Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
RECENT REVISIONS TO ARCTIC SEA ICE PREDICTIONS
INDICATE A NEAR-EXTINCTION EVENT BETWEEN 2030 AND 2055
~ Amidst the bickering of the hour on wars and gas-pump prices, humanity continues to ignore the fate it is making for itself with such insanity. It appears we have reverted civilization to the level of intelligence frequently attributed to religious primitivism in the Dark Ages. The complete loss of arctic sea ice heralds a near-extinction event, to the benefit of a few nations, such as Russia and Canada, but to otherwise wreak such havoc that many millions die. The evidence is overwhelming, yet few even bother to learn anything of them, despite its significance to humanity's future.
The wiser among us can only sigh that current climate action has only bought us another 25 years at most, even while the complete destruction to our ecosphere could still be upon us in only 8 years.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
About the Author
1. Is Global Warming a Conspiracy Theory?
2. Why is Arctic Ice Important?
3. Scientific versus Political Predictions
4a. The Near Prediction (Scientific)
4b. Revisions to the Near Prediction
5. The Far Prediction (Political)
5a. Trump
5b. COP26 Summit and War
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The first reaction on most social media is to write a seven-word insult after reading the first paragraph or less, so I am now gratified to introduce myself as an Oxford scholar, majoring in philosophy, psychology and politics. My specialties are the philosophy of science, natural law, and artificial intelligence. I worked in silicon valley for AT&T, Intel, Comcast, and Apple, and I am retired for health reasons.
Thenceforth, having stated my opinion for the stupid to ridicule, I will be entirely putting aside the deep disappointment that all the few lovers of knowledge left have been driven to feel about the current state of world affairs. I will be explaining why the Arctic Sea Ice is important, why it might not be lasting as long as most people assume, and exactly what politicians have done about it. I strove to present you with relevant truth, factual accuracy, and clear explanation. I welcome all comments on improving the text.
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. IS GLOBAL WARMING A CONSPIRACY THEORY?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who know little of the history of science on global warming, and nothing of the philosophy of science, enjoy ridiculing climate change is a conspiracy theory. There are two problems with that.
(1) The theoretical effect of greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere is based on the second law of thermodynamics. To claim it doesn't happen would require combustion engines in cars not to work.
(2) The empirical verification of global warming has been demonstrated by so many peer-reviewed and repeated experiments now, all scientific academies in the world are now stating it is happening. Early experiments before 2000 had enormous holes in their data, and a minority of them projected faster warming than happened, resulting in ridicule of cherry-picked failures. Since then, satellites and meteorological ocean buoys have gathered enormous amounts of data, making the forecasts far more reliable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
2. WHY IS ARCTIC ICE SO IMPORTANT?
-------------------------------------------------------------
The weight of new scientific knowledge we have accumulated on global warming in the last decade is truly astounding. One of the least-known data sources is the ARGO deep-sea buoy system, a network of over 4,000 sensor collections on 'floats' that move up and down to gather oceanographic data at different sea depths. ARGO Is paid for by supertrawlers, which use sonars on the buoys to find large fish shoals, and the sensor network is growing larger by leaps and bounds. Besides sonar, other sensors on the buoys report water temperature, salinity, density, and current flows. Supercomputers analyze the collected data to find the deep-sea currents that transport temperatures around the globe. Currently, the currents move warm water northwards from the Mexican gulf and Pacific and are blocked by Arctic Sea Ice, which cools the currents, causing them to sink and reverse direction.
