This is opensheart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following opensheart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Now that we can see the whole winter in review. Does anyone think the storm at the very end of Dec 2015, that seemed to telliconnect the near peak of El Nino with the cold blob in the North Atlantic, and bring above freezing temps close to the North Pole was a Dragon King Event?
Toggle Commented Apr 1, 2016 on 2015/2016 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
So just to run some numbers. If the arctic winter is warming by 2.5 degrees in 10 years, that is .25 degrees C per year. And if my eyeball, approximation of the Temp north of 80 degrees latitude suggests the average winter temp north of 80 degrees latitude is -30 degrees. Admitting there is a problem comparing an average warming rate of the whole arctic to such an approximation of just a part of it... but just to do the math. And assuming the warming rate computed from 10 years would remain constant over a 10 times longer time period... 30 / .25 = 120 And assuming this warming started with the start of the observed window of 2003. This might poorly suggest that after 2123 the average winter temp of at least the area north of 80 degrees latitude would be above freezing. Ignoring the possibility that Greenland and/or the arctic landmasses might still generate sub freezing winter temps, one might use this single statistic to make the wildly extrapolated claim that by or after 2123 winter would be no more in the northern hemisphere. ???
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2015 on A wetter and warmer Arctic at Arctic Sea Ice
As I understand, The human threat detection and response system is built a certain way. Humans will make a quick evaluation of the situation. If it detects Immediate Life Threatening danger and knows a response it will go over the top to execute the response. If the threat does not warrant that level of response, the human mind will discredit the threat. Perhaps putting an “Ignore” post-it note on it. The Human mind is not programmed to correctly respond to a more general, longer term threat, especially if the threat is not personal enough. Thus it is not human nature to correctly understand and believe the threat/response level for something like climate change, Arctic Sea Ice decline, etc. The human mind wants to say it is either not an issue, or it wants to make it worthy of triggering one’s personal engagement threshold. Now we humans have some understanding of our own responses. We know when someone is on this personal edge with an issue, it can be fun to poke them just enough to trigger an emotional response. Hence the reoccurrence of troll behavior. Go into an area where people chosen to be on edge for something they personally believe is that important and then pick a fight. I would suggest this behavior occurs on both sides of issues that fall into the middle ground of human responses. Issues that are important and serious, but not Immediately Life Threatening or that are larger than a personal Emergency Evasive Maneuver. Where some people can see the threat warrants personal and social engagement, but the larger society does not. Where our social programming has has not yet evolved to handle things correctly. For those who may be reading this or other similar threads, trying to understand the ‘truth’ of Climate Change and feeling lost or confused, Please understand the truth is that things are serious, very serious. It is a Long, Slow, serious. It would make a really boring disaster movie. But just because it is moving slower than our expected pace of drama, does not mean it is not moving. Think about a movie scene about being caught in a room where the walls are moving in to crush the occupants. You can see the walls move. You can appreciate the real and present danger the characters are in. Now slow the movement of the walls down. Down to the point where you can’t see them moving. Down to the point where you have to measure it a year apart to see that the walls are moving inward. Even if the characters figure it out, what’s the big deal, they will be long gone before the walls meet. So they (and you) can ignore it. Except that every inch lost is an inch less space for our grandchildren to live in. Every inch lost to sea level rise, every inch lost to desertification, pollution, etc, is less space for future people to live in. Every area that can no longer support crops, or tress is less food and resources for generations to come. Do you want them to live their lives in a room the size of a planet? With plenty of room to move around int. or in a phone booth? What ever habitable space is left? At some point we need to care about how much living space, livable climate, our descendants will have to live in. We are programmed to expect that some heroic human action can save the day in a very short time. The parent or authority that solves a problem. The sports player that wins the game. The solutions to Climate Change do not fit into our solution expectations. If the problem has been brewing for well over 100 years, the solutions may take another 100 years. And that is just too long of a timeframe for humans to care about correctly. Thus discussion about such issues frequently devolve into name-calling, and other discrediting tactics. The discreditor’s have invested their personhood into their position. They will tear down any attempt to convince them otherwise. While the believers are seriously scared for the future, including the personal future of the individual discreditor. Thus they want to convince the other that it is indeed a threat to them personally. Since Personal threat is well, personal, such discussions are not winnable. As frustration rises, the conversation devolves. Educating someone to understand the threat correctly, and what we as a society should do about it, is VERY, VERY Difficult. To correctly understand it, we have to build new mental constructs. We need ways of thinking about the future of the general population that are at least equal to our thinking of our own future. That something is a long term threat or at least infringement to our species and that we need a multi-generational focus and commitment to change things we personally will never live to see. So if you’re reading this, don’t like the verbal jabs back and forth to blind you to the fact that there is something real and serious slowly unfurling in the Arctic. And that it will have consequences for everyone for generations to come. And that we should support broad, long term action for the sake of the generations to come.
