Both the sea ice thickness and sea ice area have fallen to new record lows for this time of the year (22.11.2015), even surpassing all of the worst previous years.
From Naval Research Laboratory image - view animation
Immense thrust of fast moving sea ice is pushing through at the full width of the Fram Strait between Norway and Greenland. This amounts to huge transport of latent coldness out of the Arctic Ocean to North Atlantic, while the constantly forming new sea ice (as temperatures are below 0°C) is generating heat to keep the surface air temperatures higher across the Arctic Ocean. Thus, heat is constantly being added to the Arctic Ocean while heat is taken away from the North Atlantic Ocean.
The normal sea ice area for this time of year is 9,625,000 km2, whereas the sea ice covers currently just 8,415,890 km2,, which makes that 1,209,120 km2 sea ice is missing from the normal (22.11) sea ice area.
The combination image below shows the jet stream (November 23, 2015, left panel) and surface wind (November 24, 2015, right panel).
Jet stream is wavy and strong, showing speeds as high as 219 mph or 352 km/h (at location marked by the green circle). Right panel shows cyclonic winds between Norway and Greenland speeding up movement of sea ice into the North Atlantic.
Forecasts indicate that conditions could continue. The 5-day forecast on the right shows strong winds in the North Atlantic. Note also the cyclonic winds outside the Bering Strait.
Temperatures over the Arctic are forecast to remain much higher than they used to be, with anomalies at the far end of the scale over a large part of the Arctic Ocean showing up on the 5-day temperature anomaly forecast below.
Above image is from an excellent study by Jacobson et al., showing that it is technically feasible and economically attractive to shift to clean energy facilities between now and 2050. This will create net jobs worldwide. It will avoid millions of air-pollution mortalities and avoid trillions of dollars in pollution and global warming damage. It will stabilize energy prices and reduce energy poverty. It will make countries energy independent and reduce international conflict over energy. It will reduce risks of large-scale system disruptions by significantly decentralizing power production.
Given that there are so many benefits and there are no technical and economic barriers to complete a 100% shift by the year 2050 (and 80% by 2030), why not make an even faster transition?
Sam Carana suggests that feebates, especially when implemented locally, can best facilitate the necessary shift. Moreover, when energy feebates are implemented jointly with feebates in further areas, greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by 80% by 2020, while soils, atmosphere and oceans could be restored to their pre-industrial status over the course of the century.
[ the above emission cuts and feebates images were used in a meanwhile dated 2011 post ]
To achieve the most effective and rapid shift, Sam Carana recommends implementing two types of feebates, i.e. energy feebates and further feebates such as fees on sales of livestock products while using the revenues to fund rebates on soil supplements containing biochar.
Sam Carana adds that further lines of action will be needed to prevent Earth from overheating, warning that comprehensive and effective action is needed as described in the Climate Plan.
The image below shows that a shift to 100% clean (WWS) energy by 2050 (80% by 2030) could reduce CO2 to ~350 ppmv by 2100.
Energy feebates are the most effective way to speed up the shift to clean energy. Further feebates could make additional cuts in greenhouse gases emissions, while also removing carbon from the atmosphere and oceans, allowing us to aim for bringing down carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to 280 ppmv by the year 2100.
Links
- How Renewable Energy Could Make Climate Treaties Moot (2015)
A new study by Jacobson et al. shows that it is technically and economically feasible to shift to clean energy... Posted by Sam Carana on Saturday, November 21, 2015
It was very common back in the day for houses to not have closets. Don't quote me on this, but my understanding is that it had something to do with getting taxed for each "room", and closets were counted as rooms. Therefore, many older houses are closet-less.
My house was built in 1924. I have friends with similarly aged homes which have teeny tiny closets, which I have heard came from the fact that homes were taxed per square foot (and why waste it on closet space). Luckily, my closets are not too tiny and I even have a bonus hole in my hallway. However, there is not a lot of shelving in any of them.
The other day my Dad calls me up and says that he would like to come down and fix something in my house. Fortunately, I do have a self imposed Honey Do list. However, most of the things on it are pretty easy things I can do myself (not that I always want to, but I CAN). Luckily, I can think quickly on my feet, and when he requested a project AND a drawing, I quickly got to work. Here is what I came up with.
