Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[LibertyBell]

9 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

Im pretty sure you already know the answer.

For some reason when I google it says 1980 but looking at the NSIDC graphs thats clearly not the case as it gets to min around the 6th area. Think the earliest is september 5th in 1987 so in satellite era I dont believe an august has happened. Most fall around the 10th-14th and then well we have pushed that with warmer waters to almost 18th now in 2000 on era some years still managed to go in that range but more than 50% were later than the 14th. While from 1980-2000 more than 50% fell in that range of time some later and some earlier. So we seem to be adding 1-2 day extensions to the end of season every decade of course that is back of the envelope look at the situation because not every year ends up that way. Im sure on the other side of this we could probably see the melting season starting earlier than before, maybe even a similar rate?

I've been thinking that we'll have minimums consistently at or just after the equinox sometime within this decade.

 

[LibertyBell]

Just now, donsutherland1 said:

1895.

Wow I had to blink to make sure that wasn't 1985 lol.

Think we'll average minimum extent around the equinox by the end of the decade, Don?

 

[donsutherland1]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Wow I had to blink to make sure that wasn't 1985 lol.

Think we'll average minimum extent around the equinox by the end of the decade, Don?

 

That will probably become more frequent.

[ORH_wxman]

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

That will probably become more frequent.

Is there any evidence that minimums are occurring later? I remember running the numbers several years ago and there was no statistically significant trend...but maybe that’s changed. 

I can pull up all the dates tomorrow when back on my PC and check if nobody else has them handy. 

[donsutherland1]

7 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Is there any evidence that minimums are occurring later? I remember running the numbers several years ago and there was no statistically significant trend...but maybe that’s changed. 

I can pull up all the dates tomorrow when back on my PC and check if nobody else has them handy. 

That’s based on the IPCC’s reference to “an earlier onset of surface melt in spring and a later freeze up in fall...” I am not aware of any meaningful changes in the mean or median dates of the summer minimum right now.

[ORH_wxman]

19 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

That’s based on the IPCC’s reference to “an earlier onset of surface melt in spring and a later freeze up in fall...” I am not aware of any meaningful changes in the mean or median dates of the summer minimum right now.

There may be a temporary negative feedback of sorts...as ice melts closer to the pole, the refreeze starts a little earlier there because of the higher latitude which may offset the later refreeze further out on the periphery of the ice. 

That negative feedback would eventually get overwhelmed by a warmer climate. 

[donsutherland1]

14 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

There may be a temporary negative feedback of sorts...as ice melts closer to the pole, the refreeze starts a little earlier there because of the higher latitude which may offset the later refreeze further out on the periphery of the ice. 

That negative feedback would eventually get overwhelmed by a warmer climate. 

That may explain why there has been no significant trend so far.

[so_whats_happening]

15 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

That's for extent, but for area, we've seen August minimums. I believe 1992 was 8/31 and 2005 used to have an 8/30 min but recent revisions to the NSIDC database now has 9/3 as barely edging out 8/30 for the min.

But 8/23 is ridiculous for a min....if an August minimum on area would occur, it would be around the last day or two of the month.

Yea I didnt dive into area mins as i dont have nearly as much data to go off of. So thanks for that.

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

There may be a temporary negative feedback of sorts...as ice melts closer to the pole, the refreeze starts a little earlier there because of the higher latitude which may offset the later refreeze further out on the periphery of the ice. 

That negative feedback would eventually get overwhelmed by a warmer climate. 

That seems like a reasonable assumption with the trek of ice pushing closer and closer to the pole it stands a chance of offsetting the later start potential exactly for that reason. Eventually it evens out and starts the later freeze up again with time as warming continues. I dont believe there is a significant change that can be seen yet just by bin filing of dates at this point with our standard min that sets up around 12-13th of september based on temps. Its just seems as though the last 2 decades have consistently had later refreeze dates with sporadic dates still falling within the normal realm.

[LibertyBell]

14 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

There may be a temporary negative feedback of sorts...as ice melts closer to the pole, the refreeze starts a little earlier there because of the higher latitude which may offset the later refreeze further out on the periphery of the ice. 

That negative feedback would eventually get overwhelmed by a warmer climate. 

this negative feedback is exactly why statistics can't be taken as gospel.  Logical explanations and a meaningful mechanism to explain it matter more.

