ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

PIOMAS data seasonal minimum sea ice show's a clear decline in Arctic sea ice. Don't believe the daily mail they are hardly a credible source.

55ImQ5C.png


And sattelite images by NASA

CFJRodL.jpg


One that sea ice hits zero, methane emissions from the Arctic are going to skyrocket and cause abrupt climate change.
 
Gloop said:
One that sea ice hits zero, methane emissions from the Arctic are going to skyrocket and cause abrupt climate change.
Click to expand...
... already happening, now accelerating!

Arctic Sea Ice At Historic Low
May-20-2015.png

In my more hopeful moments I like to believe large numbers of people will understand this, then do everything in their power to achieve a net-zero carbon footprint life-style, including ditching their ICEr's in favor of an eBike - the LEV approach.

FYI, Sam Carana is not a person-person, but a post-handle for a group of front-line researchers on climate-change and the #1 source for watchers like us. Real scientists accessing the best of data sources honing great graphs to visualize and putting it out their for general consumption. These guys are not hopeful, as the data does not support that position, but still allow for the possibility that we'll act with sufficient effect for life on Eaarth to continue, albeit less maladapted creatures like us.
 
I am a big fan of Sam Carana. He and I are Facebook friends, although he doesn't like to engage in personal conversation.

The conclusion of me and another climate change poster was that his post style was consistent enough to be 1 person, but Guy McPherson believes he is multiple people.
 
"The global warming 'hiatus' never actually happened, study says"
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/4/8727459/global-warming-hiatus-never-happened-study

This result directly challenges what the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2013, when it reported that global temperatures rose at a far lower rate between 1998 and 2012 than from 1951 to 2012 (0.05°C per decade compared to 0.12°C per decade). According to the authors of today's study, however, the IPCC's data was flawed. Using corrected measurements and more recent data, they find that temperatures rose at a rate of 0.106°C per decade between 1998 and 2014, more than twice the rate they reported with older data and without adjusting for biases. That's also on par with the 0.113°C rate they report for 1950 to 1999.
Click to expand...
 
Hehe... Maybe not "in yer face" enough for most folks?

Other newz... "Here's More Proof Earth Is in Its 6th Mass Extinction":
http://news.yahoo.com/heres-more-proof-earth-6th-mass-extinction-193123665.html

Includes "Diverse animals across the globe are slipping away and dying as Earth enters its sixth mass extinction, a new study finds."

... and
"Much of the extinction is due to human activities that lead to pollution, habitat loss, the introduction of invasive species and increased carbon emissions that drive climate change and ocean acidification, the researchers said."

:oops:
 
From what I have seen on television the IPCC reports have not taken lubrication of glaciers and Ice sheets into consideration. The actual real-world sea level rises are predicted to be much more severe when lubrication is properly taken into account.

The projected one metre sea level rise by 2100 will be far greater than that and perhaps occur a lot sooner that anyone anticipates. And the evidence for this is beginning to mount - scientists are already observing these effects in Iceland, Greenland and Antarctica with lubrication causing the melt to far exceed their previous estimations.

From what I have seen - one glacier was losing ten metres of ice of the top in a single year. If that is being repeated elsewhere the situation is a lot worse than anyone has imagined. The acceleration doesn't appear to be linear.
 
I like how you found that image showing the lowest point this year.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Here is the link for that data source. It shows that 2015 is mostly within standard deviation. 2012 was a really bad year. 2013 and 2014 were very good years that reversed the trend from 2012, which funny enough, aren't in your graph.

I don't doubt that arctic ice is in decline over the long run, but that image you posted was cherry picked to show the negative..

arkmundi said:
Gloop said:
One that sea ice hits zero, methane emissions from the Arctic are going to skyrocket and cause abrupt climate change.
Click to expand...
... already happening, now accelerating!

Arctic Sea Ice At Historic Low
May-20-2015.png

In my more hopeful moments I like to believe large numbers of people will understand this, then do everything in their power to achieve a net-zero carbon footprint life-style, including ditching their ICEr's in favor of an eBike - the LEV approach.

FYI, Sam Carana is not a person-person, but a post-handle for a group of front-line researchers on climate-change and the #1 source for watchers like us. Real scientists accessing the best of data sources honing great graphs to visualize and putting it out their for general consumption. These guys are not hopeful, as the data does not support that position, but still allow for the possibility that we'll act with sufficient effect for life on Eaarth to continue, albeit less maladapted creatures like us.
Click to expand...
 