Bedroom Closet Plan
Hall Closet Plan
Aren't my drawing skills fabulous? NOT. For the bedroom closet, I wanted a few shelves to put shoes or clothes on, as well as a rod to hang things. For the hall closet, I wanted some shelves and also a space for the broom/mop and a space to hang people's coats when they came to visit.
So Dad came down and got to work. Here are the before and after shots.
Bedroom Closet: The day I moved in
Bedroom Closet : Before
Bedroom Closet : After
Don't judge me. I have a lot of shoes.
Hall Closet : Before
Hall Closet : After
I still need to paint the shelves in the bedroom closet and to figure out how I want to organize everything, which will involve a bit of shifting and time to see if things are working the way I want them to. However, overall I am quite pleased with the way everything turned out!
Do you have enough closet space? If you could have a closet makeover, what would you change/add?
The western world is full of the distractions that our prosperity and liberal values allow.So much so, that for the most part we forget that we are at war.Then along comes a tragedy like the Paris attacks yesterday night, and for a few days – sometimes even weeks – we remember again about our war.
It is a war like no others before it.It doesn’t often come onto our soil, but it pervades our governments’ and security forces’ actions almost in total. Our military forces are nearly exclusively engaged in military action in the middle east; our security services dedicate the majority of their attention to threats from that same middle east.
But this isn’t just a one-sided military war.It is a culture war too.It is a war of liberalism versus fundamentalism, and the hinterland of this cultural dimension is at the heart of fears about the refugee crisis dominating Europe.
There is no clear resolution.Well, there is no clear resolution that commands political support.On our own domestic front – thrown into stark relief once again by the killing of over 120 innocent Parisians doing nothing more warlike than enjoying the leisure offered by a liberal society – it is an obvious misnomer to equate the killers with a single religion.Their creed is a more nihilistic brand of fundamentalism, and that exists across all religions.These particular fundamentalists are more militarised because their immediate counterparts in the middle east are militarised, but their core opposition to the values of liberalism are not much different from the opposition of any fundamentalist to the values of an individualist, free-thinking society.
So how did liberalism get here?How has a western society, drawing its guiding principles from an ideology which elevates tolerance and individual freedom get to a point where it is in a terrible, almost underground war on its own soil against those who want to dismantle it?
Perhaps the problem originated with the inability of western governments to divorce themselves from an interventionism that has also been part of liberalism.Liberalism shouldn’t be interventionist – or expansionist – but the foreign policies of liberal governments have never quite subscribed to that view.Inevitably perhaps, since governments are the least able to protect themselves against a corruption of power which demands your aggressive defence against known and unknown enemies.
Thus, in the name of defending liberal values, western governments have found themselves at war. And they are finding what true liberals could have told them all along – war is fundamentally destructive of liberal values, both internally and externally.
Externally, in the ways we have seen.The enemies the war has created do come after you, and if they themselves are weak then they come after your weakest element too.IS are a brutal, murderous group governed by an abominable fundamentalist mentality, but compared to the military complexes of the liberal nations they are weak.They win on the ground because our governments have started to hesitate in their use of their own military power.Hesitated too late, alas.So IS attacks in a way that their weakness finds most effective.By taking aim at the ‘soft underbelly’ of western society.
Internally, the threat to liberalism exists because each time an attack takes place, more credibility is given to the idea that governments and their forces should increase their own domestic power.
So has liberalism failed?How do we escape this desperate cycle?There will not be wanting voices to call for greater action in Syria; more bombings of sometimes military and sometimes civilian targets.More boots on the ground.More action in Iraq too perhaps.Maybe Afghanistan. But consider this.The only real path for military success is to engage in a full, total and continuous war until we have utterly decimated and destroyed all the forces arraigned against us; and then to maintain a full military presence to suppress any resurgence of that fundamentalism which militates against us for as long as such feelings might exist.
Read that last bit again and see if it has any likelihood to it whatsoever.Of course it doesn’t.Not even war-based empires like Rome succeeded in such a path for any length of time.But it is the only way of operating if you want to go down the path of military success.
