that the original purpose of man-made ice, was a side effect of attempting man-made air conditioning, that was the side effect of a Southern US doctor trying to treat malaria victims. Cause/Effect is non-linear.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2016, 10:47:54 AM
It's good to keep in mind that weather isn't climate.
And it's good to keep in mind that global warming can cause unusual cold in certain areas as wind patterns and ocean currents are affected.
I wonder how Trump will explain half of Antarctic and Greenland ice falling into the ocean? "Ice cubes for drinks all around?"
Oh how silly of me. They will be "Trump Cubes" available $5 per cube!
Update:
(http://i.imgur.com/t0fajHh.png)
As you can see, the 2016 deviation from the norm has not reversed. In fact, we're looking at a new pattern in the making. The new normal will now be substantially less sea ice.
Again, I'd like people to not only be aware of this change, but know why this is happening and pressure our governments to act towards solving this problem.
Matches the satellite views of the N Pole/Arctic Ocean ice year round. That is what supplies the sea ice farther south.
Unfortunately, gutting the industrial output of the planet by 50% isn't in the cards, except by global war. That is how we got rid of industrial over-capacity last time ;-(
There are more human beings alive today then any other point in history. The mass scale of industry just will keep going, and, as Baruch says, unless a natural disaster occurs that cuts humanity in half, it won't stop. Of course the irony there is a natural disaster will occur regardless.
Quote from: Munch on February 18, 2017, 04:45:55 PM
There are more human beings alive today then any other point in history. The mass scale of industry just will keep going, and, as Baruch says, unless a natural disaster occurs that cuts humanity in half, it won't stop. Of course the irony there is a natural disaster will occur regardless.
The natural tendency of systems is to overshoot or undershoot. This is bad for us and for the environment. We have come close to extinction before ... due to ice ages, giant volcanic eruptions, mega drought. We really shouldn't add "human caused" to that equation.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2017, 09:10:39 PM
The natural tendency of systems is to overshoot or undershoot. This is bad for us and for the environment. We have come close to extinction before ... due to ice ages, giant volcanic eruptions, mega drought. We really shouldn't add "human caused" to that equation.
Well we're overdue for another iceage, theres a super volcano thats not yet erupted, and a solar burst from the sun could happen at random, so really lets place our bets.
I mean heres the thing with large scale natural disasters, when they happened in the past, from meteors crashing, to earthquakes, to tsunamis, to volcanoes, it wasn't as devastating as the scale it would be today, just based on statistics of population growth, the next major disaster will kill from thousands to millions.
Quote from: Munch on February 18, 2017, 04:45:55 PM
There are more human beings alive today then any other point in history. The mass scale of industry just will keep going, and, as Baruch says, unless a natural disaster occurs that cuts humanity in half, it won't stop. Of course the irony there is a natural disaster will occur regardless.
At the rate we're going it won't be natural.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2017, 04:06:03 PM
Matches the satellite views of the N Pole/Arctic Ocean ice year round. That is what supplies the sea ice farther south.
Unfortunately, gutting the industrial output of the planet by 50% isn't in the cards, except by global war. That is how we got rid of industrial over-capacity last time ;-(
Where does the 50% industrial decrease requirement come from?
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2017, 04:06:03 PMUnfortunately, gutting the industrial output of the planet by 50% isn't in the cards, except by global war. That is how we got rid of industrial over-capacity last time ;-(
I'm pretty sure that a global war would have the factories working overtime and war tends to not be very environmentally-friendly overall. So, that's not a solution, much less a good one.
And cutting industrial output by 50% right off the bat is unfeasibly large even if it could be implemented.
But there are other options. Phasing out coal/oil/natural gas in favor of green energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, thermal), family planning (slow down global population growth in an ethical way), innovations in fuel efficiency, the ever-decreasing costs of solar panels, etc. Despite all the bad news, progress has been made in the fight against global warming, just in a piecemeal way.
