Late October Arctic

We’re into the last two weeks of October, and there’s no snow here in Greenland’s capital Nuuk. For sure, the data from the satellites & models says there’s 0% chance of a 2020 Blue Ocean Event, but what does that really mean?

We’re gonna look into that, and unpack it.

So, obviously, a zero % chance of a 2020 BOE means a BOE won’t occur in 2020, yet at the same time, it doesn’t mean other big stuff can’t happen in 2020. Like, scary stuff, stuff you wished you’d never even heard about.

For instance, if you ask any meteorologist, he’ll say that 2016 was the warmest year on record, globally. He won’t say some YEAR was hottest because on one DAY some extreme location like Death Valley set a new heat record. So, for sea ice, while 2016 was the lowest year for extent, and 2017 for volume, this 2020 may very well end up being the lowest ever for sea ice extent. We’ll just have to wait till December 31st so we have a full YEAR of data.

Another thing is, you have this record low area of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, and these crazy waves and high temperatures, with winter storms coming and going, so before you know it the entire thing could go up in flames due to submerged permafrost, that is under these crazy warm, stormy and shallow seas, north of Siberia. This is the stuff that makes Russian scientists break down in tears during press conferences.

So yeah, that could happen.

That could still happen in 2020, ice-free Arctic or not.

Because October–November is the warmest slash waviest time of the year for those shallow bodies of water in the Arctic. A handful of wonderful social media personas will watch and inform you when or if that happens, if you don’t notice it all by yourself in a very different and perhaps much scarier way.

So, back to the least scary scenario from the above, the race is now on for 2020 (the challenger) to smash 2016 (current record holder) for lowest sea ice extent on record. In fact, 2020 leads the heat by quite a big margin already, measured as year-to-date average:

Per November 22nd, 2020 leads current record holder 2016 by a significant margin. After 327 days, ice is added for each date and divided by 327 (definition of a Year To Date average).

2016 in its day of course beat 2012 in almost complete silence, as all the Mainstream Media had decided that it failed in September and that the shop closes in September, and some newspapers even ‘celebrated’ the fact 2016 refroze quickly for the first week or so after its minimum, while ignoring the larger development, which was the record slow regrowth in September–October–November. Covering that fact would of course be less ‘positive’ or ‘optimistic’, so let’s not waste any ‘journalistic’ resources on that!

Beating 2016, which itself beat 2012 four years ago, first of all would make it more difficult for the media and polluticians to ignore the fact 2012 now is only 6th lowest, when they’d rather keep cherry-picking the month of September and pretend nothing much happens in the Arctic these days. Don’t believe me? Read a newspaper, listen to a pollutician.

Returning to the Shock & Awe horror of the Ice–Free Arctic, the 0% chance of a Blue Ocean Event in 2020 of course doesn’t mean it cannot happen in the coming years, or even the very next year. Those who follow the sea ice closely will tell you that May is too early to tell, June is slightly better, but a high or low risk of BOE at the end of summer can’t really be assessed before July, and then preferably the latter half of the month.

Anyone telling you otherwise is just bluffing, really.

You can say that the 2020s are more likely than the 2030s to feature the FIRST BOE in our species’ history on the Planet. But you can’t really tell during spring whether the CURRENT year will see such an event or not. This is because the system is complex, with lots of inherent natural variability. A constantly warming Arctic Ocean will increase the probability every year, but the sea itself is only one out of a multitude of factors in the Arctic.

The True Terror of the Ice–Free Arctic state is really the full-summer ice-free Arctic, like July–October below 1 million km², or even more extreme, June–November below that mark. This opens the Arctic Ocean to insolation, which is just sunshine, entering into the dark sea surface and heating it tremendously, and of course more and more for every year it persists. In fact, it’s hard to imagine it not continuing year on year, when it first starts happening. While the very first year of ice-free-for-a-week-or-so will do little except raise a few eyebrows and make it more difficult to campaign for other issues, which seems to be the main human focus, for polluticians and activists alike, the Summer–Half Ice–Free will allegedly be equivalent to adding 1 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, or set us back 25 years in our struggle to limit emissions to ‘safe’ levels. In fact, when reading the fine-print of that study, you’ll see that a possible change to Arctic cloud formation in such a hotter world, will triple that, so 3 trillion tons of CO2 or 75 years. If you factor in methane as well, because the submerged permafrost cannot thrive in such a hot Arctic Ocean, a conservative estimate will land you at a 100 years lost in that already optimistic struggle, as laid out in this merry YouTube video from the beach here in South Central Nuuk:

One Hundred Years?

