Nature: Dramatic sea-ice melt caps tough Arctic summer

[donsutherland1]

Excerpts:

Arctic sea ice freezes each winter after a long summer melt. But surprising warmth during the Arctic winter and spring hampered its build-up — setting the stage for this summer’s dramatic ice loss.

The dynamic was especially apparent in the Bering Sea. “From about January to May the sea ice in the Bering Sea just didn’t happen,” says Alice Bradley, a polar scientist at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts. “We haven’t seen that before.” A low-pressure weather system hovered over the sea for much of February, funnelling warm air from the south and pushing the little ice that did manage to form into northern waters.

Throughout the spring and summer, Arctic sea ice melted away faster than it usually does in areas such as the Beaufort Sea and the central Arctic Ocean. Ice extent and volume hit record monthly lows in July, and by early August there was no sea ice within 240 kilometres of the Alaskan coast...

Between water melting off the ice sheet’s surface and breaking off into icebergs, Greenland likely contributed a little over 1.5 millimetres to global sea-level rise this year, according to polar scientist Xavier Fettweis at the University of Liège in Belgium. When researchers eventually compare the mass lost during this summer’s melt to the mass gained during winter snowfall, Greenland is likely to come out as having lost at least as much in 2019 — or even more — than in the extreme year of 2012.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02653-x

 

[Typhoon Tip]

A conceptual question I've oft coveted about the anthropomorphism aspect of AGW, is how "natural" vs "unnatural" is that in reality.

You know, whatever we do as a species .... is natural. Quite logically, any process of Nature must then be causal in the changing nature of the natural setting and on and so on.  Thus Nature cannot create something unnatural.

That may seem obvious reading that in short, terse turns of phrase, but it still is an important distinction that tends to get lost in the dogma of environment lobbies, this, that, and/or the general conscientious voice.  Plastic, as anathemic as it's becoming... isn't really unnatural at all. 

Look if we wanna call Plastic, global warming, death-zones of the seas... etc, etc, secondary, tertiary, or quaternary harmful consequence of something Nature did, that's fine and perhaps we should define them more proper to real math. Any decision we make as an entity-force as entity-forces created by Nature, is a natural force.  Sorry - anything else is delusional.  

Yes yes we all get it, but why does that matter? 

Well...for starters, there are tendencies to improperly conflate factors that are incorrectly derived/defined when semantics, particularly those of incendiary rhetoric etymology is the primary conveyance; and also, culpability is a miss-assignment of blame. It disenfranchises when considering that Nature put us here in all our glory, an organism so advanced technically. It's a fair question - what really is and is not our fault... Ah, one that may be answered through morality? Because once one's detriment is revealed, to persist along that same course becomes a moral hazard.

Before that happens, however ... hint hint hint:  no one has ever won a debate insulting people. That's what the shimmering brilliance of the Environmental/scientific community didn't understand in their art of diplomacy decades ago, when they introduced this whole crisis 'all people are asshole' snorting pigs  ... They disenfranchised Humanity in a lot of ways by impugning the same "rights" to do what Natural evolution gave them the capacity to do.  It set off a sociological ramification that I believe we continue to fight today.  But that's speculative.

Define a catch-22:  Nature endowed its self with an unstoppable ways and means to remove its self.  Ho, what a fantastic irony. There's an intriguing premise for a science fiction novel, "The GAIA experiment: the kill-switch chronicles."  Holistic muse aside... this may also be related to why deep field cosmological fields of research don't readily see the Universe twinkling with the after glow of all these super advanced species.  Too few over pass this test.

Leading geologic and paleontological sciences purport plenty of evidence that during the Dinosaur's apex reign circa 250 to 65  Million years ago ... there were extended periods with no icecaps.  In fact, there are fossil remains of tropical flora above the 60th parallel, and that's also factoring in tectonic drift, too.  Life flourished until the either the Chicxulub, or a cocktail of events including that fateful comet or asteroid teamed up an end the Mesozoic era. It's not a question of whether life can survive an ice free world - the problem is rate of adaptation that's the killer.  Pangea broke apart over millions of years and as the climate shifted because of resulting changing circulation patterns, air and sea, along ( probably ) with eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, taking place spanning millions of years.  Human kind evolving the ways and means to liberate in just 500 to 1,000 years what took this planet some 3 billion years to sequester, and that is reactive Carbon, that is a Chicxulub event for all intents and purpose.  

