Ocean Concerns

[Alberg30Shill]

Originally Posted by Exile

In other words, if you don't believe the majority view, you have a brain defect. I'm pretty sure this is the approach used in the Soviet Union to send dissidents to the gulag or worse. Have you read any George Orwell?

I am not referring to defects. I'm talking about subconscious techniques of the mind used to protect us from distress. I identified the main techniques used by both sides. No need to resort to gulag comments for highlighting mechanisms that are at play in the debate.

Originally Posted by Exile

Thanks for the reference. I'll try and catch it. I have found Judith Curry's blog rather useful, although much of it is admittedly over my head. Curry is a recently retired but highly respected climate scientist who is also one of the more well known "skeptics." She agrees the earth is warming and that humans could be influencing it (so no "denier" label here for those still confused), but departs from the crowd when it comes to certain issues, for example Arctic sea ice. But better yet, her blog attracts much of the scientific crowd who she disagrees with! So all are welcomed & encouraged, and debate is on the merits of the particular issue, not the politics. But "pseudo-scientists" need not apply!



Good reminder, and an excellent way of putting it. Not only is it rude and potentially turns people away, but it stifles any learning that might be gained. No wonder people stay entrenched on their respective "sides." They wind up simply preaching to their own choir, can only address being challenged with insulting or derogatory attacks, and so only become further entrenched!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Larry Florida

Climate change is a theory. As of this moment unproven.

No, it's not theory.

Wht it is depends on what you mean by "climate change".

The fact that climate changes is a fact.

If you are using that expression as shorthand for "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change", it's only a hypothesis.

[danielamartindm]

I (mistakenly) thought that CF had deleted this thread after certain people posted personal insults in an attempt to silence dissenting opinion. So...I can call other posters "stupid, ignorant, and uneducated" with impunity; or is the answer to that question PC-contingent?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Alberg30Shill

I am not referring to defects. I'm talking about subconscious techniques of the mind used to protect us from distress. I identified the main techniques used by both sides. No need to resort to gulag comments for highlighting mechanisms that are at play in the debate.

OK, except these "subconscious techniques of the mind" which you cite presume there is distress which the mind needs to protect itself from. What if the estimated 50% or so of people in the US & worldwide that do not share your certainty about MMGW aren't so distressed? Wouldn't it necessarily follow that, after weighing the evidence and coming to their own conclusions, these people wouldn't find stressful what they believe is a yet unproven scientific theory?

So what is possibly meant by suggesting that non-believers have some innate characteristic of the brain, or equating them with "flat-earthers," or otherwise stereotyping them by nationality, religion, or political orientation as others have done, if it's not meant to support one's own scientific opinion based on disparaging those who happen to hold a different one?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

I (mistakenly) thought that CF had deleted this thread after certain people posted personal insults in an attempt to silence dissenting opinion. So...I can call other posters "stupid, ignorant, and uneducated" with impunity; or is the answer to that question PC-contingent?

More speech is always the better antidote to speech you disagree with. Suppressing speech, incl. this thread, only leads to more entrenched views that never get challenged. Personal insults violate forum rules, so best to let the mods deal with that on an individual basis rather than getting the entire thread closed or deleted.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

I'm not on either side.

What I am saying is the information we are fed is told with advantages and this comes from both sides.

In the second graph, I still wonder why 15%, I wonder why we can't see 12 months, and I wonder why we can't also see the full variation of ice spread, I wonder why the volume scale is linear.

If I were pro CC I could point at the huge drop in 2016. If I were anti I would say we were at the top of the charts twice in 2016 and we are heading for record levels of ice right now.

All facts (if the chart is accurate) but both statements are misleading.

Because you read it doesn't make it true.

Like Albert Einstein said "don't believe everything you read on the internet !"

From your questions it doesn't seem you understand the graph.

Again, you can get a good grasp of the topic at this site,

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

but it will require reading and understanding. Being "fed' is not part of the process...

I'll give a go at explaining the graph, starting as if you knew nothing about sea ice at all.

No condescension or insult is intended.

The sea ice in the polar regions melts and re-forms on an annual basis: in the Antarctic, almost all of the ice surrounding the continent melts every year, in the Arctic, a certain percentage melts every year, and that percentage, and the rate at which is melting, has been increasing every year since the satellite record began. (As should be obvious with planetary systems, some years have more, some less, but the percentage over time is consistently increasing, along with the rate, especially in the Arctic.)

