This is Neven's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Neven's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The storm has begun. 957 hPa atm.
Over on the ASIF, Wipneus reports that Global sea ice extent is now record low as well. That's the lowest value on record since satellites have started monitoring sea ice. And it's not over yet. It could go quite a bit lower.
I think part of the answer is clouds. Here's an interesting article someone mentioned at the ASIF recently: Clouds and Sea Ice: What Satellites Show About Arctic Climate Change "There's no cloud response in summer to melting sea ice, which means it is likely that clouds are not slowing down the Arctic climate change that is happening—clouds aren't really providing the expected stabilizing feedback," Taylor said. "The fact that you are melting sea ice and uncovering more ocean and the fact that clouds don't increase during summer means that they are not buffering or reducing the rate of the warming, which implies the Arctic could warm faster than climate models suggest." Clouds are a two-edged sword when it comes to climate change. They have both cooling and warming effects not just in the Arctic but across the entire planet. During the day, white and bright clouds reflect part of the sunlight hitting the planet back into space. At night, however, they act as a blanket that doesn't completely allow day-accumulated heat to escape into space. This "blanket" mechanism is evident in just about any place on Earth. "If you think about cold winter nights, normally the coldest ones we get have clear skies," Taylor said. "But if you have winter nights that actually have clouds, those tend to be a little warmer." In the Arctic, this warming effect of clouds could influence sea ice during fall and winter, when the sun disappears for months and darker skies overlie oceans and land that spent an entire summer absorbing sunlight. Although further research needs to be conducted, Taylor said the increased clouds he observed in the fall seasons could slow down the process of refreezing sea ice through the winter. Slow refreezing could translate into summers with less and thinner sea ice -- something NASA satellites have already detected. It's a feedback loop. "That's what my results imply," Taylor said. "More clouds in the fall may delay or slow down the refreezing of sea ice, and that can lead to a thinner or more susceptible ice pack that will melt more quickly when spring and summer come around." Taylor also said one thing that is becoming more evident, thanks in part to his research, is that sea ice isn't controlling cloud behavior in the Arctic as much as previously thought. His study shows that different meteorological conditions like temperature, humidity and winds may be influencing Arctic clouds almost 10 times more than sea ice.
Robertscribbler has a post up with lots more info: The Human World Has Never Experienced A Time When Global Sea Ice Was So Weak and Reduced
David, I'll mention it in the next PIOMAS update.
Sabbatical or not, records must be reported (like I did last year, here and here, albeit a month later). According to NSIDC data, the Global sea ice area record for lowest minimum has just been broken, as shown on this Wipneus graph (world famous now because of what happened after... Continue reading
Posted 3 days ago at Arctic Sea Ice
Are D-Penquins interpretations assumed to be more acceptable? If so, by whom?? Stay out of this discussion and don't ask so many questions.
Another month has passed and so here is the updated Arctic sea ice volume graph as calculated by the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science Center: 2016 has come to a close, and unfortunately the story hasn't improved. Due to a constant barrage of... Continue reading
Posted Jan 8, 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Here's a short blog post for all of you out there publishing in the scientific literature (you know who you are). There's little less than a week left to submit your papers to the various sessions organized at this year's EGU General Assembly. The first session I'd like to mention,... Continue reading
Posted Jan 5, 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin, thanks for making the effort to change your name, much appreciated. And thanks also for your profile image which will remind us all of the importance of friendship. ;-) One thing I'd like to quote from your comment: Before solutions comes definition of the problems. I agree, but what you have done subsequently - no disrespect intended - is describe the consequence of the problem. Granted, AGW with its potential outcomes ranging from bad to catastrophic, is so large and complex that it may look like it's the problem. But, it actually is one of many consequences of a root cause that has to be tackled in parallel, if we want any solution to AGW to stand a chance of actually working. For a long time I have thought that the root cause of a variety of problems, from AGW to resource wars, from financial bubbles to deteriorating public health, was exponential economic growth as defined by neoclassical theory. You know, the absolute need for economies to grow forever (something classical economists warned against). I even wrote a Planet 3.0 guest article about it many moons ago, called Infinite Growth And The Crisis Cocktail. But then I realized it goes even deeper. As I wrote back in 2011: Now, of course there is nothing wrong with growth per se. It is an essential and universal part of nature. But normally things stop growing. Children stop growing when they reach adulthood, as do trees. Economic growth is a great thing when an economy needs to be developed, as we saw after World War II when Europe was in shambles. People needed housing and food, and putting economic growth on top of the agenda was the most efficient way to get all those things, fast. Developing nations such as India and China are doing the same as we speak. In principle there is nothing wrong with this kind of growth, but the idea that growth is always good and can be infinite is fallacious and dangerous. A thing that doesn’t stop growing, is cancer. Until it destroys its host, of course. After most basic needs were met in the developed world somewhere around the 60’s and 70’s of the last century exponential economic growth stopped being a means and became an end in itself. Why did it