Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yeah read about that ... It's a long way from sustainable practicum - but ... know what would be funny.

The planet, having been 'straining' against the GW lean for so long, ...  if breakthroughs and policies all at once alleviate the cause, ..rebound or repulse may over compensate.  

It's like "plausible Sci Fi"   ... not impossible, that compensating natural forces cause the whplash effect. ... maybe a poor metaphor:  you can't just cut off stage 4 alcoholic because detox AWS can be deadly 

Yes this is exactly why we should have been slowly weaning off of it beginning in the 1980s.....

But they didn't listen.

 

It's like accelerating a space craft to a distant destination (possibly another star system.)  You can only spend half the distance accelerating, because you need to spend an equal amount of time decelerating.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/1/2021 at 1:38 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

The ice cap is disappearing along intra centennial/decadal time scales - until this can be proven not the case, it's all just monitoring to see the magic moment where it's all gone some future Sept 3rd ...

I'm also wondering about that article you posted about the first rainfall at Summit Camp on top of the Greenland Ice Cap.  What implications would higher humidity and even more rainfall have on arctic ice?  Because we damn well are seeing higher dew points and higher rainfall here consistently now, so I wonder if this would increase melt rates if the same thing was happening in the polar regions (clearly it's happening since Summit Camp is well within the Arctic Circle.)

 

 

[bluewave]

August experienced the slowest rate of NSIDC extent loss of the whole post-2007 sea ice era. The sea ice only declined by 1.498 million sq km between 7-31 and 9-1. Notice how the August rate of decline has slowed after 2012 relative to the previous 6 years. In order to beat the 2012 extent minimum, we would need extreme May preconditioning like 2020 combined with August declines in excess of 2.3 million sq km. Dr. Francis had a great recent paper on this August slowdown in recent years.

NSIDC August declines in millions of sq km

2021….-1.498

2020….-1.929

2019….-1.673

2018…..-1.639

2017…..-1.914

2016….-2.347

2015….-2.318

2014…..-1.655

2013…..-1.701

2012….-2.795

2011….-2.089

2010…..-1.641

2009….-1.663

2008….-2.449

2007….-2.154

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc047

 

LETTER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS OPEN ACCESS

Why has no new record-minimum Arctic sea-ice extent occurred since September 2012?

Jennifer A Francis¹ and Bingyi Wu²

Published 23 November 2020 • © 2020 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15, Number 11Citation Jennifer A Francis and Bingyi Wu 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 114034

 

Abstract

One of the clearest indicators of human-caused climate change is the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. The summer minimum coverage is now approximately half of its extent only 40 yr ago. Four records in the minimum extent were broken since 2000, the most recent occurring in September 2012. No new records have been set since then, however, owing to an abrupt atmospheric shift during each August/early-September that brought low sea-level pressure, cloudiness, and unfavorable wind conditions for ice reduction. While random variability could be the cause, we identify a recently increased prevalence of a characteristic large-scale atmospheric pattern over the northern hemisphere. This pattern is associated not only with anomalously low pressure over the Arctic during summer, but also with frequent heatwaves over East Asia, Scandinavia, and northern North America, as well as the tendency for a split jet stream over the continents. This jet-stream configuration has been identified as favoring extreme summer weather events in northern mid-latitudes. We propose a mechanism linking these features with diminishing spring snow cover on northern-hemisphere continents that acts as a negative feedback on the loss of Arctic sea ice during summer.

[Typhoon Tip]

On 9/5/2021 at 8:26 AM, bluewave said:

August experienced the slowest rate of NSIDC extent loss of the whole post-2007 sea ice era. The sea ice only declined by 1.498 million sq km between 7-31 and 9-1. Notice how the August rate of decline has slowed after 2012 relative to the previous 6 years. In order to beat the 2012 extent minimum, we would need extreme May preconditioning like 2020 combined with August declines in excess of 2.3 million sq km. Dr. Francis had a great recent paper on this August slowdown in recent years.

NSIDC August declines in millions of sq km

2021….-1.498

2020….-1.929

2019….-1.673

2018…..-1.639

2017…..-1.914

2016….-2.347

2015….-2.318

2014…..-1.655

2013…..-1.701

2012….-2.795

2011….-2.089

2010…..-1.641

2009….-1.663

2008….-2.449

2007….-2.154

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc047

 

LETTER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS OPEN ACCESS

Why has no new record-minimum Arctic sea-ice extent occurred since September 2012?

Jennifer A Francis¹ and Bingyi Wu²

Published 23 November 2020 • © 2020 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15, Number 11Citation Jennifer A Francis and Bingyi Wu 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 114034

 

Abstract

One of the clearest indicators of human-caused climate change is the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. The summer minimum coverage is now approximately half of its extent only 40 yr ago. Four records in the minimum extent were broken since 2000, the most recent occurring in September 2012. No new records have been set since then, however, owing to an abrupt atmospheric shift during each August/early-September that brought low sea-level pressure, cloudiness, and unfavorable wind conditions for ice reduction. While random variability could be the cause, we identify a recently increased prevalence of a characteristic large-scale atmospheric pattern over the northern hemisphere. This pattern is associated not only with anomalously low pressure over the Arctic during summer, but also with frequent heatwaves over East Asia, Scandinavia, and northern North America, as well as the tendency for a split jet stream over the continents. This jet-stream configuration has been identified as favoring extreme summer weather events in northern mid-latitudes. We propose a mechanism linking these features with diminishing spring snow cover on northern-hemisphere continents that acts as a negative feedback on the loss of Arctic sea ice during summer.

Not to be a snarky dick ... certainly not to you, per se -

But the answer to that 'yelling at us' bold question up there is obvious, and despite the popsicle headache, scientific thesaurus requiring prose that surely follows in any article ...they could sum it up in one sentence:

Climate change doesn't happen linearly ...

Slightly more expanded version:  it happens in frets and juts and starts... Sometimes... seemingly linear increases(decreases), too, but all of which will also be interceded by episodic regression back to some prior state, ...a time in which irresponsible mentalities will [predictably ..] attempt to use the slide back as leveraged counter-arguments, until the next bursts of change takes place and proves the longer vision still resembles change.  We some all those up, they equal +2 C over the course of 100 years... And in the case of the ASI ... years where the Sept nadir is lower than other years, may also go a decade where the nadirs are uncomfortably low, but not as bad.  ... but some year IS coming where it will be worse

That ...in summary, is why -

Now ...I am not attempting to excoriate an article as agenda-biased without having read the thing ... it's jut that the above answer to that bold question, in a vacuum, is clad.