From satellite infra-red data, the Arctic Sea Ice is melting at 2-4 times the rate of global warming, because the lost ice is progressively reflecting less heat than the darker Arctic ocean surface. When the Arctic Sea Ice is gone, it will no longer block the deep-sea currents, causing them to warm the North coast of Russia and Canada, while increasing the frenzy of climate change across the rest of the globe. Russia's huge ice-covered lands will be substantially warmed, while crop failures elsewhere in the world will cause massive famines.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. SCIENTIFIC VERSUS POLITICAL PREDICTIONS
----------------------------------------------------------
The exact year when all Arctic Sea Ice will be loss is not possible to predict accurately, nor will it ever be, due to annual variations. We won't even know the year beforehand when the entire Arctic Ice will be lost. We do know, when all the Arctic Ice first melts, it will be around the second week of September, which is the height of the Arctic Summer. After that, it's impossible to gauge how much the ice mass will recover in the following winter, because the ocean currents and atmospheric jetstreams moving temperature around the globe will change wildly.
Meanwhile, scientists focus on near and far predictions:
* Near predictions are projections of the date of complete ice loss at the near end of observed annual variation, completely based on empirical measurements to the current date exactly as they are.
* Far projections take into account the hoped-for reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions promised in the last round of decisions in the Paris Accord, and add that to the far end of the observed annual variation.
----------------------------------------------------------
4a. THE NEAR PREDICTION (SCIENTIFIC)
----------------------------------------------------------
The National Geographic reported in 2020 on the results of the most sophisticated supercomputer calculations yet on all satellite, ARGO, and weather-station data, which was published in an incredible but complicated Nature journal article that year. It's not an easy calculation, because older ice is more compact and melts at a slower rate. But with satellite data since 1979 recording summer ice loss over four decades, estimates of the ratio of old to new ice at different times of year is becoming very accurate, albeit different results do accrue from different methods of calculation. The Nature article describes how they were combined to provide the most reliable estimate.
The data analysis found that newer, faster melting ice is replacing older ice at a greater rate than previously estimated, moving the near estimate of Arctic Sea Ice loss to September 2035.
----------------------------------------------------------
4b. REVISION TO THE NEAR PREDICTION
----------------------------------------------------------
International concern over Arctic Ice loss reached a historic peak after the 2020 finding. Within months, a team of over 400 scientists from two dozen nations were funded to intentionally embed their research ship, the Polarstern icebreaker, in an Arctic Ice flow for an entire year.
The ice flow carried the ship from Russia, across the North Pole, to Canada, while the scientists gathered a massive barrage of data.
While many data holes have been filled, one factor still requiring more data is Arctic Ice depth, which so far cannot be determined by satellites. The Polarstern scientists performed a chi-squared analysis of the measurements around their ship compared to prior estimates of the ice thickness across the entire Arctic. The line data compared to the area data was sufficient to show that prior studies overestimated the thickness of the ice, with fair confidence; but they did not have enough direct measurements to determine by exactly how much.
That would indicate that the 2035 estimate for the loss of Arctic Ice was too optimistic. In the few years since the 2035 estimate was calculated in 2020, data has not been deemed sufficiently reliable for cumulative updating due to COVID lowering greenhouse-gas emissions rates worldwide, but they were still 10th and 11th worst in 40 years. So it's difficult to say by how much the near 2035 estimate should be moved forward by the new data on lower ice mass. A reasonable estimate is 2030.
----------------------------------------------------------
5. THE FAR PREDICTION (POLITICAL)
----------------------------------------------------------
Simultaneously, the far estimate for complete Arctic Ice loss, previously at 2070, was moved forward to 2060 last year, for two reasons: (a) Trump, and (b) the 2021 Paris Accord gathering, now called COP26, because Trump left the accord and Biden rejoined, so they wanted a separate name to mark the new situation.
In general, expected reductions in carbon emissions are most influenced by cooperation between China and the USA. China creates the most emissions globally, at 28% of the total, compared to USA's 11%. However, the USA's population is only 329 million, compared to China's 1,402 million. Hence in China, each person emits 56% of the emissions of each person in the USA, and that means, the USA's actions on emissions control are more important.
----------------------------------------------------------
5a. TRUMP
----------------------------------------------------------
Trump gets his own section in an article on climate change because of his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, and also, his trade tariffs on China, which have deeply spoiled the relationship between China and the USA.
