
What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures - Red_Tarsius
http://www.climatecodered.org/2018/02/what-is-happening-in-arctic-is-now.html
======
brandmeyer
The Arctic Sea Ice Blog has been my go-to for cold hard facts about the
arctic. The main author of the blog has been quite a bit less active over the
last year, but his data aggregation page[2] is still alive and ticking.

For example, I can see from the DMI (Danish Met Institute) Daily Arctic mean
temperatures north of 80N graph that area-averaged temperatures in the
farthest north have been well above average all season.

There is also a plot of the total freezing degree-days over the entire winter
season, and its anomaly relative to the past several decades. From there, I
can see that while this season has been far less cold than average, it was not
nearly as warm as last year.

Last year's winter season set a new minimax record for arctic sea ice coverage
over the winter, but that didn't turn into a minimum coverage record over the
summer.

It looks like the total arctic sea ice extent is currently setting a minimum-
coverage record at this date, but its too early to tell if it will set another
minimax record. From the regional graphs page[3], it looks like most of the
anomaly is coming from the Bearing Sea.

[1]: [http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/](http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/)

[2]:
[https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/](https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/)

[3]:
[https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/regional](https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/regional)

~~~
optimusclimb
> cold hard facts about the arctic.

Forgive the reddit-esque comment, but...Nice.

------
blondie9x
The heat spikes in the Arctic now so early on in the year and the jet stream
which previously brought cold towards the Arctic now shifts the cold down in
cold spikes and record cold fronts to north east and Europe. It seems we will
no longer have an Arctic soon and the jet stream will be permanently shifted
due to anthropogenic climate change.

We had record heat in Southern California in early February and around the
same time these graphs show the Arctic temperatures spiking our temperatures
began to drop. I'm afraid once the ice is almost wiped out we will expect more
record high temperatures and while all the heat builds in the Arctic more
record colds as the cold that was in the Arctic is dissipated to other places.

~~~
kbutler
Where did the jet stream previously get the cold to bring to the Arctic?

~~~
noiv
There is no sun light for months in Arctic winter. Usually jet streams/polar
vortex keep the cold air within the high latitudes. Due to Climate Change or
more specific Arctic Amplification the pressure gradient from the Equator to
the North Pole flattens and tends to fail to contain the cold air which in
turn can 'escape' to lower latitudes in exchange for warmer air moving into
the Arctic. The whole northern hemisphere trends towards a less structured
more chaotic circulation regime.

------
gunnr15
‪What industry is contributing to climate change the most? Where is a good
place to find data on this?‬

~~~
delbel
bitcoin

~~~
bigbugbag
Is bitcoin worse than facebook or google ?

~~~
runeb
Worse than both combined, multiplied by at least 6:

Facebook: ~2TWh([https://www.statista.com/statistics/580087/energy-use-of-
fac...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/580087/energy-use-of-facebook/))

Google: ~6TWh
([https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en...](https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//green/pdf/achieving-100-renewable-
energy-purchasing-goal.pdf))

Bitcoin: ~50TWh ([https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-
consumption](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption))

------
jnsaff2
As often if you want a deeper and much more nuanced overview Omega Tau has an
amazing episode which discusses this and the reasons why this is such a big
deal: [http://omegataupodcast.net/229-ant-arctic-sea-
ice/](http://omegataupodcast.net/229-ant-arctic-sea-ice/)

------
rmetzler
I regularly have discussion about climate change with my dad.

He doesn't deny that human interference does influence weather and climate,
but he says there isn't enough evidence that this is the only reason why the
climate is changing.

The Greenhouse effect once was something natural and positive - we couldn't
live on a planet without the Greenhouse effect. But now the meaning changed
and it includes that human race is guilty, because of air pollution.

He doesn't deny an effect, but he says other possible explanations like water
vapor (which apparently is one of the biggest impacts for the Greenhouse
effect) aren't regarded that much in the discussion.

He says, the ice around the Antarctic even grows, but almost nobody talks
about that. And volcanic activity north of Greenland might also boost the
temperature there.

~~~
WhitneyLand
I’ve upvoted your comment. It’s flawed logic, but I see it as highly
counterproductive to downvote people who seem to be reasoning about a problem
or discussing their perceptions in good faith.

So many revered scientists have made comments that today would sound jackass
silly. I doubt anyone here doesn’t have such comments under their belt.

Thinking or asking alone can never be wrong. As long as it’s well intentioned
and open to the possibility of accepting counter arguments.

