[Whitefang]

Base line on the above data is very recent, already abruptly changed, heated up.
Better based on the changes from the average last century or so.
Yes still below freezing H2O but it is the extremes that matter, rain events on the pole, summer sea ice exit, those happening will push the Arctic climate out of balence and once it is far enough from normal it is impossible to return to the stable state.
Until a new state, hothouse without ice, the end of ice.

There might be discussion on how fast it, AAmp. is going faster but the causes are known, all those feedbacks upon feedbacks, albido/methane/jet/PV/snowcover/currents…...the pole is the weak link in the stable climate we used to enjoy.

[jedrider]

A new international research study on the cause of Arctic amplification published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that local greenhouse gas concentrations, and Arctic climate feedbacks outweigh other processes. Using complex computer simulations, the scientists were able to disprove previously suggested hypotheses, that emphasized the role of transport of heat from the tropics to the poles as one of the key contributors to the amplified warming in the Arctic.

"Our study clearly shows that local carbon dioxide forcing and polar feedbacks are most effective in Arctic amplification compared to other processes," said corresponding author Malte Stuecker, project leader at the IBS Center for Climate Physics (ICCP) in Busan, South Korea.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-local-dri ... c.html#jCp

Well, I guess that's the answer I was looking for. Rather simple than complicated.

[jedrider]

OK, not so really simple, as it is almost never so simple:

In the tropics—fueled by high temperature and moisture—air can easily move up to high altitudes, meaning the atmosphere is unstable. In contrast, the Arctic atmosphere is much more stable with respect to vertical air movement. This condition enhances the CO2-induced warming in the Arctic near the surface. In the tropics—due to the unstable atmosphere—CO2 mostly warms the upper atmosphere and energy is easily lost to space. This is opposite to what happens in the Arctic: Less outgoing infrared radiation escapes the atmosphere, which further amplifies the surface-trapped warming.

"Our computer simulations show that these changes in the vertical atmospheric temperature profile in the Arctic region outweigh other regional feedback factors, such as the often-cited ice-albedo feedback" says Malte Stuecker.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-local-dri ... c.html#jCp

[Whitefang]

Thanks for the links to new findings on AA, what is rarely mentioned is all those extra Gtons of methane in the mix on top of the world.

Just watched the whole video of the end of ice, at 16 min they talk on that guy and how to take the bad news, so many people waking up now and trying to do their best, be excellent, impeccable.
I still have a long way to go though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOA8qR0-AA

Looks like Dahr and Thom Hartmann accepted abrupt CC, what it means and try to make it into something positive.
Terrible and yet....... We are still here
They know eachother well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vbrXJ675xc

Guy McPherson & Dahr Jamail - Moment of Bliss
6.640 weergaven

Tim Bob

Gepubliceerd op 7 mrt. 2018
Video: BBC Blue Planet II
Music: Battle Hymn of the Republic - Mormon Tabernacle Choir,
The Murder of Crows - 'Moment of Bliss'

Beautiful! Profound words of wisdom by one of the few hero's of our current time; Guy McPherson. Great job Tim Bob in creating this perfect montage using short but poignant video clips and corresponding music to this dire but honest message! And thanks to Dahr Jamail for his important words as well! BRAVO TO ALL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUpSP5NfHYs

The latest, months before extinction, very near future. Radioshock

AFR, American Freedom Radio, no fear of doom, no rules, no taboo, Carol Rosin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktnAMTmgOX0

After listening to this ep with Dr David Suzuki, you’ll never be the same again. The environmentalist, activist, professor of genetics and science broadcaster hits us with some home truths about what our future will look like if we continue to live the way we have been. What will life be like for our children and grandchildren? Can the damage we’ve done to the planet be reversed? Is extinction of the human race imminent?

We talk about population control, the importance of renewable energy and discuss what we can do right now in our own lives that can actually make a difference. This is for anyone who cares about the future of mankind.


Timestamps
20:06 Why humanity has only got 1 minute left to live
25:25 Humans are the only species that don't care about their own children
29:17 Educate yourself on politics or don't complain about the government
36:26 Can we be saved from our own extinction?
59:09 A final challenge for entrepreneurs

[Whitefang]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yUeN5j7yfk

Tim Bob video of Guy and others last November, dealing with the data. Fine talk.


Reality report intervieuw


35% reduction of Industrial activities, about 1 degree warming within weeks, not months or years, let alone decades or more.

Even extinction Rebellion does not talk about the big D, Global Dimming…...they want, hold on to hope if we just curb everything then we still have the option of returning to an ice age.
Meth doom at the end.