[nycwinter]

i never see any articles of sea ice gains in the winter hmm does not fit into some peoples agenda..

[Vice-Regent]

I don't know about your perspective but the only place not torching is the arctic. That's exactly why this is happening... common sense people it cannot be warm everywhere at the same time.

As much as I hate to admit it it's not 2050 or 2100.

[rclab]

12 hours ago, wxtrix said:

no agenda is needed, just basic critical thinking skills. any winter gains are more than offset by summer losses.

i know you thought you had a really good GOTCHA!, huh? 

Good morning wxtrix. It might work well to have such articles, 

 

18 hours ago, nycwinter said:

i never see any articles of sea ice gains in the winter hmm does not fit into some peoples agenda..

if nothing more than to highlight how out of control the changes are driving the natural progression. If significant increases are obliterated by significant decreases in a 12 month period the direction/result/solution should be self explanatory. As always …

 

[bluewave]

While we will eventually surpass the 2012 extent minimum, the summer pressure reversal since then has made it a challenge. But even a lower Arctic pressure summer like this year was able to dip below 5 million sq km on NSIDC extent. Extents never fell this low before 2007.

 

[donsutherland1]

20 hours ago, nycwinter said:

i never see any articles of sea ice gains in the winter hmm does not fit into some peoples agenda..

The winter-spring Arctic sea ice extent maximum has also been falling, just not as fast as the summer minimum.

During the 1990s, the average maximum extent was 15.203 million square kilometers. During the 2010s, the average maximum extent had fallen 6.3% to 14.277 million square kilometers. The 2021 maximum was 14.237 million square kilometers.

There has been an average decline of 44,695 square kilometers per year since 1990. The coefficient of determination is 0.700.

[Typhoon Tip]

5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

I don't know about your perspective but the only place not torching is the arctic. That's exactly why this is happening... common sense people it cannot be warm everywhere at the same time.

As much as I hate to admit it it's not 2050 or 2100.

Global, in the title "Global Warming"  means the entire globe - just to be clear.

Maybe you mean relative to some shorter time scale ... perhaps one that is native to just this present era ?

Just thinking about that ...  The d(x)/dt terms are more crucial in identifying the reality of systemic modality. Not the x terms.  X scalar values are but a 'snap shot' of present state.  LOL, the GW title doesn't say ... "Global WARM"   ...it says global warmING.  'Ing' means change, and change obviously requires time.

The Arctic is "torching" - subjective term anyway ..ugh.  It's warmer than normal, and increasing, even relative to present era.  The 30-year mean temperatures are rising in the Arctic domain, and that time span is the standardization by the Science ambit, to mean present era -

I suppose if we scale an observation interval down to just a week or something, maybe ? - but at that scale, there's no real practical use for climate studies, because vagarious noise, 'in the weeds' of momentary events, become the visible horizon.  Beyond that horizon, larger damning truths cannot be seen.

Lengthy aside, why the 30-years ..?

I guess to have some kind of conventional order in the science of that matter.  'Getting sort of philosophical here but, there are no real 'boundaries' ... Nature and reality is about logarithmic emergence or decay rates of change. Outside or internal forces become sufficient to modulate a given system: the imposing force may be so weak it takes Millennia to observe change; or, so overwhelming that the changes manifest very quickly. 

In climate, we may express in urgency, "Global Warming is happening at a startlingly fast rate," but ... that is in deference to the typical rate of change for climate systems, overall.  They tend to not really be observable down at the almost instant geological time-span of a single human life, and if they are, something huge is motivating change.  Even though ... we're still talking about decades.  Basically, there needs to be a kind of instruction manual in how to interpret climate change, and there definitely needed a better PR handling all along.

I have been arguing this for years, one of the fundamental biggest hurdle in the climate awareness space, is that there is no real sophistication, frankly 'intelligentsia' in the PR/dissemination of the scientific findings. It's gotten better over the decade(s), but still needs work. It was egregiously indelicate and tactlessly handled when the findings could only do one thing, impugn a global machinery that 90% of the population had become inextricably dependent upon, generation's deep.  Between the head-realm of utter untenable "esoterium" of the science, to ...well, everyone else, its pith needed to be winnowed down to a prose that is both accessible, but 'undeniable' being crucial.  What we got, instead, were dire headlines and/or liberalism rank involving moral damnation, cynicism and shame - that was the original framework: excoriation in multi facet ways, attacked the Industrial world's foundation, while offering no alternatives.   What they did, rather, was only to alienate themselves from the discussion with their artless approach. 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

Intuitively, a goodly amount of it was/is probably related to human limitation? Particularly when facing issues where an "incalculable specter" is completely speculative, humans won't typically register significance. They'll be polite, nodding, "Yeah, it's pretty dire, huh."  But no sooner when the source of warning fades away from ear-shot, "...Heh, another one of those -".  Compounding further, complacency will replace any amount of immediate arousal of urgency that successfully elicits.  Because... 20 years later, no one's life has changed at the rate of melting ice - 'how bad can it be?'

Enters the other problem with advocating the gravity of climate change - no one actually feels the weight.  In those earlier eras it had no natural, corporeal advocates ... which is to say, those that appeal to the physical senses. You could not really taste it.  Nor touch, hear, or smell it.  Most important of all, you could not really see it - the most important sense to the human psyche, per all science of neurology and neuroplasticity needed to motivate awareness. Ha, just being droll.

Very recently that has been changing.  The sight of wild fires and red skies, and smelling their smoke thousands of miles away on the other sides of total continental spaces ...is a little arresting.  Pandemic pestilence, to hurricane ravaged coastal regions ... where the atmosphere is handing out Cat 5 tropical cyclones like Pez.  Rats pouring out of urban substrata, up stairwells, driven to high ground as flood waters attempt to float cities away ... etc.  These will at last appeal the senses.  ..And suddenly, media begins to represent life. A zeitgeist of urgency is at last aroused. This is not a accidental cultural modality - it is because climate change is finally be advocated.

But during the first 30 .. 50 years of the denial arc of climate change's disaster novel, these evidences were not available to bus stop transience, water coolers in offices, to policy makers and society sculptors;  and it will never be available to the sensibility of corporate leading sociopaths. 