The graph shown below for the arctic, charts the daily extent of the Arctic ocean and surrounding area that is covered with at least 15% of sea ice.

The '15%' number is somewhat arbitrary, but it is the standard that the NSIDC has chosen for this graph. They explain its' use and the difference in 'extent' and 'area' thusly,


"Extent defines a region as “ice-covered” or “not ice-covered.” For each satellite data cell, the cell is said to either have ice or to have no ice, based on a threshold. The most common threshold (and the one NSIDC uses) is 15 percent, meaning that if the data cell has greater than 15 percent ice concentration, the cell is considered ice covered; less than that and it is said to be ice free. Example: Let’s say you have three 25 kilometer (km) x 25 km (16 miles x 16 miles) grid cells covered by 16% ice, 2% ice, and 90% ice. Two of the three cells would be considered “ice covered,” or 100% ice. Multiply the grid cell area by 100% sea ice and you would get a
total extent of 1,250 square km (482 square miles).

Area takes the percentages of sea ice within data cells and adds them up to report how much of the Arctic is covered by ice; area typically uses a threshold of 15%. So in the same example, with three 25 km x 25 km (16 miles x 16 miles) grid cells of 16% ice, 2% ice, and 90% ice, multiply the grid cell areas that are over the 15% threshold by the percent of sea ice in those grid cells, and add it up. You would have a total area of 662 square km (255.8 square miles).

Scientists at NSIDC report extent because they are cautious about summertime values of ice concentration and area taken from satellite sensors. To the sensor, surface melt appears to be open water rather than water on top of sea ice. So, while reliable for measuring area most of the year, the microwave sensor is prone to underestimating the actual ice concentration and area when the surface is melting. To account for that potential inaccuracy, NSIDC scientists rely primarily on extent when analyzing melt-season conditions and reporting them to the public. That said, analyzing ice area is still quite valuable. Given the right circumstances, background knowledge, and scientific information on current conditions, it can provide an excellent sense of how much ice there really is “on the ground.”

The full year curves are available on the NSIDC website here

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/c...sea-ice-graph/

The reason you don't see the full year here is because this is a daily chart and scrolls to the left as the year progresses, while the blue line, the daily extent, moves to the right.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the full variation of ice spread'. Please advise.

If by 'volume scale' you mean the vertical axis, it has to be linear to be an accurate visual representation of the change in volume; if it weren't linear it would distort the curve into meaninglessness.

Probably the most relevant point in the whole graph is the relationship of the lines to the shaded portions. The dashed green line, which illustrates the extent for the record low year 2012, at minimum is around 4 million sg km lower than the mean of 1981-2010, and has remained outside both the interquartile and interdecile ranges throughout the period.






Oops.

Because I was working through your questions consecutively, I didn't remember that the graph in question was for the Antarctic, but no worries, everything about how they work is the same; the data is just different.



Which brings up an interesting point, and also brings the discussion back around to the thermohaline circulation.

But first to finish with your pro/anti statement.

The 'huge drop' in 2016 means nothing by itself, even though 2016 turned out to be the lowest year on record. We are talking about climate, which is characterized by long term trends, not yearly occurrences. If anything were to be taken as alarming from that one year it would probably be the rapid fluctuation from near the high range to well below the low range in about three weeks. It's too early to tell, but if that fall to below the interdecile range in 2016 continues, as it appears to be doing, it may just be confirmation that the accumulated heat content of the ocean has begun to act on the Antarctic sea ice as well. Time will tell.

You're preaching to the choir about truth. While I do have a PC and know how to use it, I haven't had a TV since '95. The surest way to any kind of truth is a combination of understanding, diligence and memory...and not being afraid of being wrong.


Anyway, notice, if you will, how the range for extent is largest in winter in Antarctica and in summer in the Arctic. This is a result of the them being polar (haha) opposites; Antarctica is an ice-covered land surrounded by sea, while the Arctic is an ice-covered sea surrounded by land.

Well it turns out (not surprisingly) that the thermohaline circulation is contributed to by both polar areas, with the sea ice playing an important part by contributing both salty and cold water.

So if it turns out that this current running-on-the-low-side of the range becomes the norm for the Southern Ocean sea ice, it would seem to add another vote for erring on the side of caution...

Again, pardon me if I've misunderstood your comprehension of the graph in question.