The same link tells you that sea ice coverage in the antarctic is way above standard deviation.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/



And those who are freaked out about climate change like to point to images of the coverage of the arctic as proof of it shrinking. I have heard these same people talking about antarctic sea ice loss happening rapidly but here we are - the coverage is growing.
Whether the extent of an ice body grows or shrinks, it's shrinking, right? is that how it works?
 
kd8cgo said:
When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article - a good read. The line I liked best...
The spring day is glorious, sunny and cool, and the avenues of Copenhagen are alive with tourists. Trying to make the best of things, Jason Box says we should blow off the getting-to-know-you lunch and go for a bike ride...

... He leads the way to a quieter spot on the lakeside, passing through little hippie villages woven together by narrow dirt lanes—by consensus vote, there are no cars in Freetown, which makes it feel pleasantly medieval, intimate, and human-scaled. He lifts a beer to his lips and gazes over the lake and the happy people lazing in the afternoon sun. "The question of despair is not very nice to think about," he says. "I've just disengaged that to a large degree. It's kind of like a half-denial."
Click to expand...
In one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world, going for a bike ride seems a nice way to break the ice (pun intended). Maybe I'll move to Freetown.
 
The recent growth in Antarctic sea ice is supposedly caused by freshwater runoff from melting ice on the land raising the freezing point of the surrounding seawater. It sounds plausible.

Also, for randomly distributed data, only ~68% of measurements will fall within one standard deviation. So one year in three sea ice would be expected to be outside 1 std dev from the mean. You'd normally go to 2 std devs to give a 95% confidence. Does that change the conclusion?
 
Well, whatever is happening, the ice extent in the antarctic keeps growing over time, doing the opposite of what the arctic is doing. They say it melts, yet.. it doesn't really seem to be leaving. We can't say anything negative or positive about what's going on with the antarctic without a proper volume count instead of an extent count.
So anyone who tells you that what's happening is good ( denier camp, usually ) or bad ( environmentalist doomsday cult camp, usually ) is not being honest.

Check the tracker link if you haven't seen it yet.

I had a goofy thought the other day: if methane release from the arctic is a problem, and methane is a super potent global warming gas, yet also an amazing fuel... what are we doing fracking the lower 48 states and Canada?
Could we not extract these giant methane pockets and make use of them before they are released into the atmosphere?
Open that shit up to Chesapeake energy, koch brothers, etc and tell them that they have free rights over the stuff.
Or simply just go and burn it. The Emissions may very well be less potent as a warming gas. This is what refineries and drilling operations do: they burn their excess methane because to release it unburnt is more damaging.
There's a solution somewhere, but all i hear is people worrying about it and not thinking about what could be done to mitigate it.

P.S. before i get hopped on, i'm not denying global warming. I'm just an agnostic skeptic who hasn't joined the doomsday cult yet. I think that the earth will readily self correct. If we want to survive, we will need to migrate, period; just as past civilizations have when things went sour on their part of the world. This climate shift actually improves some areas while it destroys others.

Punx0r said:
The recent growth in Antarctic sea ice is supposedly caused by freshwater runoff from melting ice on the land raising the freezing point of the surrounding seawater. It sounds plausible.

Also, for randomly distributed data, only ~68% of measurements will fall within one standard deviation. So one year in three sea ice would be expected to be outside 1 std dev from the mean. You'd normally go to 2 std devs to give a 95% confidence. Does that change the conclusion?
Click to expand...
 
neptronix said:
There's a solution somewhere, but all i hear is people worrying about it and not thinking about what could be done to mitigate it.

P.S. before i get hopped on, i'm not denying global warming. I'm just an agnostic skeptic who hasn't joined the doomsday cult yet. I think that the earth will readily self correct.
Click to expand...

Between the lines, you've left nature's (Earth's) self-correcting mechanism unstated and looming - kill the offender. So our natural solution - die. While both vociferous camps, denier and runaway feedback loop doomers, are bracketed somewhere about the useful consensus science, nature's solution for both waits somewhere over the horizon. Scientists, very concerned with mitigation, as problem solvers tend to be, are an interesting bunch. Striking, however, seeing the psychological tolls, fueled by the futility of their engagement with the political machine, crushing the curious spirit and with it their hope for potential mitigation's success. Amazing the pattern that develops, a cycle from research -> optimism -> engagement -> pessimism -> activism -> indignant resignation. It's like a textbook life cycle for how to blow your brains out: career edition. And we arrive again at nature's unflinching solution. Anyone else a fan of dark comedies?
 
kd8cgo said:
Between the lines, you've left nature's (Earth's) self-correcting mechanism unstated and looming - kill the offender. So our natural solution - die. While both vociferous camps, denier and runaway feedback loop doomers, are bracketed somewhere about the useful consensus science, nature's solution for both waits somewhere over the horizon. Scientists, very concerned with mitigation, as problem solvers tend to be, are an interesting bunch. Striking, however, seeing the psychological tolls, fueled by the futility of their engagement with the political machine, crushing the curious spirit and with it their hope for potential mitigation's success. Amazing the pattern that develops, a cycle from research -> optimism -> engagement -> pessimism -> activism -> indignant resignation. It's like a textbook life cycle for how to blow your brains out: career edition. And we arrive again at nature's unflinching solution. Anyone else a fan of dark comedies?
Click to expand...