Just a note from Cincinnati, OH (near center of the eastern half of U.S.) Yesterday when the latest arctic air mass moved in. the 30 MPH winds wrapped around the house backwards. Winds always come from the south-west. This came and blew for hours from the north-east. All the snow drifts were backwards their normal patterns.
Toggle Commented Jan 22, 2014 on Looking for winter weirdness 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
I have heard that the Inuit people have many different words for snow. Perhaps they already have many different names for storms? Different kinds of storms or storms of different seasons? Perhaps we could use their names, with a year attached if necessary...
Toggle Commented Jul 22, 2013 on The Naming of Arctic Cyclones at Arctic Sea Ice
I loved the idea of denier names at first glance. Sounded like so much fun. But I am pursuaded in the wisdom of Inuit or Arctic names. I also support discussing it with them as best we can as a sign of respect/honor. As long as we are naming things, could we name other things besides storms? Would there be any use to name major dipole weather pattern events? Would there be any since in naming a high pressure for some reason? Like if a major heat wave settles in the Arctic and sets all kinds of un-heard-of records? (I suspect that someday, one of these masses of warm air that keep coming close to the inner circle of the pole will actually move in and stay. To the point where it would be a regime change / dragon king type event) My current concern is focused on the jet stream. I fear it may be dieing. Are there any events related to the jet stream that we would want to remember?
Toggle Commented Jul 22, 2013 on The Naming of Arctic Cyclones at Arctic Sea Ice
Put me down for the 1990s average of 6.6 million. Reasons/excuses: 1. the whipflash effect. After 2007 area rebounded for 2 years with 2009 being pretty high. If the climate/weather is getting more erratic than we could see a faster/larger/shorter duration bounce back from 2012 record melt. 2. Dispite all of the evidence of how weak and thin the ice is, it has shown a remarkable resiliance in hanging in there so far this spring. 3. There has been enough talk of colapse (not all here), that I'm predicting there will be a colapse of the colapse theories, before the colapse actually comes. I suggest it might be human nature that if something is going to be bad. It has to be really bad, ultimate bad, at ever faster rates. To which nature can decide to change her mind, throw us a curve ball, and confound us all.
What if the BiLateral refreeze that occurred in the East Siberian and Laptev Seas in Oct 2012, and discussed in Naven’s November 2012 blog contributed to/is related to the massive shattering of the Arctic Sea Ice pack in the winter, Feb/March of 2013? What if the line of Thick multi-year ice that normally piles up along the Greenland/Canadian Archipelago almost to Alaska forms one side of a triangle. The opposite point being the East Siberian/Laptev Seas. A thick region of ice would stretch across the Arctic from Greenland/Canadian Archipelago to the shores of the East Siberian/Laptev Seas . This would form a triangle of sorts that would stabilize the Arctic Sea Ice . Keeping it from being blown/pulled/shifted all over the Arctic Basin. Allowing the ice to grow strong and thick. But what if this BiLateral refreeze, where the ice grew from the edges, leaving a hole/weak spot in the middle, fundamentally changed the structure/strength of the ice in this area. So that this 3rd point of the stability triangle was weakened to the point where the whole ice pack was no longer stabilized. The ice pack was free to be pushed, pulled, twisted, moved around whichever way the winds/conditions warranted. Thus the ice shattered. Like packing a pane of glass in a shipping container. Packed correctly, the packing material absorbs the blows of being transported and the glass is likely to remain intact. But loose packed, where the glass can bounce around inside the shipping container, and it will surely arrive at its destination in a thousand pieces.