 

[LibertyBell]

11 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

Yea I didnt dive into area mins as i dont have nearly as much data to go off of. So thanks for that.

That seems like a reasonable assumption with the trek of ice pushing closer and closer to the pole it stands a chance of offsetting the later start potential exactly for that reason. Eventually it evens out and starts the later freeze up again with time as warming continues. I dont believe there is a significant change that can be seen yet just by bin filing of dates at this point with our standard min that sets up around 12-13th of september based on temps. Its just seems as though the last 2 decades have consistently had later refreeze dates with sporadic dates still falling within the normal realm.

a step stair method sounds reasonable too.  There will always be some variance even in a warming climate.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

The ice cap is disappearing along intra centennial/decadal time scales - until this can be proven not the case, it's all just monitoring to see the magic moment where it's all gone some future Sept 3rd ...

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The ice cap is disappearing along intra centennial/decadal time scales - until this can be proven not the case, it's all just monitoring to see the magic moment where it's all gone some future Sept 3rd ...

Tip there is hope yet.....

https://twitter.com/i/events/1433126661726298117

 

This afternoon

Unlimited clean energy could be on its way

It’s been hyped for decades. But scientific progress on nuclear fusion may soon produce a truly groundbreaking clean-energy technology.

[Typhoon Tip]

17 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Tip there is hope yet.....

https://twitter.com/i/events/1433126661726298117

 

This afternoon

Unlimited clean energy could be on its way

It’s been hyped for decades. But scientific progress on nuclear fusion may soon produce a truly groundbreaking clean-energy technology.

Yeah read about that ... It's a long way from sustainable practicum - but ... know what would be funny.

The planet, having been 'straining' against the GW lean for so long, ...  if breakthroughs and policies all at once alleviate the cause, ..rebound or repulse may over compensate.  

It's like "plausible Sci Fi"   ... not impossible, that compensating natural forces cause the whplash effect. ... maybe a poor metaphor:  you can't just cut off stage 4 alcoholic because detox AWS can be deadly 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yeah read about that ... It's a long way from sustainable practicum - but ... know what would be funny.

The planet, having been 'straining' against the GW lean for so long, ...  if breakthroughs and policies all at once alleviate the cause, ..rebound or repulse may over compensate.  

It's like "plausible Sci Fi"   ... not impossible, that compensating natural forces cause the whplash effect. ... maybe a poor metaphor:  you can't just cut off stage 4 alcoholic because detox AWS can be deadly 

Yes this is exactly why we should have been slowly weaning off of it beginning in the 1980s.....

But they didn't listen.

 

It's like accelerating a space craft to a distant destination (possibly another star system.)  You can only spend half the distance accelerating, because you need to spend an equal amount of time decelerating.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/1/2021 at 1:38 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

The ice cap is disappearing along intra centennial/decadal time scales - until this can be proven not the case, it's all just monitoring to see the magic moment where it's all gone some future Sept 3rd ...

I'm also wondering about that article you posted about the first rainfall at Summit Camp on top of the Greenland Ice Cap.  What implications would higher humidity and even more rainfall have on arctic ice?  Because we damn well are seeing higher dew points and higher rainfall here consistently now, so I wonder if this would increase melt rates if the same thing was happening in the polar regions (clearly it's happening since Summit Camp is well within the Arctic Circle.)

 

 

[bluewave]

August experienced the slowest rate of NSIDC extent loss of the whole post-2007 sea ice era. The sea ice only declined by 1.498 million sq km between 7-31 and 9-1. Notice how the August rate of decline has slowed after 2012 relative to the previous 6 years. In order to beat the 2012 extent minimum, we would need extreme May preconditioning like 2020 combined with August declines in excess of 2.3 million sq km. Dr. Francis had a great recent paper on this August slowdown in recent years.

NSIDC August declines in millions of sq km

2021….-1.498

2020….-1.929

2019….-1.673

2018…..-1.639

2017…..-1.914

2016….-2.347

2015….-2.318

2014…..-1.655

2013…..-1.701

2012….-2.795

2011….-2.089

2010…..-1.641

2009….-1.663

2008….-2.449

2007….-2.154

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc047

 

LETTER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS OPEN ACCESS

Why has no new record-minimum Arctic sea-ice extent occurred since September 2012?