Consensus can be wrong and has been many times. I don't automatically trust it. It can change if new evidence were to appear.
The most valuable piece of data in my opinion is the vostok ice core results. What it tells me is that humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom have survived wild variations in co2 levels and temperatures. We can survive. But we will be subject to evolution yet again - only the strong, adaptable, and intelligent will make it.
And let's be honest, the gene pool could use a good clearing.

But for now, most of those who fear global warming are still heating their homes, eating food grown with petroleum-based fertilizer, turning on the AC, driving to work, buying tons of goods shipped from China using bunker fuel, and so forth. Their denier opposition is doing the same. This is what the tragedy of the commons looks like. Yes, it's a textbook way to blow your brains out, BUT... it's happening and decades of activists yelling about it ain't gonna change things. Politicians getting oil money ( including the liberals ) aren't going to save you either. You have to face it for what it is and think of what you can do to adapt.

If you are a young person, the smartest thing you could do is stop worrying and start preparing to move one day. Do not have debt hanging over your head. Become financially self sufficient. Do not depend on this petro-fueled civilization to keep your comfortable lifestyle going. Not gonna happen. Today's young are looking at the end of it - look at the financial situation and future of the millenials - it's scary - totally unlike what their parents had to face. You're probably going to see the end of it in your lifetime. You better know how to farm, hunt, build shelter, and otherwise live like the petro-civilization never happened.

If global warming doesn't present a crisis, a resource limit will be met and eventually technology will not have a solution. Currently, 90% of this planet's human population only survives via many ever-complex technological bandaids strung end-to-end.

iu


We all know what happens to curves that look like these.

Prepare.
 
I agree with most of what you have there on the strategy front. Second guessing consensus science is far beyond my specialization, and as such preparation for the likely 3-5 C end-of-century scenario is the most practical planning data that's useful to me on this particular front. Your human population graph is not something I've seen before, I've seen estimates topping out at a 9-12 billion plateau IIRC, accounting for declining birthrates. Your ice core graph, well known by now, just outlines the rational hesitance with which scientists were willing to provide any answers beyond a +2C limit, as that is all modern homo sapiens have yet encountered.

A migration/nomadic survival model coupled with lineal termination is one I am subscribed to, precisely because I doubt the mitigation prospects, which seems logical considering +2C has basically been scrapped with us breaching 400 ppm - more uncharted water for the species. Further, I see no need nor have any selfish desire to send my own heritable genetics forward into the unknown, given the "bumpy road hypothesis" for this generation. What we are talking about here vis a vis migration et al, however, is nature's solution. Perhaps not extinction, as that is still in the realm of hyperbole (so far) - but death. Lots and lots of death. As a "old" millenial - these are my personal conclusions. The clever ape does not get my vote of confidence with the cards we now seem to be holding.
 
Hehe... I tend to follow "Island nation" news re "sea level rise" news. Born on an island (Vancouver Island, Canada), lived for three years in England, lived a decade on islands off Toronto... Currently sitting comfortably over 300 feet above ("fresh" water) Lake Ontario. But before this whole "global climate change" thingee came up, in human (recorded) history over the last few thousand years seems humans have built lots of stuff "close to the water". (It'd "suck" to be in the insurance "industry" these days.)

But having traveled via boats on canals on/off all my life tend to look to the Netherlands (Dutch) for their expertise in "fighting off the sea".

"Environmentalists Win Case Forcing Dutch Government To Reduce Carbon Emissions By 25 Percent"
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...sts-win-case-dutch-government-_n_7654668.html

Unfortunately, the Dutch population is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the "swimming pool-sized" global population size, (if this all has to do with an "anthropogenic" effect.
 
It's also been suggested the increase in sea ice could be an effect of changing global weather patterns: changes in wind circulating cold air around Antarctica, more snow helping to thicken the sea ice etc. No firm evidence either way, but some plausible theories. As someone nicely summarised, it's more weather, not necessarily hotter weather, so local effects can vary.

Nasa has some good data on the extent of the ice going back to 1979, but it would be nice to know how it's varied from ~1900, where we can be confident it was non-human influenced.
 
I don't know how people can deny global warming will be severe with news like this, at only 0.8 degrees of warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html

Without the global dimming veil, and with already spent emissions, we're locked in for well over 2 degrees.
How bad will this ocean be venting methane at 2 degrees? Or when the sea ice goes?
4 degrees?
6 degrees?
15 degrees?

Where will we migrate, and what will we eat? grubs in the antarctic foothills?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top