This is Ranyl's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ranyl's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
"With that ice stacked up over 3KM deep over wide areas of the island, it will take a very long time for the heat to get to it." Are you sure? Seems from this paper that all that hot melt water takes the latent and sensible heat to the centre of the ice sheet, meaning they will melt like microwaved butter from the inside out, they call it cryo-hydrologic warming of the internal and base of ice sheets. Basically heat gets into the ice sheet a lot faster than previously thought, and not in any melt models yet! Philips T. et al, "Evaluation of cryo-hydrologic warming as an explanation for increased ice velocities in the wet snow zone, Sermeq Avannarleq, West Greenland" Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface.
Toggle Commented Oct 2, 2013 on Pinpointing the minimum at Arctic Sea Ice
Seems there is a lot of solution denial here, there is no time for replace any energy system! Renewables don't save carbon there are all a carbon cost to give some future electricity and every sinlge once of the carbon will have to re-removed and What about the grid? And what about other ecological effects of renewables when we are in a mass extinction now being stressed further and further by global warming. 350ppm is a long long long way away and we need to stop emissions now. There needs to be a paradigm shift to something not known and not just of power supply, but of every thing to facilitate a transformation needed to actual stop using fossil fuels i.e. Political system, economic system (entirely), farming and so on..... Write of debt? Outlaw Interest? De-value money every year? Ban coal mining, oil mining, gas mining.. Use far far less power, everyone now. Start shouting that the situation is alarming! alarming ! alarming! And needs the sort of action that this scale of problem deserves. E.g Just never go to an airport again because you care!
Thanks Neven, alarming. Considering the degrees of change already becoming apparent, the multiple positve non linear feedbacks (sea ice, methane, ^H2O with temperature), the recent study showing how it takes a higher climate sensitivity to produce the changes being seen and it does seem that we are in for a significant amount fo warming in the next 100years. Wonder where the runaway feedback tipping point is and is the tipping potential dependent just on scale alone (temperature rise) or on rate and scale? It seems to me that from the video that there this a runaway tipping point of no return, which produces a new temperature target that we must stay below, or it truly is a scorched earth. Lets hope that at least can avoided, they are talking about a lot of methane, however the massive release of methane didn't seem to happen during the last deglciation, although as Hansen has postulated the Arctic is probaly already as hot now as then, just the melt hasn't been completed, which is sort of suggestive we might be going a fair amount hotter. It does seem as though the release of methane from continental self methane has been induced and it has just recently it has been shown that CO2 from the first few metres of permafrost is already going to be released whatever we do. Hansen says the things may get beyond adaptation due to sea level and weather events, yet it is already clear that the sea level and the potential scale of storm surges at New York aren't going to fall anytime soon, 1m sea level is the lower end of conservative chance by 2100 and therefore doesn't that mean New York really does have to be relocated sometime this century? We are going get least 20% more rainfall overall, but also concentrated into deluge events, meaning lots more flooding as is all already being seen. Therefore there must be another temperature taget that is beyond adaptation? ???1.8C is basically inevitable whatever we do now and considering what is already happening (especially America droughts) with 0.8C, that alone is going to take some major transformational changes to the way we do things to maintain a large vibrant civilization. The last time the world has a CO2 of 325-400ppm (most likely 350ppm) and a continental arrangement as today (but with a slightly dimmer sun), was the early Pliocene and the earth by most estimates then was 2-5C warmer, more likely 3-5C and that has to include all feedbacks playing out their parts over millenia. However 60-80% of the warming occurs, so even 350ppm means 1.8C to 3C and a sea level rise ovrall of 20-25M eventually, so all the major cities are going to have to be moved in the next few millenia. It strikes me therefore there needs to a clear target for CO2 aspirations. For me 400ppm max, target 350ppm asap. That is a tight carbon budget, but considering the alternative?? Interesting the Arctic's siesmic activity is incerasing?
"The 450 Scenario of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011, which sets out an energy pathway consistent with a 50% chance of limiting the increase in the average global temperature to 2°C" 50/50 chance of avoiding 2C, well that's not reassuring. 2C lets think about that, that is another whole 1C warmer than now, just how far will the baseline mean for extreme heat events have shifted by then, we've already shifted by gone 1.5SD, so ~3SD, or 1:1000 years events every other year! And the models there using draw down carbon far to quickly, don't have good ozone representation, the lowest possible CO2 release for warming and no permafrost releases, so that 50:50 is a hopeful misinformation in any case. Not to mention a much delayed albedo acceleration as those AGW models don't melt the Arctic a smuch as now for another 30-50years at least. What emissions reductions do we need to have a 95% of avoiding going over 2C? And that still means 1.5C is a certainity! Peak oil for me is somewhat irrelevant, we need to stop using all fossil fuels now, not encourage people to look for more as they think they're running out. The only way of change is to adapt (mitigation included) everything to create a none growth fossil fuel free, equitable, eco-system enhancing,carbon sequestering and sustainable society and protect agiasnt the inevitable warming and extremes to come and face up to the tiny carbon budget (or shoudl I say debt) that we have. That means an adaptation transformation, which is hinted in the SREX report initial chapters and including the adaptation thread into every decision we make as Eileen Shea (NOAA) stresses in her talk here, I now its a pipe dream but faced with the what is happening we might as well try to make it happen in anyway possible?
And what about the other stuff? Mining, biodiversity, mass extinction, pollution, waste, pesticides, nitrogen fertilizers (kept those carbon sinks up nicely), over exploitation of resources, population, migrations, food insecurity, water issues, and so on. Maybe it is time to consider using lots and lots less power? 350ppm isn't that safe and that means there is no carbon budget, and all electricity production at present needs CO2 emissions to make it, even renewables, and therefore the question I ask is how much more upfront CO2 can be risked to provide power? To get to 350ppm means a peak of 400ppm with optimistic CO2 cycle models, so that is ~3years of current emissions as the latest CO2 is 395ppm. Ah well, what do we do? Rise to the challenge and learn how to adapt to climate and to transform everything else to being fossil fuel free, sustainable, equitable and eco-system enhancing?
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2012 on ASI 2012 update 9: stormy weather at Arctic Sea Ice
Ranyl is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 11, 2012