Jennifer A Francis¹ and Bingyi Wu²

Published 23 November 2020 • © 2020 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15, Number 11Citation Jennifer A Francis and Bingyi Wu 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 114034

 

Abstract

One of the clearest indicators of human-caused climate change is the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. The summer minimum coverage is now approximately half of its extent only 40 yr ago. Four records in the minimum extent were broken since 2000, the most recent occurring in September 2012. No new records have been set since then, however, owing to an abrupt atmospheric shift during each August/early-September that brought low sea-level pressure, cloudiness, and unfavorable wind conditions for ice reduction. While random variability could be the cause, we identify a recently increased prevalence of a characteristic large-scale atmospheric pattern over the northern hemisphere. This pattern is associated not only with anomalously low pressure over the Arctic during summer, but also with frequent heatwaves over East Asia, Scandinavia, and northern North America, as well as the tendency for a split jet stream over the continents. This jet-stream configuration has been identified as favoring extreme summer weather events in northern mid-latitudes. We propose a mechanism linking these features with diminishing spring snow cover on northern-hemisphere continents that acts as a negative feedback on the loss of Arctic sea ice during summer.

[Typhoon Tip]

On 9/5/2021 at 8:26 AM, bluewave said:

August experienced the slowest rate of NSIDC extent loss of the whole post-2007 sea ice era. The sea ice only declined by 1.498 million sq km between 7-31 and 9-1. Notice how the August rate of decline has slowed after 2012 relative to the previous 6 years. In order to beat the 2012 extent minimum, we would need extreme May preconditioning like 2020 combined with August declines in excess of 2.3 million sq km. Dr. Francis had a great recent paper on this August slowdown in recent years.

NSIDC August declines in millions of sq km

2021….-1.498

2020….-1.929

2019….-1.673

2018…..-1.639

2017…..-1.914

2016….-2.347

2015….-2.318

2014…..-1.655

2013…..-1.701

2012….-2.795

2011….-2.089

2010…..-1.641

2009….-1.663

2008….-2.449

2007….-2.154

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc047

 

LETTER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS OPEN ACCESS

Why has no new record-minimum Arctic sea-ice extent occurred since September 2012?

Jennifer A Francis¹ and Bingyi Wu²

Published 23 November 2020 • © 2020 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15, Number 11Citation Jennifer A Francis and Bingyi Wu 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 114034

 

Abstract

One of the clearest indicators of human-caused climate change is the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. The summer minimum coverage is now approximately half of its extent only 40 yr ago. Four records in the minimum extent were broken since 2000, the most recent occurring in September 2012. No new records have been set since then, however, owing to an abrupt atmospheric shift during each August/early-September that brought low sea-level pressure, cloudiness, and unfavorable wind conditions for ice reduction. While random variability could be the cause, we identify a recently increased prevalence of a characteristic large-scale atmospheric pattern over the northern hemisphere. This pattern is associated not only with anomalously low pressure over the Arctic during summer, but also with frequent heatwaves over East Asia, Scandinavia, and northern North America, as well as the tendency for a split jet stream over the continents. This jet-stream configuration has been identified as favoring extreme summer weather events in northern mid-latitudes. We propose a mechanism linking these features with diminishing spring snow cover on northern-hemisphere continents that acts as a negative feedback on the loss of Arctic sea ice during summer.

Not to be a snarky dick ... certainly not to you, per se -

But the answer to that 'yelling at us' bold question up there is obvious, and despite the popsicle headache, scientific thesaurus requiring prose that surely follows in any article ...they could sum it up in one sentence:

Climate change doesn't happen linearly ...

Slightly more expanded version:  it happens in frets and juts and starts... Sometimes... seemingly linear increases(decreases), too, but all of which will also be interceded by episodic regression back to some prior state, ...a time in which irresponsible mentalities will [predictably ..] attempt to use the slide back as leveraged counter-arguments, until the next bursts of change takes place and proves the longer vision still resembles change.  We some all those up, they equal +2 C over the course of 100 years... And in the case of the ASI ... years where the Sept nadir is lower than other years, may also go a decade where the nadirs are uncomfortably low, but not as bad.  ... but some year IS coming where it will be worse

That ...in summary, is why -

Now ...I am not attempting to excoriate an article as agenda-biased without having read the thing ... it's jut that the above answer to that bold question, in a vacuum, is clad.