become an end in itself? That's the question I failed to ask at the time. Who benefited from this switch between means and end? Of course, it's what has now become known as the 1%, or the 0.1%, or the Super Rich. As long as everyone on this planet and even the planet itself has to dance to the tunes of the game the Super Rich are playing, everything will go down the same way it always has in the past when inequality became too big. There's a limit to everything, it seems, except to how much a person can own. Somehow, it's inconceivable that there's a lid on material and monetary possessions. A bit like the idea that the King was God's representative on Earth in olden days. Obviously, if we want to have any chance at solving the consequences of this systemic insatiability (and I say systemic, because I don't even think it's something the Super Rich want consciously, they're just playing along with the system, like we all do), if we want to have a chance at changing the current, all-dominating economic paradigms, we need to put a number on how much a person can own. Anything beyond this number needs to become a taboo, such as primitive tribes employed to promote social cohesion and increase chances of survival. Mind you, I'm not advocating communism, with everyone receiving 500 dollars per month for sweeping the pavement. I'm not talking about a forced equality, but rather about a fixed amount of inequality. The wealth cap could be as high as 100 million dollars, 500 million dollars, a billion dollars even. Whatever it is that people could agree upon. But there has to be a number. The sky is not the limit. That's the basic idea. If you go beyond basic, it becomes something filled with complexities, nuances, contradictions and impossibilities. As always with everything. So, to recap, I think it's interesting to think about and discuss what needs to be done to solve the AGW crisis, but in my opinion a cap on (extreme) wealth is an absolute prerequisite for creating the space and resources needed to solve AGW (and many other problems). I can't think about both things at the same time. And I don't have to. Maybe if I manage to reduce my (self-imposed) stress levels and increase my attention span, I could stir up an interest in the engineering solutions to AGW, which definitely are highly interesting. Either way, the purpose of this blog is to alert as many people as possible to the fact that there really is a problem. Here and now, not somewhere in the future, maybe. As for solutions, the wealth cap is the best I can offer. And I'm hoping to expand on it in the near future, because it's a fascinating subject with many angles.
Toggle Commented Jan 5, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
does this put an end to serious debate on this blog? Not to all serious debate. Like I said, I haven't read the whole discussion. All I saw, was the word troll appear here and there, and when someone like Rob Dekker then asks everyone to stay civil, I know enough. How do you get the message out? I don't know. You may ask yourself whether this is the ideal place for such an endeavour. But you know what the good thing is? We're talking about solutions, and not about whether there's a problem. That's always been one of the main goals of this blog.
Toggle Commented Jan 4, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
On a more general note, if you would prefer discussion about AGW, the understanding of the processes and possible solutions not to be discussed on your Blog, then please say so and I will stop posting. I'm just saying the ASIF is better suited for this kind of discussion, probably read by more people, and better preserved, so to say. One of the reasons I'm taking a sabbatical, is because I want to be able to read and think about the things you discuss again (although it won't change my mind about what has to be done for any solution to even stand a chance). Right now I just parse the first two sentences of long comments and go: Right, no time for this. Even though I know how important it is. For 'perfect' judgement I would have to read exactly who said what. It would be much easier if you guys don't let the heat get to your heads. BTW, it's always funny that as soon as you take a rest, your body says: Time to get sick, we can afford it now! :-D Two more days and I'll be back on my feet. Luckily, it's just a cold, albeit a tough one.
Okay, I don't receive automatic notifications for comments following guest blogs, so I wasn't aware of this heated discussion. I assumed it had ended, as there's a new blog post up, and of course, we have the wonderful ASIF for all this banter and ranter. And I have the mother of all colds. Let me just echo Rob Dekker's words about staying civil and not starting a nuclear troll allegation war. And I'm also not happy about the two D's, but I believe there's even a third one. Thank you, George, for always stating you're FishOutofWater.
Here's a great blog post by Tamino that tells this year's Arctic sea ice story and how a few cowards continuously lie(d) about it to their fellow men: Global Warming 2016: Arctic Spin The useful thing about a canary in a coal mine is that it warns you of danger... Continue reading
Posted Dec 29, 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
I don't believe Ivanka's real name is Pyotr Kropotkin. I suspect it is Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin. ;-)
Toggle Commented Dec 18, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
BTW, I wouldn't assume Elisee Reclus is a 'she', just because of the Elisee. Jacques Élisée Reclus (15 March 1830 – 4 July 1905) was a renowned French geographer, writer and anarchist.
Toggle Commented Dec 17, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
After being interviewed for the Washington Post, I have had the honour of being invited to talk on the Canadian radio (a CBC program called The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti), the audio of which was posted yesterday: 'Like watching a train wreck': Blogger quits writing about climate change I don't particularly enjoy talking about myself (the ego rush makes me insecure), and it's harder for me to talk English than to write it, but this turned out pretty well, I think.
Toggle Commented Dec 16, 2016 on Sabbatical (I hope) at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks, Hsofia. And the same to you and yours.
