“Who can save the North Pole?”

"Who can save the North Pole?"


This coloring book helps children think about the answers to Santa's questions. Parents are going to need answers to its questions, so I've shared the current state of affairs:

  • "Why is Santa's home shuddering?" – The Arctic Sea Ice is melting. At the current loss rate, it's only 15 years before the North Pole will completely melt (barring another pandemic, nuclear war, or similar worldwide crisis).
  • "Who will save Santa's home?" – The drastic actions needed to save Santa's home in 15 years are too great. While the Democrats did win the Presidential election and hold the tiniest possible majority in the senate, the 'tipping point' of public opinion is still not sufficient for the major changes needed in 15 years. Democrats currently hold the tiniest majority possible in the senate, but a Constitutional Amendment would be required to force the required drastic changes. There's no hope of sufficient bipartisan cooperation, and a democratic supermajority won't even be possible until 2024. Then would leave only 11 years for changes of awesome magnitudes: replacing two thirds of all petroleum and coal power plants with nuclear or renewable energy, or, reducing automobile gasoline usage by about half. Neither consumers nor businesses will accept the necessary sacrifices. Too many are already saying it's too late to bother doing anything at all.

Alternatively, the USA could reverse its policies again in 2024 and exploit anything other nations do. Thus China and India are refusing to do anything more until the USA does demonstrate a 'permanent commitment' with a Constitutional Amendment. That places an international 3-year block on any further significant carbon reduction than already planned.

Sorry Santa, you're going to need a submarine.

It's not even widely known that Santa's going to need a submarine so soon.

The USA's scientists are still recovering from Trump's embargo on climate research. Due to COVID, the United Nations had to delay last year's 5-year summit to renegotiate national commitments until November this year. Nor have people even wanted to consider the answer the facts. Even when 2021's annual data collation started to roll out, which is does every September, this post was downvoted to zero in less than 3 seconds–before I even could scroll down the page after checking its first URL link to check its next.

Subsequent sections in this post:

  • Satellite and Meteorological Data on the Arctic Sea Ice Loss
  • The 2035 Prediction
  • The political Impasse
  • Lack of Public Engagement
  • Getting the Coloring Book


Satellite and Meteorological Data on the Arctic Sea Ice Loss

Over the last years, massive amounts of data collection have continued, improving the accuracy of Arctic Sea ice predicitons.

The results finds Santa's plight is far worse than people thought when the Paris Agreement set 2060 as the target for net-zero carbon emissions. The 2015 Paris Accord originally set 2050~2060 as the net-zero target from projections from NASA's annual measurement of the Arctic Sea ice minimum, created from satellite image data since 1978, In the last decade, this annual projection was moving towards 2060, but much lower levels last year and this year are moving this measurement back towards 2050 (the page is not yet updated with 2021 data):

Due to the Paris Accord's choice of sea ice for setting carbon-emission targets, the September ice minimum is the most-watched matrix of environmental health. The United Nations has been coordinating annual updates of international data in September each year. Collaboration on data sharing has resulted in far more detailed and comprehensive computer predictions from daily data on sea ice depth and longevity, as well as extent.

Scientists now have vastly more accurate data sets on air and surface-water temperatures, salinity, and precipitation that daily accumulate faster than supercomputers can easily project in real time, resulting in the currently preferred monthly updates to the 'CICE' indices for long-range forecasts. Artifical Intelligence can now post-process 'LIM3.6' data, used for 10-day forecasts since 2015, to provide surprisingly accurate forecasts 2 months in advance. In the future these models may be supplemented by long-range analysis of the ice mass across 30-meter-squared rectangles called 'DEMs:'


The 2035 Prediction

Another data source is carbon-12 dating of 'ice cores.' The National Science Foundation is currently preserving 17,000 meters of ice cores providing highly reliably annual data over the last 200,000 years. Last year a unified set of multiple computer models from ice cores and CICE predicted that the Arctic Sea could be entirely gone as early as 2035, rather than 2060, at current carbon-emission rates. Carbon reductions over the 2020 winter due to the COVID pandemic, may have incurred a one-year extension, but carbon emission is already back to pre-pandemic levels.

As of this year, scientists are adding data on wind patterns that blow perennial ice into warm-water currents. Older, more compact, and slower-melting perennial ice is being lost more quickly than before. A larger proportion of the Arctic Sea is covered by thinner, young ice.

The destruction of the Arctic ice sea will not only remove the homeostatic mechanism moderating the seasons in the Northern hemisphere, but also, due to the 'global conveyor belt' shifting heat and cold around the oceans, it will cause catastrophic climate shifts worldwide the likes of which civilization has never known. It is only one of numerous matrices all pointing to the same future, now publicly stated by the United Nations, and reported in the New York Times.

This year's Arctic Sea ice measurements tracked the worst year on record, 2012, until the smoke from the giant fires repressed the Summer temperatures. There was so much smoke from Californian wildfires, the sun turned orange in New York City. In the atmosphere, water vapor condenses on smoke particles, creating cloud cover that cools the planet surface.

Some believe particulates like smoke could reduce the planet's temperature. However, wildfires of several million acres on the North American continent might provide some immediate relief, but the decaying deadwood releases huge amounts more carbon into the atmosphere for years, and the forest takes many decades to recover. there's some real optimism other particulates might work, such as sulfate sprays, but they all cause corollary environmental damage, the extent of which remains unpredictable.


The Political Impasse

Currently, political action is at a deadlock, and can't force the massive changes necessary to stop it. The most that can happen is a delay by a few decades, and even that has become very unlikely. That's not to say political efforts have not been made, but the results have been a total impasse.

In the last month, ambassador John Kerry asked China to reduce its emissions. China replied, before making further commitments itself to reduce carbon emission, it wants 'proof of permanent commitment' from the USA. China said it had already committed to a 25% reduction of coal power stations by 2025, and is actively building more nuclear and hydroelectric systems. Meanwhile, the USA's last President reversed policies on coal power-plant reduction. China has no reason to believe that a new President would not flip-flop on policy again in three years, and until the USA demonstrates it has a permanent commitment, its own efforts to reduce carbon emissions are pointless. They'd just be exploited by the USA in a future Presidential change.

The only way the USA could meet China's demand is with a Constitutional Amendment. Up to recently, this seemed too remote a possibility to happen at all. A Constitutional Amendment would require a two-thirds 'supermajority.' There has been some more partisan cooperation this year, but the closest Congress has come to a supermajority this century is only 60%, for only 78 days, in 2008. And the senate is now evenly split. With current public opinion, there is no other way that the USA can prove a permanent commitment to China. Unless the nation produces an answer, the USA's reception is likely to be frosty in Glasgow, which hasn't been seeing as much snow. For a long time.

So the next decade is now predictable. The USA will blame China, and China will blame the USA, and neither will do enough to make any difference while the North Pole melts away. Other countries are responding by not revising their commitments either.

I thought maybe public opinion could sway matters.


Absence of Public Engagement

I was at the same college as Rachel Maddow, who is a daily news analyst on MSNBC, so I sent the above to her, asking if she could do a story. Rachel asked me to produce an outline of what would be necessary to save the North Pole. So I gathered the data and sent it this morning. She said the required changes were too immediately drastic. Abstract stories about global-warming temperatures in the distant future are OK, but discuss imminent necessities in personal sacrifice of the scale necessary would disastrously impact her ratings. They'd just turn her off.

I tried sharing this on various political and ethical forums. If this data wasn't banned outright, people refused even to think about the changes necessary to save the North Pole. They are too drastic. It would mean getting rid of all gasoline cars and power stations using fossil fuels within a decade. People won't accept the negative impact on their standard of living. Politicians in the USA would simply be thrown out of office for doing anything significant.

I found that people will argue about anything, anything at all, rather than demand immediate political action. They will say the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong. They will say it's China's fault so we don't need to do anything. They will say my grammar or spelling errors prove I'm an idiot. And even if I get past all of that, they say the tipping point is passed, it's too late anyway. I have to agree with Rachel.


So you might want to get your children this coloring book.

After all, it's not the end of the world.

After the devastating climate changes, and ensuing war, there will probably be a huge population reduction, and large parts of the planet will be devolved back to the stone age, allowing the human race to recover. Pre-emptive action may not be possible, but the mechanisms for post-apocalyptic adjustment remain. History has shown that civilization wipes itself out and recovers faster than people expect on an almost routine basis. Here's the book on Amazon:


submitted by /u/emeyer4444
[link] [comments]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.