7 ms·

The canary in the coalmine for global warming is Arctic sea ice. It is melting at an alarming rate, and we can expect an ice-free (>1m sq km of sea ice) Arctic

The canary in the coalmine for global warming is Arctic sea ice. It is melting at an alarming rate, and we can expect an ice-free (>1m sq km of sea ice) Arctic in the summer within a decade or two (or 3-4 years if recent trends continue!). There's a small active community who follow this. We tend to hang out here - a HN level of polite discussion goes on: http://neven1.typepad.com/ http://neven1.typepad.com/

mugdho 10y ago
So what happens to the indigenous population of animals (polar bears are the first that come to my mind) when this happens? Do they just die out or are there groups trying to get them to safety?
- yellow_postit 10y ago
  Outside of captivity, where would it be safe for arctic animals?
  - mugdho 10y ago
    Probably nowhere. But the alternative to captivity is that we will just see entire species of animals go extinct.
    - Silfen 10y ago
      We have already seen many, many species go extinct. The exact figures are not well understood, but there's a lot more at stake than just the polar bear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
      - shoo 10y ago
        There's a 2009 paper "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" that may be of interest. > The planetary boundary (PB) concept, introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate. This approach has proved influential in global sustainability policy development. Steffen et al. provide an updated and extended analysis of the PB framework. Of the original nine proposed boundaries, they identify three (including climate change) that might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and that also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. They also develop the PB framework so that it can be applied usefully in a regional context. [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 [2] http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=iss_pub http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... edit: and the indicator that is off the charts relative to its corresponding "safe operating space" boundary is biodiversity loss - measured in species extinction/(millions of species * year). Climate change looks practically controlled compared to that. (ha).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - SkyMarshal 10y ago
    Northern Canadian/European/Russian land masses.
  - tzs 10y ago
    How about the Antarctic? Save the polar bears and fix Gary Larson's biggest "Far Side" error at the same time.
  - flukus 10y ago
    The antarctic maybe. Though interfering with native ecosystems has never ended well. On the plus side, we get bi-polar bears.
Shivetya 10y ago
well fortunately the Antarctic is gaining mass, so things happen. We are still only 12k years out an ice age and learning as we go. Natural variability is quite boring so it doesn't make headlines as much as it should. the real reality is that the Paris agreement is a horrid piece of do nothing legislation that lets the major developing powers do what they want all the while getting the nod of acceptance from the UN because of the hundred billion dollar payout. Basically we have what is a one time voluntary agreement to pay out to certain groups so that developing countries can continue to pollute provided they plan to eventually slow it
- sqeaky 10y ago
  On a geological timescale we are in a cooling trend, but what non-biased source grants credence to the idea that CO2 and Methane aren't warming things right now in greater amounts? It seems entirely reasonable that anthropogenic climate change is a bigger deal than ice ages and we could prevent one.
  - NumberCruncher 10y ago
    Having a higher CO2 or methan level for 100 years is on a geological timescale a rounding error. There were times in earth history (vulcano eruptions, meteor impacts) where life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change. And we are still here.
    - jackmott 10y ago
      Yeah, and those past times also had mass extinctions.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I think you are unaware of the scope of the problem. (also I did not and cannot downvote you) The amount of life and species lost to human activities already makes the past few thousand years a major extinction event in line with the 5 other major ones. With this fact in mind taking the stance that this is OK because "life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change" is the moral equivalent of saying killing most of the life is OK because it happened before. That is morally repugnant. I do not think are morally repugnant so I must presume you are unaware of the facts I just presented. CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time. If we keep putting there permanently. If we kill ourselves (not with CO2 but with wars caused by the resource availability changes caused by climate change) then what happens during our "rounding error" many will still be dead. The planet will probably be fine, the Bay of Texas will probably be fine and my newly made beachfront property in Omaha will be damn fine. If you live on a coast, get most of your goods by boat or live in one of the areas that will tear itself apart in useless resource wars then the eventual cooling trend doesn't help you and has no place in this discussion.
JimboOmega 10y ago
There's a spin-off forum neven moderates (well, sometimes): forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/board,3.0.html It's a bit slow in the freezing season, even this completely out of control one, and can often degenerate into ridiculous arguments between a few posters. But just in case... if there's any Sea Ice geeks in SF, I'd love to talk about it in person!