[nycwinter]

i never see any articles of sea ice gains in the winter hmm does not fit into some peoples agenda..

[Vice-Regent]

I don't know about your perspective but the only place not torching is the arctic. That's exactly why this is happening... common sense people it cannot be warm everywhere at the same time.

As much as I hate to admit it it's not 2050 or 2100.

[rclab]

12 hours ago, wxtrix said:

no agenda is needed, just basic critical thinking skills. any winter gains are more than offset by summer losses.

i know you thought you had a really good GOTCHA!, huh? 

Good morning wxtrix. It might work well to have such articles, 

 

18 hours ago, nycwinter said:

i never see any articles of sea ice gains in the winter hmm does not fit into some peoples agenda..

if nothing more than to highlight how out of control the changes are driving the natural progression. If significant increases are obliterated by significant decreases in a 12 month period the direction/result/solution should be self explanatory. As always …

 

[bluewave]

While we will eventually surpass the 2012 extent minimum, the summer pressure reversal since then has made it a challenge. But even a lower Arctic pressure summer like this year was able to dip below 5 million sq km on NSIDC extent. Extents never fell this low before 2007.

 

[donsutherland1]

20 hours ago, nycwinter said:

i never see any articles of sea ice gains in the winter hmm does not fit into some peoples agenda..

The winter-spring Arctic sea ice extent maximum has also been falling, just not as fast as the summer minimum.

During the 1990s, the average maximum extent was 15.203 million square kilometers. During the 2010s, the average maximum extent had fallen 6.3% to 14.277 million square kilometers. The 2021 maximum was 14.237 million square kilometers.

There has been an average decline of 44,695 square kilometers per year since 1990. The coefficient of determination is 0.700.

[Typhoon Tip]

5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

I don't know about your perspective but the only place not torching is the arctic. That's exactly why this is happening... common sense people it cannot be warm everywhere at the same time.

As much as I hate to admit it it's not 2050 or 2100.

Global, in the title "Global Warming"  means the entire globe - just to be clear.

Maybe you mean relative to some shorter time scale ... perhaps one that is native to just this present era ?

Just thinking about that ...  The d(x)/dt terms are more crucial in identifying the reality of systemic modality. Not the x terms.  X scalar values are but a 'snap shot' of present state.  LOL, the GW title doesn't say ... "Global WARM"   ...it says global warmING.  'Ing' means change, and change obviously requires time.

The Arctic is "torching" - subjective term anyway ..ugh.  It's warmer than normal, and increasing, even relative to present era.  The 30-year mean temperatures are rising in the Arctic domain, and that time span is the standardization by the Science ambit, to mean present era -

I suppose if we scale an observation interval down to just a week or something, maybe ? - but at that scale, there's no real practical use for climate studies, because vagarious noise, 'in the weeds' of momentary events, become the visible horizon.  Beyond that horizon, larger damning truths cannot be seen.

Lengthy aside, why the 30-years ..?

I guess to have some kind of conventional order in the science of that matter.  'Getting sort of philosophical here but, there are no real 'boundaries' ... Nature and reality is about logarithmic emergence or decay rates of change. Outside or internal forces become sufficient to modulate a given system: the imposing force may be so weak it takes Millennia to observe change; or, so overwhelming that the changes manifest very quickly. 

In climate, we may express in urgency, "Global Warming is happening at a startlingly fast rate," but ... that is in deference to the typical rate of change for climate systems, overall.  They tend to not really be observable down at the almost instant geological time-span of a single human life, and if they are, something huge is motivating change.  Even though ... we're still talking about decades.  Basically, there needs to be a kind of instruction manual in how to interpret climate change, and there definitely needed a better PR handling all along.