[Bruce K]

Seems to be a lot of classic "Dunning Kruger effect" on this thread!

[hpeer]

I will dare to post another recommendation related to climate change. This one is aimed directly at skeptics, not to convienced you one way or the other but to take a risk analysis approach to the matter

https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Worst-T.../dp/0399535012

[Larry Florida]

Originally Posted by Alberg30Shill

Like gravity but you still can't fly. The word theory means something more specific in scientific use than in popular use.

I don't think so. If it make you feel better I'm using scientific theory meaning.

Gravity is a measurable fact, a scientific fact.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I will dare to post another recommendation related to climate change. This one is aimed directly at skeptics, not to convienced you one way or the other but to take a risk analysis approach to the matter

https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Worst-T.../dp/0399535012

I already like the notion of presenting a different way of engaging in the debate. It can only be better than the ones we've been having!

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

My opinions stated here are not a doctoral thesis, requiring ibid and idem documentation of source materials (and neither are yours). This is an opinion resource. If you believe that, for some bizarre or partisan reason, I misrepresented NASA's stance, cite a rebuttal of THAT, documenting that NASA is of the opinion that sea levels are RISING. You won't be able to. You're rebutting my relaying of NASA's statement on worldwide sea levels with graphics regarding sea ice extent; but I never claimed that sea ice in Antarctica (or the North Pole, or Greenland, for that matter) were increasing in square mileage. If I am in error regarding NASA's opinions of global sea levels, then cite evidence to THAT effect. Presenting graphics of sea ice extent at the South Pole doesn't address current trends in global sea levels, the point of my post; and if sea levels are falling, where did all that water go, even in this brief window of time that I lack the perspective to appreciate?

Perhaps we should keep our opinions to ourselves and only reply to the facts as they are known from scientific research.

[DeepFrz]

Mods, this is not a hot topic. The science is in. No debate.

Science is now suggesting that there may be a mini ice age in the northern hemisphere, especially in norther Europe as the cold fresh water from the melting arctic ice and Greenland glaciers sits on top of the more dense salty layers of the northern oceans.

We are in for a ride folks and the bucking has already started.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Perhaps we should keep our opinions to ourselves and only reply to the facts as they are known from scientific research.

But isn't this exactly what you just did in your next post?

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Mods, this is not a hot topic. The science is in. No debate.

Science is now suggesting that there may be a mini ice age in the northern hemisphere, especially in norther Europe as the cold fresh water from the melting arctic ice and Greenland glaciers sits on top of the more dense salty layers of the northern oceans.

There's no scientific debate even though science is only suggesting something as dramatic sounding as a mini ice age that "may" be happening? And hasn't Arctic ice & Greenland glaciers melted before?

We are in for a ride folks and the bucking has already started.

I'm pretty sure the bucking started long before humans were around to witness it. The question is only whether human emissions from the past 150 years or so will make the ride bumpier.

Aren't you simply injecting your own opinions into a set of facts as currently known by scientific research? Or is there more certainty & drama than the facts as you stated them suggest?

[rgleason]

...we constitute what is probably the single largest single species biomass ever seen. And we are voracious consumers, in someways humanity is more like a wildfire, consuming all before it

The first statement is undeniable and the second is what some would say is an "opinion", but it is a logical statement which can be measured and seen, and it to has consequences which we do not fully know.

This is the big taboo in the room that we do not discuss. Do we continue to breed like rats or do we get smarter about our use of resources and humanity's longevity!

It is at odds with everything, religion, growth economics, and proserity as it is defined now.

Someday we will change our values and aspirations and become more attuned to nature, but will it be soon enough.

[Alberg30Shill]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, except these "subconscious techniques of the mind" which you cite presume there is distress which the mind needs to protect itself from. What if the estimated 50% or so of people in the US & worldwide that do not share your certainty about MMGW aren't so distressed? Wouldn't it necessarily follow that, after weighing the evidence and coming to their own conclusions, these people wouldn't find stressful what they believe is a yet unproven scientific theory?

So what is possibly meant by suggesting that non-believers have some innate characteristic of the brain, or equating them with "flat-earthers," or otherwise stereotyping them by nationality, religion, or political orientation as others have done, if it's not meant to support one's own scientific opinion based on disparaging those who happen to hold a different one?

They are subconsious, you wouldn't feel distress. To clarify, I identified mechanisms explaining both sides behavior.