Beyond that limitations, society moves and security-type agencies were never truly connected to,  or giving enough weight ( in their on-going practicum ) to the science community.  They were always in the room, as a bottom priority.  I mean, we've all seen the trope in Hollywood's disaster cinema genre.  The Joint Chiefs and higher ranking brass in closed conference room of heated exchanges over the impending doom. A quite mascot dork in wire-rimmed glasses, sits comported in self, shy, afraid, apprehensive socially in that setting to dare express the reality troubling this mere representative of the scientific consortium: despite all preset egos and conceits, you're all going to die.   Nothing you guys say or do matters, if your are removed from the equation, is his/her internal monologue repeating  like a haunted calling.  Climate change, left to its own devices, means extinction.  How does the dork raise his/her hand amid that specter and pomp, what is really an intractable circumstance, when limitations in human evolution, which blocks urgency unless it is 'sensed' is purely contemplative, and the brass in that setting can see no further.  Yet, what they can hear of and see demonstrate foreign sovereignties pointing their mass destruction... etc, instead.

Ha ha, you know the fastest climate change there is, is a hapless planet whose hosting gravitational binding star happens to be only say ... 100 light years away from an adjacent ticking Super Nova. The instant that star Nova's, they have 100 years before they suffer "instant climate change"   A time in which they have no idea that it's happened, only that it can - sound familiar?   We are in our 100 hours -

The reason I'm contemplating aloud is because I have a long standing concern about the Darwinian catch-22 of our species -  perhaps ... a philosophical digression into another field:  The Fermian Paradox.   ...which I wont get into at depth.  To paraphrase ( perhaps sloppily), it boils down to a basic contention: 'If the cosmos teems with intelligent life, where are they all?' 

Now ...some aspect of that may be limited to human perception of design.  What I mean there is, we perceive and think of telescopes and electromagnetism as means to communicate across grand distances.  But, this may be a limited scope, one biased because ... that's the way we do it.  However, alien technologies may not have evolved, or necessarily needed to do so in the same ways and means, that we precisely do. Yet, they are equally ... or more importantly, are vastly more advanced in their capacity to manipulate their environments.  The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  ... Perhaps, too few to qualify a description of 'traffic'.  We don't even see or detect the echo off their graves.  ...This is a Pandora's box of paradoxical musing for a joint, Southern Comfort, and mild night around a campfire.  The self-annihilation model is the most, perhaps intuitive, popular explanation for the Paradox question.

But, I see us as a species where Darwinian modes endowed us with the gift of ingenuity and problem solving skills, so capable of engineering wonders that it unwittingly invents its own demise.   At least in one case - should that prevail - this climate debacle may be how that all happens - at least for us.  

And it sucks! Not just because ...well, it means our death for one easy reason.  But, it's like watching Grady Little from the living room in the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees.  It's the bottom of the 7th inning.  The Red Sox are up 5 to 3, in what was pretty clear to the intangibly aware, was a pivotal momentum game in that series.   Pedro Martinez is/was hands down the Red Sox ace ... I'll give the guy that.  But when Pedro was only 1 out, and the Yankees had guys on 1st and 2nd, it was time to go to the reliever.   No - Grady signals the time out... carries his midriff to the mound, and lets Pedro decide if Pedro should come out.  Of course... the Red Sox went on to lose the ALCS series.   There are those of us that know we are in the 7th inning as a species against this world - and we may as well just be yelling inaudibly at an empty living room.

[rclab]

3 hours ago, wxtrix said:

there are such articles. go look them up and read them.

Thank you for your kind suggestion. I sincerely hope you find peace. As always …..

[LibertyBell]

12 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Global, in the title "Global Warming"  means the entire globe - just to be clear.

Maybe you mean relative to some shorter time scale ... perhaps one that is native to just this present era ?

Just thinking about that ...  The d(x)/dt terms are more crucial in identifying the reality of systemic modality. Not the x terms.  X scalar values are but a 'snap shot' of present state.  LOL, the GW title doesn't say ... "Global WARM"   ...it says global warmING.  'Ing' means change, and change obviously requires time.

The Arctic is "torching" - subjective term anyway ..ugh.  It's warmer than normal, and increasing, even relative to present era.  The 30-year mean temperatures are rising in the Arctic domain, and that time span is the standardization by the Science ambit, to mean present era -

I suppose if we scale an observation interval down to just a week or something, maybe ? - but at that scale, there's no real practical use for climate studies, because vagarious noise, 'in the weeds' of momentary events, become the visible horizon.  Beyond that horizon, larger damning truths cannot be seen.

Lengthy aside, why the 30-years ..?

I guess to have some kind of conventional order in the science of that matter.  'Getting sort of philosophical here but, there are no real 'boundaries' ... Nature and reality is about logarithmic emergence or decay rates of change. Outside or internal forces become sufficient to modulate a given system: the imposing force may be so weak it takes Millennia to observe change; or, so overwhelming that the changes manifest very quickly. 

In climate, we may express in urgency, "Global Warming is happening at a startlingly fast rate," but ... that is in deference to the typical rate of change for climate systems, overall.  They tend to not really be observable down at the almost instant geological time-span of a single human life, and if they are, something huge is motivating change.  Even though ... we're still talking about decades.  Basically, there needs to be a kind of instruction manual in how to interpret climate change, and there definitely needed a better PR handling all along.

I have been arguing this for years, one of the fundamental biggest hurdle in the climate awareness space, is that there is no real sophistication, frankly 'intelligentsia' in the PR/dissemination of the scientific findings. It's gotten better over the decade(s), but still needs work. It was egregiously indelicate and tactlessly handled when the findings could only do one thing, impugn a global machinery that 90% of the population had become inextricably dependent upon, generation's deep.  Between the head-realm of utter untenable "esoterium" of the science, to ...well, everyone else, its pith needed to be winnowed down to a prose that is both accessible, but 'undeniable' being crucial.  What we got, instead, were dire headlines and/or liberalism rank involving moral damnation, cynicism and shame - that was the original framework: excoriation in multi facet ways, attacked the Industrial world's foundation, while offering no alternatives.   What they did, rather, was only to alienate themselves from the discussion with their artless approach. 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

Intuitively, a goodly amount of it was/is probably related to human limitation? Particularly when facing issues where an "incalculable specter" is completely speculative, humans won't typically register significance. They'll be polite, nodding, "Yeah, it's pretty dire, huh."  But no sooner when the source of warning fades away from ear-shot, "...Heh, another one of those -".  Compounding further, complacency will replace any amount of immediate arousal of urgency that successfully elicits.  Because... 20 years later, no one's life has changed at the rate of melting ice - 'how bad can it be?'