Ahh...but we have this thing called morality - morality is based in no small part on an unconscious, yet ubiquitously accepted knowledge ... no, scratch that. Let's call it an 'ability', within the mentality of responsible sentience ( not everyone...) to project results of addition and subtraction to the vitality of scenario, and weigh the cost of ending consequences.  There are probably an innumerable ways to define morality, but one thing most would likely agree upon is that it is the existential result of the individual having matured through necessary stages of success and failure, reward vs punishment, pain and pleasure...etc, as they grow to understanding how their own actions parlay cause and effect as these related to the former, and on and so on. 

The problem of AGW ...isn't a question of whether it is Natural or artificial ... it's a question of evidence and observable cause and effect - one that awakens the morality.  By the time the evidences become that clear, it may be too late to stop the crater.   

 

[rclab]

14 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

A conceptual question I've oft coveted about the anthropomorphism aspect of AGW, is how "natural" vs "unnatural" is that in reality.

You know, whatever we do as a species .... is natural. Quite logically, any process of Nature must then be causal in the changing nature of the natural setting and on and so on.  Thus Nature cannot create something unnatural.

That may seem obvious reading that in short, terse turns of phrase, but it still is an important distinction that tends to get lost in the dogma of environment lobbies, this, that, and/or the general conscientious voice.  Plastic, as anathemic as it's becoming... isn't really unnatural at all. 

Look if we wanna call Plastic, global warming, death-zones of the seas... etc, etc, secondary, tertiary, or quaternary harmful consequence of something Nature did, that's fine and perhaps we should define them more proper to real math. Any decision we make as an entity-force as entity-forces created by Nature, is a natural force.  Sorry - anything else is delusional.  

Yes yes we all get it, but why does that matter? 

Well...for starters, there are tendencies to improperly conflate factors that are incorrectly derived/defined when semantics, particularly those of incendiary rhetoric etymology is the primary conveyance; and also, culpability is a miss-assignment of blame. It disenfranchises when considering that Nature put us here in all our glory, an organism so advanced technically. It's a fair question - what really is and is not our fault... Ah, one that may be answered through morality?   

Before that happens, however ... hint hint hint:  no one has ever won a debate insulting people. That's what the shimmering brilliance of the Environmental/scientific community didn't understand in their art of diplomacy decades ago, when they introducing this whole crisis 'all people are assholes'  ... They disenfranchised Humanity in a lot of ways by impugning the same "rights" to do what Natural evolution gave them the capacity to do.  It set off a sociological ramification that I believe we continue to fight today.  But that's speculative.

Define a catch-22:  Nature endowed its self with an unstoppable ways and means to remove its self.  There's an intriguing premise for a science fiction novel, "The GAIA experiment: the kill-switch chronicles."  Holistic muse aside... this may also be related to why deep field cosmological fields of research don't readily see the Universe twinkling with the after glow of all these super advanced species.  Too few over pass this test.

Leading geologic and paleontological sciences purport plenty of evidence that during the Dinosaurs apex reign circa 250 to 65  Million years ago ... there were extended periods with no icecaps.  In fact, there are fossil remains of tropical flora above the 60th parallel, and that's also factoring in tectonic drift, too.  Life flourished until the either the Chicxulub, or a cocktail of events including that fateful comet or asteroid teamed up an end the Mesozoic era. It's not a question of whether life can survive an ice free world - the problem is rate of adaptation that's the killer.  Pangea broke apart over millions of years and as the climate shifted because of resulting changing circulation patterns, air and sea, along ( probably ) with eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, taking place spanning millions of years.  Human kind evolving the ways and means to liberate in just 500 to 1,000 years what took this planet some 3 billion years to sequester, and that is reactive Carbon, that is a Chicxulub event for all intents and purpose.  

Ahh...but we have this thing called morality - morality is based in no small part on an unconscious, yet ubiquitously accepted knowledge ... no, scratch that. Let's call it an 'ability', within the mentality of responsible sentience ( not everyone...) to project results of addition and subtraction to the vitality of scenario, and weigh the cost of ending consequences.  There are probably an innumerable ways to define morality, but one thing most would likely agree upon is that it is the existential result of the individual having matured through necessary stages of success and failure, reward vs punishment, pain and pleasure...etc, as they grow to understanding how their own actions parlay cause and effect and on and so on. 