Even simple stuff like mass transit/carpooling, going easy on the thermostat, replacing incandescent light bulbs with more energy-efficient LED bulbs, and keeping your car's tires pumped up helps.
Ideally, such efforts buy enough time for new technologies to hit the market to further improve the situation. We just have to put forth the effort to keep a bad situation from growing worse and weather the storm until it dies down.
That or humanity could go extinct, victims of our own shortsightedness. I dunno about you guys, but that first option sounds a lot better to me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 19, 2017, 02:06:48 AM
Also, I'm pretty sure that war would have the factories working overtime and war tends to be not very environmentally-friendly overall. So, that's not a solution, much less a good one.
And cutting industrial output by 50% right off the bat is indefeasibly large even if it could be implemented.
But there are other options. Phasing out coal/oil/natural gas in favor of green energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, thermal), family planning (slow down global population growth in an ethical way), innovations of fuel efficiency, and the ever-decreasing costs of solar panels. Despite all the bad news, gains have been made in the fight against global warming, just in a piecemeal way.
Even simple stuff like mass transit/carpooling, going easy on the thermostat, replacing incandescent bulbs to more energy-efficient LED bulbs, and keeping your car's tires pumped up helps.
Ideally, such efforts buy enough time for new technologies to hit the market to further improve the situation. We just have to put the effort in to keep a bad situation from growing worse and weather the storm until it comes to a stop.
That or we could all die, victims of our own shortsightedness. I dunno about you guys, but that first option sounds a lot better to me.
But WHERE is that 50% figure coming from. It seems like a rectal extraction...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 02:09:18 AMBut WHERE is that 50% figure coming from. It seems like a rectal extraction...
It likely was. Were you expecting something different?
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 19, 2017, 02:13:23 AM
It likely was. Were you expecting something different?
I expect real facts here, not fake ones designed to incite the stupids...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 02:15:24 AMI expect real facts here, not fake ones designed to incite the stupids...
Real facts have never been in a large supply here. I try to cite sources for my own stuff when possible, but I can't help other people's figures.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 19, 2017, 02:24:41 AM
Real facts have never been in a large supply here. I try to cite sources for my own stuff when possible, but I can't help other people's figures.
I'll tend to accept data from trustable sources. If a group of scientists say Delta=7, generally OK with me. If someone says 3=7, I'm going to question that.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 02:01:08 AM
Where does the 50% industrial decrease requirement come from?
We need to radically reduce emissions. Tweaking internal combustion engines won't do it. I could have gone for a 80% figure, but 50% is always good for WAG ... as long as we are talking about major reduction. Or are you planning on adding ice making machines to the Arctic perhaps?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 02:15:24 AM
I expect real facts here, not fake ones designed to incite the stupids...
So you admit to being incited? Is that also stupid? ;-)
Basically, we need to get back to 1 billion people, living 50% farming, as circa 1900. Eventually the CO2 will return to what it was back then. But it is too slow, too late to tweak our ridiculous life styles with virtue signaling (look at me, I drive a Prius).
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 19, 2017, 02:24:41 AM
Real facts have never been in a large supply here. I try to cite sources for my own stuff when possible, but I can't help other people's figures.
The actual reduction required will be factual, after most of us die off. I am not interested in that accurate figure, too much.
in probably 100 years where i live will be ocean
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 19, 2017, 06:49:56 AM
in probably 100 years where i live will be ocean
Yes, the remains of our coastal cities will make great tropical reefs for sea life. Humans will finally be good for something.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:44:18 AM
We need to radically reduce emissions. Tweaking internal combustion engines won't do it. I could have gone for a 80% figure, but 50% is always good for WAG ... as long as we are talking about major reduction. Or are you planning on adding ice making machines to the Arctic perhaps?
So the 50% claim was a typical Trumpian invented rectal extraction apparently...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 20, 2017, 12:08:07 AM
So the 50% claim was a typical Trumpian invented rectal extraction apparently...
You are confusing me with the Toupee in Chief. So you plan on planting some dandelions in your lawn, to reduce the CO2?