I have been arguing this for years, one of the fundamental biggest hurdle in the climate awareness space, is that there is no real sophistication, frankly 'intelligentsia' in the PR/dissemination of the scientific findings. It's gotten better over the decade(s), but still needs work. It was egregiously indelicate and tactlessly handled when the findings could only do one thing, impugn a global machinery that 90% of the population had become inextricably dependent upon, generation's deep.  Between the head-realm of utter untenable "esoterium" of the science, to ...well, everyone else, its pith needed to be winnowed down to a prose that is both accessible, but 'undeniable' being crucial.  What we got, instead, were dire headlines and/or liberalism rank involving moral damnation, cynicism and shame - that was the original framework: excoriation in multi facet ways, attacked the Industrial world's foundation, while offering no alternatives.   What they did, rather, was only to alienate themselves from the discussion with their artless approach. 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

Intuitively, a goodly amount of it was/is probably related to human limitation? Particularly when facing issues where an "incalculable specter" is completely speculative, humans won't typically register significance. They'll be polite, nodding, "Yeah, it's pretty dire, huh."  But no sooner when the source of warning fades away from ear-shot, "...Heh, another one of those -".  Compounding further, complacency will replace any amount of immediate arousal of urgency that successfully elicits.  Because... 20 years later, no one's life has changed at the rate of melting ice - 'how bad can it be?'

Enters the other problem with advocating the gravity of climate change - no one actually feels the weight.  In those earlier eras it had no natural, corporeal advocates ... which is to say, those that appeal to the physical senses. You could not really taste it.  Nor touch, hear, or smell it.  Most important of all, you could not really see it - the most important sense to the human psyche, per all science of neurology and neuroplasticity needed to motivate awareness. Ha, just being droll.

Very recently that has been changing.  The sight of wild fires and red skies, and smelling their smoke thousands of miles away on the other sides of total continental spaces ...is a little arresting.  Pandemic pestilence, to hurricane ravaged coastal regions ... where the atmosphere is handing out Cat 5 tropical cyclones like Pez.  Rats pouring out of urban substrata, up stairwells, driven to high ground as flood waters attempt to float cities away ... etc.  These will at last appeal the senses.  ..And suddenly, media begins to represent life. A zeitgeist of urgency is at last aroused. This is not a accidental cultural modality - it is because climate change is finally be advocated.

But during the first 30 .. 50 years of the denial arc of climate change's disaster novel, these evidences were not available to bus stop transience, water coolers in offices, to policy makers and society sculptors;  and it will never be available to the sensibility of corporate leading sociopaths. 

Beyond that limitations, society moves and security-type agencies were never truly connected to,  or giving enough weight ( in their on-going practicum ) to the science community.  They were always in the room, as a bottom priority.  I mean, we've all seen the trope in Hollywood's disaster cinema genre.  The Joint Chiefs and higher ranking brass in closed conference room of heated exchanges over the impending doom. A quite mascot dork in wire-rimmed glasses, sits comported in self, shy, afraid, apprehensive socially in that setting to dare express the reality troubling this mere representative of the scientific consortium: despite all preset egos and conceits, you're all going to die.   Nothing you guys say or do matters, if your are removed from the equation, is his/her internal monologue repeating  like a haunted calling.  Climate change, left to its own devices, means extinction.  How does the dork raise his/her hand amid that specter and pomp, what is really an intractable circumstance, when limitations in human evolution, which blocks urgency unless it is 'sensed' is purely contemplative, and the brass in that setting can see no further.  Yet, what they can hear of and see demonstrate foreign sovereignties pointing their mass destruction... etc, instead.

Ha ha, you know the fastest climate change there is, is a hapless planet whose hosting gravitational binding star happens to be only say ... 100 light years away from an adjacent ticking Super Nova. The instant that star Nova's, they have 100 years before they suffer "instant climate change"   A time in which they have no idea that it's happened, only that it can - sound familiar?   We are in our 100 hours -

The reason I'm contemplating aloud is because I have a long standing concern about the Darwinian catch-22 of our species -  perhaps ... a philosophical digression into another field:  The Fermian Paradox.   ...which I wont get into at depth.  To paraphrase ( perhaps sloppily), it boils down to a basic contention: 'If the cosmos teems with intelligent life, where are they all?' 

Now ...some aspect of that may be limited to human perception of design.  What I mean there is, we perceive and think of telescopes and electromagnetism as means to communicate across grand distances.  But, this may be a limited scope, one biased because ... that's the way we do it.  However, alien technologies may not have evolved, or necessarily needed to do so in the same ways and means, that we precisely do. Yet, they are equally ... or more importantly, are vastly more advanced in their capacity to manipulate their environments.  The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  ... Perhaps, too few to qualify a description of 'traffic'.  We don't even see or detect the echo off their graves.  ...This is a Pandora's box of paradoxical musing for a joint, Southern Comfort, and mild night around a campfire.  The self-annihilation model is the most, perhaps intuitive, popular explanation for the Paradox question.

