Antarctic sea-ice at \'mind-blowing\' low alarms experts...

[Fred Bloggs]

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

....which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It\'s not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.

The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren\'t up for that.,

> The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It\'s unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It\'s not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.

You\'re not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play. If anything we\'re finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example, toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.

The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren\'t up for that.,

Not at all, mankind\'s lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.
Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It\'s unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.

They\'re outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:56:07 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind..
As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It\'s not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.

You\'re not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play.

I don\'t seem to share your bizarre misapprehensions.

> If anything we\'re finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example,

Hurricane intensification was widely predicted. More area of ocean above 26..3 C was always expected to feed bigger, fiercer hurricanes. I mentioned it here years ago. Flyguy has posted nonsense on the subject more recently.

> toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.

What did you think anthropogenioc global warming was going to look like? Temperature records haven\'t been broken by \"large amounts\" - they\'ve just been broken, Warmer ocean surfaces feed more water vapour into the air which eventually falls as rain. Thunder heads drop a lot of water as rain whenever they form - there\'s nothing \"unbelievably intense\" about the ones we are seeing today.

The mess in Libya was badly maintained dams that broke.

The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren\'t up for that.

Not at all, mankind\'s lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.

I\'m sure there are people around with your kind of depressive mental disease, and most of them will be spouting the same kind of rubbish that you are.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It\'s unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.

They\'re outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.

Species extinction is very unlikely. You can do all the handwaving you like, but your radical alarmism is simply nuts - quite as silly as John Larkin\'s denialism.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.

Stupid people like me just enjoy things before some supernova toasts
us all.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:34:10 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing feedbacks. That makes no sense.

That\'s exactly what was required to flip the earth from inter-glacials to ice ages. The Milankovich effect is tiny and it takes the ice-albedo effect and CO2 being sucked into colder oceans to make it work. It\'s still a flip between two stable states. It\'s pretty rare for the continents to get into a configuration where this can work - the present series of ice ages and interglacials started about 2.6 million years ago. Before that there was less ice cover and the planet was a bit warmer, and more stable, and sea levels were higher.

Fred Bloggs is getting hysterical about the prospect of moving back to that more stable state. It\'s not a climate our agriculture was developed to exploit, so some of us may end up with food supply issues, which could be bad enough to create a population crash, but extinction is improbable.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.

He\'s not terrified of life. He\'s just not a pollyanna like you. Anthropogenic global warming is real and is already creating problems, but probably not quite a extreme as Fred likes to imagine.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

If you don\'t get The New York Times, pop over to a 7-11 and get the
Sunday edition. There\'s a wonderful, hilarious article about
eco-neurosis.

Eco-psychiatry is a profitable, growing industry.

Some wussses won\'t have kids because they know that the planet is
doomed. That will improve the gene pool.

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 7:02:21 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:56:07 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It\'s not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.

You\'re not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play.
I don\'t seem to share your bizarre misapprehensions.
If anything we\'re finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example,
Hurricane intensification was widely predicted. More area of ocean above 26.3 C was always expected to feed bigger, fiercer hurricanes. I mentioned it here years ago. Flyguy has posted nonsense on the subject more recently.

And WHY would anyone listen to the \"nonsense\" coming from an idiot such as yourself that thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING your OWN COUNTRY is a good idea?

toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.
What did you think anthropogenioc global warming was going to look like? Temperature records haven\'t been broken by \"large amounts\" - they\'ve just been broken, Warmer ocean surfaces feed more water vapour into the air which eventually falls as rain. Thunder heads drop a lot of water as rain whenever they form - there\'s nothing \"unbelievably intense\" about the ones we are seeing today.

The idiot can\'t even spell \"anthropogenic\"

The mess in Libya was badly maintained dams that broke.
The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren\'t up for that.

Not at all, mankind\'s lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.
I\'m sure there are people around with your kind of depressive mental disease, and most of them will be spouting the same kind of rubbish that you are.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It\'s unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.

They\'re outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.
Species extinction is very unlikely. You can do all the handwaving you like, but your radical alarmism is simply nuts - quite as silly as John Larkin\'s denialism.

Not nearly as silly as your cult-like belief in a climate catastrophe.