Although that’s merely what might happen going forward. Wanna look at what already HAS happened? I didn’t think so. But here goes: The Ice Tipping Point, in the literature often referred to as a cascade of intertwined climate tipping points, or Climate Dominos, to be more visual, causing all of this we see happening every day, isn’t something in the future that we must try to avoid, but rather something even your parents were too young to remember. If you want to be kind, you could say 1970, but honestly it’s more like 1950. So let’s do the math, shall we:

When we get to an Ice–Free Arctic in the Summer Half of the year, the ‘friendly’ math says we’ll be 50 + 25 = 75 years too late for the Ice Tipping Point. The honest math says we’re 70 + 100 = 170 years late. Which one do you choose? As if you had a vote.

What’s more, assuming we somehow won’t get an Ice–Free Arctic in the Summer Half of the year anytime soon, the math still puts us 50 years after the fact, in the ‘friendly’ scenario, or rather 70 years too late to avoid the major Ice Tipping Point.

Do you ever get the feeling you’re being lied to on climate? I know exactly what you mean.

Finally, I know I didn’t get this from Derrick Jensen, and I assume he didn’t get it from me. For me it was a case of reinforced message because I already thought it myself before reading it again from someone else. I’m too lazy to look up his exact words, so this is from my memory only.

Even a thing like Knowledge (of specific climate facts) is no longer binary. Meaning there’s Knowledge, and then there’s Knowledge, but then even Knowledge. This translates to ‘knowing’ a certain tragic fact about our climate in your head, versus knowing it in your heart, versus KNOWING it at a cellular level, making it hard to even get out of bed in the morning. Climate Reality is just full of such things that are no longer binary, and that just get worse and worse every time you reflect upon them.

Derrick Jensen (live from my memory).

And still, it is ONLY industrial civilisation that’s 100% doomed, life not so much!

At 50% the Chance of a 2020 Blue Ocean Event is now a Coin Toss

State of the Arctic per August 25th, 2020. Maps & data from the University of Hamburg, Germany.

There is now an equal chance of 2020 seeing an ice-free Arctic and it not happening this year, according to this particular data-sourced setup. There’s a 50% chance of having an ice-free Arctic or Blue Ocean Event, defined by scientists as less than a million square km of sea ice.

There are several reasons for the bar being set at 1 million instead of zero km2 of ice, perhaps first of them being that glaciers also calve a lot due to the same heat trend that is melting ice out at sea. So because no one expects glaciers to stop running into the fjords in a record warm year in the Arctic, we also do not expect there to be absolutely no ice in the sea. So zero is totally impractical and won’t happen, because of the way ice at sea is regarded as sea ice, regardless of it having originated in, say, the Greenland high mountains.

Method: Using a calculated figure for ‘required sea ice area loss’ for each day remaining of the melt season, every day is then characterised as either a ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’ melt day. The figure will fluctuate up and down through the summer, based on what is needed for the current day and the days that are left. If we are very far from succeeding with a 2020 BOE, the figure may get very high, and it will be near impossible to meet the requirements and actually have a BOE. You’ll perhaps see this in September.

For the past 30 days, 15 days may be ‘Good melt days’ and 15 ‘Bad’, which is the case right now. Then 15/30 translates into a 50% chance, basically because half the days were capable of meeting the requirement for that particular day.

The initial chance or percentage is calculated just using sea ice area. However, twice a month there are figures published from the PIOMAS sea ice volume project, and so some of the ‘Bad melt day’ judgements (meaning ‘not enough melt’) may be overturned, if more recently available sea ice volume figures from that same day, suggest that the melt was actually quite good (based on a similar calculation for required sea ice volume loss).

As you no doubt understand by now, the setup laid out above is an informal, practical way of getting at a reasonable chance/risk figure for the current running melt season, and its sole reason for being is simply that it’s Better Than Nothing. It’s based on some real data, and the chance WILL go up or down depending on how the melt season develops. Its memory is only 30 days, so soon all the melt from June & July will be out of sight, out of mind, and the chance percentage will be entirely based on Aug / Sep events.