~~~
ThomPete
I upvoted your comment because we need more people like you who are able to
disagree without turning the other person into a villain or idiot just because
they disagree.

Personally, I have become more skeptical of not climate change or even whether
humans have an effect but of whether it's catastrophic and I have shifted my
thinking quite a lot to accept that humans will not only have an effect on
earths climate, we will conquer it and control it.

That and not stopping the world, is the moral thing to do.

~~~
WhitneyLand
Thanks Thomas. Sometime let’s have a beer and drink to intellectual curiosity
over ego.

------
meri_dian
I often see people talk about potential positive feedback loops involved in
climate change, but rarely are potential damping mechanisms mentioned. So
let's talk about them. I'll share one.

Methane consuming bacteria discovered under the West Antarctic ice shelf:
[https://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=242668](https://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=242668)

"The scientists say that if their analysis is correct, it could mean that a
large reservoir of methane thought to lie under the vast West Antarctic Ice
Sheet -- which encompasses 25.4 million cubic kilometers (6.1 million cubic
miles) of ice -- is less likely to be released into the atmosphere."

~~~
pwarner
Looks like this fern fixed it last time? So no worries then. Might take a
while...
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event)

~~~
ImaCake
Reading about the interglacials makes me worry about what happens when the
interglacial ends and we lose half of our farmland.

~~~
ghthor
Lots of suffering and death. Unless we act using our ability to make
predictions about the future. Act now, speak out, reach for common ground with
critics, avoid spending to much energy on trolls and lost causes.

------
wnevets
at least we've created lots of shareholder value

~~~
snakeboy
That's one of my favorites:
[https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995](https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995)

------
laser
Updated data on the second chart for 2018:
[http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php](http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php)

Such an outlier is not completely unprecedented it looks like from his chart,
but only if it immediately and rapidly corrects downwards in the coming
days...

~~~
bmking
Please don't just downplay such an event if you don't know anything about it.
This temperature measurement may not be _completely_ unprecedented, but as DMI
write about it:

Plus degrees are unusual DMI has measurements from Kap Morris Jesup back to
1980, and reveals that in February, above zero degrees are definitely not
usual at the world's northernmost land-based measurement station. In fact, DMI
has only twice previously measured similar high temperatures. The first time
was in 2011. Second time last year; ie in 2017. Both times, "føhn"-winds may
have contributed to the high temperatures.
([https://www.dmi.dk/nyheder/arkiv/nyheder-2018/februar/plusgr...](https://www.dmi.dk/nyheder/arkiv/nyheder-2018/februar/plusgrader-
i-nordgroenland/))

~~~
laser
I see how that could seem like downplaying, but I just meant that as a hopeful
observation that if the temperature rapidly corrects perhaps we're not as
screwed as one might get the impression from the partial information. As it
happens, the next day the temperature did immediately begin plummeting to our
good fortune, and four days later now it is nearly 15 centigrade lower.

------
a_imho
Assuming we need to worry about climate change in the short term, what are the
best mitigations on _individual_ level? What can a person do to prepare for
climate change? Move somewhere less affected? Hoard money/resources?

~~~
rmetzler
Walk or bike to your workplace instead of taking the car. Use public
transportation.

Oh, sorry, I misread what you asked about. You don't want to do something
against climate change, you just want to mitigate the effects on you.

Best thing is to avoid all those people who will migrate because it doesn't
rain anymore in their place so they have to starve because of bad harvests.

~~~
a_imho
_You don 't want to do something against climate change, you just want to
mitigate the effects on you._

I've might sounded selfish. Obviously reducing footprint is important, but
there are several other factors one can't control. I'm interested in what is
the best course of action if push comes to show.

~~~
pault
Surround yourself with good and trustworthy people and be good and trustworthy
yourself. If the worst case scenario becomes real you will probably not want
to be around for it anyway and if you do manage to survive, it won't be alone.

------
mkempe
I read the weather report (in Danish). [1] The local warming in Greenland has
already happened in previous years at that particular weather station.