But, I see us as a species where Darwinian modes endowed us with the gift of ingenuity and problem solving skills, so capable of engineering wonders that it unwittingly invents its own demise.   At least in one case - should that prevail - this climate debacle may be how that all happens - at least for us.  

And it sucks! Not just because ...well, it means our death for one easy reason.  But, it's like watching Grady Little from the living room in the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees.  It's the bottom of the 7th inning.  The Red Sox are up 5 to 3, in what was pretty clear to the intangibly aware, was a pivotal momentum game in that series.   Pedro Martinez is/was hands down the Red Sox ace ... I'll give the guy that.  But when Pedro was only 1 out, and the Yankees had guys on 1st and 2nd, it was time to go to the reliever.   No - Grady signals the time out... carries his midriff to the mound, and lets Pedro decide if Pedro should come out.  Of course... the Red Sox went on to lose the ALCS series.   There are those of us that know we are in the 7th inning as a species against this world - and we may as well just be yelling inaudibly at an empty living room.

[rclab]

3 hours ago, wxtrix said:

there are such articles. go look them up and read them.

Thank you for your kind suggestion. I sincerely hope you find peace. As always …..

[LibertyBell]

12 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Global, in the title "Global Warming"  means the entire globe - just to be clear.

Maybe you mean relative to some shorter time scale ... perhaps one that is native to just this present era ?

Just thinking about that ...  The d(x)/dt terms are more crucial in identifying the reality of systemic modality. Not the x terms.  X scalar values are but a 'snap shot' of present state.  LOL, the GW title doesn't say ... "Global WARM"   ...it says global warmING.  'Ing' means change, and change obviously requires time.

The Arctic is "torching" - subjective term anyway ..ugh.  It's warmer than normal, and increasing, even relative to present era.  The 30-year mean temperatures are rising in the Arctic domain, and that time span is the standardization by the Science ambit, to mean present era -

I suppose if we scale an observation interval down to just a week or something, maybe ? - but at that scale, there's no real practical use for climate studies, because vagarious noise, 'in the weeds' of momentary events, become the visible horizon.  Beyond that horizon, larger damning truths cannot be seen.

Lengthy aside, why the 30-years ..?

I guess to have some kind of conventional order in the science of that matter.  'Getting sort of philosophical here but, there are no real 'boundaries' ... Nature and reality is about logarithmic emergence or decay rates of change. Outside or internal forces become sufficient to modulate a given system: the imposing force may be so weak it takes Millennia to observe change; or, so overwhelming that the changes manifest very quickly. 

In climate, we may express in urgency, "Global Warming is happening at a startlingly fast rate," but ... that is in deference to the typical rate of change for climate systems, overall.  They tend to not really be observable down at the almost instant geological time-span of a single human life, and if they are, something huge is motivating change.  Even though ... we're still talking about decades.  Basically, there needs to be a kind of instruction manual in how to interpret climate change, and there definitely needed a better PR handling all along.

I have been arguing this for years, one of the fundamental biggest hurdle in the climate awareness space, is that there is no real sophistication, frankly 'intelligentsia' in the PR/dissemination of the scientific findings. It's gotten better over the decade(s), but still needs work. It was egregiously indelicate and tactlessly handled when the findings could only do one thing, impugn a global machinery that 90% of the population had become inextricably dependent upon, generation's deep.  Between the head-realm of utter untenable "esoterium" of the science, to ...well, everyone else, its pith needed to be winnowed down to a prose that is both accessible, but 'undeniable' being crucial.  What we got, instead, were dire headlines and/or liberalism rank involving moral damnation, cynicism and shame - that was the original framework: excoriation in multi facet ways, attacked the Industrial world's foundation, while offering no alternatives.   What they did, rather, was only to alienate themselves from the discussion with their artless approach. 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

Intuitively, a goodly amount of it was/is probably related to human limitation? Particularly when facing issues where an "incalculable specter" is completely speculative, humans won't typically register significance. They'll be polite, nodding, "Yeah, it's pretty dire, huh."  But no sooner when the source of warning fades away from ear-shot, "...Heh, another one of those -".  Compounding further, complacency will replace any amount of immediate arousal of urgency that successfully elicits.  Because... 20 years later, no one's life has changed at the rate of melting ice - 'how bad can it be?'