Enters the other problem with advocating the gravity of climate change - no one actually feels the weight.  In those earlier eras it had no natural, corporeal advocates ... which is to say, those that appeal to the physical senses. You could not really taste it.  Nor touch, hear, or smell it.  Most important of all, you could not really see it - the most important sense to the human psyche, per all science of neurology and neuroplasticity needed to motivate awareness. Ha, just being droll.

Very recently that has been changing.  The sight of wild fires and red skies, and smelling their smoke thousands of miles away on the other sides of total continental spaces ...is a little arresting.  Pandemic pestilence, to hurricane ravaged coastal regions ... where the atmosphere is handing out Cat 5 tropical cyclones like Pez.  Rats pouring out of urban substrata, up stairwells, driven to high ground as flood waters attempt to float cities away ... etc.  These will at last appeal the senses.  ..And suddenly, media begins to represent life. A zeitgeist of urgency is at last aroused. This is not a accidental cultural modality - it is because climate change is finally be advocated.

But during the first 30 .. 50 years of the denial arc of climate change's disaster novel, these evidences were not available to bus stop transience, water coolers in offices, to policy makers and society sculptors;  and it will never be available to the sensibility of corporate leading sociopaths. 

Beyond that limitations, society moves and security-type agencies were never truly connected to,  or giving enough weight ( in their on-going practicum ) to the science community.  They were always in the room, as a bottom priority.  I mean, we've all seen the trope in Hollywood's disaster cinema genre.  The Joint Chiefs and higher ranking brass in closed conference room of heated exchanges over the impending doom. A quite mascot dork in wire-rimmed glasses, sits comported in self, shy, afraid, apprehensive socially in that setting to dare express the reality troubling this mere representative of the scientific consortium: despite all preset egos and conceits, you're all going to die.   Nothing you guys say or do matters, if your are removed from the equation, is his/her internal monologue repeating  like a haunted calling.  Climate change, left to its own devices, means extinction.  How does the dork raise his/her hand amid that specter and pomp, what is really an intractable circumstance, when limitations in human evolution, which blocks urgency unless it is 'sensed' is purely contemplative, and the brass in that setting can see no further.  Yet, what they can hear of and see demonstrate foreign sovereignties pointing their mass destruction... etc, instead.

Ha ha, you know the fastest climate change there is, is a hapless planet whose hosting gravitational binding star happens to be only say ... 100 light years away from an adjacent ticking Super Nova. The instant that star Nova's, they have 100 years before they suffer "instant climate change"   A time in which they have no idea that it's happened, only that it can - sound familiar?   We are in our 100 hours -

The reason I'm contemplating aloud is because I have a long standing concern about the Darwinian catch-22 of our species -  perhaps ... a philosophical digression into another field:  The Fermian Paradox.   ...which I wont get into at depth.  To paraphrase ( perhaps sloppily), it boils down to a basic contention: 'If the cosmos teems with intelligent life, where are they all?' 

Now ...some aspect of that may be limited to human perception of design.  What I mean there is, we perceive and think of telescopes and electromagnetism as means to communicate across grand distances.  But, this may be a limited scope, one biased because ... that's the way we do it.  However, alien technologies may not have evolved, or necessarily needed to do so in the same ways and means, that we precisely do. Yet, they are equally ... or more importantly, are vastly more advanced in their capacity to manipulate their environments.  The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  ... Perhaps, too few to qualify a description of 'traffic'.  We don't even see or detect the echo off their graves.  ...This is a Pandora's box of paradoxical musing for a joint, Southern Comfort, and mild night around a campfire.  The self-annihilation model is the most, perhaps intuitive, popular explanation for the Paradox question.

But, I see us as a species where Darwinian modes endowed us with the gift of ingenuity and problem solving skills, so capable of engineering wonders that it unwittingly invents its own demise.   At least in one case - should that prevail - this climate debacle may be how that all happens - at least for us.  

And it sucks! Not just because ...well, it means our death for one easy reason.  But, it's like watching Grady Little from the living room in the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees.  It's the bottom of the 7th inning.  The Red Sox are up 5 to 3, in what was pretty clear to the intangibly aware, was a pivotal momentum game in that series.   Pedro Martinez is/was hands down the Red Sox ace ... I'll give the guy that.  But when Pedro was only 1 out, and the Yankees had guys on 1st and 2nd, it was time to go to the reliever.   No - Grady signals the time out... carries his midriff to the mound, and lets Pedro decide if Pedro should come out.  Of course... the Red Sox went on to lose the ALCS series.   There are those of us that know we are in the 7th inning as a species against this world - and we may as well just be yelling inaudibly at an empty living room.

Wow, I thought you were quoting an article like what Chris (Bluewave) did, but as I was reading this I realized you wrote this yourself!

I totally vibe with the part about Stage 1 and civilizations below that, my contention has always been that the Greatest of Filters lies ahead of us and that's the real reason we haven't discovered any other technological species out there in space (granted our range of detection is very limited.)

And a supernova within 100 light years wouldn't even be needed to cause the ultimate "climate change" event, you could have an intense gamma ray burst pointed in just the "right" (meaning wrong) direction from a longer distance to do the trick.  It's been considered as a vector for some of our mass extinction events.  The current one is, of course, entirely caused by humanity and is happening much faster than any of the so-called "natural" ones, just like climate change.

 

The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  .

 

Also vibe with the idea that change will happen, we only have the choice of either doing it voluntarily and more gently, or nature will cause the change for us and establish equilibrium in its own harsh way.  Either way, one way or the other, the necessary change WILL occur.  Gaia, the concept of the planet self regulating, is a proven fact.  However its self regulation would be a lot worse for humanity than the changes we can and should be making.

 

 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

[bluewave]

Current NSIDC daily extent is a little above the 2010s average. It’s at 4,838 million sq km. Extent was just below to the average before the August slowdown. 

 

[rclab]

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Wow, I thought you were quoting an article like what Chris (Bluewave) did, but as I was reading this I realized you wrote this yourself!

I totally vibe with the part about Stage 1 and civilizations below that, my contention has always been that the Greatest of Filters lies ahead of us and that's the real reason we haven't discovered any other technological species out there in space (granted our range of detection is very limited.)

