We don't have 12 years to stop climate change, we have 12 years to be

[Ardeus]

IPCC latest report:

B.4.1 ...With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming.​

Now just look at data:



Optimistically, we will have an ice free arctic in a decade. Realistically, sooner.

Unfortunately IPCC bases their report on ice on old climate models, not data.

The jet stream is what normally prevents most of the mixing of arctic air with warmer air from lower latitudes. It's much much weaker and wavier and is often doing the opposite, throwing warmer air to the arctic and cold air southwards.

The jet stream exists because of the difference between the arctic and the warmer air to the south. When we get an ice free arctic, the jet stream will become even weaker or even cease to exist.

As a result our climate patterns will change dramatically and cause significative crop failures a few years in a row due to random patterns of drought and floods.

The world is fed by wheat, corn and rice and the cost of food will rise to a point where most poor countries will have civil unrest, war and famine. Hundreds of millions of people from Africa, South America, Middle East and parts of Asia will be on the move.

While this takes place, climate is getting worse.

The open ocean in the summer absorbs over 90% of the sun radiation while the ice only absorbed less than 10%. The arctic will warm even faster and in a decade the arctic will be ice free year round.

We can't grow grain at scale in a world with random droughts and floods.

There's nothing we can do to stop global temperature from reaching 2 degrees C above 1880 baseline. The effects we have now are the result of CO2 emissions that happened 10-20 years ago. In 10-20 years we will get the result of the record CO2 emissions of 2018.

 

[Matt Carden]

The few people trying to do their part driving an electric vehicle are being harrassed by gas guzzling trucks. It shows that there is no hope for us, our time is limited.

 

[Ardeus]

There's also a serious problem in reducing emissions, by replacing coal with renewables.

One of the reasons the world hasn't warmed more is that the burning of what's called dirty coal releases sulphates into the atmosphere that act as a mirror reflecting part of thr solar radiation into space. If we do what we "should" to reduce CO2 emissions, we reduce this umbrella and we heat up even faster.

The time where we could have done something was 30 years ago.

Even now, the message is wrong. People believe that this is something that will only affect their grandchildren. In fact, unless you're 70+, you will be affected by this.

In terms of provoking action, the message should be "We have 5% chances of making it through this if we make this dramatic changes in the way we live in 2 years".

 

[Scrubber_steve]

IPCC latest report:
The world is fed by wheat, corn and rice and the cost of food will rise to a point where most poor countries will have civil unrest, war and famine. Hundreds of millions of people from Africa, South America, Middle East and parts of Asia will be on the move.

We can't grow grain at scale in a world with random droughts and floods.

Ardeus, I'm confused. If what you believe is true how come,
- all grain yields have continuously increased year upon year for decades, so much so that millions of tones of corn can be wasted to produce ethenol for cars?

- NASA says "From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change"

- How is it possible that when the planet was at least 8C warmer than now, with no ice at either pole, vegetation grew so well that all the land was tropical or sub-tropical???

 

[Scrubber_steve]

There's also a serious problem in reducing emissions, by replacing coal with renewables.

One of the reasons the world hasn't warmed more is that the burning of what's called dirty coal releases sulphates into the atmosphere that act as a mirror reflecting part of thr solar radiation into space. If we do what we "should" to reduce CO2 emissions, we reduce this umbrella and we heat up even faster.

No, you've got that wrong Ardeus. Sulphates are all but filtered out of the emissions from coal fired power stations for some time now..
Those that were /are released have a very short life in the atmosphere in any case & so have little effect.
It has also been determined that sulphates reflect a lot less sunlight than once thought. using sulphates as an excuse for the missing warming is no longer a respected excuse.

 

[Ardeus]

We are now able to have huge productivity for 2 reasons: the plants have been getting shorter (they are small sticks with seeds) and we use increasing amounts of energy to produce food. Nowadays we use 10 calories to produce 1. In the 1940's it was around 1 to 1.

Increasing random floods and droughts will have an huge impact, no matter what methods are used to increase productivity. Look at the jet stream now: https://earth.nullschool.net/

(Set the height to 250 to see it).

The problem with sulphates is precisely their short term effect as you pointed out. They fall down to the ground in weeks. We must continue to pump them up.