[Whitefang]

The unrelenting increase in global levels of atmospheric methane went literally off-the-charts used to display methane for the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS). Methane levels were so high that they swamped out the colour scheme used in the map legend, causing saturation in large red blobs with little detail. The colour legend was shifted by 100 ppb to more clearly show the detailed structure of where methane was being emitted.

Paul B on methane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLEKWaZnvC8


All life on Earth, domino effect after fastest abrupt CC ever, 1000 times the previous fastest one, the great dying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBE9Gf0K1sE

Annihilation, hhmmm, that is a new twist

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35068-1

Climate change and human activity are dooming species at an unprecedented rate via a plethora of direct and indirect, often synergic, mechanisms. Among these, primary extinctions driven by environmental change could be just the tip of an enormous extinction iceberg. As our understanding of the importance of ecological interactions in shaping ecosystem identity advances, it is becoming clearer how the disappearance of consumers following the depletion of their resources — a process known as ‘co-extinction’ — is more likely the major driver of biodiversity loss. Although the general relevance of co-extinctions is supported by a sound and robust theoretical background, the challenges in obtaining empirical information about ongoing (and past) co-extinction events complicate the assessment of their relative contributions to the rapid decline of species diversity even in well-known systems, let alone at the global scale. By subjecting a large set of virtual Earths to different trajectories of extreme environmental change (global heating and cooling), and by tracking species loss up to the complete annihilation of all life either accounting or not for co-extinction processes, we show how ecological dependencies amplify the direct effects of environmental change on the collapse of planetary diversity by up to ten times.

Does make you wonder if even sturdy trilobites are able to make it through the bottleneck

Being in the midst of the sixth mass extinction1, it is fitting to quantify the relative contribution of different mechanisms driving catastrophic biodiversity loss. Drivers directly related to anthropogenic modifications of the biosphere are apparent and well-described: habitat destruction, over-exploitation, and biotic invasions2. Similarly, the effects of environmental change (e.g., temperature rise, increased droughts, ocean acidification, et cetera) can be easily interpreted — when the environmental conditions of a certain locality become incompatible with the tolerance limits of inhabiting species, in many cases these will go locally extinct, just like fish in an aquarium with a broken thermostat (even if there are counter examples of species that have been capable of rapid adaptation to novel environmental conditions3). Yet, there are other, more complicated mechanisms that can exacerbate species loss. In particular, it is becoming increasingly evident how biotic interactions, in addition to permitting the emergence and maintenance of diversity, also build up complex networks through which the loss of one species can make more species disappear (a process known as ‘co-extinction’), and possibly bring entire systems to an unexpected, sudden regime shift, or even total collapse4,5,6,7,8,9.

This makes it difficult to be optimistic about the future of species diversity in the ongoing trajectory of global change, let alone in the case of additional external, planetary-scale catastrophes. A previous study14 contended this idea by using the remarkable tolerance of tardigrades to extreme temperature, pressure, and radiation as a reference to calculate the likelihood of global sterilization on an Earth-like planet following different, dramatic astrophysical events. The stunning conclusion of that study is that life on our planet has the potential to survive asteroid impacts, supernovae, and gamma-ray bursts14. This ostensibly reassuring news highlights how some scientists still tend to disregard the role of co-extinctions within collapsing communities in driving global biodiversity loss, while focusing on individual species’ tolerance limits as the only criteria relevant to species survival in a changing world. Ecologists know the optimism is not supported quantitatively, but can we estimate the magnitude of the bias?
Here we attempt to do this by combining real-world ecological and environmental data to generate several virtual Earths populated by interconnected species-interaction networks where we allow species to move and adapt, that we then subjected to extreme, global environmental change. By comparing scenarios of extinctions based only on species’ environmental tolerances with others accounting also for co-extinctions, we show that neglecting to consider the cascading effect of biodiversity loss leads to a large overestimation of the robustness of planetary life to global change.

Oops, I meant tardigrades, just not read the whole intro and wondering about trilobites…they were ancient life now well down under lots of Earth right?


Difficult to be optimistic Understatement of the year

Amazing that this comes out on nature.com, scientific community is waking up, just in time I suppose, to face doom openly

[Whitefang]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAWZwhOy2ss

Look at how much attention from HS this Guy gets from just venting the truth.
That alone should set off your alarms.

Conversation with Dr. Guy McPherson on Nov. 18, 2018

Peter Miller - http://www.breakawaymhe.com
Guy McPherson - http://www.guymcpherson.com

Topics discussed...