And a supernova within 100 light years wouldn't even be needed to cause the ultimate "climate change" event, you could have an intense gamma ray burst pointed in just the "right" (meaning wrong) direction from a longer distance to do the trick.  It's been considered as a vector for some of our mass extinction events.  The current one is, of course, entirely caused by humanity and is happening much faster than any of the so-called "natural" ones, just like climate change.

 

The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  .

 

Also vibe with the idea that change will happen, we only have the choice of either doing it voluntarily and more gently, or nature will cause the change for us and establish equilibrium in its own harsh way.  Either way, one way or the other, the necessary change WILL occur.  Gaia, the concept of the planet self regulating, is a proven fact.  However its self regulation would be a lot worse for humanity than the changes we can and should be making.

 

 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

Better to embrace Gaia before Gaia, for balance, embraces you. As always ….

[ORH_wxman]

We may have reached the area minimum on 9/1....we're currently about 75k above the 9/1 value of 3.19 million sq km. Still a bit too precarious to call it, but if we had a 9/1 area min, that would be the earliest min since 1992.

[etudiant]

12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

I find it surprising that there is no discussion of the thinking behind the massive ongoing investments in coal based power generation in Asia.

Sec. Kerry attempted to engage China on this issue and was promptly rebuffed, essentially told that China would be willing to talk to the US about this if the US made concessions elsewhere. Obviously that means China does not take the threat seriously, even though global warming would surely hurt China and India more than countries in colder latitudes. Can anyone shed light on this? 

[LibertyBell]

23 hours ago, etudiant said:

I find it surprising that there is no discussion of the thinking behind the massive ongoing investments in coal based power generation in Asia.

Sec. Kerry attempted to engage China on this issue and was promptly rebuffed, essentially told that China would be willing to talk to the US about this if the US made concessions elsewhere. Obviously that means China does not take the threat seriously, even though global warming would surely hurt China and India more than countries in colder latitudes. Can anyone shed light on this? 

Oh I would like to know why that goes unanswered too.  I believe we should apply strong sanctions to these nations that are going backwards with coal.  They should rather invest in nuclear power which actually releases less radiation than coal does.  Maybe it will be addressed in the upcoming meeting in Glasgow?

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

We may have reached the area minimum on 9/1....we're currently about 75k above the 9/1 value of 3.19 million sq km. Still a bit too precarious to call it, but if we had a 9/1 area min, that would be the earliest min since 1992.

weird we've had minimums on 9/1 before but haven't had one in August before in recorded history?

 

[Typhoon Tip]

13 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Wow, I thought you were quoting an article like what Chris (Bluewave) did, but as I was reading this I realized you wrote this yourself!

I totally vibe with the part about Stage 1 and civilizations below that, my contention has always been that the Greatest of Filters lies ahead of us and that's the real reason we haven't discovered any other technological species out there in space (granted our range of detection is very limited.)

And a supernova within 100 light years wouldn't even be needed to cause the ultimate "climate change" event, you could have an intense gamma ray burst pointed in just the "right" (meaning wrong) direction from a longer distance to do the trick.  It's been considered as a vector for some of our mass extinction events.  The current one is, of course, entirely caused by humanity and is happening much faster than any of the so-called "natural" ones, just like climate change.

 

The idea here is, whether by our means or theirs, Stage 0 to early Stage 1 civilizations, usually don't manipulate for the better - they tend to blow them selves to kingdom-come before they become apart of any bustling interstellar thoroughfare Sci-Fi fantasy like that of Star Trek.  .

 

Also vibe with the idea that change will happen, we only have the choice of either doing it voluntarily and more gently, or nature will cause the change for us and establish equilibrium in its own harsh way.  Either way, one way or the other, the necessary change WILL occur.  Gaia, the concept of the planet self regulating, is a proven fact.  However its self regulation would be a lot worse for humanity than the changes we can and should be making.

 

 

I almost consider the climate change crisis as a failure of National and Global Security ...  It is becoming clear, there is going to be a huge population correction, either by choice                 ... or force        

          ( it's like "Gaia" is giving Humanity a choice like "Gozer" in Ghost Busters: "Choose .. Choose the form of the destructor") 

... But, humor and metaphor aside, the lack of vision of Nat/Global security et al, in taking the subject seriously decades ago - it's hard to know where the origin of that incredulity was.  But, you better believe, Climate Change IS not only a National Security matter at this point, it is in fact a World order event.

Yeah.... sorry - it's probably no revelation that I like to write.  Lol.. didn't mean to sermon. 

It may seem bunnish but I do think a population correction is coming. 

You know, if it's not one way ...it'll be the other. I like the Gaia-Gozer thing.. cool  But, for one obvious trite reason, 'nothing last forever in a universe that is ultimately bounded by finality'   ...Obviously, it's a matter of 'when' and for what reason - to aspects that are entirely subjective in relationship.   Heh.

I actually am a published Sci Fi author as of 1 year ago.   So glazing eyes over and giving people headaches is something I have a keen skill - haha.

Anyway, that right up started a simple reply to someone else over the state of the Arctic - as it pertains to the sea ice and so forth.  90% of it, and this exchange since, probably should be in that "Thoughts on ..." thread instead.  

[donsutherland1]

2 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yeah.... sorry - it's probably no revelation that I like to write.  Lol.. didn't mean to sermon.  It may seem bunnish but I do think a population correction is coming. 

You know, if it's not one way ...it'll be the other.  For one obvious trite reason, 'nothing last forever in a universe that is defined by finality'   ...Obviously, it's a matter of 'when' and for what reason - to aspects that are entirely subjective in relationship.   Heh.

I actually am a published Sci Fi author as of 1 year ago.   So glazing eyes over and giving people headaches is something I have a keen skill - haha

Congratulations on your being published.

[Typhoon Tip]

21 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Congratulations on your being published.

thanks Don -

I'm grateful for it, but honestly?  sometimes I wonder.   If one can string together lengthier than a "twit's" coherent sentences  ... one has a decent shot.  "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is surely king"

Add stupefying of society into e-zombies to the example-list of innovation leading inexorably to it's own extinction. Maybe that's more like "irony"  than c-22. Convenience addled nimrods masquerading as real intelligence, gray matter isn't myelinating new neuro pathways like it once needed to, when people had to use their brains and language to survive.    'Course, ...I'm being a little hyperbolic at the moment - haha

 

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

I find it surprising that there is no discussion of the thinking behind the massive ongoing investments in coal based power generation in Asia.