Enters the other problem with advocating the gravity of climate change - no one actually feels the weight.  In those earlier eras it had no natural, corporeal advocates ... which is to say, those that appeal to the physical senses. You could not really taste it.  Nor touch, hear, or smell it.  Most important of all, you could not really see it - the most important sense to the human psyche, per all science of neurology and neuroplasticity needed to motivate awareness. Ha, just being droll.

Very recently that has been changing.  The sight of wild fires and red skies, and smelling their smoke thousands of miles away on the other sides of total continental spaces ...is a little arresting.  Pandemic pestilence, to hurricane ravaged coastal regions ... where the atmosphere is handing out Cat 5 tropical cyclones like Pez.  Rats pouring out of urban substrata, up stairwells, driven to high ground as flood waters attempt to float cities away ... etc.  These will at last appeal the senses.  ..And suddenly, media begins to represent life. A zeitgeist of urgency is at last aroused. This is not a accidental cultural modality - it is because climate change is finally be advocated.

But during the first 30 .. 50 years of the denial arc of climate change's disaster novel, these evidences were not available to bus stop transience, water coolers in offices, to policy makers and society sculptors;  and it will never be available to the sensibility of corporate leading sociopaths. 

Beyond that limitations, society moves and security-type agencies were never truly connected to,  or giving enough weight ( in their on-going practicum ) to the science community.  They were always in the room, as a bottom priority.  I mean, we've all seen the trope in Hollywood's disaster cinema genre.  The Joint Chiefs and higher ranking brass in closed conference room of heated exchanges over the impending doom. A quite mascot dork in wire-rimmed glasses, sits comported in self, shy, afraid, apprehensive socially in that setting to dare express the reality troubling this mere representative of the scientific consortium: despite all preset egos and conceits, you're all going to die.   Nothing you guys say or do matters, if your are removed from the equation, is his/her internal monologue repeating  like a haunted calling.  Climate change, left to its own devices, means extinction.  How does the dork raise his/her hand amid that specter and pomp, what is really an intractable circumstance, when limitations in human evolution, which blocks urgency unless it is 'sensed' is purely contemplative, and the brass in that setting can see no further.  Yet, what they can hear of and see demonstrate foreign sovereignties pointing their mass destruction... etc, instead.

Ha ha, you know the fastest climate change there is, is a hapless planet whose hosting gravitational binding star happens to be only say ... 100 light years away from an adjacent ticking Super Nova. The instant that star Nova's, they have 100 years before they suffer "instant climate change"   A time in which they have no idea that it's happened, only that it can - sound familiar?   We are in our 100 hours -

The reason I'm contemplating aloud is because I have a long standing concern about the Darwinian catch-22 of our species -  perhaps ... a philosophical digression into another field:  The Fermian Paradox.   ...which I wont get into at depth.  To paraphrase ( perhaps sloppily), it boils down to a basic contention: 'If the cosmos teems with intelligent life, where are they all?' 

Now ...some aspect of that may be limited to human perception of design.  What I mean there is, we perceive and think of telescopes and electromagnetism as means to communicate across grand distances.  But, this may be a limited scope, one biased because ... that's the way we do it.  However, alien technologies may not have evolved, or necessarily needed to do so in the same ways and means, that we precisely do. Yet, they are equally ... or more importantly, are vastly more advanced in their capacity to manipulate their environments.  The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  ... Perhaps, too few to qualify a description of 'traffic'.  We don't even see or detect the echo off their graves.  ...This is a Pandora's box of paradoxical musing for a joint, Southern Comfort, and mild night around a campfire.  The self-annihilation model is the most, perhaps intuitive, popular explanation for the Paradox question.

But, I see us as a species where Darwinian modes endowed us with the gift of ingenuity and problem solving skills, so capable of engineering wonders that it unwittingly invents its own demise.   At least in one case - should that prevail - this climate debacle may be how that all happens - at least for us.  