- comments in youtube videos
- carbon sequestration technologies
- accountability for greenhouse effect (who got us here? who should take responsibility?)
- the self-defeating nature of neoclassical economics/capitalism
- pathology of the rich and powerful
- shifting pathology to the powerless (gaslighting)
- hubris in science, hubris in general
- thoughts about "deep state"
- when/how/if to communicate extinction info. to children

In my perception he is a great teacher, he acts with integrity, impeccability unless he is tortured

Counterattack:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... &eim=1,2,6

Parental Advisory for explicit content
Response from Guy:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... &eim=1,2,6

[Rod_Cloutier]

Parental Advisory for explicit content

Content over the top. The lucky bugger got a threesome, and yet he's travelling all around the place telling people to commit suicide.

His reputation has just gone down a few notches.

[Fredrik]

Here's a critique of many of McPherson's arguments.

https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/201 ... -it-wrong/

His near-term extinction scenario seems mostly based on the theory that abrupt warming in the Arctic ocean will inevitably trigger a sudden massive methane release from the East Siberian seabed. However, I read somewhere that these methane clathrates are dozens or even hundreds of meters deep under the seabed and that any extra warming of the ocean, however dramatic, takes many decades or more than a century to penetrate so deep into the seabed.

[onlooker]

Fredrik, you need to read the many threads of Runaway Global warming on this site. In them you can peruse the many commentaries from Cid Yama synthesizing what some scientists are saying is happening in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Suffice to say we are talking about a substantial amount of disassociated methane just below the permafrost in danger of being released because this permafrost is melting under current conditions there.

As for Guy's personal affairs, completely irrelevant to his assertions

[Fredrik]

Fredrik, you need to read the many threads of Runaway Global warming on this site. In them you can peruse the many commentaries from Cid Yama synthesizing what some scientists are saying is happening in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Suffice to say we are talking about a substantial amount of disassociated methane just below the permafrost in danger of being released because this permafrost is melting under current conditions there.

I remember the panicked talk about an imminent large-scale methane release in 2011, after the Semiletov/Shakova report with the huge methane plumes and the oft-quoted 50 gigaton scenario. So far, methane levels have only risen by a few percent since, despite record warming in the Arctic. Most climate scientists seem to expect a similar slow increase of methane from the Arctic region during the decades to come.

And the subsea permafrost has been slowly thawing for millennia after the East Siberian Arctic Shelf got inundated, so this theoretical threat of 50 gigaton release has been there for maybe thousands of years. IIRC, the thaw now reaches several dozens of meters deep, so any additional heat from the warming waters takes quite some time to permeate deeper than that.

[Whitefang]

An update on the Arctic Warm Wedge:

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/w ... 532,72.063

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/w ... 039,80.075

Plus .8 degrees at 80.08 degrees NL! Free of ice I suppose.
Minus 3 degrees Celcius at the Bering Sea, still freezeng, around minus 8 at the Northpole. Once the cold blob on the arctic ocean is split up, between Canada and Russia, it will be hard for the relic sea ice to form and stay intact.

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2 ... R2_nic.png

Barentz sea almost complete free of sea ice, large gap North of Spitsbergen, arctic turning into atlantic regime, an abrupt regime change of the climate.

Guy is saying we should pay attention and live with death in mind, be excellent every day and night as if it is your last little dance on this Earth, this magical place, he is telling we should brace ourselves for this change will speed up with the absence of our dirty global shield, Global Dimming or the loss of sea ice that will probably plunge us into a hothouse.
That 50 Gton from Shakova, free methane underneath the subsea permafrost of the ESAS comes to mind
Even without abrupt CC, it is really better to stop living as if we are immortal beings, let death be your advisor every moment, to let you make the best decision before you act like a petty tyrant and hurt yourself and others around you.
Heck, I am an optimist, I think we are not as stupid as we do, think we are.
I think we are misled which is not an excuse or judgement.
We need a miracle.

60 feedback loops are activated, a few of the largest are just shifting gear, acceleration upon acceleration....power of the exponent
This is bound to go boom blast, not a happy ending.
Fast and lethal, alike a tsunami....bbbrrr

Watching that thin white line
Growing on horizon just fine
People living daily life
All together such a strive
A fluffy sweaty sunday afternoon
Bored to death on wifi whatssapp
Then a sudden twilight,
Hard to see face and book
A shiver in the night, into endless doom
All that fun, now too late to run
Not even a chanche to say goodbye
To show your true feelings, to let them fly
Darkness, here we come.

