Ship of Fools: Arctic 20°C (36°F) above normal, does anyone care?

Thread: Arctic 20°C (36°F) above normal, does anyone care? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030574

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Absolutely unprecedented and bizarre. I don't believe I need to post a link, a simple search turns up sufficient info. It is reported widely. It looks like a crisis to me. And as the permafrost melts, methane will also enter the atmosphere and we will warm the planet far faster. The climate where I live shows a delay with the onset of stable snow and consistent winter of close to 40 days.

Are you doing anything personally to slow your contribution to greenhouse gases? Like not driving a car, changing other forms of energy consumption? What else?

We're dealing with pipelines for various parts of this right now. Lots of controversy. The USA has the Dakota Access, Canada has the Energy East and Kinder-Morgan. It seems so hard for an average person to effect anything re policies, which is what really needs to be done. One thought: Would you support making fossil fuel generated power and gasoline say 5 to 10 times more expensive to discourage use and encourage alternative use? Or tracking of vehicle use and paying per mile or km for the car's contribution to greenhouse gases and to encourage greatly decreased use? Making airplane trips maybe also 5 to 10 times more costly? Other ideas?

[ 25. November 2016, 16:00: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It's the Chinese. They are heating the Arctic to bolster their "Global Warming" hoax.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I've been conserving energy for as long as I can remember -- for economic reasons as well as environmental (also recycling, etc.)

The problem with raising the costs of energy for the sake of the environment is that the wealthy will just go ahead and pay whatever the price (can you see Donald Trump taking the bus to work or riding his bike?), whereas the poor will freeze themselves to death (or die of heatstroke in the summer) and may have no way to get to work. Not all areas are served by public transportation, and not all jobs or stores or doctor's offices are within walking/biking distance.

I'm horrified about what's happening to our earth, and I have nightmares of what's going to happen starting in January.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Would you support making fossil fuel generated power and gasoline say 5 to 10 times more expensive to discourage use and encourage alternative use? Or tracking of vehicle use and paying per mile or km for the car's contribution to greenhouse gases and to encourage greatly decreased use? Making airplane trips maybe also 5 to 10 times more costly? Other ideas?

I will utterly oppose any and all cherry-picking nonsense such as greenhouse gas charges for car journeys. Emissions at ground level count the same whether they are produced by a car, a power station, a furnace, or whatever other way you burn hydrocarbons. So tax it the same (and yes, if it's burned by a bus, it still pays the same tax. And you need to apply the same tax to agricultural diesel. )

(Personally, I drive a car, but it's a fairly efficient model, and I total about 6000 miles a year. I'd quite like to cycle, but the weather isn't so cooperative. And I employ my heating and air conditioning significantly less than the local average.)

[ 25. November 2016, 16:35: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It's the Chinese. They are heating the Arctic to bolster their "Global Warming" hoax.

I thought it was all Obama's fault, perpetuating the hoax.
[Razz]

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I live in a small city, like many people. Cycling is the best way of getting around it - cheaper, faster, more sustainable. I don't need to drive to some techno-gym with a massive carbon footprint to work off the worst effects of the "civilised" lifestyle.

I have a car but I use it about once or twice a week. I rarely fly - foreign holidays are a treat, not an entitlement.

Modern bikes are very light, modern waterproof clothing is superb. (It rains more or less continuously from October to March here.)

The bicycle is the closest thing we have to a magic bullet for public policy. Every able-bodied urban-dwelling person should be using it as their default method of transport. Politicians should be devoting at least as much time to promoting cycling as they do to anything else.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I got rid of my tumble dryer, keep the house cooler and wear jumpers, switch lights off. Consume less.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

This morning on our radio the news reader said that the ice sheet over the South Pole hasn't altered in area size since Robert Scott of the Antarctic recorded it on his ill-fated mission in 1912.
So off we go on our daily routine happy in our denial that everything is just fine and dandy, and that any talk of climatic catastrophe is merely a 'Chinese conspiracy'.

You want my honest opinion? Bring in draconian measures. Ban non essential travel and industry Worldwide. Limit every female to bearing only one child Worldwide. Ain't never gonna happen, so just carry on as we are and take the consequences.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(Personally, I drive a car, but it's a fairly efficient model, and I total about 6000 miles a year. I'd quite like to cycle, but the weather isn't so cooperative. And I employ my heating and air conditioning significantly less than the local average.)