 

[Land Shark]

One thing to consider is that while ice in the Arctic is decreasing, it’s actually increasing in the Antarctic at a similar pace.

Another thing to consider is that there is a historical record showing that the earth has its own long term cycle of global cooling and warming. You have to look at it over a longer period of time but it is significant.

While I do believe that humans are causing an impact, i now believe that the impact may possibly be less than 5% and the earth and sun may account for the remaining 95% of change. This number of 5% is my own guess for the sake of putting a number out there for reference but it makes me think a little differently now vs when I was back in college in the 80s. Back then, everyone blamed all global warming on humans. Maybe that isn’t actually the case after all.

Life goes on.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

We are now able to have huge productivity for 2 reasons: the plants have been getting shorter (they are small sticks with seeds)

come now Ardeus, thats just poppycock. We are feeding a world of over 7 billion with food to spare.

and we use increasing amounts of energy to produce food. Nowadays we use 10 calories to produce 1. In the 1940's it was around 1 to 1.

No, the amount of energy needed to produce a hectare of food has reduced. Less water & fertiliser is needed as CO2 increases.

Increasing random floods and droughts will have an huge impact, no matter what methods are used to increase productivity.

"will have" this isn't the case so far as there is no evidence to support an increasing trend in the incidents of floods or droughts. This is mere alarmist speculation & propaganda. In a warmer world the difference in temperature between the tropics & the poles is reduced, so weather is less extreme. The deserts we know of today are the result of the last iceage & land topograpgy & terraforma.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Ardeus, do you know that the mainstream science says that if you double CO2, say from pre industrial levels - 300ppm to 600ppm, that the direct effect of CO2 is only a maxiumum increase of 1C in global average temperature.
And then to get another increase of 1C you have to double CO2 again, from 600 to 1200ppm, twice as much CO2 as the previous doubling, for the same result.

 

[Ardeus]

I had the opportunity to talk with Peter Wadhams recently. He's been studying the arctic for over 40 years.



This video is not listed because I am still editing it for a documentary.

 

[Ardeus]

Nowadays is getting increasingly difficult to find information denying human impact on climate change, as more mainstream media issue guidelines for content producers stating that they are no longer required to include this point of view.

The information I posted here can easily be found in reliable sources and it's up to anyone to choose to ditch it or learn more about the issue and even make life decisions based on their own conclusions.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Nowadays is getting increasingly difficult to find information denying human impact on climate change, as more mainstream media issue guidelines for content producers stating that they are no longer required to include this point of view.

I believe its always better to seek the truth, using the evidence, rather than promote an ideology that isn't backed up by data

The information I posted here can easily be found in reliable sources and it's up to anyone to choose to ditch it or learn more about the issue and even make life decisions based on their own conclusions.

And everything thing I posted here has evidence to back it up, & yet its the opposite of what you claim might happen in the future???

 

[Land Shark]

Ardeus, I watched your video. Peter Waldham assumes that global warming can be stopped, which is just plain wrong. The earth has warmed up many times in the past so even if humans no longer exist, there will be global warming again in the future. There have also been ice ages in the past and there will be ice ages again. Do you understand that?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I had the opportunity to talk with Peter Wadhams recently. He's been studying the arctic for over 40 years.



This video is not listed because I am still editing it for a documentary.

Peter has been studing the arctic for 40 years. Thats when satellite monitoring started & they could only then get full & reliable visuals on ice coverage.
Of course ice has diminished slightly since then. Fourty years ago was the end of a period of increasing arctic ice, back when the mainstream scientific view was of a comming ice age, a view that lasted a decade.

How about back in the early 20th century?
Historic Variations in Arctic Sea Ice
Section Five Data from Contemporary sources-1920-1940 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/
Arctic researcher Hans Ahlmann noted in 1952 that;
“The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last decades. According to information received in the U.S.S.R. in 1945, the area of drift ice in the Russian sector of the Arctic was reduced by no less than 1,000,000 square kilometers between 1924 and 1944.”