[dohboi]

"We need a miracle"

Indeed, and since your getting all poetic on us, let me contribute some other lyrics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRf7_qa__F8

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xqiu0ekahw

Back to Guy--I do think that he tends to look at the ranges of possibilities presented at any time anywhere in the science and assumes that the absolute worse is sure to happen. Unfortunately, all too often as science improves, we learn things are indeed on the worse to worst side of the range--lots of 'fat tails,' too.

As I pointed out elsewhere I believe, new reassessments of the cooling force of aerosols points that indicator up from ~.5 C to closer to 1 C...not quite Guy's preferred estimate of 2 C, but moving in that direction.

That's bad, because it means that if aerosols are cooling that much, the heating it is masking is even greater. So we are just a major economic downturn away (or a more aggressive global push against dirty coal plants) from seeing a fairly sudden (like within weeks) jump in temps by a full degree. No one knows what the effects of such sudden and dramatic global increase would be, but it likely wouldn't be very pretty.

[Fredrik]

At least in theory, aerosols could be used as a stop-gap measure via geoengineering to buy us some time (years, decades?) to radically decrease CO2 emissions (although even a radical decrease wouldn't completely stop warming either by now). There may well be negative side-effects, such as shifting rainfall patterns, but it would probably be better than doing nothing. The governments are probably going to need a hard climate shock with failed crops and famine before seriously implementing geoengineering, though.

The most urgent aspect of climate change is the threat to food production by warming and drought. Large parts of the northern forest regions must be taken into agricultural use. There are still areas with mostly deciduous forest in Russia that may support crops when cleared into fields, while the more acidic coniferous forest soils are by and large suitable for potatoes, although these northern areas are obviously not enough to replace all the temperate zone farmland currently in use - and the clearing of forests itself decreases CO2 sinks.

[onlooker]

Here is a link, to what Fredrik is referring to called "stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) ". In fact it is on track to be attempted this year.
I would add though that this is not addressing acidification of the oceans nor presumably accumulation of CO2 in the atmoshere. So, then we would have to perpetually employ this technology to keep the Earth from heating?
Finally, I am also wondering is this not reducing the total natural (Sun) energy budget that all life relies on directly and indirectly to survive?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/science/ ... ?li=AA59G2

[Fredrik]

There was a recent study claiming that particle dimming would reduce sunlight for plant growth, enough to offset any positive cooling effect for crops suffering from heat. However, there was a caveat that this study was based on mechanisms of dimming from volcanic eruptions, and that man-made aerosol injection could have different properties and might not cause such damaging reductions of sunlight.

Another study, cautiously optimistic:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... g_2101-105

[AdamB]

Back to Guy--I do think that he tends to look at the ranges of possibilities presented at any time anywhere in the science and assumes that the absolute worse is sure to happen.

Based on viewing Guy's various claims for the timing of civilization collapse, on none of his collapse claims that are already in the past did he couch them in terms of probabilities. Not a single word related to statistics, no cumulative ascending or descending, no central tendency of a distribution in time or dependency on the independent variable, no general language of probability, certainly no fractile or percentile estimates on those collapse time frames.

Do you have a reference, in particular for his claims of collapse that are already in the past, where he used any sort of statistic calculation in any way, shape or form?

[dohboi]

???

I just said what you just said, so why are you asking me this? He doesn't give statistical ranges of probability. He just picks the most extreme point that he can find anywhere in the literature and presents it as the value.

I don't really care much about what he says or what he has predicted. Coming up with specific years for when you know something is going to happen for sure when it come to something as complex as climate is just stupid.

So we're in agreement on that, right?

[jupiters_release]

Parental Advisory for explicit content

Content over the top. The lucky bugger got a threesome, and yet he's travelling all around the place telling people to commit suicide.

His reputation has just gone down a few notches.

He mentioned that was a completely fabricated smear campaign. Writing, grammar, spelling definitely not in line with Guy's "let's see the dictionary definition" concretized mindset.

[AdamB]

???

I just said what you just said, so why are you asking me this? He doesn't give statistical ranges of probability. He just picks the most extreme point that he can find anywhere in the literature and presents it as the value.

I don't really care much about what he says or what he has predicted. Coming up with specific years for when you know something is going to happen for sure when it come to something as complex as climate is just stupid.

So we're in agreement on that, right?

Upon rereading the original paragraph I had focused on in the original post I commented on, I believe we are.