Lastly, only the main central sea of the Arctic Ocean is used in this setup, basically because late September sea ice is overwhelmingly (90% +) located there in high melt record low years. When Earth has its first BOE in 3 million years, that figure may be even higher than 95%, and so clearly, this particular sea (Central Arctic Basin, or CAB) is the one to watch.

Right now we’re at 50% chance of a 2020 BOE, so it is a coin toss. That means it’s not unlikely at all, and even though this method or setup is just developed for the current summer melt season alone, I believe it also has some application for the larger debate on when we will see the first Blue Ocean Event in 3 million years. We know the scandalously conservative IPCC — the UN Climate Panel — has been treading the water here, reluctantly leaving its 2007 position of the 2090s for Earth’s first BOE over the past decade via 2050 down to 2035. But their number is more of a literally political number, and worse still: It’s the political number that every nation’s government on Earth can agree on, for something that’s in its very nature a purely scientific question.

It’s kind of like having a totalitarian government decide whether or not it’s raining in the capital city, instead of just opening a door or a window to see what is actually the case.

Sadly, instead of being the allegedly scientific organ that would advise politicians, the entire science part itself is politicised bordering on the absurd, with member states having full veto powers, so that in reality, you’re left with conservative politicians advising conservative politicians.

As a key indicator of the severity and fast pace of global warming, sea ice in general and the arrival of the first sea ice-free late summer in particular, has the potential to overturn these vast political structures of politically directed science, allowing us all to Get Real already, and start preparing for what’s coming our way very soon.

Some of us following the climate and the Arctic have been aware of these faster developments for a number of years, and may not be as shocked as the regular guy when it’s finally crystal clear for all to see with their naked eyes. But even we may be in for quite an emotional ride, because there is a difference between knowing something in your head, and knowing it in your heart. Many of us have even been hoping for the longest time that we were wrong, that we were merely some pessimistic Negative Nancys.

For the Man in the Street, it might mean an abrupt end to all games or sports of any kind, and for young people an equally abrupt end to their education or imagined career. This blog post won’t go into the full picture of a Collapse in the Arctic, but rather guide worried and interested folks to go check out the brilliant social initiative called the Deep Adaption movement, spearheaded by Professor Jem Bendell, which was just recently updated for 2020 here.

Bendell has been connected to the broader XR movement in England, or Extinction Rebellion, which some of you may be familiar with. His work and community building for dealing with all of these massive changes together, is just impressive, and I’ve no qualms with recommending his forums and social circles to anyone feeling the sense of losing the ground beneath their feet, due to something as mundane as snow and ice melting in summer in parts of the Earth that they’ve maybe never even visited: Suddenly we are all together in this!

Smells Like Teen Spirit

First of all, a short message to Galen Hall, Colleen Schmidt & Thomas Nicholas, who launched the defamatory attack on the Planet’s most prominent field researcher of Arctic sea ice and Oceanography:

Galen Hall, Colleen Schmidt & Thomas Nicholas
Young future scientists? Galen Hall, Colleen Schmidt & Thomas Nicholas. (Source: YouTube & Twitter)

A message to Hall, Schmidt & Nicholas

Like all relative beginners into this field, you guys need to reflect on the state of ‘climate politics’ for the past 50 years, and its very strong urge to do nothing, in part because such vast profits are involved in the fossil fuel scene and the economic growth scene, and in part because of the Tragedy of the Commons and because the fatal consequences of doing nothing are so far away.

Mechanisms like the above conspire to paint a real field research expert like Professor Wadhams as an outcast, a fringe or an extremist, or indeed, like you say, a gentleman who is ‘just wrong’.

History of Science, as exemplified by Tyson’s Cosmos 2

Sadly, the world of science and the history of science have largely been driven by motives like your own, where somehow you don’t personally appreciate the findings of some other scientist, and thus you choose to dismiss him, not based on the science per se, but rather on whatever you can find to discredit the scientist in question. Therefore, Wadhams isn’t completely right when he says you guys are not scientists, because the history of science supports the likes of you, because while the scientific process actually is, the science community was never perfectly scientific.

The scientific community and individual scientists are fallible and fall victim to discrediting campaigns, rumours and propaganda, just like the rest of humanity. That’s partly why the IPCC can get Climate Change so vastly wrong!

Can we Fix It? Really?