Toggle Commented Mar 22, 2013 on Bilateral freezing at Arctic Sea Ice
I have a thought. Ice has always piled up on the Canadian side. But in the past there was a thick band of ice all the way across to the Siberian side. An Ice-Bridge I believe I heard it was called. Perhaps that Ice-Bridge was necessary to keep the ice pinned against the Canadian side. So that even when the winds/conditions turned to a direction that would exert pressure for the ice to leave Canada, the Ice-bridge was strong enough to keep the ice from pulling away from the Canadian side. Hence the ice would continue to pile up on the Canadian side without breaking and shifting back when conditions changed. Perhaps this winter is the first winter where the Ice-Bridge no longer has the strength to keep the ice pinned against Canada. So now the ice is being shifted back and forth as the winds/conditions change. Hence the ice is shattered into pieces.
Toggle Commented Mar 22, 2013 on Crack is bad for you (and sea ice) at Arctic Sea Ice
This post is for Apocalypse4real and others who may be interested in suggestions for better presenting the data for public consumption. I’m a layman who has been trying to learn about climate change, arctic conditions and methane well enough to present to others. I am currently co-leading a climate change class at our UU church. I am telling the story of Arctic Sea Ice from the past to the present. Ideally connecting with any memory/stories/pictures people may have of the hard ice conditions of the first arctic explorers and bringing that memory/story/picture up to current conditions. I find there is plenty of videos and things to tell the story of sea ice extent and nice graphs for volume. I’m not seeing sea ice concentrations as a compelling story to tell. But I see value in showing sea ice thickness over time, using the Google polar maps with color coded sea ice thickness . Meaning I would like to put up thickness images for the same date but different years side by side. And I would like to go back as many years as possible. I currently only have such images back to March 2012. For people who are familiar with Sea Ice conditions, a comparison of the last 2 years may be all they need. But when explaining to the general public, I’m starting off with what the ice use to look like years ago and bringing them forward from there. So I would like go back and show the ice as thick as they may have thought/heard about, then bring that forward to present day. I understand there are have definite limits on the amount of data/images that can be stored/presented. That you cannot keep many years of data online. With that in mind, would it be possible to have a single page that has multi-year data for a specific date or perhaps 2 specific days. Like pick spring equinox (March 21) and fall equinox (Sept 21). And list the sea ice thickness images for those two days for as many years as possible. Like there could be 2 columns on the page. Column A is March 21, Column B is Sept 21 for each year, with the oldest years at the top. I could then explain these images by saying. “This is the ice thickness after a winter’s worth of freezing, at the spring equinox where we shift from longer nights to longer days. And here is the ice thickness after a summer’s worth of melting, at the fall equinox where we shift from longer days to longer nights.” This could tell the story in a very consistent, understandable way to a non-expert audience. I think specific days like spring and fall equinox are better than having the actual lowest point and highest point of each year. The fact that the lowest and highest points are on different dates each year adds complexity to telling the story. Whereas the equinoxes are anchored points in time, that many people will understand. Or will accept as naturally occurring points with a meaning of their own, not just cherry picked dates that make the data look best. And the equinoxes will approximate the highs and lows well enough for illustrative purposes.
Toggle Commented Jan 31, 2013 on 2013 Open thread #1 at Arctic Sea Ice
Doesn't the sea ice drift change alot from day to day or week to week? How long has this spiral lasted? Isn't the direction of this spiral opposite the usual circulation pattern?
My un-scientific, amateur guess is that warm water from the north Atlantic is pushing north. The Gulf Stream is overshooting its landing zone, and pushing into the Arctic. This pushes water out the Bering Strait. Warm water in, cold water out. At least until the deep cold water of the Central Arctic Basin warms up or has been replaced.
Toggle Commented Nov 15, 2012 on Looking for winter weirdness 2 at Arctic Sea Ice
Scarlet P Check out the Global Warming bumper sticker sayings at:
Toggle Commented Oct 6, 2012 on More vids at Arctic Sea Ice
Can Sea Level Rise be Regional instead of evenly spread over the globe? Could Sea Levels rise in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans as compared to the Pacific? I believe the Pacific Ocean is currently 'higher' than the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. Would it be possible for the Arctic Ocean to rise to be 'higher' than the Pacific? Would it be possible for the Atlantic to rise higher than the Arctic while the Arctic is still higher than the Pacific? Pacific < Arctic < North Atlantic And if so, would that not be a tipping point in terms of global ocean currents and everything that goes with it?