Besides Trump's impact, China fully cooperated and has kept all its commitments with carbon emission reductions in the 2015 and 2018 Paris accord meetings, closing over 300 coal power stations. It was previously willing to consider more reductions, but after Trump withdrew from the Paris Accord in 2020, it said it was no longer in a position to make further commitments than it already had, because, even with Trump out of office, the Republicans could get into office again and exploit the significant fiscal sacrifices China would have to make for further reductions. Which is entirely true. If Trump or one of his family get back into office, they will remove even more environmental control laws. China is so fed up with Trump's quibbles about money, it feels it must refuse to change any political policy that causes it to lose revenue to the USA at all. China did feel bad about being put in this position, so it did promise not to start any new coal power stations in China, or finance any new coal power stations overseas, as an indication of goodwill, and the desire to do what it could without handicapping itself. But it was not going to let the USA gain fiscal power at its fiscal loss. It said the USA would need to make a permanent commitment first. Thus we can only hope for a supermajority to pass a constitutional amendment that prevents a US President from reversing climate actions in the future in 2024, because that is the only permanent commitment we can make within constitutional law. Otherwise, with the current situation that Trump made, there is no way to reduce emissions fast enough to save the Arctic Sea ice without bankrupting the USA, and when the Arctic Sea ice is gone, the finger points squarely at Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------
5b. COP26 and WAR
----------------------------------------------------------
The "26th Conference of Parties" (COP26) for international climate negotiations convened in Glasgow in November 2021. previously at "COP21" in Paris, countries had agreed in 2015 to update their individual climate targets five years later, but COP26 was delayed an extra year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. That postponement contributed to the widespread advance billings that COP26 indeed would be an extremely important event. And so it was.
Outside the three main superpowers, the Glasgow negotiations yielded incremental but insufficient progress toward meeting the Paris targets. India pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2070, and Nigeria by 2060, and 141 countries covering 91% of global forested area agreed to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. More than 450 financial institutions across 45 countries pledged $130 trillion of private capital to transition the global economy to net zero emissions by 2050; 103 countries responsible for close to half of global methane emissions pledged that by 2030 they will reduce those emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels.
However, the three superpowers have significantly failed to make any progress, and virtually all the greenhouse-gas emission reductions are by the smaller nations.
* China is stalled, as described above.
* Biden has since completely reneged his commitments on greenhouse-gas emissions by oil production due to the sudden rapid increase of energy costs, caused by Putin's provocation of sanctions by invading Ukraine. He does still have a small program running to find a refrigerant that is less damaging to the atmosphere, but all alternatives require more energy, and it's not been able to solve that problem.
* Putin's ONLY contribution was to question the target temperature increase and ask why it couldn't be higher. Political quibbles over the war have completely drowned out more sensible voices on the long-term fate of the planet, rather playing into Putin's hands, who may even have started the war as a covert attack that weaponizes global warming to his advantage and the West's loss, while claiming it's not his fault because he only provoked the sanctions which other nations enacted for starting a war.
Hence, the outside estimate was 2070 after the COP21 Conference, and had moved forward to 2060 after COP26. Since then, the abandonment of climate action and focus on war has shown far less commitment to climate change than hoped. Until political conditions change again, A fair outside estimate is 2055.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
It is likely that what you are saying is true and that the environmental crisis is real. The question is what can be done? There is so much information on the problem and it is questionable how much comes down to leaders and some comes down to everyday life, resources and sustainability of human life and other lifeforms? What can be done, especially at this stage. The future looks problematic, although with the nature of unpredictability in nature it may be hard to know what is going to happen exactly. The issues are very important but part of the problem with so many doom and gloom scenarios it can lead to demoralised and despair. The situation is negative and it may not be easy to turn a negative into a positive but the question may be how can the issue be approached constructively, in relation to politics, science and philosophy?ernestm wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 11:46 am ~
RECENT REVISIONS TO ARCTIC SEA ICE PREDICTIONS
INDICATE A NEAR-EXTINCTION EVENT BETWEEN 2030 AND 2055
~ Amidst the bickering of the hour on wars and gas-pump prices, humanity continues to ignore the fate it is making for itself with such insanity. It appears we have reverted civilization to the level of intelligence frequently attributed to religious primitivism in the Dark Ages. The complete loss of arctic sea ice heralds a near-extinction event, to the benefit of a few nations, such as Russia and Canada, but to otherwise wreak such havoc that many millions die. The evidence is overwhelming, yet few even bother to learn anything of them, despite its significance to humanity's future.