Lastly, when scientific exploration reveals a situation for the Planet and our Civilisation that’s significantly dire, there’ll be some scientists (and some activists) saying we can still fix this if we do XYZ, and others who say it’s now beyond fixing. You cannot then as a young person, with Teen Spirit or whatever, simply judge those two major camps and say you ‘like’ the camp saying we can fix it, even though that sounds nicer to you! (Incidentally in this case, you’d support Peter Wadhams, whom you just insulted in the worst way.)

The We Can Fix It camp could be wrong, and personal non-scientific reasons might cloud their judgement and make them cling on to the Fix It attitude.

The following is Professor Peter Wadhams’ remarks on your attack paper & videos.

Just slightly edited for clarity.

I was very surprised, I mean, I don’t mind at all having my work analysed critically by other scientists who know something about science, but to be insulted by little kids who have absolutely no knowledge whatever about the Arctic, is pretty annoying, because Thomas Nicholas, Galen Hall & Colleen Schmidt are using that simply as a way of getting at Bendell, because they don’t approve of his philosophy.

Peter Wadhams, Professor Emeritus, Cambridge University

So these kids who know nothing, took it upon themselves to insult my entire lifetime of scientific work, because of a political aim of their own. And that sort of arrogance — it’s arrogance as well as ignorance — doesn’t stand them in a good way, if they want to be scientists in the future. Because Thomas Nicholas, Galen Hall & Colleen Schmidt are not scientists now, and at this rate they’ll never become scientists.

Peter Wadhams, Professor Emeritus, Cambridge University

There are no ‘hundreds of scientists’ ganging up to say nothing much is happening, this is complete fantasy dreamed up by these students. And then Thomas Nicholas, Galen Hall & Colleen Schmidt say that even a cursory search reveals that the magnitude of Wadhams’ predictions are off and so is his timeline, well, they haven’t even done a cursory search! Because if they had’ve done, they would have seen that it’s absolutely in line with what we know about how albedo changes when ice disappears.

Peter Wadhams, Professor Emeritus, Cambridge University

Thomas Nicholas, Galen Hall & Colleen Schmidt are arguing from a position of personal ignorance and malice at the same time, which I find distinctly revolting. And you wouldn’t want a new scientist to start off with that kind of arrogance, because he’s wrong, they’re wrong.

Peter Wadhams, Professor Emeritus, Cambridge University

It’s defamatory because any claims I make about what’s going on are based on 50 years of field research, which is about 49.5 years more than Thomas Nicholas, Galen Hall & Colleen Schmidt have done, and it’s based on scientific results.

Peter Wadhams, Professor Emeritus, Cambridge University

Sea Ice Lies and Why People Post Them — Part 2

Beavies & Butthead ought to make an attempt at reading this post, which examines a claim from a tweeter who’s very confident our first Blue Ocean Event is many decades away, and who claims it can’t happen this year. The post proves 100% he is lying about this summer, question is more like, why?

Another interesting question is how many paid scientists make similar mistakes or intentional errors, because they’re so careless, lazy or determined to prove that we’re safe for at least 2 or 3 decades?

I recently brought a climate scientist from Bergen, Norway, where I was born, to silence after he admitted that his 100% linear logic, as published in Norwegian media, for why the 2D ice extent that had taken 40 years to reduce by half, would need another 40 years to go to zero, was likely wrong and too conservative, as he also admitted we should really be looking at 3D volume, where trends look a lot more dire.

I’ve explained to him, and tried with others, my point that it’s not up to him or me to choose between 2D extent and 3D volume of the ice, when estimating when it finally crashes. There’s a way sea ice works, and for that way it has a 3D body, swimming in the Arctic Ocean.

The problem of having one conservative and admittedly wrong scientist in one particular Scandinavian city wouldn’t be so bad, if he didn’t publish the official word on the ice situation in the national media, or if his sloppy science wasn’t also characteristic of the entire UN and its so–called Panel on Climate, the IPCC. For they also much prefer the far cosier and more slow–moving trends of 2D extent demise of the ice.

Why do they lie, or why do they “make all these stupid mistakes”? Well, it’s no longer a question of mere mistakes, when it repeats in assessment report after assessment report, often 7 or more years apart. Clearly, this is a waiting game, with huge profits involved for every new period of 7 years that everyone waits to see if they finally get it right. For we cannot close down the gas stations, the car sales and airports before they do.