I don't ever agree with weather comments and cycling. Being 60ish, having a 12 km commute each way, and living in a climate with historical winters lasting from Oct to April, sometimes longer, and a temperature range down to -40° (F and C coincide there).

As for the cherry picking. Okay, let's pick all of the cherries. Fossil fuel use shall be taxes at the level that sequesters the exhaust, from whatever source.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
This morning on our radio the news reader said that the ice sheet over the South Pole hasn't altered in area size since Robert Scott of the Antarctic recorded it on his ill-fated mission in 1912.
So off we go on our daily routine happy in our denial that everything is just fine and dandy, and that any talk of climatic catastrophe is merely a 'Chinese conspiracy'.

You want my honest opinion? Bring in draconian measures. Ban non essential travel and industry Worldwide. Limit every female to bearing only one child Worldwide. Ain't never gonna happen, so just carry on as we are and take the consequences.

melting of west antarctic ice sheet

It'll take a few years for the melt to reach the pole. For reasons not fully understood (though possibly because most carbon is emitted in the northern hemisphere) the arctic is warming much more quickly.

It won't be us who takes the consequences in full, it'll be our children and grandchildren. Maybe that's fine with you.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I thought the reasons were pretty well understood? The circum-polar current keeps the south cold while the gluf stream warms the north. The antarctic has been getting colder over the long term so climate change has to overcome that trend.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I care. I am not as good as I could be. But changes I might make are minor given who is in charge in the US.

We need a fundamental change in lifestyle - planet wide. We should put significant taxes onto flights (and fuel) - that will impact everyone but the wealthy more, I guess.

But sin-tax is not the answer. We need to change attitudes. We need to have a commitment to zero emission power and fuel - that is about national infrastructure and changes in attitudes.

I don't think we will, because I think those in power don't give a fuck. In the end, that is the problem - they will be OK longer than most, so why fuss.

And yes, it is a political issue. Because without political motivation, nothing will happen.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Limit every female to bearing only one child Worldwide.

As a matter of interest, how would you enforce such a "limitation"?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I thought the reasons were pretty well understood? The circum-polar current keeps the south cold while the gluf stream warms the north. The antarctic has been getting colder over the long term so climate change has to overcome that trend.

Thank you, I will look this up.

I believe there's also a "runaway" effect because sea ice reflects solar heat, but once it's melted the sea warms even more quickly, reducing ice coverage.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Limit every female to bearing only one child Worldwide.
As a matter of interest, how would you enforce such a "limitation"?

If one were so inclined (I am not) one could make the implantation of long-term hormonal contraceptives compulsory for the mother as a condition of the first child being eligible for access to state education and healthcare.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

As for the cherry picking. Okay, let's pick all of the cherries. Fossil fuel use shall be taxes at the level that sequesters the exhaust, from whatever source.

That's fine - that's not cherry picking. I'll support a tax on CO2 so long as it applies equally.

(And to be honest, it's the summers that give me more trouble from a cycling point of view. In London, I'd cycle year round (except for 2 or 3 days when it was raining so heavily that I'd be drenched before I got to the shed to get my bike). Here, if I tried to cycle to work in the summer, I would expect to die. I don't handle the heat well.

Not sure I'd ever be hard-core enough to emulate my friend who has a snow plough for his bicycle, though.

[ 25. November 2016, 18:19: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Limit every female to bearing only one child Worldwide.
As a matter of interest, how would you enforce such a "limitation"?

You don't need to enforce it. You just educate women. The more educated they are, the fewer children they have. You could look on that as a win-win situation.

(No, it doesn't reduce to 1 child. But it does reduce the number of children significantly)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I will utterly oppose any and all cherry-picking nonsense such as greenhouse gas charges for car journeys. Emissions at ground level count the same whether they are produced by a car, a power station, a furnace, or whatever other way you burn hydrocarbons. So tax it the same (and yes, if it's burned by a bus, it still pays the same tax. And you need to apply the same tax to agricultural diesel. )

Burning fossil fuels in large centralised power stations is significantly more efficient than lots of small generators (especially mobile ones like cars). Even with transmission losses, an electric car using power from a coal burning power station will produce less CO2 per mile. With savings even greater when low carbon generation is a large component of the generating capacity. Centralised facilities can also potentially contribute to carbon capture and storage (though far better not to burn it in the first place).

