Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask  (Read 1031808 times)

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #600 on: November 20, 2016, 01:40:51 PM »
Thanks Jim.  The question was asked a few times a week or two back and no one pointed to that ftp site. Thanks again and sorry for misleading.

Sarat

  • New ice
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #601 on: November 23, 2016, 10:20:32 PM »
Is it just me or the climate "skeptics" of WUWT are staying very quiet on the news of current state of the arctic?

Despite the terrible state of the global sea ice, perhaps the only silver lining is seeing them unable to cherry pick their way out of this one.


Gray-Wolf

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 458
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #602 on: November 23, 2016, 10:41:40 PM »
Their last attempt was at a 'Arctic ice stages record recovery!!!' back in Sept but surely folk know that when ice drops to near record lows it will 'appear' to put on ice really fast as the Central Arctic rapidly cools?

As it is they've now lost their favourite go to " oh look! a Squirrel" as I'm sure the current MSM coverage of the 'extreme' low ice around both North/South Poles means we all know how dire things currently are?
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Sarat

  • New ice
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #603 on: November 23, 2016, 11:00:23 PM »
Thanks Grey Wolf,

Yes, and that post is now also shown to be glaringly wrong, too bad there is very little retrospection there. Most of their "cherries" tend to rot over time, some faster than others.

« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 11:11:40 PM by Sarat »

Michael J

  • New ice
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #604 on: November 23, 2016, 11:20:55 PM »
Their last attempt was at a 'Arctic ice stages record recovery!!!' back in Sept but surely folk know that when ice drops to near record lows it will 'appear' to put on ice really fast as the Central Arctic rapidly cools?

As it is they've now lost their favourite go to " oh look! a Squirrel" as I'm sure the current MSM coverage of the 'extreme' low ice around both North/South Poles means we all know how dire things currently are?

If the weather cools and the ice rapidly grows they will get noisy again. I have noticed a few saying that the arctic was ice free some distant millennia in the past so why the worry

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3410
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #605 on: November 23, 2016, 11:26:33 PM »
Their last attempt was at a 'Arctic ice stages record recovery!!!' back in Sept but surely folk know that when ice drops to near record lows it will 'appear' to put on ice really fast as the Central Arctic rapidly cools?

As it is they've now lost their favourite go to " oh look! a Squirrel" as I'm sure the current MSM coverage of the 'extreme' low ice around both North/South Poles means we all know how dire things currently are?

If the weather cools and the ice rapidly grows they will get noisy again. I have noticed a few saying that the arctic was ice free some distant millennia in the past so why the worry
You know, it occurs to me, we may have an answer to that.  <puts on research hat> off to dig up a bit of paleoclimatology for S. Asia, SE Asia and sub-saharan Africa...
This space for Rent.

Tony Mcleod

  • New ice
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #606 on: November 23, 2016, 11:46:48 PM »
Hi all, been lurking here daily for a while and what a fascinating blog. I live in a pretty warm part of the world (just north of Brisbane, 8:40am and pushing past 28C) so my experience and knowledge of ice is pretty limited. So it's more likely I post in this thread than any other...

I do visit WUWT - just to see what misapprehensions they are under and I will chip in and stir them up a bit if I just can't bare to allow the nonsense to go unchallenged. I've posted the much talked about graph on a couple of different threads there and the only substantial replies have been about whether the equipment is faulty! Some there are really drowning in the Kool-aid.

It is interesting to see they are wanting to talk about anything except the climate at the moment.
Tony ::) ::)

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #607 on: November 25, 2016, 07:54:23 AM »
Welcome Tony! The first post is the hardest.

Tony Mcleod

  • New ice
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #608 on: November 25, 2016, 08:44:37 AM »
More an observation rather than a question but it appears the infamous graph is not on the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs page, whereas this is Cryosat today graph is, even though it broke six months ago.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #609 on: November 25, 2016, 10:10:30 AM »
More an observation rather than a question but it appears the infamous graph is not on the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs page, whereas this is Cryosat today graph is, even though it broke six months ago.

If you're referring to the global ice image showing the st dev from normal, i guess almost nobody thought this metric could behave like it currently does. The graphs page has been reserved to graphs that are regularly updated and this one isn't. Neven has occasionally changed the graphs page. CT has a long data series so I guess thats the reason. But possibly this global metric now gets followed more regularly.