Sec. Kerry attempted to engage China on this issue and was promptly rebuffed, essentially told that China would be willing to talk to the US about this if the US made concessions elsewhere. Obviously that means China does not take the threat seriously, even though global warming would surely hurt China and India more than countries in colder latitudes. Can anyone shed light on this? 

Interesting... I mean I don't disagree here in general re the odd directive and the questions it arises.

I don't know if these are evidences that they're not taking it seriously ... as much as they are either:

A, they simply don't care what that means ( and there are discrete reasons for this plausibility) for the future.

B,  they have some non-disclosed reclamation technology that they are using (or soon intend to) in concert, that will greatly reduce the CO2 ... CO emissions; maybe they are just not telling the world ( and there are reason(s) to see that as plausible, too ) they are developing(ed). 

B is a bit of stretch ..but not impossible. It is within technological grasp to scrub exhaust.  It's just that we are not used ( lol, perhaps ) to such notions in our western-based economies. It only seems insurmountable. Common narrative has truth,  "obsticular"  interests with lots of power block both .. usually in insidious indirect influences ... We sort of see it out here ( waving hands..) but is an illusion of infeasibility that is institutionally just accepted. In fact, no fossil combustion is ultimately necessary.  0.  But if we must ... we can't be limited in how to do so while minimizing the risks.   It's really... you know, morality and innovation did not evolve with the other in mind.  Broad brushed statement but it's true.  Put another way, our species has mechanized nature using the immense energy stored in fossil fuels, by wit of the most power biological invention this world has ever evolved:  the human brain.  

... But that's ALL we did -          It seems now here at the threshold of hell-to-pay, innovation has to do its bidding or  [ enter mushroom cloud ]. They could be ahead of tech curve/that realization and we just don't know it.

A is troubling.. .They don't have the best track record in human rights/ interests... They seem to value life in a different way - almost like army ants creating drowning bridges so that the other million solders can cross a flooded stream or obstacle.   Not exactly, but metaphors seldom are. They are also more clearly and evidentiary quite insular when it comes to philosophies, and I don't believe they have much compunctions in diplomacy when it comes to feeding foreign legions precisely what those reps need to hear to stave off reproach.  Meanwhile, they are building islands in strategic shipping routes of seas and launching projectiles ... high tech style ( 2017 ) at one of their own defunct satellites, successfully obliterating them into orbiting shrapnel plumes for the world to see ...  It's not impugning the practice, per se - we do it. We don't ask. But demonstration is always a very affecting means to deliver a message when it comes to international brinkmanship.

I just almost think they are preparing sometimes, just in case, for if/when the wave the 'population correction' so to speak comes, whether in a single cataclysm, or a cocktail of events that forces the hand of Humanity.  They are the ultimate "Doom's Day Preppers"   And when it all shakes out, they will be self contained, militarily saddled with the wherewithal to keep it that way, until the death settles it all.   

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yeah.... sorry - it's probably no revelation that I like to write.  Lol.. didn't mean to sermon. 

It may seem bunnish but I do think a population correction is coming. 

You know, if it's not one way ...it'll be the other. I like the Gaia-Gozer thing.. cool  But, for one obvious trite reason, 'nothing last forever in a universe that is ultimately bounded by finality'   ...Obviously, it's a matter of 'when' and for what reason - to aspects that are entirely subjective in relationship.   Heh.

I actually am a published Sci Fi author as of 1 year ago.   So glazing eyes over and giving people headaches is something I have a keen skill - haha.

Anyway, that right up started a simple reply to someone else over the state of the Arctic - as it pertains to the sea ice and so forth.  90% of it, and this exchange since, probably should be in that "Thoughts on ..." thread instead.  

I've had these ideas since I was 14.  Humanity is completely unsustainable and some of these cherished "so called" freedoms we have, well if it's a matter of survival and for the benefit of the planet, I am going to pick the latter every time.  Human beings are no different from any other life form on the planet, when they go out of balance they get corrected too.

I love reading and writing sci fi also, and it's interesting how many scientific ideas first came from sci fi.

 

[LibertyBell]

41 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

thanks Don -

I'm grateful for it, but honestly?  sometimes I wonder.   If one can string together lengthier than a "twit's" coherent sentences  ... one has a decent shot.  "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is surely king"

Add stupefying of society into e-zombies to the example-list of innovation leading inexorably to it's own extinction. Maybe that's more like "irony"  than c-22. Convenience addled nimrods masquerading as real intelligence, gray matter isn't myelinating new neuro pathways like it once needed to, when people had to use their brains and language to survive.    'Course, ...I'm being a little hyperbolic at the moment - haha

 

I've read that human intelligence peaked about 5,000 years ago when the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Egyptians were at their peak.  Monotheistic religions had a dulling cult-like effect on the human brain (some of these polytheistic cults were no better of course.)

 

 

[LibertyBell]

8 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Interesting... I mean I don't disagree here in general re the odd directive and the questions it arises.

I don't know if these are evidences that they're not taking it seriously ... as much as they are either:

A, they simply don't care what that means ( and there are discrete reasons for this plausibility) for the future.

B,  they have some non-disclosed reclamation technology that they are using (or soon intend to) in concert, that will greatly reduce the CO2 ... CO emissions; maybe they are just not telling the world ( and there are reason(s) to see that as plausible, too ) they are developing(ed). 

B is a bit of stretch ..but not impossible. It is within technological grasp to scrub exhaust.  It's just that we are not used ( lol, perhaps ) to such notions in our western-based economies. It only seems insurmountable. Common narrative has truth,  "obsticular"  interests with lots of power block both .. usually in insidious indirect influences ... We sort of see it out here ( waving hands..) as an illusion of infeasibility.  It's really... you know, morality and innovation did not evolve with the other in mind.  Broad brushed statement but it's true.  Put another way, our species has mechanized nature using the immense energy stored in fossil fuels, by wit of the most power biological invention this world has ever evolved:  the human brain.  

... But that's ALL we did -          It seems now here at the threshold of hell-to-pay, innovation has to do its bidding or  [ enter mushroom cloud ]. They could be ahead of tech curve/that realization and we just don't know it.