The spike in temperature was caused by a foehn-like wind -- same as a chinook
wind in the Colorado or Wyoming Rockies; the temperature in Boulder CO can
easily climb 10-20 C over a few hours and rapidly melt the snow, then return
to a deep freeze the next night.

[1]
[http://www.dmi.dk/nyheder/arkiv/nyheder-2018/februar/plusgra...](http://www.dmi.dk/nyheder/arkiv/nyheder-2018/februar/plusgrader-
i-nordgroenland/)

~~~
davesque
But...the ice levels are well below record lows during the satellite era
according to the article. When are we going to stop kidding ourselves?

~~~
mkempe
I haven't said anything about arctic sea ice levels, have I?

I just provided a factual summary based on the original Danish report about
the cause of a one-day temperature spike recorded at one weather station in
Northern Greenland.

~~~
arcticfox
Right, but I don't see how anyone could read the article and find that single
day a compelling part of the story. It could have easily been left out.

~~~
mkempe
It was not presented with appropriate context, and was not left out. It
undermines the argument and thus _should_ have been left out. That makes it
interesting.

------
CalRobert
Things like this make it hard to decide whether to invest in a 401k or
defensible northerly land that could be homesteaded in a pinch.

~~~
thriftwy
My favourite dream megaproject is putting a mile high immersion heater into
Pechora sea, making its hundred kilometers of coastland tropical not unlike
Thailand.

Or any other sea in the proximity. With palm trees and other signs of life
success.

------
intopieces
Is it true that Russia stands to gain from climate change due to their land
thawing and creating farmland?

~~~
geowwy
I think they would be more interested in the shipping routes and warm water
ports it might create.

------
yters
So if the earth heats up, and more water evaporates, and more clouds form to
block the sun, will this lead to a global cooling effect? My understanding is
this was the old worry, that all our pollutants were going to block out the
sun and lead to a new ice age, or at least the Matrix.

~~~
KnightOfWords
Clouds reflect sunlight but they also trap heat, by absorbing infrared
radiation and re-emitting it. (In Winter, notice how much colder it is in the
morning when it's been clear all night.)

~~~
yters
So if I lived in a country that is always cloudy it will be warmer than a
country that is never cloudy?

------
gremlinsinc
Too bad we can't create a dyson sphere that we could partially close to limit
sun exposure enough to refreeze parts of the planet as needed and also use the
sphere to power everything on earth.

~~~
g_simonsson
This reminds me of the Sun-Earth-L1 Lagrangian point, where we have deployed
several spacecrafts:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#Spaceflight_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#Spaceflight_applications)

An international effort could easily deploy reflective materials here to
reduce solar radiation on Earth. Though I wonder how much it would cost to
achieve even a 0.01% reduction in radiation, as well as what material would be
most cost-effective to deploy.

~~~
bigbugbag
This is an old idea and it is very difficult and incredibly expensive to
realize while not actually fixing the issue.

[https://www.livescience.com/22202-space-mirrors-global-
warmi...](https://www.livescience.com/22202-space-mirrors-global-warming.html)

------
elvirs
beach front property owners should worry

~~~
Gupie
I don't know why this has been down voted. Would you buy a property with a 50
year lease?

~~~
Sharlin
Probably because it’s a ridiculously trivial problem in the context of the
full seriousness of climate change.

~~~
Gupie
Possibly, but I thought he/she was putting serious point in a light hearted
manner. Expected sea level rises are .5 to 2m by then end of the century.
Anyone with property less than 2m above the current sea level should be
concerned.

~~~
bigbugbag
There is a common misunderstanding in sea level rise. When the number says .5
to 2m it is a planetary global average, but sea level rise distribution is not
uniform across the planet.

Some places, such as the US east coast[1][2], are expected to have to deal
with sea level rises 3-4 times the global average or 2m to 8m of sea level
rise. So property up to 8m or more from the current sea level may be
concerned.

[1]:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1597](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1597)

[2]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/20...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/2016/02/01/why-the-u-s-east-coast-could-be-a-major-hotspot-for-
sea-level-rise/)

------
codecamper
next the tundra melts and releases an insane amount of methane. we are so
screwed.

~~~
username223
It seems like we keep discovering new positive feedback loops for global
warming. Less ice means less reflection. Warmer arctic means more methane from
permafrost. Desertification means less carbon capture. There was a recent
article in Scientific American about likely changes in cloud formation from
AGW. Some clouds reflect sun (cooling), while others trap heat (warming).
Guess which are likely to increase?

I doubt humans will go extinct, but yeah... we're screwed.