Alternatively, we could try and rescue liberalism and the societies which embrace it by beginning the slow, painful retreat from interventionism.It won’t be easy.The seeds of terrorist opposition that have already been sown are still growing and being harvested, and will be a long time before that soil can finally dry up.There is still a long slog ahead for governments and security services as they seek to protect their societies without reducing them to illiberal states.But if we really want to escape from the cycle of mindless, fundamentalist, random attacks on the innocent of our societies, then we have understand where it has come from.And it came from the failure of liberal governments to fully embrace an ideology that should never have allowed them to send half-hearted military forces into areas they barely understood.
Sea surface temperatures were as high as 15.8°C or 60.4°F near Svalbard on November 7, 2015, a 13.7°C or 24.7°F anomaly. Let this sink in for a moment. The water used to be close to freezing point near Svalbard around this time of year, and the water now is warmer by as much as 13.7°C or 24.7°F.
[ click on image to enlarge ]
Above image further shows that sea surface temperature anomalies as high as 6.7°C or 12.1°F were recorded on November 7, 2015, off the coast of North America, while anomalies as high as 6°C or 10.9°F were recorded in the Bering Strait.
NOAA analysis shows that the global sea surface in September 2015 was the warmest on record, at 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F). On the Northern Hemisphere, the anomaly was 1.07°C (1.93°F).
[ click on image to enlarge ]
How did temperatures get so high near Svalbard? The answer is that ocean currents are moving warm water from the Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean. The ocean is warmer underneath the sea surface and at that location near Svalbard warm water from below the surface emerges at the surface.
Ocean Heat The oceans are warming up rapidly, especially the waters below the sea surface. Of all the excess heat resulting from people's emissions, 93.4% goes into oceans. Accordingly, the temperature of oceans has risen substantially over the years and - without action - the situation only looks set to get worse.
NOAA's ocean heat content figures for 0-2000 m are very worrying, as illustrated by the image below.
The image below was created with data for January through to March, while adding non-linear trendlines for ocean heat at depths of 0-700 m and 0-2000 m. For growth of ocean heat content for 0-700 m, a polynomial trend is added, while for growth of ocean heat content for 0-2000 m an exponential trend is added.
[ click on images to enlarge ]
The image below shows a polynomial trend based on all available quarterly data for ocean heat content from 0 to 2000 m. The trendline shows even faster growth.
The danger is that, as ocean heat continues to grow, ocean currents will keep carrying ever warmer water from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans into the Arctic Ocean.
Merely watching temperatures at the surface of the ocean may underestimate the warming that is taking place below the sea surface. At the sea surface, evaporation takes place that cools the water. Furthermore, melting of sea ice and glaciers will make that a layer of cold freshwater spreads at the surface, preventing much transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, as discussed at this earlier post. The blue-colored areas on the Northern Hemisphere on the top image are partly the result of this meltwater. There is another reason why these areas are relatively cool, i.e. sulfates, as further discussed in the section below.
Aerosols
Particulates, in particular sulfate, can provide short-term cooling of the sea surface. Large amounts of sulfate are emitted from industrial areas in the east of North America and in East Asia. On the Northern Hemisphere, the Coriolis effect makes that such emissions will typically reach areas over the nearby ocean to the east of such industrial areas, resulting in the sea surface there being cooled substantially, until the particulates have fallen out of the sky. Since the sulfate is emitted on an ongoing basis, the cooling effect continues without much interruption.
[ click on image to enlarge ]
This sulfate has a cooling effect on areas of the sea surface where ocean currents are moving warm water toward the Arctic Ocean. Because the sea surface gets colder, there is less evaporation, and thus less heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere during the time it takes for the water to reach the Arctic Ocean. As a result, water below the sea surface remains warmer as it moves toward the Arctic Ocean.
Similarly, as illustrated by above image, sulfur dioxide emitted in industrial areas in North America and East Asia can extend over the oceans, cooling the surface water of currents that are moving water toward the Arctic Ocean.
Methane
The image below shows that atmospheric methane levels in 2014 were 1833 parts per billion (WMO data) or 254% the pre-industrial level. WMO data are for 1984-2014 and are marked in red, while IPCC data (AR5) are for the years 1755-2011 and are marked in blue.