The wiser among us can only sigh that current climate action has only bought us another 25 years at most, even while the complete destruction to our ecosphere could still be upon us in only 8 years.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
About the Author
1. Is Global Warming a Conspiracy Theory?
2. Why is Arctic Ice Important?
3. Scientific versus Political Predictions
4a. The Near Prediction (Scientific)
4b. Revisions to the Near Prediction
5. The Far Prediction (Political)
5a. Trump
5b. COP26 Summit and War
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The first reaction on most social media is to write a seven-word insult after reading the first paragraph or less, so I am now gratified to introduce myself as an Oxford scholar, majoring in philosophy, psychology and politics. My specialties are the philosophy of science, natural law, and artificial intelligence. I worked in silicon valley for AT&T, Intel, Comcast, and Apple, and I am retired for health reasons.
Thenceforth, having stated my opinion for the stupid to ridicule, I will be entirely putting aside the deep disappointment that all the few lovers of knowledge left have been driven to feel about the current state of world affairs. I will be explaining why the Arctic Sea Ice is important, why it might not be lasting as long as most people assume, and exactly what politicians have done about it. I strove to present you with relevant truth, factual accuracy, and clear explanation. I welcome all comments on improving the text.
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. IS GLOBAL WARMING A CONSPIRACY THEORY?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who know little of the history of science on global warming, and nothing of the philosophy of science, enjoy ridiculing climate change is a conspiracy theory. There are two problems with that.
(1) The theoretical effect of greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere is based on the second law of thermodynamics. To claim it doesn't happen would require combustion engines in cars not to work.
(2) The empirical verification of global warming has been demonstrated by so many peer-reviewed and repeated experiments now, all scientific academies in the world are now stating it is happening. Early experiments before 2000 had enormous holes in their data, and a minority of them projected faster warming than happened, resulting in ridicule of cherry-picked failures. Since then, satellites and meteorological ocean buoys have gathered enormous amounts of data, making the forecasts far more reliable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
2. WHY IS ARCTIC ICE SO IMPORTANT?
-------------------------------------------------------------
The weight of new scientific knowledge we have accumulated on global warming in the last decade is truly astounding. One of the least-known data sources is the ARGO deep-sea buoy system, a network of over 4,000 sensor collections on 'floats' that move up and down to gather oceanographic data at different sea depths. ARGO Is paid for by supertrawlers, which use sonars on the buoys to find large fish shoals, and the sensor network is growing larger by leaps and bounds. Besides sonar, other sensors on the buoys report water temperature, salinity, density, and current flows. Supercomputers analyze the collected data to find the deep-sea currents that transport temperatures around the globe. Currently, the currents move warm water northwards from the Mexican gulf and Pacific and are blocked by Arctic Sea Ice, which cools the currents, causing them to sink and reverse direction.
From satellite infra-red data, the Arctic Sea Ice is melting at 2-4 times the rate of global warming, because the lost ice is progressively reflecting less heat than the darker Arctic ocean surface. When the Arctic Sea Ice is gone, it will no longer block the deep-sea currents, causing them to warm the North coast of Russia and Canada, while increasing the frenzy of climate change across the rest of the globe. Russia's huge ice-covered lands will be substantially warmed, while crop failures elsewhere in the world will cause massive famines.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. SCIENTIFIC VERSUS POLITICAL PREDICTIONS
----------------------------------------------------------
The exact year when all Arctic Sea Ice will be loss is not possible to predict accurately, nor will it ever be, due to annual variations. We won't even know the year beforehand when the entire Arctic Ice will be lost. We do know, when all the Arctic Ice first melts, it will be around the second week of September, which is the height of the Arctic Summer. After that, it's impossible to gauge how much the ice mass will recover in the following winter, because the ocean currents and atmospheric jetstreams moving temperature around the globe will change wildly.