The problem of AGW ...isn't a question of whether it is Natural or artificial ... it's a question of evidence and observable cause and effect - one that awakens the morality.  By the time the evidences become that clear, it may be too late to stop the crater.   

 

Blossoms In The Dust. Even from dust (hu) man can rise.?.?. As always .......

[Typhoon Tip]

On 9/19/2019 at 2:17 PM, rclab said:

Blossoms In The Dust. Even from dust (hu) man can rise.?.?. As always .......

mm... not always - not imho that is.   

That introspection piece/op ed isn't an exoneration - the ending morality is paramount.  It's how we respond that's paramount.

Not sure exactly what you meant but, if by that as always, we intend to mean, we can just figure it out when we need to?  no - it's entirely plausible such a future is insurmountable, and as untenable as it may be it is in fact a future that could no longer include the footprint of our species. 

I will say though - the "intellectual force" is the most powerful one of life that evolution has ever managed to create - and because of that, there is uncharted waters.  But that's not a reliance - not even close.  It could fail - the tragedy would knowing that and not flouting opportunities to stopping it.   My present fear is that ...we could know it, and still be powerless to stop - 

[rclab]

On 9/19/2019 at 3:53 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

mm... not always - not imho that is.   

That introspection piece/op ed isn't an exoneration - the ending morality is paramount.  It's how we respond that's paramount.

Not sure exactly what you meant but, if by that as always, we intend to mean, we'll can figure it out when we need to?  no - it's entirely plausible such a future is insurmountable and as untenable as that may be, it is in fact a future that would not longer include the footprint of our species. 

I will say though - the "intellectual force" is the most powerful one of life that evolution has ever managed to create - and because of that, there is uncharted waters.  But that's not a reliance - not even close.  It could fail - the tragedy would knowing that and not flouting opportunities to stopping it.   My present fear is that ...we could know it, and still be powerless to stop - 

Perhaps it’s metaphysical optimism. I worry about our seeming collective uselessness in taking action. What concerns me is if we lack the concern to effectively restore balance will we like it when natural order steps in to do it for us. As always .... and thank you for your reply.

[etudiant]

I don't think action is easily compelled, even less so when there is little leadership and few clear examples of the way forward.

Germany is a case in point, vocally green and yet more dependent on coal and energy imports than before. If Japan could be mobilized, that would be a persuasive step, but there is no sign of such.

Meanwhile, the evidence of a real ecosystems breakdown is all around us, evidenced by the recent report on declining bird numbers (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-birds-idUSKBN1W42NA)

That is a disaster arising from habitat destruction, bad land use and indiscriminate use of pesticides, all problems that can be fixed, at a price. Who pays the price is the sticking point, even though long term we all share the hurt that is being inflicted.

[Vice-Regent]

The only known way to solve the problem is to abandon Civilization from the equation. Stop population overshoot and the ability to exploit the environment at will en-masse. (with the adjacent technologies).

Humans like any other organism must live in equilibrium with it's environment. There is a place for us. A world without civilization is worth living in.

[etudiant]

On 9/20/2019 at 9:33 PM, Vice-Regent said:

The only known way to solve the problem is to abandon Civilization from the equation. Stop population overshoot and the ability to exploit the environment at will en-masse. (with the adjacent technologies).

Humans like any other organism must live in equilibrium with it's environment. There is a place for us. A world without civilization is worth living in.

That leaves it up to nature to balance the equation, which she is quite capable of doing, but I doubt we would like the process.

It seems a counsel of despair, that we cannot manage ourselves, which also is quite wrong by the evidence of collapsing birth rates in Asia, Europe and the Americas.

Only Africa still has rapid  population growth, but that will adjust as the continent becomes more urbanized and civilized.

[Vice-Regent]

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

That leaves it up to nature to balance the equation, which she is quite capable of doing, but I doubt we would like the process.

It seems a counsel of despair, that we cannot manage ourselves, which also is quite wrong by the evidence of collapsing birth rates in Asia, Europe and the Americas.

Only Africa still has rapid  population growth, but that will adjust as the continent becomes more urbanized and civilized.

Too little too late. The birth rate doesn't matter when the per capita consumption is so extreme in first world countries. There's no other reason other than civilization is a malicious entity and needs to go away.