There is a radio show called Coast to Coast AM. The host gets in a melancholy; maybe downright depressed mood, on a regular basis. The question keeps coming up "Is there any hope for humanity? Will we figure out how to solve our problems before we destroy ourselves?". My answer to this question is always the same. We already have people living right now with answers to most of our problems; maybe even all of our problems. The problem is that the people with the answers are not in positions of power or decision making. We have to wait for people in power to figure out what other people already know... and that may be too late.
Example: The solution to the CO2 problem was invented around the time of the creation of the CO2 problem. If the solution had not been invented there couldn't be any company like Coca-Cola or Pepsico. When was the Coca-Cola company started? long time ago. We have many ways to put CO2 into the air. We have a way to take it out of the air. We also have scientists who can tell us how much CO2 has to be in the air to make life what we call normal. ( It took us a lot of years to put all that CO2 in the air, will take a lot of years to take it all out. But if we could take it all out instantly, our weather would be back to what we call normal in 2 years tops) What we dont have is the political will to take the extra CO2 out of the air cause cryogenic refridgerators and electricity to run them costs a lot of money.
We don't need to worry about it, let them worry about it in the future.
This coming from rich people who own millions and billions to leave for their children.
Who needs that kind of money?
getting extra CO2 stops the problem from getting worse. Lowering ocean levels and increasing artic ice to what we call normal probably does involve ice machines in the artic...Maybe an icebreaker ship with a freezer on the deck and a snow blower to get the ice onto the shelf.
Not that the wealthy care. They made a playground for rich people in the middle of the desert of Dubai. ðŸ",,as long as the wealthy get theirs everybody else can go to _.
No, no hope for humanity. Never has been. But we keep of F-ing and living anyway. Enjoy your Dark Ages ... next time pay your electric bill.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 23, 2017, 02:16:32 AM
We don't need to worry about it, let them worry about it in the future.
Are you not planning to live in the future?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 07:36:26 AM
Are you not planning to live in the future?
I live in the present. I am not quite sure the past is real, but I am sure the future is bullshit.
The future is the only thing of consequence. The past is dead and the present is the merest fraction of time - the portion of the future that has arrived. The future is an infinite realm of potentiality unbounded. And it's on its way to you right now.
The future is coming on, it's coming on...
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2017, 01:18:08 PM
The future is the only thing of consequence. The past is dead and the present is the merest fraction of time - the portion of the future that has arrived. The future is an infinite realm of potentiality unbounded. And it's on its way to you right now.
The future is coming on, it's coming on...
The future is fear and hope ... mere emotions. But SciFi people live in the future, which never arrives. Of course, one should be concerned for consequences, but that isn't the same as "Future".
I remember reading Asimov's book, A Choice of Catastrophes: The Disasters That Threaten Our World, way back in the 80s. We don't seem to have dealt with any of the possible catastrophes that threaten our world. Hopefully, I'll melt back into oblivion before things get too much worse.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 07:25:17 PM
I remember reading Asimov's book, A Choice of Catastrophes: The Disasters That Threaten Our World, way back in the 80s. We don't seem to have dealt with any of the possible catastrophes that threaten our world. Hopefully, I'll melt back into oblivion before things get too much worse.
Is your Philosaur a butter-ball turkey? You''re basting in your own juices? Time to get back in the freezer until next Thanksgiving ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 02:03:15 PMBut SciFi people live in the future, which never arrives.
Au contraire. It arrives every second of every day.
QuoteOf course, one should be concerned for consequences, but that isn't the same as "Future".
Where else would consequences happen?
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2017, 07:47:02 PM
Au contraire. It arrives every second of every day.
Where else would consequences happen?
Your Newtonian time is ... obsolete for over 100 years now. Newton described absolute time as being like a steady river that flows past you, while you stand on the bank, getting older. This is because of clocks, particularly regulated clocks, which only exist because of people making toy systems.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 07:25:17 PMI remember reading Asimov's book, A Choice of Catastrophes: The Disasters That Threaten Our World, way back in the 80s. We don't seem to have dealt with any of the possible catastrophes that threaten our world.