A is troubling.. .They don't have the best track record in human rights/ interests... They seem to value life in a different way - almost like army ants creating drowning bridges so that the other million solders can cross a flood stream or obstacle.   Not exactly, but metaphors seldom are. They are also more clearly and evidentiary quite insular when it comes to philosophies, and I don't believe they have much compunctions in diplomacy when it comes to feeding foreign legions precisely what those reps need to hear to stave off reproach.  Meanwhile, they are building islands in strategic shipping routes of seas and launching projectiles ... high tech style ( 2017 ) at one of their own defunct satellites, successfully obliterating them into orbiting shrapnel plumes for the world to see ...  It's not impugning the practice, per se - we do it. We don't ask. But demonstration is always a very affecting means to deliver a message when it comes to international brinkmanship.

I just almost think they are preparing sometimes, just in case, for is/when the wave the 'population correction' so to speak comes, whether in a single cataclysm, a cocktail of events the force the hand of Humanity.  They are the ultimate "Doom's Day Preppers"   And when it all shakes out, they will be self contained, militarily saddled with the wherewithal to keep it that way, until the death settles it all.   

 

Those who understand how debt works will get this immediately.....with its current population, humanity is consuming the resources of 1.7 earths in terms of how much resources we would need in order to balance out what we are taking away.  It was during the early 70s that we exceeded the 1.0 earth limit and went out of balance with what our environment can provide us with vs what we are putting back into the environment (like planting trees for example.)  This 1.7 earth number is only getting larger and the more industrialized the developing world becomes, the faster this number will go up.  In addition to quickly depleting natural resources we are causing the sixth mass extinction in the planet's history (which may one day include us heh- an interesting paradox, rapidly growing population leading to a mass extinction event, but it makes sense, too much sense I'm afraid.)  On top of that, this is a major driver of the number one cause of shorter life expectancy......air pollution!  Air pollution shortens life span by an average of 2 years, just ahead of exposure to tobacco smoke (which shortens it by an average of 1.5 years.)

[LibertyBell]

Hey John, ants and most other insects (including flies and bees) are highly intelligent, it's curious how much power can be packed into a tiny brain.  Nature is quite wondrous.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/05/15/4236373.htm

Flies likely feel fear similar to the way that we do, according to a new study that opens up the possibility that flies experience other emotions too.

The finding further suggests that other small creatures — from ants to spiders — may be emotional beings as well.

"No one will argue with you if you claim that flies have four fundamental drives just as humans do: feeding, fighting, fleeing, and mating," says William Gibson, lead author of the study published in the journal Current Biology.

"Taking the question a step further — whether flies that flee a stimulus are actually afraid of that stimulus — is much more difficult," adds Gibson, a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech.

Such a 'stimulus' could be an annoyed person chasing the fly with a swatter, or even a creepy shadow that could mean a threat is imminent.

Afraid of shadows
The researchers used shadows to study how flies reacted to something that could be fear inducing.

Gibson and his team enclosed flies in an arena where the buzzing insects were exposed repeatedly to an overhead shadow. The flies looked startled and, if flying, increased their speed. Occasionally the flies froze in place, a defensive behaviour also observed in the fear responses of rodents.

The shadows even caused hungry flies to leave a food source, when that was presented during another phase of the experiment. It then took time before those same flies would return to their food, suggesting a gradual diminishment of the insects' internal, defensive state. Importantly, the more shadows the flies were exposed to, the longer it took for them to "calm down" and return to the food.

In other words, when flies flee in response to a shadow, it's more than a momentary escape. It's a lasting physiological state comparable to how we experience fear.

Naysayers could claim that this was all just instinctual behaviour with no real underlying depth to it. But even for humans and other higher-on-the-food chain animals, feelings fall into what the researchers call "emotion primitives." These have to do with how nerves, biochemistry and other underlying factors work.

For fear, the first basic characteristic is that the fear is persistent, Gibson said. For example, if a person hears the sound of a gun, the feeling of fear that it provokes will continue for a period of time.

The second characteristic is that fear is scalable - the more gunshots a person hears, the more afraid he or she will become.

The third characteristic of fear, according to the researchers, is that it exists across different contexts.

And fear is also "trans-situational" - once you're afraid, you're more likely to respond in fear to other triggers, such as the clang of a pan, for instance, or a loud knock at the door.

Gibson and his colleagues determined that all of these applied to the flies in the study, strongly suggesting that they do indeed feel the emotion fear as we do.

Other applications
There's more to this research than just learning about flies, the scientists say. It's helping the scientists to understand, in a very fundamental way, what constitutes fear and other emotions in all animals, including humans.

"The argument that this paper makes is that the Drosophila (a type of fly) system may be an excellent model for emotion states due to the relative simplicity of its nervous system, combined simultaneously with the behavioural complexity it exhibits," Gibson explains.

Such a system may make it possible to identify new molecular players involved in the control of emotion states, he says.

Those, in turn, could lead to better treatments for people suffering from nervous disorders, depression and much more.

Related: Pesky flies use fighter jet manoeuvres

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-02-24/smart-bees-learn-how-to-use-tools-by-watching-others/8297576?section=science

They may have tiny brains, but it turns out that bumblebees can not only learn to use tools by observing others, they can improvise and make the task even easier.

Key points:
Bees were taught how to do a task they would not normally do
They were able to improve on the task after watching another bee complete it
Study shows that bees have cognitive powers way beyond what we thought an insect could have
We knew bees were smart, but this level of brain power has never before been seen in an insect, according to a team of UK scientists writing in the journal Science.

"Our study terminates the idea that small brains constrain insects to have limited behavioural flexibility and only simple learning abilities," said Olli Loukola of Queen Mary University of London.

Dr Loukola said previous research had shown that bees could solve a range of complex tasks, including categorising objects, simple spatial concepts and even counting.

"But these tasks have always resembled those similar to the insect's natural foraging routines," he said.

To take the bees out of their comfort zone, Dr Loukola and his colleagues designed a series of experiments where the bees were taught to move a ball to the centre of a platform, in exchange for a food reward.

How to train a bee
The researchers used a plastic bumblebee to show the bees what to do, until the learners successfully completed the task themselves within five minutes.

But then the team went further by training bees in a set-up with three balls, where the two closest to the centre were superglued to the platform.

These bees were then used as "trainers", fetching the farthest ball in a repeat of the same set-up, with an untrained bee watching.

Remarkably, when those watching bees were then offered a similar scenario on their own — this time with three unglued balls to choose from — they not only succeeded, they tended to choose the closest ball to the centre, improving on the behaviour of the trainer bees.