~~~
b1daly
Define screwed.

I’m not sure what I think about the “climate change” issue, but I maintain a
reserve of skepticism towards proclamations of apocalyptic doom.

A) Humans, and all living things, are screwed from the get go. A guaranteed
calamity awaits us all.

I think contributes to a lack of perspective that is not helpful, and
possibley harmful. On a number of levels, personal and political.

B) The fact that climate change gets far more discussion and attention than
the ongoing calamity of US military conduct is telling. It tells me that
climate change, which is complex, and only ameliorated by levels of global
cooperation never seen before, serves as a “boogie man” for the “politically
aware.”

Organizing against the conduct of corporate war, as it operates globally,
presents far more “low hanging fruit” for positive outcomes, at doable price
levels.

Yet, there are no serious (meaning electable) politicians in the US who have
an opposition to the crazy influence of corporate money. The military spending
(and its corruption) is protected from scrutiny by seemingly insurmountable
social structures.

Yet, achieving meaningful reductions in military activities, if not spending,
is within the realm of imaginable. It is far more doable than the level of
global cooperation that is required to reduce carbon emissions. But people who
might be inclined to support collective efforts to clean up the corporate-
military-political complex are demoralized.

The Republicans apparently pride themselves on taken the worst possible
courses of action on challenging problems. They are working to undercut the
science of climate change!

Frankly, I see global action on significant greenhouse gas reductions as
impossible.

So, somehow, liberal minded folks have found a perfect subject to project
their sense of hopeless futility in “global warming”, an almost intractable
problem.

In the meantime, there are unexplored opportunities to improve our
communities, and world, all around us.

If we, the US, could somehow turn the corner on the lunatic resistance to gun
control, and then make some active progress on military misadventures, maybe
Americans might think about giving up on meat.

~~~
username223
> Define screwed.

(1) Global warming is a runaway process already well underway.

(2) Our political and economic system are too short-sighted to deal with
existential threats that will only come to fruition 100 years from now. CEOs
look at quarterly numbers; political leaders think as far as the next
election.

(3) Humans do not seem to naturally plan beyond their own lifetimes. This
makes evolutionary sense, but we evolved back before we could cook the planet.

(4) Global warming is happening way faster than most natural selection. Fruit
flies may be just fine.

> achieving meaningful reductions in military activities, if not spending, is
> within the realm of imaginable. It is far more doable than the level of
> global cooperation that is required to reduce carbon emissions.

I disagree here. There are extremely low-cost ways to wean humanity from
fossil fuels. Solar energy prices have been coming down dramatically, to the
point where utility companies might switch away from coal out of self-
interest. A nudge in the right direction, instead of "drill baby drill" and
"bring coal back," could have a huge effect down the line. Unfortunately, we
seem unable to plan on those timescales.

------
mustardo
Fake news!

I heard someone in the lift of my soul destroying corporate gig this morning
talking about how great the electrolytes in her drink were... I think it's
finally happening
[https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)

~~~
gambiting
Except, as many have pointed out before, Idiocracy was far more reasonable
than what _some_ countries are doing right now - even when the world was
composed of nothing but idiots, they recognized they had a problem, found the
smartest person in the world, and put them in charge of fixing the issue

------
krautt
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland
as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical.

Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's
the big deal?

Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't
know the answer.

~~~
onion2k
Would melting sea ice lead to a rise in sea level? The ice is floating, so
it's displacing the approximately same mass of water as it contains. If it
melts the overall water level shouldn't change.

~~~
flukus
1\. Thermal expansion. It's a tiny effect, you won't see it in a glass of
water in science class but when you've got oceans a few kilometers deep and
humans living a few meters above them it can have an impact.

2\. It's a feedback effect. Less ice means less light reflected means more
energy in our oceans/atmosphere. In turn this creates more ice loss that won't
be sea ice.

~~~
gaius
Water expands as it freezes. That’s why pipes burst in winter.

~~~
flukus
Water crystallization is a different effect and not relevant here. It has the
same mass so it doesn't effect sea levels when it's frozen and it's not a
linear effect, it won't continue to shrink as it warms.

But like everything else (to various extents) it will expand when it's warmer.