Another benefit of making such mistakes, is young snotty self–proclaimed “Fact Checkers” like Beavies & Butthead here, will find their high-authority sloppy reports and quote them against people with real insight, whenever they want to publish a hastily researched so–called “Fact Check”. And see, they’ve debunked every resource person on climate change over the age of 25 in Extinction Rebellion! Easy.

Sea Ice Lies and Why People Post Them

Let’s pick this lie and its lying liar apart, shall we?

We know we haven’t seen ‘a perfect storm of meteorologically possible weather conditions’ for even a day in Summer 2020, but we know we lost about 81,000 km² of sea ice area from the Central Arctic Basin (CAB) on the 6th of July:

Daily Sea Ice Area Losses in the CAB, with July 6th highlighted.

It could be argued that ‘a perfect storm of meteorologically possible weather conditions’ would cause a daily loss of at least 250,000 km², easy, but to be polite, let’s just go with the highest loss this far in the Summer of 2020, 81,000 km². Pete talks about ‘a perfect storm of meteorologically possible weather conditions for the remainder of the melt season’, so every single day we’ll get this high loss. Let’s look at where that would land us.

Daily Sea Ice Area Losses in the CAB, with (less than) a perfect storm of meteorologically possible weather conditions for the remainder of the melt season simulated from August 2nd to September 4th.

We can easily see that all it takes is way less than a perfect storm, to take us to a BOE by September 4th. The blue dotted line for ‘Required Loss for a Blue Ocean Event’ bows down to zero, at which point no further losses are needed, as we are already at that 1 million mark.

Even if we had a perfect storm of meteorologically possible weather conditions for the remainder of the melt season,

Yes, as simulated above.

the probability would still be infinitesimally low for a BOE.

Nah, it would be done in the first week of September, even with non-perfect conditions.

We’re probably at least a decade from the first BOE and probably longer.

That’s not your scientific assessment, that’s just what you like to tell yourself, or what you like to pretend outward is your assessment. Let’s keep in mind you said “even IF perfect storm rest of summer” then “BOE probability would still be infinitesimally low”. That is just BS, as with perfect storm conditions the probability would clearly be 100%.

So we have demonstrated that Pete lies blatantly about the sea ice in the Arctic. Everyone knows that Pete lies about the sea ice in the Arctic, but do we know why Pete lies about the sea ice in the Arctic?

Arctic Update Mid–June

Thank God there are still simple matters in life where you don’t have to wonder or ponder about what actor did what to whom. And the abrupt disappearance of ice in the Arctic is just such a matter: No one did squat to stop it, and that’s why it’s going away.

Take the 5-year average for sea ice as an example: Does it display a downward trend? And is that trend rather steep & aggressive? The correct answer to both of these questions is Yes, indeed. On the 21st of May, the average went below 13.7 k km³ for the first time on record (1979-2020), meaning the average of every single day for the past 5 years is lower than the average of any other 5-yr period on record.

Another way of saying that is where we are now is the lowest we’ve ever been. Of course in terms of a 5-yr average for sea ice volume. That gives us the long–term perspective, but of course there are other ways of looking at the Arctic. In fact there are plenty of ways.

In the short–term, there’s the annual or one–year average volume, where we remember that 2019 was the 2nd lowest of all. The lowest year, first proclaimed by this blog’s predecessor, was of course 2017. That year is still the only one on record to average below 13 k km³.

Many people and even some ‘experts’ still believe 2012 was the lowest year, but it was beaten by 2017, and now even 2019 is lower:

Annual sea ice volume graph from PIOMAS at Uni–Washington.

One of the many reasons people still believe 2012 is lowest, is that unlike temperature, which is always referred to in annual averages, sea ice tends to be measured by one day only, usually a September day. In a way, that would be like measuring the entire year’s planetary temperature by One day that you choose and for One spot that you also choose, you know, like that One day in June back in 5th grade when it snowed in Southern Norway. Is it representative for the entire planet, and the entire year? Of course not, it’s the kind of trick a climate–denier would play.