And it sucks! Not just because ...well, it means our death for one easy reason.  But, it's like watching Grady Little from the living room in the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees.  It's the bottom of the 7th inning.  The Red Sox are up 5 to 3, in what was pretty clear to the intangibly aware, was a pivotal momentum game in that series.   Pedro Martinez is/was hands down the Red Sox ace ... I'll give the guy that.  But when Pedro was only 1 out, and the Yankees had guys on 1st and 2nd, it was time to go to the reliever.   No - Grady signals the time out... carries his midriff to the mound, and lets Pedro decide if Pedro should come out.  Of course... the Red Sox went on to lose the ALCS series.   There are those of us that know we are in the 7th inning as a species against this world - and we may as well just be yelling inaudibly at an empty living room.

Wow, I thought you were quoting an article like what Chris (Bluewave) did, but as I was reading this I realized you wrote this yourself!

I totally vibe with the part about Stage 1 and civilizations below that, my contention has always been that the Greatest of Filters lies ahead of us and that's the real reason we haven't discovered any other technological species out there in space (granted our range of detection is very limited.)

And a supernova within 100 light years wouldn't even be needed to cause the ultimate "climate change" event, you could have an intense gamma ray burst pointed in just the "right" (meaning wrong) direction from a longer distance to do the trick.  It's been considered as a vector for some of our mass extinction events.  The current one is, of course, entirely caused by humanity and is happening much faster than any of the so-called "natural" ones, just like climate change.

 

The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  .

 

Also vibe with the idea that change will happen, we only have the choice of either doing it voluntarily and more gently, or nature will cause the change for us and establish equilibrium in its own harsh way.  Either way, one way or the other, the necessary change WILL occur.  Gaia, the concept of the planet self regulating, is a proven fact.  However its self regulation would be a lot worse for humanity than the changes we can and should be making.

 

 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

[bluewave]

Current NSIDC daily extent is a little above the 2010s average. It’s at 4,838 million sq km. Extent was just below to the average before the August slowdown. 

 

[rclab]

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Wow, I thought you were quoting an article like what Chris (Bluewave) did, but as I was reading this I realized you wrote this yourself!

I totally vibe with the part about Stage 1 and civilizations below that, my contention has always been that the Greatest of Filters lies ahead of us and that's the real reason we haven't discovered any other technological species out there in space (granted our range of detection is very limited.)

And a supernova within 100 light years wouldn't even be needed to cause the ultimate "climate change" event, you could have an intense gamma ray burst pointed in just the "right" (meaning wrong) direction from a longer distance to do the trick.  It's been considered as a vector for some of our mass extinction events.  The current one is, of course, entirely caused by humanity and is happening much faster than any of the so-called "natural" ones, just like climate change.

 

The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  .

 

Also vibe with the idea that change will happen, we only have the choice of either doing it voluntarily and more gently, or nature will cause the change for us and establish equilibrium in its own harsh way.  Either way, one way or the other, the necessary change WILL occur.  Gaia, the concept of the planet self regulating, is a proven fact.  However its self regulation would be a lot worse for humanity than the changes we can and should be making.

 

 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

Better to embrace Gaia before Gaia, for balance, embraces you. As always ….

[ORH_wxman]

We may have reached the area minimum on 9/1....we're currently about 75k above the 9/1 value of 3.19 million sq km. Still a bit too precarious to call it, but if we had a 9/1 area min, that would be the earliest min since 1992.

[etudiant]

12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

I find it surprising that there is no discussion of the thinking behind the massive ongoing investments in coal based power generation in Asia.

Sec. Kerry attempted to engage China on this issue and was promptly rebuffed, essentially told that China would be willing to talk to the US about this if the US made concessions elsewhere. Obviously that means China does not take the threat seriously, even though global warming would surely hurt China and India more than countries in colder latitudes. Can anyone shed light on this? 

[LibertyBell]

23 hours ago, etudiant said:

I find it surprising that there is no discussion of the thinking behind the massive ongoing investments in coal based power generation in Asia.

Sec. Kerry attempted to engage China on this issue and was promptly rebuffed, essentially told that China would be willing to talk to the US about this if the US made concessions elsewhere. Obviously that means China does not take the threat seriously, even though global warming would surely hurt China and India more than countries in colder latitudes. Can anyone shed light on this? 

Oh I would like to know why that goes unanswered too.  I believe we should apply strong sanctions to these nations that are going backwards with coal.  They should rather invest in nuclear power which actually releases less radiation than coal does.  Maybe it will be addressed in the upcoming meeting in Glasgow?