--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:34:10 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

Straw man argument, and senseless blather. There\'s a PLANET full of feedback effects, positive (latching)
and negative (\'stabilizing\'?), the possibilities are unlimited. There\'s no known truly \'stabilizing\', i.e. equilibrium-producing,
effect, unless you count things like the Paris accords,
and all the other John Larkin posts indicate he... doesn\'t do that.

Welcome to your life
there\'s no turning back
.....Tears for Fears, 1985

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:39 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 7:02:21 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:56:07 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It\'s not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.

You\'re not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play.

I don\'t seem to share your bizarre misapprehensions.

If anything we\'re finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example,

Hurricane intensification was widely predicted. More area of ocean above 26.3 C was always expected to feed bigger, fiercer hurricanes. I mentioned it here years ago. Flyguy has posted nonsense on the subject more recently.

And WHY would anyone listen to the \"nonsense\" coming from an idiot such as yourself that thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING your OWN COUNTRY is a good idea?

Sewage Sweeper invents his own nonsense - his misunderstandings of what I\'ve posted are bizarre, but no stanger than his misunderstandings of stuff he has posted in the delusion that it supported his demented poit of view.

toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.

What did you think anthropogenic global warming was going to look like? Temperature records haven\'t been broken by \"large amounts\" - they\'ve just been broken, Warmer ocean surfaces feed more water vapour into the air which eventually falls as rain. Thunder heads drop a lot of water as rain whenever they form - there\'s nothing \"unbelievably intense\" about the ones we are seeing today.

The mess in Libya was badly maintained dams that broke.

The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren\'t up for that.

Not at all, mankind\'s lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.

I\'m sure there are people around with your kind of depressive mental disease, and most of them will be spouting the same kind of rubbish that you are.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It\'s unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.

They\'re outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.

Species extinction is very unlikely. You can do all the handwaving you like, but your radical alarmism is simply nuts - quite as silly as John Larkin\'s denialism.

Not nearly as silly as your cult-like belief in a climate catastrophe.

Main-stream science isn\'t any kind of cult. You clearly didn\'t get the kind of academic training that would let you understand it, or if you did, senile dementia has washed it all away.
Since I\'m not an anonymous troll I can cite links to my own cited scientific papers - here\'s one. It\'s now got 28 citations;

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-0233/7/11/015/meta

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 17/09/2023 16:33, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

That isn\'t so far off the truth when you start losing large areas of
polar ice. Open sea has a much lower albedo and absorbs vastly more heat
than nice fresh snow. Even dirty snow is much better than open water.
There is substantial positive feedback at least initially.

There is a fair amount of hysteresis in the system. So if we push it too
far over the edge then it won\'t come back without us making much bigger
sacrifices. The graph of this years ice cover for 2023 is a long way
down from all previous years so it may already be too late. If 2024
follows a similar pattern we will lose a lot of sea ice very fast.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66724246

The stabilising effect that cuts in eventually is that outgoing thermal
radiation is highly non-linear and increases as absolute temperature to
the 4th power - T^4. The gradient getting ever steeper as T increases.

That increase in outgoing thermal radiation tends to win out once
ambient temperature hits around 57C today. 1.1^4 ~ 1.46x

Now probably isn\'t a good time to buy low lying real estate!

I once had access to one of the simulations and attempted to boil the
equatorial oceans by adding a very large slug of CO2.
It was surprisingly difficult to push it over the edge.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.

Stupid people like me just enjoy things before some supernova toasts
us all.

Betelgeuse or Eta-Carina are potential candidates to go SN fairly nearby
if you really want to worry about such things. Betelgeuse is nearer and
still isn\'t much of a threat but it will be very spectacular when it
goes pop! A near point source as bright or brighter than our moon.

https://www.jameswebbdiscovery.com/faqs/if-betelgeuse-goes-supernova-will-it-affect-earth

Eta Carina is really on its last legs so could go at any moment -
fortunately it is also far enough away to do us no harm.

https://esahubble.org/images/potw1208a/

Supernovae can typically outshine all of the stars in their host galaxy
for a few days or weeks. Makes them very handy as standard candles.