But granted, it IS also interesting to look for the absolute minimum amount of ice at the far end of the summer melt season. Could we have an ice–free Arctic this year, a so–called Blue Ocean Event? Well, not according to this plot:

Here it’s only a 3% chance that the September minimum this year will be ice–free, defined as less than a million km² sea ice area in the CAB, or Central Arctic Basin. The app behind the plot calculates the melt needed for every day till melt ends, and then compares the melt actually observed for that day, to the ‘needed’ melt. If no days can show enough ice melt, the % will be 0, and if half the days meet the demands, chance will be 50%. We can see 2020 being last in line of the past 5 years, meaning at this stage of the melt, we’re not very impressed by 2020’s performance. (Although it can be argued that the inner, most freezing part of the floating ice doesn’t start melting regularly before Summer Solstice and perhaps July.) Of course, a Blue Ocean Event never happened before in documented history, so a lot of eyes are fixed on this statistic and this eventuality only.

Some people like to look at the ice ‘directly’, or through satellite censors, in order to judge the progress by ice coverage in particular places, or degree of melt pond formation. Here we got tons of melt ponds on the sea ice, in a picture of the Nares Strait (right) and the Nansen Fjord, the planet’s longest fjord (left). Bottom middle you can see the famous ‘arc’, or the arc-shaped ice edge within the Nares Strait. The strait has been known to open or stay shut at widely varying times and periods of the year, and it does transport a fair amount of ice out of the Arctic, but the truly big export channel is of course the Fram Strait to the East of Greenland, named after polar explorer Nansen’s vessel and expedition. A fun fact is, if the Nares were a freshwater river, and not an ocean water strait or stream, its flow of water would be 10 times that of the Amazon river in terms of volume, which is interesting because the Nares is actually one–directional and thus acts like a river.

Uni–Hamburg has the most high–resolution sea ice concentration product on the web, and when you zoom it or view it like the above, you get a very quick overview of where we’re at. This is from June 15th.

Finally, I’ve included the Japanese interpretation of the daily sea ice volume for June 15. They say it’ll be a melting season out of the ordinary, so let’s follow closely what happens, when it happens!

We Let This Ship Sail

The problem of virtue signalling and the “Every good cause is our top priority” failed approach

Systemic xenophobia is a thing, and these days this thing is flying high, along with demands that we all” immediately express the seemingly only acceptable sentiment, namely that systemic xenophobia is the same” struggle as whatever the climate thing is. In a way, they want us to state publicly that 2+2=5”, for those of you who read George Orwell: We all know it isn’t the same struggle, and yet life will be much easier for each and every one of us if we just” say the words.

Let me start by telling a short story about the very first book I read entirely on a Kindle, back in the day. I read it outside in the very bright April sun at the family cabin, with bright-white snow reflecting even more light at my face and screen, a key test criteria for the Kindle, which had no backlight.

The book was written by a very strong Swedish woman, Inga-Britt Ahlenius, and documents the “decay of the United Nations under Ban Ki–Moon”, which Ahlenius witnessed first hand, having worked closely with Ban over many years. Besides being the regular type of arrogant liar & sleazebag, Ban liked to say that every one of 20–30 major issues were the “focus” of his administration as UN Secretary General. Or perhaps the number was 40, you get the picture.

You don’t need bright-white April sun to spot the flaw to a plan for “prioritising” 30-something huge world issues. But to be clear; if for instance the climate situation was in the process of getting out of hand, of passing the Big tipping point, and going into Point of No Return territory, during his time in office, then “focusing” or “prioritising” 30 other big issues, other than climate, equally and alongside the issue turning into a runaway existential threat, makes no sense at all.

One step further, one could even say that listing it as “one of 30” “prioritised” policy areas is a giveaway admission that Ban didn’t understand the first thing about the climate situation. (Or maybe he did: The Dark Side of the argument is of course that he knew exactly how royally effed we were already before the start of his term in the UN, and his treasonous job description included covering this up.)

Now, we don’t get to be at that all-important climate tipping point forever, no matter how “fun” that would be for activists. Now that ship has sailed, but for the pre–TP era, I don’t think it’s particularly hard to understand that the priority needed to be hard & razor-sharp on climate: Solve other stuff later. Granted, it’s unpleasant for every one of us as individuals to accept or realise that the ship did sail, and that many of the species we know & love will now go extinct, including our own, but this being hard to grasp doesn’t mean that every last problem on Earth and among humans is equally important as catching that ship before it sailed.