mugdho 10y ago

So what happens to the indigenous population of animals (polar bears are the first that come to my mind) when this happens? Do they just die out or are there groups trying to get them to safety?

yellow_postit 10y ago
Outside of captivity, where would it be safe for arctic animals?
- mugdho 10y ago
  Probably nowhere. But the alternative to captivity is that we will just see entire species of animals go extinct.
  - Silfen 10y ago
    We have already seen many, many species go extinct. The exact figures are not well understood, but there's a lot more at stake than just the polar bear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
    - shoo 10y ago
      There's a 2009 paper "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" that may be of interest. > The planetary boundary (PB) concept, introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate. This approach has proved influential in global sustainability policy development. Steffen et al. provide an updated and extended analysis of the PB framework. Of the original nine proposed boundaries, they identify three (including climate change) that might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and that also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. They also develop the PB framework so that it can be applied usefully in a regional context. [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 [2] http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=iss_pub http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... edit: and the indicator that is off the charts relative to its corresponding "safe operating space" boundary is biodiversity loss - measured in species extinction/(millions of species * year). Climate change looks practically controlled compared to that. (ha).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- SkyMarshal 10y ago
  Northern Canadian/European/Russian land masses.
- tzs 10y ago
  How about the Antarctic? Save the polar bears and fix Gary Larson's biggest "Far Side" error at the same time.
- flukus 10y ago
  The antarctic maybe. Though interfering with native ecosystems has never ended well. On the plus side, we get bi-polar bears.

Shivetya 10y ago

well fortunately the Antarctic is gaining mass, so things happen. We are still only 12k years out an ice age and learning as we go. Natural variability is quite boring so it doesn't make headlines as much as it should. the real reality is that the Paris agreement is a horrid piece of do nothing legislation that lets the major developing powers do what they want all the while getting the nod of acceptance from the UN because of the hundred billion dollar payout. Basically we have what is a one time voluntary agreement to pay out to certain groups so that developing countries can continue to pollute provided they plan to eventually slow it

sqeaky 10y ago
On a geological timescale we are in a cooling trend, but what non-biased source grants credence to the idea that CO2 and Methane aren't warming things right now in greater amounts? It seems entirely reasonable that anthropogenic climate change is a bigger deal than ice ages and we could prevent one.
- NumberCruncher 10y ago
  Having a higher CO2 or methan level for 100 years is on a geological timescale a rounding error. There were times in earth history (vulcano eruptions, meteor impacts) where life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change. And we are still here.
  - jackmott 10y ago
    Yeah, and those past times also had mass extinctions.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I think you are unaware of the scope of the problem. (also I did not and cannot downvote you) The amount of life and species lost to human activities already makes the past few thousand years a major extinction event in line with the 5 other major ones. With this fact in mind taking the stance that this is OK because "life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change" is the moral equivalent of saying killing most of the life is OK because it happened before. That is morally repugnant. I do not think are morally repugnant so I must presume you are unaware of the facts I just presented. CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time. If we keep putting there permanently. If we kill ourselves (not with CO2 but with wars caused by the resource availability changes caused by climate change) then what happens during our "rounding error" many will still be dead. The planet will probably be fine, the Bay of Texas will probably be fine and my newly made beachfront property in Omaha will be damn fine. If you live on a coast, get most of your goods by boat or live in one of the areas that will tear itself apart in useless resource wars then the eventual cooling trend doesn't help you and has no place in this discussion.

JimboOmega 10y ago

There's a spin-off forum neven moderates (well, sometimes): forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/board,3.0.html It's a bit slow in the freezing season, even this completely out of control one, and can often degenerate into ridiculous arguments between a few posters. But just in case... if there's any Sea Ice geeks in SF, I'd love to talk about it in person!