Hello all, I've seen my post about "planetary reset" has been referenced a couple of times. I feel a small bittersweet bit of honor from your consideration. However I would like report something else. 40 minutes before I finished writing and posted that report (I do not know when I started to write that post), my son was run over, dragged and serious hurt. I received the call 40 minutes after posting. I have been in the hospital ever since. My son has avoided all permanent damage and may be released to outpatient care in the next day or two. However un-scientific, I am disturbed by the coincidence of my son being struck so close to the time of my public posting of this planet reset theory. For those of you/us who are trying to bridge the gap between what is happening and public consciousness, may we remember we are stepping in front of something with enormous momentum. May we and our loved ones be safe. May the instruments work, and the data not be lost or corrupted. May we find that sweet spot where the data and its meaning can soak into the public awareness without causing panic. Sorry this is off-subject, but for me the loss of arctic sea ice is not just a scientific event. It is more than a social/political/public policy issue. The consequences are so broad and will affect us so deeply, that it bleeds over into the spiritual zone of humanity.
Sorry, if someone can delete my previous post I would appreciate it. I could sum it up better by saying. in the effort to connect the dots and help people see the impact to them of Arctic Sea loss. We should exercise some caution. If the threat is too grave, the hearer can have an emotional response that is not helpful to themselves or others. There has to be enough hope or action or escape possible for the hearer to be able to take it in and act on it.
Superman Assumptions are made that will 'keep hope alive'. Even the most prominent chroniclers of climate change always offer a sliver of hope based on 'optimistic' assumptions. I understand this; it parallels the reluctance of an oncologist to tell an adolescent he has Stage 4 cancer. I would like to comment on this. I feel it is a true enough statement. But it has to be that way. I've been getting deeper and deeper into climate change for a long time. And I have reached some horrifying conclusions of my own. OK, I say it. I think we, the whole earth is headed towards a planet wide reboot or restart. Something the planet has done before, and will probably do again at some point in the future. Its just that this time there is the slight problem of we are living here while the planet goes down for a reboot. I work with computers, when we want to keep a system up all the time we add redundancy. There are 2, 3, 4, or more computers working together. That increases the odds that at least one will be up at any given time. So I intuitively understand this from my career. As I learned more about Climate Change, I realized that there were multiple systems that seemed to point to the same end point or similar enough end point. I suddenly had an 'OMG' moment. There is redundancy built into this planet reset process. In my mind that increased the odds from 'well it could happen like that, but it probably will not' to 'OMG someday one of these systems would find a way to finish the job.' That knowledge has made me physically ill. I can't eat, sleep. Everything seems surreal around me. I have great difficultly focusing and completing tasks. And I know I have to back off. I have asked to teach a class in church on global warming. Its a UU church so they are open to such things. And I am working and re-working what I want to present. I find myself watering it down. I have to. I have to keep it at the more popular, "Oh we will do something to keep it under 2 degrees and we will figure something out". I just have to. I can't go in there and convince a whole cluster of church members that humanity or civilization, at least as we know it, is going to end. I can't carry or hold that information myself. I find myself needing to undo my OMG moment. And if it is too big for me, it is too big for others to. And it is wrong to spread a disease that makes others sick too. I'm saying I think this 'final outcome' knowledge/opinion/conviction is a disease. One can catch it. One suffer from it, one wants to find a cure for it, and one can pass the disease on to others. So there is a build in, biological need. We have to hold that Glimmer of Hope position. Or at least somehow we have to trick our emotional/biological side into believing its not that bad; It may not happen that way; or what ever. So we can retain our full compliment of facilities. While some compartmentalized, isolated portion of our intellect knows the real score and occasionally nudges our behavior based on that info. Sorry if that is off topic and To-Much-Information.
Forgive me, but a previous post mentioned the subject of bumper stickers. I now have a small collection of climate change stickers up at further suggestions welcome.
"OTOH perhaps it is advisable to have a few people using dramatic extremist jargon to make people wonder, be curious and want to find out more. It takes all sorts." Crandles Hello, I'm a lurker who just subscribed to comment on this. Just last night I was lying awake thinking about trying to sell bumper stickers and t-shirts and stuff with just such an edge. Looking through what bumper stickers were available on the subject I was depressed and the number and cutting edge of the global warming deniers. I'm thinking about jumping in to balance that out as a way to do something with all that I'm learning. So far my best idea is a sticker that says: Global Warming has killed before
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2012 on More news on CryoSat-2 at Arctic Sea Ice
opensheart is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 14, 2012