“The thickness of the ice forming annually in the North Polar Sea has diminished from an average of 365 centimeters at the time of Nansen’s Fram expedition of 1893-96 to 218 centimeters during the drift of the Russian icebreaker Sedov in 1937-40. The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last decades.”
“ The shipping season in West Spitsbergen has lengthened from three months at the beginning of this century to about seven months at the beginning of the 1940s.”
“ The Northern Sea Route, the North-East Passage, could never have been put into regular usage if the ice conditions in recent years had been as difficult as they were during the first decades of this century.”
“The same influences that have affected the drift ice have affected the animal life of the North Polar Sea. Various kinds of fish, especially cod, have migrated northwards. Now for the first time cod is available to many Greenland Eskimos who previously had to rely on seal for food.”


“Is it getting warmer at the North Pole? Soundings and meteorological tests taken by the Soviet explorers who returned this week to Murmansk, Russia’s sole ice-free Arctic port, concluded that near Polar temperatures are on average six degrees(C) higher than registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet. The return of the Soviet icebreaker Sedoff (note variations in spelling) brought to a close a Polar expedition, involuntarily undertaken which led to important discoveries. For 2½ years she had drifted while trapped in Polar ice. Fifteen men volunteered to stay on board until relief came. In the drift to the north-west these men passed nearer to the North Pole than any other ship. Their highest latitude was 86 degrees 56min North. They discovered by soundings a near Polar sea pocket, 17,260 feet deep.”

“One of the riddles which is puzzling geologists all over the world is the continuous retreat of the ice glaciers. Does this phenomenon indicate that the sun is getting hotter … or is it dependent upon comparatively unimportant changes in the earth’s atmosphere?
…these were discussed by Professor R. Speight, formerly professor of geology at Canterbury College, Christchurch, New Zealand in his presidential address to the …Science Congress to-day.
The steady retreat of the glaciers in New Zealand …had been observed during the last 70 years. Photographs taken in 1896 and 1935 showed several glaciers had retreated distances varying from 100 yards to half a mile in 40 years.
The phenomenon, however, was world-wide. Equally impressive records were obtainable from Switzerland, Scandinavia, Iceland and the United States. In Alaska glaciers had been retreating from 100 to 200 years, the average rate of recession being about 50 feet a year. The Antarctic ice- sheet also showed signs of recent retreat.
Professor Speight said, ” (no) region of the world (shows) present signs of an advance. This is quite apart from the general retreat since the pleistocene age and may be merely a pacing phase. Its precise significance can only be determined by continued observation.”

“Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range. By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier- the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.” http://www.glacierbay.org/geography.html

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Ardeus, I watched your video. Peter Waldham assumes that global warming can be stopped, which is just plain wrong. The earth has warmed up many times in the past so even if humans no longer exist, there will be global warming again in the future. There have also been ice ages in the past and there will be ice ages again. Do you understand that?

diminishing sea ice can be caused by various mechanisms. A reduction, in its self, is not proof of any particular mechanism.

 

[JDowns]

I'm still waiting on the fear mongering of the coming Ice Age from the 70's to come true. Climate scientists continually just get it wrong.

 

[jt17]

We don’t know everything so proclaiming to know what will happen in the future is only speculation yet we always hear it presented as fact. Truth is nobody can be certain because as we don’t have all the accurate data necessary to form a perfect model.
There’s been climate change on this planet for as long as there’s been climate on this planet and there will continue to be climate change long after we as a species are gone.
This will all be mute after the next super volcanoe erupts.

 

[Land Shark]

diminishing sea ice can be caused by various mechanisms. A reduction, in its self, is not proof of any particular mechanism.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Ardeus]

The temperatures in the arctic get so extreme during winter that although the arctic is of no interest to the general public it gets to the news from time to time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...egrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends/

Even if you believe that the Earth is flat, this should get your attention.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

The temperatures in the arctic get so extreme during winter that although the arctic is of no interest to the general public it gets to the news from time to time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...egrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends/

Even if you believe that the Earth is flat, this should get your attention.

Ardeus, that article is from 2016! Here's the Artic graph from that year, from the Danish Meteorological Institute.

There's the extreme winter temperatures & fluxuations in RED. Do you think that's CO2 causing that do you?

Here's the graph for 1958,,, notice the summer temp is no different, and the winter fluxuations.

Here;s the graph for 1965, & again no increase in summer or winter temps, & still the winter fluxuations.

No change Ardeus. The winter fluxuation are heat transported from the south by turbulent eddies & storms, all natural.

Hows your flat earth going?