Meanwhile, scientists focus on near and far predictions:
* Near predictions are projections of the date of complete ice loss at the near end of observed annual variation, completely based on empirical measurements to the current date exactly as they are.
* Far projections take into account the hoped-for reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions promised in the last round of decisions in the Paris Accord, and add that to the far end of the observed annual variation.
----------------------------------------------------------
4a. THE NEAR PREDICTION (SCIENTIFIC)
----------------------------------------------------------
The National Geographic reported in 2020 on the results of the most sophisticated supercomputer calculations yet on all satellite, ARGO, and weather-station data, which was published in an incredible but complicated Nature journal article that year. It's not an easy calculation, because older ice is more compact and melts at a slower rate. But with satellite data since 1979 recording summer ice loss over four decades, estimates of the ratio of old to new ice at different times of year is becoming very accurate, albeit different results do accrue from different methods of calculation. The Nature article describes how they were combined to provide the most reliable estimate.
The data analysis found that newer, faster melting ice is replacing older ice at a greater rate than previously estimated, moving the near estimate of Arctic Sea Ice loss to September 2035.
----------------------------------------------------------
4b. REVISION TO THE NEAR PREDICTION
----------------------------------------------------------
International concern over Arctic Ice loss reached a historic peak after the 2020 finding. Within months, a team of over 400 scientists from two dozen nations were funded to intentionally embed their research ship, the Polarstern icebreaker, in an Arctic Ice flow for an entire year.
The ice flow carried the ship from Russia, across the North Pole, to Canada, while the scientists gathered a massive barrage of data.
While many data holes have been filled, one factor still requiring more data is Arctic Ice depth, which so far cannot be determined by satellites. The Polarstern scientists performed a chi-squared analysis of the measurements around their ship compared to prior estimates of the ice thickness across the entire Arctic. The line data compared to the area data was sufficient to show that prior studies overestimated the thickness of the ice, with fair confidence; but they did not have enough direct measurements to determine by exactly how much.
That would indicate that the 2035 estimate for the loss of Arctic Ice was too optimistic. In the few years since the 2035 estimate was calculated in 2020, data has not been deemed sufficiently reliable for cumulative updating due to COVID lowering greenhouse-gas emissions rates worldwide, but they were still 10th and 11th worst in 40 years. So it's difficult to say by how much the near 2035 estimate should be moved forward by the new data on lower ice mass. A reasonable estimate is 2030.
----------------------------------------------------------
5. THE FAR PREDICTION (POLITICAL)
----------------------------------------------------------
Simultaneously, the far estimate for complete Arctic Ice loss, previously at 2070, was moved forward to 2060 last year, for two reasons: (a) Trump, and (b) the 2021 Paris Accord gathering, now called COP26, because Trump left the accord and Biden rejoined, so they wanted a separate name to mark the new situation.
In general, expected reductions in carbon emissions are most influenced by cooperation between China and the USA. China creates the most emissions globally, at 28% of the total, compared to USA's 11%. However, the USA's population is only 329 million, compared to China's 1,402 million. Hence in China, each person emits 56% of the emissions of each person in the USA, and that means, the USA's actions on emissions control are more important.
----------------------------------------------------------
5a. TRUMP
----------------------------------------------------------
Trump gets his own section in an article on climate change because of his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, and also, his trade tariffs on China, which have deeply spoiled the relationship between China and the USA.