The image below shows the rise of methane levels from 1984 created with World Metereological Organization (WMO) data. The square marks a high mean 2015 level, from NOAA's MetOp-2 satellite images, and it is added for comparison, so it does not influence the trendline, yet it does illustrate the direction of rise of methane levels and the threat that global mean methane levels will double well before the year 2040.
The image below illustrates the danger that large amounts of methane will erupt from the Arctic Ocean, particularly in East Siberian Arctic Shelf, where the sea is quite shallow, so much of the methane can reach the atmosphere without being broken down by microbes on the way up through the water column.
The video below shows how methane concentrations start to rise close to sea level, and how concentrations strengthen at higher altitudes, and to eventually get lower at even higher altitudes.
The Threat
Ocean heat threatens to increasingly reach the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean and unleash huge methane eruptions from destabilizing clathrates. Such large methane eruptions will then warm the atmosphere at first in hotspots over the Arctic and eventually around the globe, while also causing huge temperature swings and extreme weather events, contributing to increasing depletion of fresh water and food supply, as further illustrated by the image below, from an earlier post.
[ click on image at original post to enlarge ]
The image below gives an indication of the ocean heat that is pushed by the Gulf Stream toward the Arctic Ocean. Note that this image shows the situation on November 15, 2015. Water off the east coast of North America is even warmer at the peak of the Northern Hemisphere summer and it is this water that is now arriving in the Arctic Ocean.
Below is a radio version of this post, roughly as read by Debba Kale Earnshaw at this episode and the next episode of extinctionradio.org
To a geologist-oceanographer, the increasing rate of heat gain in the deep water seems obvious. Massive quantities of heat are generated in the earth's interior by radioactivity and find their way to the surface in rising convection systems to erupt along mid-ocean ridges as basaltic lava flows, pushing the plates apart. Under normal circumstances, prior to the arrival of civilized man, the plates cooled as they expanded by passing their heat into the oceans, which then was radiated into space.
Now, with the fast evolving atmospheric greenhouse Arctic methane global warming veil. the heat is simply being reflected back into the oceans and onto the land. Therefore, just like a pressure cooker, the Earth's interior heat is becoming trapped more and more and of course the end result will be a final blow-out. The more than 400 thousand years of ice core data show that we can expect a massive atmospheric methane peak caused by destabilization of the Arctic subsea methane hydrates very soon (8 to 16 years away) and it will produce a Permian style extinction event with a temperature increase of some 8 to 10 degrees C.
Climate Plan
The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as discussed at the Climate Plan.
Sea surface temperatures were as high as 15.8°C or 60.4°F near Svalbard on November 7, 2015, a 13.7°C or 24.7°F anomaly.... Posted by Sam Carana on Monday, November 9, 2015
Don't freak out; this post is NOT about what you think it is.
I decided that I would post from time to time about the joys of being a homeowner. I am sure that many of you have similar stories and I would like to know how things are in your neck of the woods. Are they the same as mine? For instance, do YOU have a nosy/creepy/annoying neighbor? A loud xyz near your house? An animal that poops in your flower bed or eats your homegrown veggies? What woes do you have in your neighborhood?
My first woe is this: Alarm Systems.
When I first moved in, the "curtain twitcher" (my nosy friendly neighbor across the way) came over to introduce herself (at 8:30 p.m. and mind you, I normally go to bed around 8:30) and to talk about the neighborhood and the goings on and the other people on our block etc. Apparently the guy behind me "might" be a drug dealer, the people at the end never leave their house and the people across the street rented to someone because they moved to Paris for work (but that is the only non-owner occupied home on the block). I learned all of this (and more!) in about 26 minutes, as the clock was slowly ticking toward 9:00.
The other thing she told me, which was interesting but not great, is that since we live on a street that is very easily accessible from the freeway (great for commuting!) sometimes thieves will get off the freeway, kick in your door, steal your TV and get right back on the freeway in a matter of minutes. Now, I am not super attached to my TV, but I am pretty attached to my life, so I decided to get an alarm system.