But, on your main point I agree. A simple tax on carbon production, no matter the form - the same $/ton whether burnt in a car, an aeroplane, or a power station. With the money raised invested in supporting the poor cope with the increased costs - insulation of homes, subsidy of bus routes, grants towards more efficient cars, boilers, etc.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Consume less.

This is a massive part of the problem. The energy we use directly and the indirect use when we buy shit we do not need.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think a reasonable first step might be to define "frivolous" use of fuels and impose high taxes on those uses. Offhand: demolition derbies, various kinds of races, flying professional sports teams from here to there, etc. The really big one, of course, is military use, but that probably can't be easily reduced.

More practical: introduce gas rationing and actually enforce it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Solar panels and some standard economy measures mean that we consume significantly less mains electricity and gas. Net utilities fuel costs (after taking into account the FIT) are 15% of what they were 3 years ago.

(We got in before the government disincentive).

On Arctic v Antarctic, because Antartica is a large continent there is a lot more ice there. It will take a lot longer to melt but have a significant impact on sea levels when it does.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I admit it is hard, and for me, frankly scary. This is one of the majority of years in the last decade where we haven't enough snow to ski. That's recreation, but my friends to the north in Yellowknife (NWT, Canada) talk about that people cannot get out on to the land to hunt to fill the larder for winter. Snow is required for snowmobiles to operate, and the land has to be frozen for other transport, and it isn't. So we have communities that need to shoot 15-60 caribou to make it until spring, and they can't start yet. Forget ice fishing.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You don't need to enforce it. You just educate women. The more educated they are, the fewer children they have. You could look on that as a win-win situation.

And then you have to accept the demographic change. Elsewhere in these pages, we have discussed the "need" to import lots of young immigrants in order to take care of the ageing native populace. This has to change - once the countries that provide the immigrants have acquired developed economies and educated women, the source of immigrants goes away. You have to accept that the consequence of people living longer is that more people are old, and deal with it, rather than trying to immigrate your way back to 1950s demographics.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Consume less.
This is a massive part of the problem. The energy we use directly and the indirect use when we buy shit we do not need.

Yeah but we are told we need shit, brainwashed, led like donkeys toward a huge consumer binge pit.
Consumer led economies demand this, Green politics is political suicide.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It won't be us who takes the consequences in full, it'll be our children and grandchildren. Maybe that's fine with you.

No, it is not fine with me.
Even taking an entirely irreligious view, accepting that we might be a freak life-bearing Planet on the edge of a Cosmic barren wilderness, I don't see shitting in the lifeboat as a top idea.

Got any solutions?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You don't need to enforce it. You just educate women. The more educated they are, the fewer children they have. You could look on that as a win-win situation.
And then you have to accept the demographic change. Elsewhere in these pages, we have discussed the "need" to import lots of young immigrants in order to take care of the ageing native populace. This has to change - once the countries that provide the immigrants have acquired developed economies and educated women, the source of immigrants goes away. You have to accept that the consequence of people living longer is that more people are old, and deal with it, rather than trying to immigrate your way back to 1950s demographics.

I'm assuming that that's the generic "you" rather than the singular?

I fully accept that the demographic will change, and that perhaps the destruction of manufacturing jobs due to automation might free up some of the labour force for caring for the elderly.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It won't be us who takes the consequences in full, it'll be our children and grandchildren. Maybe that's fine with you.
No, it is not fine with me.
Even taking an entirely irreligious view, accepting that we might be a freak life-bearing Planet on the edge of a Cosmic barren wilderness, I don't see shitting in the lifeboat as a top idea.

Got any solutions?

I share your cynicism about (most) politicians. One of the most vomit-inducing stunts of recent years was Hameron going to the Arctic and posing with huskies, as if he gave a shit about anything except the next election.

This is down to us, the real people. We change our lives, we lead by example. Plenty of things we can all do, see posts passim

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Here is an article which says that Antarctic ice is not decreasing.