Bees that were trained by a hidden magnet or got no lesson at all, on the other hand, were much less successful.

It seems that bees do their best learning — and improvising — after watching a fellow bumblebee do the job.

Dr Loukola said the findings showed that the observer bees were not simply copying what they saw; they were taking it on board and improving it.

"This goal-directed behaviour shows an impressive amount of cognitive flexibility, especially for an insect," he said.

He said the bees' capacity to solve complex tasks could help them to survive constantly changing environments.

"However, rapid climate change, habitat loss and the use of pesticides are unfortunately too much, even for the cleverest bumblebees," he said.

Bumblebee loaded with pollen
Bumblebees continue to surprise us with their brain power.(Wikimedia: Tony Willis)
Bees smarter than we give them credit for
Associate Professor Andrew Barron of Macquarie University said the study provided a "convincing argument" that bees could rapidly learn how to do something by watching others.

"That's been very contentious as to whether insects can do that," said Dr Barron, who studies bee brains.

He said the study demonstrated bees were a lot more behaviourally flexible and adaptable than we had given them credit for.

"We are getting an increasing idea about how the structure of the bee brain works. What is continuing to surprise us, is what bees are doing with that brain," he said.

"We wouldn't be surprised to see [this kind of behaviour] in something like a rat, but certainly this is the first demonstration we've got of these forms of behaviour [in insects]," he said.

Dr Barron said the study also provided a different perspective on the human brain.

"For me, the questions is how are they able to achieve this level of behavioural flexibility with a brain that has less than a million neurons?"

"If a bee can do this kind of thing ... with a tiny brain, why is ours so massive?"

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/04/11/3983454.htm

Pesky flies use fighter jet manoeuvres
Friday, 11 April 2014Will Dunham
Reuters

A flying fruit fly (Drosophila hydei).
The flies showed that they could roll on their sides by upwards of 90 degrees, sometimes flying almost upside down (Source: Floris van Breugel and Florian Muijres/)

Related Stories
Video games test bees' visual smarts, Science Online, 18 Mar 2014
Fornicating flies attract hungry bats, Science Online, 24 Jul 2012
The intricate world of flies, Science Online, 19 May 2009
What does a tiny fruit fly have in common with the world's most advanced fighter jets like the US Air Force's F-22 Raptor? More than you might think.

Scientists using video cameras to track a fly's aerial manoeuvres found the insect employs astonishingly quick mid-air banked turns to evade predators much like a fighter jet executes to elude an enemy.

Their study, published in the journal Science, documents aerial agility in fruit flies such as the capacity to begin to change course in less than one one-hundredth of a second.

The fact that flies are airborne acrobats should not surprise anyone who has ever swung a flyswatter at one, only to watch the little insects easily escape.

The researchers at the University of Washington synchronised three high-speed cameras operating at 7,500 frames a second to learn the secrets of what the flies do to make themselves so elusive.

They tracked the mid-air wing and body motion of the fruit fly species Drosophila hydei, which is about the size of a sesame seed, inside a cylindrical flight chamber after the insects were shown an image that suggested an approaching predator.

The flies produced impressive escape responses, almost instantaneously rolling their bodies like a military jet in a banked turn to steer away. While executing the turn, the flies showed that they could roll on their sides by upwards of 90 degrees, sometimes flying almost upside down.

"They generate a rather precise banked turn, just like an aircraft pilot would, to roll the body and generate a force to take them away from the threat," says University of Washington biology Professor Michael Dickinson, who led the study.

"That happens very quickly. And it's generated with remarkably subtle changes in wing motion. We were pretty astonished by how little they have to do with their wing motion to generate these very precise manoeuvres," he says.

Ancient reflexes
The fly flaps its wings about 200 times a second, and in almost a single wing beat can reorient its body to manoeuvre away from the threat and continue to accelerate, Florian Muijres, says another of the researchers.

"I suspect that these are very ancient reflexes," Dickinson adds. "Very shortly after insects evolved flight, other insects evolved flight to eat them. Circuits for detecting predators are very, very ancient. But this one is just being implemented in a high-performance flight machine."

A lot of light was needed to accommodate the cameras' extraordinarily high shutter speeds, but because a fly would be blinded by the necessary amounts of normal light, the researchers used very bright infrared lights. Like people, fruit flies do not see infrared light.

"I've always been fascinated by flies. Everybody thinks that they have a simple nervous system, but I think it's exactly the opposite. They just have a really tiny one. But it's incredibly compact. They do so much with just this brain the size of a salt grain," Dickinson says.
 

[ORH_wxman]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

weird we've had minimums on 9/1 before but haven't had one in August before in recorded history?

 

1992 had one on 8/31. This is for area though...not extent.

Other early area minimums:

1983 9/2

1987 9/2

1988 9/3

2000 9/3

2005 9/3 (this used to be 8/30 until a recent revision put it at 9/3)

2019 9/4 (barely beat out 8/24 which would have been an unprecedented early minimum)

 

 

My guess is we sneak below the 9/1 figure in 2021....we've had a bunch of other years that had a strung-out double-dip which it looked like an initial minimum had been achieved either in very late August or the few couple days of September only to have it dip again sometime between 9/8-9/14 or something. But we'll see. Each day that it stays above the 9/1 value, the more likely it is to hold up.

 

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

1992 had one on 8/31. This is for area though...not extent.

Other early area minimums:

1983 9/2

1987 9/2

1988 9/3

2000 9/3

2005 9/3 (this used to be 8/30 until a recent revision put it at 9/3)

2019 9/4 (barely beat out 8/24 which would have been an unprecedented early minimum)

 

 

My guess is we sneak below the 9/1 figure in 2021....we've had a bunch of other years that had a strung-out double-dip which it looked like an initial minimum had been achieved either in very late August or the few couple days of September only to have it dip again sometime between 9/8-9/14 or something. But we'll see. Each day that it stays above the 9/1 value, the more likely it is to hold up.

 

Thanks Will....interesting that most of these were la ninas.  To be expected of course since la ninas cool down the majority of the planet.

 

[ORH_wxman]

Area increased 45k to put us about 120k above the 9/1 min. Still too close to call the min, but another 100k or so increase over the next 3 days would probably do it.

[forkyfork]

despite the good pattern ice is still below 2009, 2013, and 2014 on extent