First of all, getting an alarm system is a pain in the butt. It's worse than getting cable. First, you sign your life away by paying up front for the install/equipment and the first month. Next, some creepy guy comes to your house and tries to suggestive sell you on $9,000 worth of equipment, which by the way, will ONLY cost you an additional $900 in install/equipment fees and another $50 per month on top of the original $40 per month you already agreed to pay. Of course, in his spiel, your area is VERY dangerous and it's IMPERATIVE that ALL windows, doors, peepholes, cracks and crevices be set up with an alarm and preferably a camera and a direct line to the CIA.
So I get the standard, the one that I ALREADY paid for and I kick the creepy guy out. Now, one of the things you also have to get, which creepy guy pretty much brushes over the details of, is a permit with the city or county. This is like a registration with the local police. However, creepy guy did mention that they would take care of it for me. I thought this was great until I got a bill in the mail from them, asking me to reimburse them for taking care of it for me.
Fast forward to three months later when I am riding my bike to work and my phone rings. I ignore it because who the heck is calling me from a 1-800 number at five in the morning; I figure it must be an east coast telemarketer. Turns out it was the alarm company, calling me because the alarm went off for no reason. The police were dispatched and they did not find any signs of a break-in. I was happy to hear that, and I thought that was the end of that. Until I received a bill last week in the mail for $84 for a "false alarm". I thought, "No problem. I have a permit. I will call them and tell them there has been a mistake".
Not so fast, little girl. I looked it up and here are the details.
General False Alarm: With permit = $84, Without permit = $154 Robbery False Alarm: With permit = $156, Without permit = $226 Genuine: With permit = Free(!), Without permit = $70
So, the only way to save money is if your alarm is genuine, aka you get robbed by a burglar. Otherwise, instead of getting robbed by a burglar, you get robbed by the city instead.
Do you have a home security system? What are the rules in your area? If you don't have an alarm, what frustrates you about one of the rules of YOUR neighborhood?
Another October is in the books! Finally, a month with a good mix of friends, family, work, running and getting things knocked off my To Do List (which is no mean feat). I had a couple of weekends at home, which, although they weren't "quiet", did give me a chance to get some things done that I have been wanting to do for a long time (like planting that darn orange tree in the back yard)!
Running: Finally I picked up my mileage a bit, mostly because I ran the Dick Collins 50M early in the month, but also because I am trying to get back out there little by little. Running mileage was 126 miles, which I have to say I am pretty darn happy with! I also put 36 miles on the bike, hiked 14 miles and did 6 HIIT/strength/core workouts. I mentioned in the race recap that I thought the strength workouts were helping my running and I plan to keep doing them at least a couple of times each week to see if it works out better for training. Something has to give; I am still having back pain and that plus my lack of motivation have led to a lot less running that normal. However, if I can find a substitute for one or two days of running per week and it works out, this may be the solution.
Reading: I am not super excited about any of the books I read in October. I ended up reading 5 books total and they were all just "okay". They were:
Heroes Are My Weakness (2 stars) Life After Life (3 stars) What Alice Forgot (3 stars) The Dinner (3 stars) Dietland (3 stars)
Travel: I didn't stray too far away from home in October, but I did have a nice trip home to see my parents, where we went on a couple of nice hikes, spent some time with my grandma and ate the last of the fresh tomatoes. I also went to my cousin's wedding which was at a nice vineyard about an hour and a half from my house. The setting was beautiful and it was great to see family that I hadn't seen in a while and to get a bit gussied up and to dance my booty off (I did not count that as one of the strength workouts, but it WAS a workout)!
November is shaping up to be another fun (filled!) month, with a couple of visits from friends and family, some big house projects, some running events, hosting Thanksgiving at my house and a trip for work to NYC!
How was October for you? Did you go trick-or-treating or did you hand out candy? Do you know of any good strength workouts I should try?
Jet stream is wavy and strong, showing speeds as high as 219 mph or 352 km/h (at location marked by the green circle). Right panel shows cyclonic winds between Norway and Greenland speeding up movement of sea ice into the North Atlantic.
Jet stream is wavy and strong, showing speeds as high as 219 mph or 352 km/h (at location marked by the green circle). Right panel shows cyclonic winds between Norway and Greenland speeding up movement of sea ice into the North Atlantic.