As well let us remember the hardship and tears required to buildup a worldwide civilization throughout the millennia. It is a very poor consolation to accept that it was all for a short-term satisfaction of a few privileged people. To echo some cornerstones of leftist thought. The United States was founded and sustained by slavery (and the British Empire, China, etc). As usual the truth or ideal state is usually in the middle of the two extremes. (except for AGW)

[LibertyBell]

On 9/19/2019 at 2:00 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

A conceptual question I've oft coveted about the anthropomorphism aspect of AGW, is how "natural" vs "unnatural" is that in reality.

You know, whatever we do as a species .... is natural. Quite logically, any process of Nature must then be causal in the changing nature of the natural setting and on and so on.  Thus Nature cannot create something unnatural.

That may seem obvious reading that in short, terse turns of phrase, but it still is an important distinction that tends to get lost in the dogma of environment lobbies, this, that, and/or the general conscientious voice.  Plastic, as anathemic as it's becoming... isn't really unnatural at all. 

Look if we wanna call Plastic, global warming, death-zones of the seas... etc, etc, secondary, tertiary, or quaternary harmful consequence of something Nature did, that's fine and perhaps we should define them more proper to real math. Any decision we make as an entity-force as entity-forces created by Nature, is a natural force.  Sorry - anything else is delusional.  

Yes yes we all get it, but why does that matter? 

Well...for starters, there are tendencies to improperly conflate factors that are incorrectly derived/defined when semantics, particularly those of incendiary rhetoric etymology is the primary conveyance; and also, culpability is a miss-assignment of blame. It disenfranchises when considering that Nature put us here in all our glory, an organism so advanced technically. It's a fair question - what really is and is not our fault... Ah, one that may be answered through morality? Because once one's detriment is revealed, to persist along that same course becomes a moral hazard.

Before that happens, however ... hint hint hint:  no one has ever won a debate insulting people. That's what the shimmering brilliance of the Environmental/scientific community didn't understand in their art of diplomacy decades ago, when they introduced this whole crisis 'all people are asshole' snorting pigs  ... They disenfranchised Humanity in a lot of ways by impugning the same "rights" to do what Natural evolution gave them the capacity to do.  It set off a sociological ramification that I believe we continue to fight today.  But that's speculative.

Define a catch-22:  Nature endowed its self with an unstoppable ways and means to remove its self.  Ho, what a fantastic irony. There's an intriguing premise for a science fiction novel, "The GAIA experiment: the kill-switch chronicles."  Holistic muse aside... this may also be related to why deep field cosmological fields of research don't readily see the Universe twinkling with the after glow of all these super advanced species.  Too few over pass this test.

Leading geologic and paleontological sciences purport plenty of evidence that during the Dinosaur's apex reign circa 250 to 65  Million years ago ... there were extended periods with no icecaps.  In fact, there are fossil remains of tropical flora above the 60th parallel, and that's also factoring in tectonic drift, too.  Life flourished until the either the Chicxulub, or a cocktail of events including that fateful comet or asteroid teamed up an end the Mesozoic era. It's not a question of whether life can survive an ice free world - the problem is rate of adaptation that's the killer.  Pangea broke apart over millions of years and as the climate shifted because of resulting changing circulation patterns, air and sea, along ( probably ) with eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, taking place spanning millions of years.  Human kind evolving the ways and means to liberate in just 500 to 1,000 years what took this planet some 3 billion years to sequester, and that is reactive Carbon, that is a Chicxulub event for all intents and purpose.  

Ahh...but we have this thing called morality - morality is based in no small part on an unconscious, yet ubiquitously accepted knowledge ... no, scratch that. Let's call it an 'ability', within the mentality of responsible sentience ( not everyone...) to project results of addition and subtraction to the vitality of scenario, and weigh the cost of ending consequences.  There are probably an innumerable ways to define morality, but one thing most would likely agree upon is that it is the existential result of the individual having matured through necessary stages of success and failure, reward vs punishment, pain and pleasure...etc, as they grow to understanding how their own actions parlay cause and effect as these related to the former, and on and so on. 

The problem of AGW ...isn't a question of whether it is Natural or artificial ... it's a question of evidence and observable cause and effect - one that awakens the morality.  By the time the evidences become that clear, it may be too late to stop the crater.   

 

I have long thought that nature has a kill-switch; whenever a single species becomes too dominant, a tipping point is reached and nature pulls the switch in favor of biodiversity and against single species dominance.  The whole planet is self-regulating.