Moo

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Ignorable link. It doesn't matter what one article says. If you don't understand the serious of climate change and you want to debate it, that's just infuriating. The last straw for the planet. Maybe you have another point? Climate science is overwhelmingly clear. Regardless of any one article.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
one could make the implantation of long-term hormonal contraceptives compulsory for the mother

Why the mother? Why not sterilize the man after he fathers his first child?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-antarctica-sea-ice-level-growing-while-arctic-glaciers-melts-climate-change-g lobal-warming

Tl;dr version - yes Antarctic sea ice is not melting, despite it getting warmer, for reasons that are unclear. But it is getting warmer, even in the Antarctic, climate change is still happenibg.

[ 25. November 2016, 23:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

You do know that the Antarctic ice cap is actually increasing in mass, don't you? That the most recent studies all confirm this? For example NASA.

There are very good reasons to be worried by the nuance, as opposed to the headline, of course. But that the mass balance of the Antarctic ice cap is positive is, for the moment, established fact.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Er, yeah, 'swotisaid.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I know. Crossposted. Sue me. [Razz]

Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Ignorable link. It doesn't matter what one article says. If you don't understand the serious of climate change and you want to debate it, that's just infuriating. The last straw for the planet. Maybe you have another point? Climate science is overwhelmingly clear. Regardless of any one article.

It's not just one article. And it doesn't disprove the overall pattern of climate change.

There's a reason the term global warming was discarded in favour of the term climate change. Too many people hooked on to the word "warming" and said "but I feel cold."

The reality is, in spite of climate change and and overall pattern of average, global temperatures increasing, the Antarctic ice sheet isn't shrinking, even though the Arctic one is.

The change in climate patterns can create counter-intuitive localised trends. One study I saw recently concluded that climate change could affect the gulf stream and therefore cause localised cooling in areas fed by the warmer currents that pattern produces. That doesn't disprove the global trend, but instead reflects changing influences on climate.

Furthermore, if the Antarctic region is in some way buffered at present, understanding why may give clues about offsetting the damage already done. Because we've already pumped more carbon-based gases into the atmosphere than has been seen in millions of years in this planet, so even if we stopped all of it today, we need to offset the damage already done.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
one could make the implantation of long-term hormonal contraceptives compulsory for the mother
Why the mother? Why not sterilize the man after he fathers his first child?

The stated goal (rolyn's) was to limit every female to one child. Unless you're assuming faithful, lifelong monogamy restricting male fertility is unlikely to achieve the same goal. Bit of an angels-dancing-on-the-heads-of-pins question anyway as (I presume) none of us agree with the goal in the first place.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

On population: with the larger land mass in the northern hemisphere it makes sense that it is the arctic that seems more affected by global warming.

We also ignore the influence of simple sunlight: if there are far fewer plants belching out clouds of CO2 there are fewer clouds period - and that means more sunlight getting through to warm land and sea surely.

As for population: not just in relation to environmental pressure but also fiscal pressures in those countries, like the UK, that give benefits for children. What makes more sense is for mothers to only be given state help for 3 children during their lifetime - after that if you want more you pay the true cost yourself.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That's a good way of punishing children in large families. Karma I suppose, you had feckless parents, so now fuck off and live on the streets.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

No, no no. I explained myself badly. Of course benefits payable for children must not be withdrawn from those children already born. What could be done is to say that from date X - at least 12 months before it comes into operation - child benefit and tax credits will only be payable for the first 3 children.

I'd also say build in exceptions for things like naturally occurring multiple births.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Why the mother? Why not sterilize the man after he fathers his first child?

Yup, nothing wrong with that. Fair's fair.
Could also do something along the lines of reducing testosterone so as to address a load of other self inflicted problems as well.

Trouble is all this could be creeping into an area whereby we so manicure are existence to avoid screwing the planet that life itself becomes rather dull.

Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :

I agree with the need for some sort of population control, but can't say I agree with sterilization after one child. What if that child dies shortly thereafter?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
On population: with the larger land mass in the northern hemisphere it makes sense that it is the arctic that seems more affected by global warming.

We also ignore the influence of simple sunlight: if there are far fewer plants belching out clouds of CO2 there are fewer clouds period - and that means more sunlight getting through to warm land and sea surely.