Exactly. We'll always deal with it later. Always later. And then later arrives and we're screwed.
When you don't concern yourself with the future, you run the risk of not having one.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2017, 07:55:22 PM
When you don't concern yourself with the future, you run the risk of not having one.
Well said! :2thumbs:
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 08:03:08 PM
Well said! :2thumbs:
Que serah, serah, whatever will be will be ...
OK, but please, don't eat the daisies!
In the long run, everyone is dead. The future looks at lot less interesting at 60 than it did at 20. Enjoy a misbegotten youth while you still can!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 07:36:26 AM
Are you not planning to live in the future?
Are you? I've got maybe 50 years left tops before I'm fertilizer. And I'm at the point where I could give a fuck what happens after that.
Quote from: Johan on February 25, 2017, 01:54:12 PM
Are you? I've got maybe 50 years left tops before I'm fertilizer. And I'm at the point where I could give a fuck what happens after that.
They make Com-munists into Com-post ... are you Left? The Right, they won't let them pollute the soil, they will shoot them into the Sun.
Shooting Republicans into the sun??? Thats no good either, might destablize it. Some people say get rid of radio active material by throwing it into the sun. I question the intelligence of such an idea: all the Uranium on earth to the sun-what happens when it gets to the core? Might be a worse situation to send the Right into the sun
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2017, 01:18:08 PM
The future is the only thing of consequence. The past is dead and the present is the merest fraction of time - the portion of the future that has arrived. The future is an infinite realm of potentiality unbounded. And it's on its way to you right now.
The future is coming on, it's coming on...
Aside from the fact that the future is always technically in the future, let's say that tomorrow is part of the present (being within reach) and is affected by what we do today in our lifetimes.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 05:03:00 AM
Aside from the fact that the future is always technically in the future, let's say that tomorrow is part of the present (being within reach) and is affected by what we do today in our lifetimes.
Only if I don't die in my sleep ... and I keep hoping ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:58:30 AM
Only if I don't die in my sleep ... and I keep hoping ;-)
You DO know, I hope, that the only reason I don't utterly blast you routinely is that I DO worry about you sometimes...?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 11:10:29 AM
You DO know, I hope, that the only reason I don't utterly blast you routinely is that I DO worry about you sometimes...?
Thanks ... shows you are a human in a bear suit.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:36:30 PM
Thanks ... shows you are a human in a bear suit.
Yep, my avatar is actually the real me.
teddy bear
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 12:52:42 PM
Yep, my avatar is actually the real me.
Yes, but how did the human get inside you? You ate him. Please deposit him in the nearest bear shits in the woods location when you feel the urge ;-)
Snow White and Rose Red the bear turns out to be a prince that was cursed by a witch.
Maybe Cavebear was hexed by demi-god Baruch
Quote from: fencerider on February 28, 2017, 01:04:37 AM
Snow White and Rose Red the bear turns out to be a prince that was cursed by a witch.
Maybe Cavebear was hexed by demi-god Baruch
i am not a Which. I am more decided than that ;-) Also I only hex assembly language computer programming ;-) Have any of you fairy tale fans, ever considered that these puissant princes, like the Beast, deserved to be cursed? My favorite one is where the princess kisses the frog and nothing happens (except she gets warts instead of herpes) .. the frog admits that sometimes a frog is just a frog.
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2017, 06:55:07 AM
i am not a Which. I am more decided than that ;-) Also I only hex assembly language computer programming ;-) Have any of you fairy tale fans, ever considered that these puissant princes, like the Beast, deserved to be cursed? My favorite one is where the princess kisses the frog and nothing happens (except she gets warts instead of herpes) .. the frog admits that sometimes a frog is just a frog.
Have you ever actually read The Brothers Grimm stories? I won't even give you a hint on this one...