The very last part of this thought is that the only potential sanity to the “same struggle” argument requires there to be a planet where the climate “thing” is still fixable, together with a political situation on that planet where joining forces and mobilising millions, if not billions of people have even the potential to stop the climate “thing” from running away.

This is why they want us to say “2+2=5” and “every other struggle is a climate struggle” when they clearly are not. In short, they want us to compromise our very sanity in order to join hands with very, very different struggles so that a political front consisting of billions of human beings can smash store fronts while yelling our demand that the ship didn’t “really” sail fifty years ago.

Of course, the ship did sail, so join hands if you want, it doesn’t really matter now, does it.

Michael Moore Mainstreams Extinction Rebellion

I believe the big headline here is the mainstreaming of views and perspectives that have been around for a while already in what I would call the Dark Climate movement, and that they’re being mainstreamed precisely because we were right. Secondly, I love how you guys manage to pinpoint the mistakes made in the otherwise fine documentary, because, as I’m sure you know too, going through heaps of critique is a painful process, mentally, when you don’t know what criticism is fair and what’s reflexive and knee-jerk dismissal, based in feelings, moneyed interests and often self-preservation.

No source is of course perfect (present YouTube channel excepted!), and I think you’ll find one source used, Deep Green Resistance, has a few flaws having to do with overpopulation (which they believe is a far-right concept only, because in their view it’s ONLY about better wealth-distribution among homo saps) and with e.g. Greta Thunberg (the “someone is using her” BS that never goes away, mostly because people WANT to believe she’s a fraud).

So in summary, ‘Planet of the Humans’ does a great job to reorient the map to where we really are. As a life-long orienteerer and nature walker, I know how crucial it is to know where you are on the map, in order to get where you want from that spot. And the truth is we’re in a very DARK place, and whether or not we get to a better place from that dark place, our journey has to start with reorienting that darn map.

I think the key source of confusion for the many, is the overwhelming Business As Usual mindset of our elected polluticians. How can this crisis be for real, when polluticians never closed a single road, let alone a big city, to combat its emissions? The whole climate thing must be a fraud, right? Well, guess what, turns out the polluticians were the frauds.

Who wouldda thunk.

Exhibit A: Jennifer & Sandy’s YT ‘What Road Are We Humans On?- Planet of the Humans -discussion’

Exhibit B: Michael Moore talks to Clare Farrell of Extinction Rebellion

2010s Decade: 4,000 km³ less ice than the 2000s

Methane & other strong feedbacks led to huge sea ice differences in late June in the 2010s, with the smallest diff in April & December. 24-hr sunshine provides OH– radicals that remove Arctic CH4 from the air.

Sea ice in the 2010s decade compared to the 2000s decade. Greatest diff in late June.

— Stop Adani!

Too late to act. Cry Every Day.

22% Sea Ice Loss per Decade this Millennium

So, how much ice did we lose from the previous decade to this one? Let’s start with the good news, shall we? We lost only 6.7% flat, binary, 2D surface cover. What the bad news is? Well, we lost 22.0% of the sea ice. So there’s that….

One of the main reasons I designed this graph, was to detox victims of Big Oil propaganda lies like these:

«The annual average JAXA SIE is dropping at 0.6M sqkm/decade with greater loss through the summer (Jul-Sept) 0.8M sqkm/decade and lesser loss through the icy seasons (Jan-Jun) 0.45M sqkm/decade. For completeness, Autumn (Oct-Dec) is dropping at 0.64M sqkm/decade.»

MA Rodger, Jan 1, 2020

These guys and their financial backers like to focus on the slightly dropping red graph below when they summarise a decade’s worth of sea ice loss. They’ll say “we lost less than 7% sea ice!” when in reality we lost 22%. They’re like the UN and the IPCC, lying through their teeth to kids all over the planet about their future life here on Earth. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but their tactic is instead to make YOU feel shame for telling the naked truth.

Q: Where’s the data source for this plot?
A: Here: Ice Volume for October 2019 from PIOMAS and here:
Q: How can anyone make a decadal average graph?
A: Easy. Use a computer. Add all the ice for the latest 3650 days, divide by that number of days.
Q: Why would I even do that?
A: Let’s say you want to know how much ice we have in the latest decade compared to the decades before that.

Due in large part to ongoing Collapse of Arctic Sea Ice our Frozen Earth is Going South.

Launched Monday 11/11, CCTV is the Planet’s first 24–hour Climate Channel.