On what basis do you assert that CO2 has any sort of primary contribution to cloud formation? Surely water vapour is the major contributor?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We also ignore the influence of simple sunlight: if there are far fewer plants belching out clouds of CO2 there are fewer clouds period - and that means more sunlight getting through to warm land and sea surely.

When you say plants, I'm assuming you don't mean actual plants, which absorb CO2, and instead mean industrial plants which produce it.

In which case, what you see coming out of the chimneys is mostly water vapour condensing out from steam. Somewhat counter-intuitively, climate change is going to lead to more water vapour (due to increased air temperatures) in the atmosphere, and therefore more clouds. And while clouds can be excellent at reflecting sunlight back into space, only low clouds are. High clouds tend to be cold, absorb heat, and trap it beneath them.

A world shrouded by high cloud will be a much warmer one.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

They have had the idea of putting aerosol clouds that would turn the sky whiter asa way of reflecting the sun's heat. Major planetary engineering. Doesn't seem a solution. Nor sterilisation of people. The solution is probably spiritual and related explanatory mythology.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

If we look at the problem of Global Warming in a completely cold,(pardon oxymoron), and pragmatic way then the only real issue is whether enough dry land will remain once all of Earth's Ice has returned to being water.

All of our lives will of course be compromised, the lives of many will probably be destroyed, but Humanity itself will continue. In view of what we now know happened to the Dinosaurs, and in view of what we know would happen from a nuclear war maybe Ice cap melt isn't so far up the list catastrophic events.

Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If we look at the problem of Global Warming in a completely cold,(pardon oxymoron), and pragmatic way then the only real issue is whether enough dry land will remain once all of Earth's Ice has returned to being water.

All of our lives will of course be compromised, the lives of many will probably be destroyed, but Humanity itself will continue. In view of what we now know happened to the Dinosaurs, and in view of what we know would happen from a nuclear war maybe Ice cap melt isn't so far up the list catastrophic events.

Globally, I think you're right that we won't see the extinction of humankind from the effect of climate change. But it will still be unpleasant.

We've already shown how poor we are at dealing compassionately with refugees. Given the expected increase in climate refugees as areas/nations become uninhabitable, and the closing of borders we can expect around that, it will be a pretty grim low point.

Then there's the impact on agriculture. Increased desertification, loss of crops. Drought and famine, other extreme weather events (increased El Nino patterns in the pacific, potential implications for gulf stream, storms etc.) Increase in malaria and other mosquito borne illness as the habitat for the vector species increases.

I'm not trying to invoke the 4 horsemen here, and like I say, not the end of all things. But pretty bleak.

And it's past the point of just walking instead of driving the car. Planning for these likely civil emergencies now also needs to be underway as we prepare for significant changes in the next 50 to 100 years.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
the only real issue is whether enough dry land will remain once all of Earth's Ice has returned to being water.

An Earth where all the ice had melted would be drastically different. It's not just the change - it's the speed of the change, and it's unknown territory. The biosphere could potentially respond in catastrophic ways.

quote:
In view of what we now know happened to the Dinosaurs, and in view of what we know would happen from a nuclear war maybe Ice cap melt isn't so far up the list catastrophic events.

If the worst case scenarios come to pass, a nuclear war might not look so bad. And it's not a choice of one or the other - famine and displaced populations mean even moderate climate change is a huge threat multiplier, making global war far more likely.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
I'm not trying to invoke the 4 horsemen here

I am. We don't know how the various feedback mechanisms will play out - climate change might be a minor blip, or it might end civilisation.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Thinking today about the lost deep spiritual connection with the natural world and how our current religious beliefs, cultural mythology, and ways we understand the world are deeply flawed and failed. Overheard people talking about the things they "must have", must buy for Xmas this year. We humans used to think the created world, the natural world was important. God of the ocean, mountains, winds, forests. Our current mythology, stories and aspirations don't include anything about the spiritual significance of plains, mountains, forests or seas. Nature is a holiday destination, everything is a consumer item. Sacred places have become industrial resources, the life of which which we destroy and consume for our financial gain. Maybe these terrible foundational changes in our thinking is why we're killing the world.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0