Besides Trump's impact, China fully cooperated and has kept all its commitments with carbon emission reductions in the 2015 and 2018 Paris accord meetings, closing over 300 coal power stations. It was previously willing to consider more reductions, but after Trump withdrew from the Paris Accord in 2020, it said it was no longer in a position to make further commitments than it already had, because, even with Trump out of office, the Republicans could get into office again and exploit the significant fiscal sacrifices China would have to make for further reductions. Which is entirely true. If Trump or one of his family get back into office, they will remove even more environmental control laws. China is so fed up with Trump's quibbles about money, it feels it must refuse to change any political policy that causes it to lose revenue to the USA at all. China did feel bad about being put in this position, so it did promise not to start any new coal power stations in China, or finance any new coal power stations overseas, as an indication of goodwill, and the desire to do what it could without handicapping itself. But it was not going to let the USA gain fiscal power at its fiscal loss. It said the USA would need to make a permanent commitment first. Thus we can only hope for a supermajority to pass a constitutional amendment that prevents a US President from reversing climate actions in the future in 2024, because that is the only permanent commitment we can make within constitutional law. Otherwise, with the current situation that Trump made, there is no way to reduce emissions fast enough to save the Arctic Sea ice without bankrupting the USA, and when the Arctic Sea ice is gone, the finger points squarely at Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------
5b. COP26 and WAR
----------------------------------------------------------
The "26th Conference of Parties" (COP26) for international climate negotiations convened in Glasgow in November 2021. previously at "COP21" in Paris, countries had agreed in 2015 to update their individual climate targets five years later, but COP26 was delayed an extra year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. That postponement contributed to the widespread advance billings that COP26 indeed would be an extremely important event. And so it was.
Outside the three main superpowers, the Glasgow negotiations yielded incremental but insufficient progress toward meeting the Paris targets. India pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2070, and Nigeria by 2060, and 141 countries covering 91% of global forested area agreed to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. More than 450 financial institutions across 45 countries pledged $130 trillion of private capital to transition the global economy to net zero emissions by 2050; 103 countries responsible for close to half of global methane emissions pledged that by 2030 they will reduce those emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels.
However, the three superpowers have significantly failed to make any progress, and virtually all the greenhouse-gas emission reductions are by the smaller nations.
* China is stalled, as described above.
* Biden has since completely reneged his commitments on greenhouse-gas emissions by oil production due to the sudden rapid increase of energy costs, caused by Putin's provocation of sanctions by invading Ukraine. He does still have a small program running to find a refrigerant that is less damaging to the atmosphere, but all alternatives require more energy, and it's not been able to solve that problem.
* Putin's ONLY contribution was to question the target temperature increase and ask why it couldn't be higher. Political quibbles over the war have completely drowned out more sensible voices on the long-term fate of the planet, rather playing into Putin's hands, who may even have started the war as a covert attack that weaponizes global warming to his advantage and the West's loss, while claiming it's not his fault because he only provoked the sanctions which other nations enacted for starting a war.
Hence, the outside estimate was 2070 after the COP21 Conference, and had moved forward to 2060 after COP26. Since then, the abandonment of climate action and focus on war has shown far less commitment to climate change than hoped. Until political conditions change again, A fair outside estimate is 2055.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
Well-written article. I presume you refer to yourself when you mention the author.
The topic embraces climate change, which is much much more than melting of artic ice. Asking what can be done is relevant, but perhaps not appropriate in the present circumstance, since we have already gone through so many debates and discussions. Better to focus on one issue at a time as it arises, say on polar bear extinction. Note that this forum has no room for detailed analysis.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
gad-fly wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 1:56 pm
Well-written article. I presume you refer to yourself when you mention the author.
The topic embraces climate change, which is much much more than melting of artic ice. Asking what can be done is relevant, but perhaps not appropriate in the present circumstance, since we have already gone through so many debates and discussions. Better to focus on one issue at a time as it arises, say on polar bear extinction. Note that this forum has no room for detailed analysis.
I agree with you that taking one issue at a time is important because thinking about it all can be extremely overwhelming. However, what can be done must be important, although individuals' have different degrees of power, but that is not to say that each person's view and responsibility is unimportant.
The other point which I wish to query is your point that 'this forum has no room for detailed analysis.' This may be an overgeneralisation. While like most media sites there may a certain amount of superficiality, but there may be some readers who are looking for in depth discussion. The problem with the topic is not necessarily that people don't wish to analyse it, but there is so much discussion of the problem but apart from being aware of the issues there is a need for analysis and innovative approaches to a really critical problem of this time.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
But there are so very many comparable examples that we could focus on, if we take them all one at a time, it could take us until the year 3000 before we're finished. And climate change, as we all know, will finish us a lot more quickly than that. We can't afford the time to do as you suggest, I don't think.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
gad-fly wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 1:56 pm
Well-written article. I presume you refer to yourself when you mention the author.
The topic embraces climate change, which is much much more than melting of artic ice. Asking what can be done is relevant, but perhaps not appropriate in the present circumstance, since we have already gone through so many debates and discussions. Better to focus on one issue at a time as it arises, say on polar bear extinction. Note that this forum has no room for detailed analysis.
Thank you, yes that's me.
I believe that Arctic sea ice loss is the right single phenomenon to pick, for reasons stated.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
Of course what can be done is important. It would be sad to bring forward a problem with no thought on resolution, like crying over spilled milk. But is there room? ernestm may have spent hours researching and writing the article, but it will be gone, much less than sea arctic ice, in three days or less. Literally, it will be pushed off the shelf by any upcoming trifle topic, some of which I dare say is idiotic and silly. Thoughtful analysis is not like chemical reaction. It takes time to mellow, to be weighed, to balance, and to battle. Other than trifle topics, bookclub topics may occupy as many as three out of five on the list. These favorite topics have the privileged to be repeated down next.JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 2:13 pm I agree with you that taking one issue at a time is important because thinking about it all can be extremely overwhelming. However, what can be done must be important.
The other point which I wish to query is your point that 'this forum has no room for detailed analysis.' there is a need for analysis and innovative approaches to a really critical problem of this time.
I maintain that this forum allows for no more room than for passing glance and summary opinion. A saving grace, though. Occasionally, some of such summary opinion, and attempt to put forward worthy analysis, is worthy for you and me to absorb with time and effort.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
The article was written well and was worth reading. The thread will not sink if it is followed up by meaningful discussion. It is not a matter of whether it remains in the headlines. Part of the problem with the discussion of these ecological topics is that such analyses are in so many magazines and news agendas. It actually gets depressing seeing it over and over again. Some threads do look at some solutions but the problem is so great and even the specialists in the science of ecology are struggling to keep up with the rapidity of climate change.gad-fly wrote: ↑May 14th, 2022, 2:40 pmOf course what can be done is important. It would be sad to bring forward a problem with no thought on resolution, like crying over spilled milk. But is there room? ernestm may have spent hours researching and writing the article, but it will be gone, much less than sea arctic ice, in three days or less. Literally, it will be pushed off the shelf by any upcoming trifle topic, some of which I dare say is idiotic and silly. Thoughtful analysis is not like chemical reaction. It takes time to mellow, to be weighed, to balance, and to battle. Other than trifle topics, bookclub topics may occupy as many as three out of five on the list. These favorite topics have the privileged to be repeated down next.JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 2:13 pm I agree with you that taking one issue at a time is important because thinking about it all can be extremely overwhelming. However, what can be done must be important.
The other point which I wish to query is your point that 'this forum has no room for detailed analysis.' there is a need for analysis and innovative approaches to a really critical problem of this time.
I maintain that this forum allows for no more room than for passing glance and summary opinion. A saving grace, though. Occasionally, some of such summary opinion, and attempt to put forward worthy analysis, is worthy for you and me to absorb with time apnd effort.
Apart from agreeing that it is important it may be hard for people to say anything really new on the topic. So, of course the whole area is important within philosophy but there are many other aspects of life worth discussing. It is possible that both you and I may feel that certain topics are trivial but other people may think differently. In the meantime, let's hope this thread becomes successful. My biggest problem with the topic is that I find that I get rather low in mood when there doesn't appear to be much hope in what is presented. I am not saying that mood should rule out discussing the topic though. I don't think that simply keeping the article in the top five for a long time is the main thing but, inspired and creative thinking is what is most important in considering the topic, especially on a philosophy as opposed to a science forum, because the scientific solutions are probably the most important ones.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
the article appeared as Recent Topic on the 13th. Today, two days later, you cannot find it anywhere unless you have an inkling where to look. Say I miss the screen for two days, and so goes my thoughtful analysis and so on.JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 14th, 2022, 3:06 pm
It is not a matter of whether it remains in the headlines.
inspired and creative thinking is what is most important in considering the topic, especially on a philosophy as opposed to a science forum, because the scientific solutions are probably the most important ones.
One should distinguish between philosophical and scientific angles. Both are important. Science is physical, based on evidence, as far as cause, effect, and solution are concerned. Philosophy is based on opinion, on what should or should not in the long run. Science would be stuck without philosophy to back up with reason. Philosophy would be toothless without science.
Melting of artic sea ice. Has it happened before in Earth's history. Of course. More than once in climate change. So what is the big deal? Extinction of polar species? So what? How about more farmlands in Siberia, and more habitable space for immigration, and the Northern Passage? Science may offer means to delay or even stop melting, but it cannot say why such is necessary, until philosophy comes along. Climate change is man-made. So what if we interfere with nature, and run over it? Because this man-made climate change comes too fast. Even if we manage to suffer the consequence, and blame ourselves, other species cannot do it. There will be mass extinction in the Polar region. Philosophically we can call climate change with its effect on polar ice melting and sea level rise a world disaster. WE have to stop climate change now while we can before it is too late. How late? As has been suggested: 8 to 38 years.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Arctic Sea Ice, Totally Gone in 8 to 38 years
I agree that the thread has dropped very quickly but the problem of climate change is a bigger problem than the fast movement of the forum. Even if the thread had remained on the top for a month, the article in itself would not have solved climate change. Many people are aware of the enormity of the problem but how can it be solved? Many may wish to bury themselves from this monster issue and others may agonise over it. The question is what can be done to address it. Many people are trying to cut down on use of plastic and trying to recycle but the problem involves deep ecology and the political structure itself. The large question is how can the problem be addressed effectively?gad-fly wrote: ↑May 15th, 2022, 12:23 pmthe article appeared as Recent Topic on the 13th. Today, two days later, you cannot find it anywhere unless you have an inkling where to look. Say I miss the screen for two days, and so goes my thoughtful analysis and so on.JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 14th, 2022, 3:06 pm
It is not a matter of whether it remains in the headlines.
inspired and creative thinking is what is most important in considering the topic, especially on a philosophy as opposed to a science forum, because the scientific solutions are probably the most important ones.
One should distinguish between philosophical and scientific angles. Both are important. Science is physical, based on evidence, as far as cause, effect, and solution are concerned. Philosophy is based on opinion, on what should or should not in the long run. Science would be stuck without philosophy to back up with reason. Philosophy would be toothless without science.
Melting of artic sea ice. Has it happened before in Earth's history. Of course. More than once in climate change. So what is the big deal? Extinction of polar species? So what? How about more farmlands in Siberia, and more habitable space for immigration, and the Northern Passage? Science may offer means to delay or even stop melting, but it cannot say why such is necessary, until philosophy comes along. Climate change is man-made. So what if we interfere with nature, and run over it? Because this man-made climate change comes too fast. Even if we manage to suffer the consequence, and blame ourselves, other species cannot do it. There will be mass extinction in the Polar region. Philosophically we can call climate change with its effect on polar ice melting and sea level rise a world disaster. WE have to stop climate change now while we can before it is too late. How late? As has been suggested: 8 to 38 years.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023