Toggle Commented Dec 15, 2016 on Sabbatical (I hope) at Arctic Sea Ice
Don't take it too hard, Ivanka. This is how it goes on the Internet. Besides, P-maker probably misinterpreted your words a bit, and then I misinterpreted his, and so on. I think we can all agree that Arctic sea ice loss is a very serious issue, perhaps the most important on the globe right now, collectively speaking. And that's the core of this blog.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
However this blog and a few others likewise, are the only thing on the internet championing science. These vanguards for a better world blogs are severely dwarfed in numbers by the conspiracy theory trolls. The latter rather large group also work for nothing or for a few dimes on u-tube, until some politician promotes them in order to gain votes. Maybe we should take it to them. Maybe I should ask Infowars or some such if I can write about Arctic sea ice there. Hmmm, something else to ponder this coming year. I don't know myself if I'm joking or not.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
It is the right time to drink good wine and listen to classical music, if you are convinced that things are 100% hopeless. That's much better than go to this blog and get angry at people when they say they are not 100% sure that things are 100% hopeless. That's my point. If P-maker doesn't believe that things are 100% hopeless, then he shouldn't drink good wine and listen to classical music (or at least not all the time), but get to work. Like we all must.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
Is that really you speaking, Neven ? P-maker never said that all is hopeless. To me it seemed that that was what his words implied. Elisee Reclus said: It has convinced me that there is a climate emergency, that human industrial activity is the cause of it, that it is potentially disastrous for humanity. I get that. What I don't know is just how disastrous it will be, how long it will take, or what, if anything, we can do about it. To which P-maker replied: Elisee Reclus – Ivanka, is that you? Not in order to confuse things any further, but your statement: "I find it difficult to accept that in a few generations, or lifetimes, the planet will become uninhabitable." is completely at odds with the sentiments here. This implies that P-maker believes the opposite of what Elisee reclus wrote, is true. Namely, that the planet will become uninhabitable. Elisee reclus then repeated the text I just quoted. P-maker then stated: When ‘Ivanka’ puts up statements like: “Everything will be fine 100 years from now”, I must react. I don't mind the back and forth, and the misunderstandings. But I wanted to seize the opportunity to stress again that doomerism doesn't make sense and is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not meaning to say that P-maker is doing this. It's not about him, I don't have a problem with him whatsoever (or with Elisee reclus). I just wanted to stress my point as this seemed to have become the central theme of this thread. Back to work now.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, where is that twitter feed from viddaloo that you mentioned as the cause to ban him ? I don't want to promote it, as that is obviously viddaloo's goal. I'll send it to you by mail. Whether he's a denier troll or an extreme alarmist troll, is irrelevant. The trolling leads to the same result.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, that does not sound like you, especially not against a rather mellow comment by P-maker. And it certainly does not sound like you on sabbatical. I don't have a problem whatsoever with P-maker and I'm very happy to have him as a commenter here and on the ASIF, but calling someone 'Ivanka' is not something I consider 'mellow'. As for the sabbatical: It's not really a sabbatical, it's just a break from blogging, so I have some more time to reduce my personal impact on the planet some more (as it's still way too big). I'm not going to work less, probably more. So, no relaxed Neven for a while yet to come. Look, things are a total mess. Arctic sea ice loss and AGW in general are as depressing as things get. Things will most probably not turn out well. People are going to suffer, evil things will be done, it will be ugly. It's the human condition projected outwardly. It's the conflict within all of us on display in the real world. But my point is simply this: If one thinks all is hopeless, there is no point in going on line and tell people off when they say that we cannot know the future, and that there might be some hope that we can muddle through this. All that does, is create a kind of paralysing fatalism that further ensures that all is hopeless. I'm just not going to do that. I don't want to be paralyzed, spending 12 hours every day behind the computer, looking at a trainwreck, getting worked up all the time and then die from a stroke or heart attack before the age of 60. I want to do things, work at solutions and increase that chance of us muddling through. If that means I'm in denial, fine. I like to choose my own illusion. Believing that all hope is lost is an illusion as well, with just different psychological motivations. This blog was never set up to promote doom and gloom, but to increase awareness and get people to break free from the collective illusion of consumer slavery. That's also why I'm taking a break. To get my focus back.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
Who cares, you might say: “ Sit down, have a glass of wine and listen to some music”. Not today Neven. Never! P-maker, I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm just saying that if you believe that it is a 100% certainty that civilisation will soon collapse and the human species goes extinct, there might be better things to do than to get everyone to agree to that on some small blog in cyberspace. When ‘Ivanka’ puts up statements like: “Everything will be fine 100 years from now”, I must react. You should read better, that's not what 'Ivanka' says. 'She' says: I don't know just how disastrous it will be, how long it will take, or what, if anything, we can do about it. Nobody here is saying it's impossible there will be a disaster, and as we can't know the future, we shouldn't do the opposite and say there will be a disaster, and there's nothing we can do about it. There will never be a moment of absolute control and a perfect plan that will allow us to solve a problem like AGW in the best possible way. We are just too imperfect, as a species, as a society and on the individual level. The best we can hope for, is that somehow we muddle through. And we do that by honestly trying the best we can.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2016 on PIOMAS December 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice