Arctic Sea Ice - The Melting Season 2019

[Don]

59 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

It's getting ever more worrying, knocker...Sooner or later, a warm Arctic summer is going to demolish all the 'recovery-ice' in no time at all...? That's the problem with 'recovery-ice' IMO -- it's almost as thin as a layer of clingfilm...?

It is worrying and I fear for today’s children!

[Singularity]

Broad suggestion emerging in the models of anomalously high Europe-Scandinavia heights taking over as the dominant theme for 2nd half April.

A possible flip on the way, then, for the Atlantic side that’s benefitted from relatively low positive or some way negative anomalies for much of the time in recent months.

GFS keeps tending to reverse the pattern developments past around D12, but that looks unreasonable to me unless the Nino base state totally fails to take hold. Admittedly, after last winters woes, I’m still wary of that possibility, but with the NINO region SST anomalies widely at their strongest now relative to the past 5 months, I’d be amazed not to see that base state properly establish itself this time around.

The Nino base state combined with an increased propensity for high-latitude extent to ridges (via weakened polar jet) brings the potential for ‘pincer movements’ of anomalous heat, similar to of late but aligned Pacific-Atlantic more than Pacific-Greenland.

How’s it Pacific both times you may wonder? Well, I’m of the impression that we’ve of late had a hybrid setup with the Nino forcing affecting the Pacific but not the Atlantic, due to interference from the exceptional HLB pattern that’s established following some perfectly-aligned wave breaks that seem untreated to ENSO. Possibly the extreme positive temp anomalies across much of the Arctic played a role in some way?

Only as this ‘reactive’ HLB episode subsides does the Nino forcing become able to take hold across the Atlantic sector.

Just a theory of mine, mind!

Edited April 6, 2019 by Singularity
Mobile Typos

[Geordiesnow]

15 hours ago, knocker said:

 

And no signs of it slowing down although it does seem most of the losses are occuring in the sea of okhosk as is often the case this time of year.

Must say the weather patterns longer term are not looking as positive as they were just a few days ago, seems highly likely the high will not move to the Beaufort and it seems this region could be the next in line too see early open watet, one to watch for sure. 

[Gray-Wolf]

Pretty worrying weather upcoming if we wished to staunch our losses?

We need retain ice , early doors, or impacts tend to 'snowball'.........

[Singularity]

I would actually go so far as to describe the weather patterns as 'maleficent', despite how illogical it is to assign such a term to an non-sentient phenomenon.

It just has that feel to it this year - but then, so did last year, albeit not as strongly.

The thing is though, the factors that proved counteractive last year such as very healthy snowpacks in useful places, seem much reduced this year.

I'm of the impression that a pattern of weakly anomalous ridges surrounded by more anomalous troughs situated over the Arctic borderlands is about as detrimental as it gets for Arctic sea ice, as the air stays pretty mobile with only patchy cloud cover across the high Arctic, while there's a lot of poleward heat transport from the mid-latitudes that gets entrained into the anticyclonic circulation.

As Neven rightly says on the ASI forum - we're lucky it's not May yet, but under clouds, some melt onset can occur at this time of year (as the dew point rises), of which satellite imagery shows some signs in the past week (patches of reduced-albedo ice from melt-freeze cycling).

[Geordiesnow]

5 hours ago, Singularity said:

I would actually go so far as to describe the weather patterns as 'maleficent', despite how illogical it is to assign such a term to an non-sentient phenomenon.

It just has that feel to it this year - but then, so did last year, albeit not as strongly.

The thing is though, the factors that proved counteractive last year such as very healthy snowpacks in useful places, seem much reduced this year.

I'm of the impression that a pattern of weakly anomalous ridges surrounded by more anomalous troughs situated over the Arctic borderlands is about as detrimental as it gets for Arctic sea ice, as the air stays pretty mobile with only patchy cloud cover across the high Arctic, while there's a lot of poleward heat transport from the mid-latitudes that gets entrained into the anticyclonic circulation.

As Neven rightly says on the ASI forum - we're lucky it's not May yet, but under clouds, some melt onset can occur at this time of year (as the dew point rises), of which satellite imagery shows some signs in the past week (patches of reduced-albedo ice from melt-freeze cycling).

Find it hard to believe there is any melt ponding or even snow melt occuring over the the Arctic basin as of yet, the sun is probably not strong enough or even out long enough(think night time still occurs at this time of year) to cause such conditions. At the moment any holes over the basin such as Laptev is caused by winds but the air is cold enough to allow weak ice to form behind it.

The weather conditions coming up look on paper not the best really with fram export still looking strong. How strong and where exactly the high sets up will be important so all still to play for really. 

[cheeky_monkey]

14 minutes ago, Geordiesnow said:

Find it hard to believe there is any melt ponding or even snow melt occuring over the the Arctic basin as of yet, the sun is probably not strong enough or even out long enough(think night time still occurs at this time of year) to cause such conditions. At the moment any holes over the basin such as Laptev is caused by winds but the air is cold enough to allow weak ice to form behind it.

The weather conditions coming up look on paper not the best really with fram export still looking strong. How strong and where exactly the high sets up will be important so all still to play for really. 

agreed..i live way south of the arctic..we have had nearly a month of plus freezing temps..and often above 10c for example today's high is 14c..only now is the ice on lakes in the parks beginning to melt away..and the ice on river North Saskatchewan beginning to break up..some of the these lakes are only 5-10 feet deep.

[Gray-Wolf]

The number watchers probably think not a lot has gone on with regard Arctic Sea ice since 2012.

I think they will ( again?) be left scratching their heads when the inevitable results of the past 7 years conditioning meet with a season that exploits those changes?

We saw a minor version of this , post 07', with some folk crying 'recovery' whilst we watched the breakdown of the old paleocryistic ice and then its removal in the volume crash of 2010?

The running start to this this season keeps the spectre of a 'perfect melt storm' synoptic winning out this year but it might appear 'different' from what we saw in 07' with today's ice needing less of a sledge hammer blow to drop it lowest come Sept?

Yesterday saw an uptick in Jaxa extent. Some may be pleased by this uptick but I feel it reflect 'collapse and spread' and not 'regrowth' of new ice.

Until we alter the way we measure Extent/Area we weill continue to risk the numbers being at odds with what the 3hr old sat images show us?

Again I'd say that 15%+ is a very low threshold for calling any grid square 100% ice covered? It's like saying that no melt took place over melt season as we still have 15%+ of the ice measured at max! Madness!!!

[Geordiesnow]

14 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

The number watchers probably think not a lot has gone on with regard Arctic Sea ice since 2012.

I think they will ( again?) be left scratching their heads when the inevitable results of the past 7 years conditioning meet with a season that exploits those changes?

We saw a minor version of this , post 07', with some folk crying 'recovery' whilst we watched the breakdown of the old paleocryistic ice and then its removal in the volume crash of 2010?

The running start to this this season keeps the spectre of a 'perfect melt storm' synoptic winning out this year but it might appear 'different' from what we saw in 07' with today's ice needing less of a sledge hammer blow to drop it lowest come Sept?

Yesterday saw an uptick in Jaxa extent. Some may be pleased by this uptick but I feel it reflect 'collapse and spread' and not 'regrowth' of new ice.

Until we alter the way we measure Extent/Area we weill continue to risk the numbers being at odds with what the 3hr old sat images show us?

Again I'd say that 15%+ is a very low threshold for calling any grid square 100% ice covered? It's like saying that no melt took place over melt season as we still have 15%+ of the ice measured at max! Madness!!!

You mentioned about the 15% cut off point last year but as I said at the time, you lose all the statistics if its gets changed just because there could be a flaw of extent perhaps covering the cracks of the true state of the Arctic.

I will say though that perhaps there is some truth to that, 2017 somehow finished marginally higher than 2018 despite 2018 ice pack overall looked more concentrated over the CAB than 2017 was, it really was the constant warm winds over the ESS that killed the the remaining ice there which give a later and slightly lower minimum than 2017. That said, extent should remain the same because in general it gives an indication how much ice there is no matter how weak and diffused it looks. Of course ice area and volume are probably better measurements to take into account come September than just extent.

I dont think many are being fooled that we have reached a stall in Arctic sea ice because even yhough there has been no record lows there has been many significant events since 2012.

Noticetable events for me includes:

● The extreme Atlantification in 2013.

● The Laptev open water bite reaching only 300 or so miles from the North Pole in 2014.

● That the North pole recording a temp of 0C fairly briefly at the back end of December 2015.

● The very diffuse looking ice in the CAB by the end of the melt season in 2016

● The record 'warmth' during Autumn 2016 over the Arctic

● The exceptionally low volume during winter 2016 and into Spring 2017.

● Extensive open water forming to the North of Greenland in February and July 2018.

● The lack of sea ice in the Bering Sea during Spring 2018 and 2019.

So anyone who thinks the Arctic is all normal must be kidding themselves really imo but we can only hope(although i dont expect) we will see a true recovery during our lifetimes. Of course there be others who will want the BOE too see what will happen to weather patterns and to raise more awareness of Climate change.

[Midlands Ice Age]

6 hours ago, Geordiesnow said:

You mentioned about the 15% cut off point last year but as I said at the time, you lose all the statistics if its gets changed just because there could be a flaw of extent perhaps covering the cracks of the true state of the Arctic.

I will say though that perhaps there is some truth to that, 2017 somehow finished marginally higher than 2018 despite 2018 ice pack overall looked more concentrated over the CAB than 2017 was, it really was the constant warm winds over the ESS that killed the the remaining ice there which give a later and slightly lower minimum than 2017. That said, extent should remain the same because in general it gives an indication how much ice there is no matter how weak and diffused it looks. Of course ice area and volume are probably better measurements to take into account come September than just extent.

I dont think many are being fooled that we have reached a stall in Arctic sea ice because even yhough there has been no record lows there has been many significant events since 2012.

Noticetable events for me includes:

● The extreme Atlantification in 2013.

● The Laptev open water bite reaching only 300 or so miles from the North Pole in 2014.

● That the North pole recording a temp of 0C fairly briefly at the back end of December 2015.

● The very diffuse looking ice in the CAB by the end of the melt season in 2016

● The record 'warmth' during Autumn 2016 over the Arctic

● The exceptionally low volume during winter 2016 and into Spring 2017.

● Extensive open water forming to the North of Greenland in February and July 2018.

● The lack of sea ice in the Bering Sea during Spring 2018 and 2019.

So anyone who thinks the Arctic is all normal must be kidding themselves really imo but we can only hope(although i dont expect) we will see a true recovery during our lifetimes. Of course there be others who will want the BOE too see what will happen to weather patterns and to raise more awareness of Climate change.

GS..

Thanks for a good nearly balanced reply to GW.

Can I add other points which need to be considered?

1) What is 'normal' in the Arctic?. Our 'records' start from the late 1970's. There is evidence that the sea ice varied quite a bit before that era, and in fact that it has oscillated as the AMO has waxed and waned. Surely to be expected as most warmer waters arriving in the Arctic come from the Atlantic?

2) The temperatures in the Arctic appear to be some 3-5C warmer (on average) than in the 1980  and 1990 period.

Despite this the ice is still recovering each time after the events you correctly point out above..This leads me to believe that the temperature will need to increase by a similar amount , before we see an ice free Arctic.

There is some evidence that the drop in Arctic temperatures has stabilised over the last few years. (looking at DMI temps)

3) There are also some events which have occurred during the last 10 years (in addition to all the negative events you correctly describe) which perhaps will give some optimism for the future.

a) The SSW of February 2018 caused a huge sudden increase in volume of the Arctic ice. (of the order of 2-3000 Km3 in less than a few weeks). This shows that it is still possible to create thick ice, 

b) As shown by this year, ice in the peripheral areas (SOO, Bering, Barents, Sea of Labrador and Baffin) is still capable of forming - though I accept that it is not as thick as in previous periods.

c) Along with the above we have seen areas of ice greater the 4M thick still forming in Laptev and Kara over the last couple of years, and these have remained 'in situ' (though less thick obviously) during the next melt season, and this despite your references to huge gaps in the areas in previous years.  (Laptev bites, etc).

d) Presumably something has caused the ice drift from Fram to be diminished during the last 2 years.. It could well be related to the AMO. If it is,  then as the AMO swings to its negative phase in the next 10 years, will this affect be continued.?

I am not saying that the Arctic ice will recover to levels seen in the late 20th Century. Just that there are some positive 'shoots' still apparent which should not be ignored.  (rather like daffodils pushing through a layer of snow in spring LOL!).

MIA  

Edited April 10, 2019 by Midlands Ice Age

[Devonian]

22 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

GS..

Thanks for a good nearly balanced reply to GW.

Can I add other points which need to be considered?

1) What is 'normal' in the Arctic?. Our 'records' start from the late 1970's. There is evidence that the sea ice varied quite a bit before that era, and in fact that it has oscillated as the AMO has waxed and waned. Surely to be expected as most warmer waters arriving in the Arctic come from the Atlantic?

2) The temperatures in the Arctic appear to be some 3-5C warmer (on average) than in the 1980  and 1990 period.

Despite this the ice is still recovering each time after the events you correctly point out above..This leads me to believe that the temperature will need to increase by a similar amount , before we see an ice free Arctic.

 

We only have record from the late 1970s you say, and then immediately you indicate we do have records from before that. You talk about the AMO because, as you are someone who has boxed himself into a corner marked 'it can't be you know what', you have to find another explanation for the obvious. Trouble is the AMO is like the movement of the water in a kettle - it can't be the reason for why the globe is relentlessly warming and it's not the root cause of the changes in the Arctic (some of which are already profound).

Finally, you talk about how temperatures 'will' need to warm by 3-5C to see an ice free Arctic not 'would' need to. I think you give it away, you know what is happening but you just can't bring yourself to accept it.

[Singularity]

On 08/04/2019 at 16:00, Geordiesnow said:

Find it hard to believe there is any melt ponding or even snow melt occuring over the the Arctic basin as of yet, the sun is probably not strong enough or even out long enough(think night time still occurs at this time of year) to cause such conditions. At the moment any holes over the basin such as Laptev is caused by winds but the air is cold enough to allow weak ice to form behind it.

The weather conditions coming up look on paper not the best really with fram export still looking strong. How strong and where exactly the high sets up will be important so all still to play for really. 

I referred not to sun-driven melt but cloud-driven. I was surprised to learn that clouds had a strong enough effect, soon enough, to affect the melt onset timing, but there's evidence to support the notion. For example:

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_06/

"In spring, however, cloudy conditions begin to dominate, causing temperatures to warm on average and move the ice closer to its melting temperature, even before the newly risen Sun is strong enough to matter. Thus, more persistent clouds as spring approaches may cause the sea ice to first reach its melting temperature at an earlier date, and more frequent Arctic clouds in a warmer climate might accelerate sea ice decline."

It's to do with the increased humidity and scattering + reflection of radiation. I've witnessed this first-hand in the UK when on freezing cold days (literally maximum zero or less), the arrival of some low cloud cover has caused lying snow to begin thawing steadily. The reflected longwave radiation isn't reflected as efficiently by the low albedo of snow.

 

Moving on - on MIA's post, I'm not sure 'recovering' is a valid word for point 2) given that the amount of 3+ year ice has continued generally downward. It seems that individual regions fail to achieve more than a couple of high retention melt seasons in a row. 

On point 3 a), that was one of the most exceptional SSWs on record for tropospheric impact so yes, it's possible, but requires something truly special and in any case only seems to buy us a little time in the longer run. That being said, an increase in SSW frequency and intensity is a possible effect of reduced Arctic sea ice (due to more extreme jet stream configurations) so you never know!

Point 4 d) I've seen come up often in the past few years, with the most common counter being that Fram export is a measure based on volume, meaning that it goes down if the exported ice is becoming thinner as has generally been observed this past decade. On top of that, more and more ice is melting out before it even makes it that far, while the Atlantification of Kara and the area around Svalbard has turned that into an extra melting zone that takes out ice that could otherwise have headed to the Fram region.

Despite all that, Fram export increased substantially this year. This is due to wind patterns shifting the thickest Canadian-side ice toward the NE corner of Greenland. We really need a strong reversal of the wind patterns to push that ice away from there; it's the largest area of continuous 3+ m thick ice left on the Arctic Ocean.

 

Ugh - I don't like how much 'doom and gloom' keeps finding its way into my updates here. There's just so many negative findings in research at the moment and so few positive ones!

The main positive has been the size of the restriction to summer month melting imposed by the additional cloud cover resulting from increased open waters, which has been at the upper end of expectations. I'm not sure, though, how well this can hold up if and when external forcing brings about strong high pressure development. In the most recent example, July 2015, it was thoroughly overwhelmed - but the amount of anomalous open water has increased further since then.

[kold weather]

2 hours ago, Devonian said:

We only have record from the late 1970s you say, and then immediately you indicate we do have records from before that. You talk about the AMO because, as you are someone who has boxed himself into a corner marked 'it can't be you know what', you have to find another explanation for the obvious. Trouble is the AMO is like the movement of the water in a kettle - it can't be the reason for why the globe is relentlessly warming and it's not the root cause of the changes in the Arctic (some of which are already profound).

Finally, you talk about how temperatures 'will' need to warm by 3-5C to see an ice free Arctic not 'would' need to. I think you give it away, you know what is happening but you just can't bring yourself to accept it.

What is perfectly clear is that the extent both in winter and summer is decade on decade falling in the Arctic. Sure some years are healthier than others, but really is very difficult to ignore the trend when it keeps relentlessly going down on average.

Comparing the ice extent from 1980s to today is quite illuminating and really does show the downward shift, especially when you use a timelapse to see each year and how it steadily drops. The AMO shifted warm in the mid 90s (95 is the general agreed date and coincides with a very active hurricane season) which you could use to argue did cause a downward swing in the Arctic ice. Harder to use that same argument for the 00s and 10s however and yet the sea ice average is still ticking downwards over the years.

[cheeky_monkey]

4 hours ago, Devonian said:

We only have record from the late 1970s you say, and then immediately you indicate we do have records from before that. You talk about the AMO because, as you are someone who has boxed himself into a corner marked 'it can't be you know what', you have to find another explanation for the obvious. Trouble is the AMO is like the movement of the water in a kettle - it can't be the reason for why the globe is relentlessly warming and it's not the root cause of the changes in the Arctic (some of which are already profound).

Finally, you talk about how temperatures 'will' need to warm by 3-5C to see an ice free Arctic not 'would' need to. I think you give it away, you know what is happening but you just can't bring yourself to accept it.

i think he means we only use the records from the late 1970s to report against..although records for the Arctic stretch back way before this..but these are not factored into ice extent averages.

[Methuselah]

While some folks look for ways in which to ameliorate the ravages of AGW (including the ongoing loss of sea-ice) some idiots insist on doing all they can to speed up the process! God forbid! 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/environmentalists-fear-rampant-deforestation-brazil-s-bolsonaro-eyes-new-policy-n992051

 

[Geordiesnow]

5 hours ago, Singularity said:

I referred not to sun-driven melt but cloud-driven. I was surprised to learn that clouds had a strong enough effect, soon enough, to affect the melt onset timing, but there's evidence to support the notion. For example:

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_06/

"In spring, however, cloudy conditions begin to dominate, causing temperatures to warm on average and move the ice closer to its melting temperature, even before the newly risen Sun is strong enough to matter. Thus, more persistent clouds as spring approaches may cause the sea ice to first reach its melting temperature at an earlier date, and more frequent Arctic clouds in a warmer climate might accelerate sea ice decline."

It's to do with the increased humidity and scattering + reflection of radiation. I've witnessed this first-hand in the UK when on freezing cold days (literally maximum zero or less), the arrival of some low cloud cover has caused lying snow to begin thawing steadily. The reflected longwave radiation isn't reflected as efficiently by the low albedo of snow.

 

However, would it be actual melt that causes melt ponds or sublimination? I never heard of Sublimination until we had the beast from the east and wondering why the small cover we had was seemingly melting despite very cold temperatures ans cloud covers. I am dubious whether we have seen any significant incease in cloud cover to bring such a rapid change in all honesty, it seems from my observations, high pressure in April tends to occur more often than low pressure.  

[PeteG]

28 minutes ago, Geordiesnow said:

However, would it be actual melt that causes melt ponds or sublimination? I never heard of Sublimination until we had the beast from the east and wondering why the small cover we had was seemingly melting despite very cold temperatures ans cloud covers. I am dubious whether we have seen any significant incease in cloud cover to bring such a rapid change in all honesty, it seems from my observations, high pressure in April tends to occur more often than low pressure.  

Sublimation wouldn't cause melt ponds as, because as I understand it, it is the process of a solid becoming a gas without going through the liquid stage.

[Gray-Wolf]

Insofar as 'new measures' to cope better with an open and fragmented pack at ice min.

I did not suggest binning current measures for the reason of direct comparisons with year previous but setting up a truer measure of ice in the water?

Surely we have platforms to take good images of the basin and better algorithms to pick out ice cover?

For me ( at least) it would be informative to see if the numbers confirm what my eyes have been telling me since 2014?

We have just seen 3 days of gains but most of this has been the impact of breakup and float off meaning that some new grid squares have been triggered but their '100%' cover will not be a true reflection of the amount of ice present in those grid squares triggered?

My main concern is the approach to the B.O.E.

If we become complacent because ice min seems to hover around the 3.5 to 4.5 million mark then we will all be taken by surprise when ice 'cover' has slipped down to the 15 to 20% cover levels from the old 75 to 80% cover whilst the stats remain static?

The old " When the ice goes it will just go fast at the end of one season" might be reflecting this ability for ice degradation, year upon year, to pass under the radar?

To me it makes it all the more important that we do access sat images and make up our own minds how various regions are doing esp. in Aug/Sept.

As I keep saying there is a big difference from 100% ice covered to only 15% ice covered but the numbers will tell you there is no difference.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Gray-Wolf

[Singularity]

I wonder if we should worry about the 'Methane Bomb' as some call it, beneath the ESS, before the B.O.E. possibility.

Years like this, with particularly thin ice in that region compared to even the past decade, and an early build of heat and loss of snow and ice in Siberia, are the most concerning when it comes to that methane store. I've seen its release put down as a B.O.E. consequence but could it instead be what jumps us toward it, quite suddenly? I recently heard (in a video within the 'Just Have a Think' YouTube series) that even a small fraction - about a fifth - of the methane would cause global mean temps to rise more than 0.5*C in just a few years. I imagine the regional impact during the first few months after release could be quite a bit more than that.

[Don]

57 minutes ago, Singularity said:

I wonder if we should worry about the 'Methane Bomb' as some call it, beneath the ESS, before the B.O.E. possibility.

Years like this, with particularly thin ice in that region compared to even the past decade, and an early build of heat and loss of snow and ice in Siberia, are the most concerning when it comes to that methane store. I've seen its release put down as a B.O.E. consequence but could it instead be what jumps us toward it, quite suddenly? I recently heard (in a video within the 'Just Have a Think' YouTube series) that even a small fraction - about a fifth - of the methane would cause global mean temps to rise more than 0.5*C in just a few years. I imagine the regional impact during the first few months after release could be quite a bit more than that.

Indeed, it’s all very worrying, especially for the young generation.  I dread to think where we’ll be in another 40 years?!

Edited April 11, 2019 by Don

[Flash bang flash bang etc]

45 minutes ago, Don said:

Indeed, it’s all very worrying, especially for the young generation.  I dread to think where we’ll be in another 40 years?!

Bobbing about I reckon

[York-snow]

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/03/13/swiss-found-way-save-their-glacier-melting-wrap-blanket/421142002/

 

obviously a very expensive method. But would this be beneficial to those areas where permafrost is in danger of melting and releasing the trapped methane?

[Don]

6 minutes ago, York-snow said:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/03/13/swiss-found-way-save-their-glacier-melting-wrap-blanket/421142002/

 

obviously a very expensive method. But would this be beneficial to those areas where permafrost is in danger of melting and releasing the trapped methane?

Could well be worth doing, otherwise there’s a risk it will cost far more in the long term!

[Flash bang flash bang etc]

4 minutes ago, York-snow said:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/03/13/swiss-found-way-save-their-glacier-melting-wrap-blanket/421142002/

 

obviously a very expensive method. But would this be beneficial to those areas where permafrost is in danger of melting and releasing the trapped methane?

Reading this an other articles one really does begin to get the feeling that anything we try to do to mitigate the net ice melt year on year is all but futile. Looks unlikely we can change the ways of the ignorant masses in time to stop what’s already happening from escalating to a point in the relatively near future where we just lose control of the situation completely.

Sorry to be so negative (and not support my thoughts with data) but I’ve been thinking about this for a good few weeks now and just don’t see much to be positive about

It interesting too it mentions in that article that they spend 3-4 weeks with a (presumably petrol-driven) chainsaw to make it look nice year on year for the tourists - but surely it’s this sort of unnecessary use of fossil fuels the world over that’s contributing to the issue?

I really do think a mammoth re-thinking of the way we all live is the only way we can come even remotely close to keeping this planet like it is for the next generation - but I really, really have my doubts if that would ever even begin to happen 

[Flash bang flash bang etc]

Of course, always think positive - it’s nothing a super-volcanic eruption or nuclear winter won’t fix