If a super nova was closer to us than 25 light years then I might get
worried - the neutrino flux and UV levels would be interesting. Earth\'s
ozone layer would be completely stripped for a few months at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_supernova#Risk_by_supernova_type

--
Martin Brown

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.

Stupid people like me just enjoy things before some supernova toasts
us all.

 

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ...
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says>
.... and super-volcanoes like ...
<https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt>

The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent,
inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods,
heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently
flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.

Stupid people like me just enjoy things before some supernova toasts
us all.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:02:55 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/09/2023 16:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

That isn\'t so far off the truth when you start losing large areas of
polar ice. Open sea has a much lower albedo and absorbs vastly more heat
than nice fresh snow. Even dirty snow is much better than open water.
There is substantial positive feedback at least initially.

If there is net positive albedo feedback, we\'d have no ice or we\'d be
100% covered with ice.

There is a fair amount of hysteresis in the system.

Why? Where?

Earth has had tropical phases and ice ages, without humans.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

Are you proposing an oscillating system? What causes the turnarounds?

Past ice/warm cycles don\'t look periodic to me. Extrnal and maybe
volcanic forcings sound more likely.

Lots of people do \"control theory\" by guessing. That doesn\'t work,
because numbers matter. Positive feeedback doesn\'t necessarily change
a system much, but most people (and journalists) asssume radical
results.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>
wrote:

On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says
... and super-volcanoes like ...
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt

The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent,
inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods,
heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently
flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.

https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:48:31 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind..

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

Are you proposing an oscillating system? What causes the turnarounds?

We\'ve had an alternation of ice ages and interglacials for the last 2.6 million years. The Milankovitch effect is the cause, but it has to be amplified a lot by various positive feedbacks to create the alternations we can see in the geological record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Past ice/warm cycles don\'t look periodic to me. External and maybe volcanic forcings sound more likely.

So you haven\'t looked at the literature. Anthropogenic global warming generated a lot of interest in the subject, and the mechanisms are now tolerably well understood, by people who\'ve gone to throuble of reading about them

> Lots of people do \"control theory\" by guessing.

Nobody that I\'ve worked with.

> That doesn\'t work, because numbers matter. Positive feeedback doesn\'t necessarily change a system much, but most people (and journalists) assume radical results.

I once used about 1.003 of positive feedback to linearise a platinum resistance thermometer. The engineer who took over the project swore that it would make the system unstable and put in a diode break (more expensive and less accurate). Honeywell turned out to have adopted the scheme about the same time I proposed it at Eurotherm in the UK.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:42:04 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:02:55 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/09/2023 16:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind..

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

That isn\'t so far off the truth when you start losing large areas of
polar ice. Open sea has a much lower albedo and absorbs vastly more heat
than nice fresh snow. Even dirty snow is much better than open water.
There is substantial positive feedback at least initially.

If there is net positive albedo feedback, we\'d have no ice or we\'d be 100% covered with ice.

It depends on the extent of the positive feedback, as you\'d know if you had ever used it in a circuit.

There is a fair amount of hysteresis in the system.

Why? Where?

Hysteresis probably isn\'t the right word. Lags might be. It takes a while for the oceans to warm up and some of the CO2 they\'ve dissolved to come out of solution.

Ice sheets also take a while to build up, through they do have an interesting tendency to slide off into the ocean and stop the Gulf steam for 1300+/-10 years (the Younger Dryas)

> Earth has had tropical phases and ice ages, without humans.

It\'s had ice ages and interglacials for the last 2.6 million years

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/hasnt-earth-warmed-and-cooled-naturally-throughout-history

Do try to get better informed.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 17:51:50 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says
... and super-volcanoes like ...
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt

The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent,
inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods,
heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently
flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.

https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/

That is the heartland institute that denies every science and statistics, and
just draws whatever lines were ordered. Someone pays them and
tobacco smoking does not cause cancer, someone else and Elvis is alive.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:21:19 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>
wrote:

On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 17:51:50 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says
... and super-volcanoes like ...
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt

The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent,
inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods,
heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently
flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.

https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/

That is the heartland institute that denies every science and statistics, and
just draws whatever lines were ordered. Someone pays them and
tobacco smoking does not cause cancer, someone else and Elvis is alive.

The source is cited.