Gray-Wolf

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 458
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #610 on: November 25, 2016, 11:15:36 AM »
I have also come across Deniers refusing the data but then holding up C.T. images to 'prove' that something is up with the data??? Seeing as both NSIDC and JAXA run daily values for ice extent/area you should give them the option of making the graph themselves. Also 'Sunshine hours' was set up during the 'Squirrel' years so the Deniers already had their own 'go to' global sea ice levels graph( even if it is lagging well behind in time .... for some reason they appear reluctant to update?) yet also appear to have 'forgotten' the hold such a resource?

Another Stupid Question: Seeing as the deniosphere appears to be reflecting , and not posting, on global issues at the moment what scale of Arctic/Antarctic event will it take to see them melt away as fast as the ice?
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #611 on: November 25, 2016, 11:28:34 AM »
More an observation rather than a question but it appears the infamous graph is not on the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs page, whereas this is Cryosat today graph is, even though it broke six months ago.

If you're referring to the global ice image showing the st dev from normal, i guess almost nobody thought this metric could behave like it currently does. The graphs page has been reserved to graphs that are regularly updated and this one isn't. Neven has occasionally changed the graphs page. CT has a long data series so I guess thats the reason. But possibly this global metric now gets followed more regularly.
Actually the amazing Wipneus updates this graph regularly now on his
ArctischePinguin site , I guess Neven should replace the current CT chart with Wipneus' version.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #612 on: November 25, 2016, 12:45:49 PM »

<clip>
Another Stupid Question: Seeing as the deniosphere appears to be reflecting , and not posting, on global issues at the moment what scale of Arctic/Antarctic event will it take to see them melt away as fast as the ice?
This has been discussed among friends on occasion. We're pretty much on common ground that the level of stupid among them is such that losing one large city to the sea level rise in the 'developed world' might just be enough. Of course this happens during some freak storm, making it unfeasible to build it up agaim, so it could be we're too optimistic about this.

Tony Mcleod

  • New ice
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #613 on: November 25, 2016, 01:05:12 PM »
More an observation rather than a question but it appears the infamous graph is not on the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs page, whereas this is Cryosat today graph is, even though it broke six months ago.

If you're referring to the global ice image showing the st dev from normal, i guess almost nobody thought this metric could behave like it currently does. The graphs page has been reserved to graphs that are regularly updated and this one isn't. Neven has occasionally changed the graphs page. CT has a long data series so I guess thats the reason. But possibly this global metric now gets followed more regularly.

Seems likely it will from now on.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2193
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 878
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #614 on: November 25, 2016, 02:17:44 PM »
The deniospehere probably won't depopulate significantly for a few decades, or when the evidence is overwhelming and (perhaps most important) there is general acknowledgment that it's too late to do anything about it.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Sarat

  • New ice
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #615 on: November 25, 2016, 04:56:41 PM »
Even that is wishful thinking, the key word is believe* not understand, people are capable of believing many things and no amout of evidence can change that... new earth creationists, flat earthers, people refusing medicine in favor of homeopathy and getting worse. They all are confronted with undeniable factual proof but they dismiss it if it contradicts their religion, sense of community, political identity  etc. People who believe* in global warming instead of understanding it are not much better, but their sentiments are at least not as damaging to the need to influence change.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #616 on: November 25, 2016, 09:06:09 PM »
Sarat
I believe you've spotted the problem. Just as centuries of medical advances haven't wiped out belief in priests, witch doctors and homeopaths, so loosing the city next door won't put climate denialists out of business. We do now tend to spend more on medical centers than on cathedrals, but new spires continue to adorn some pretty pricey real estate, and southern governors still pray for rain.
Terry

Cate

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #617 on: November 25, 2016, 09:28:39 PM »

<clip>
Another Stupid Question: Seeing as the deniosphere appears to be reflecting , and not posting, on global issues at the moment what scale of Arctic/Antarctic event will it take to see them melt away as fast as the ice?
This has been discussed among friends on occasion. We're pretty much on common ground that the level of stupid among them is such that losing one large city to the sea level rise in the 'developed world' might just be enough. Of course this happens during some freak storm, making it unfeasible to build it up agaim, so it could be we're too optimistic about this.

Didn't that already happen, losing one large city (or a goodly part of it) in the developed world...in the US, in fact..during some freak storm...? New Orleans?....but of course, that didn't count. New Orleans is....you know.

 :(

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #618 on: November 25, 2016, 10:00:46 PM »
Didn't that already happen, losing one large city (or a goodly part of it) in the developed world...in the US, in fact..during some freak storm...? New Orleans?....but of course, that didn't count. New Orleans is....you know.

 :(
So right.

Michael J

  • New ice
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #619 on: November 25, 2016, 11:53:27 PM »
The major problem is that the Climate Change denial is part of a particular political movement and well funded by the energy industry. In the Australian experience it had originally almost universal acceptance. Then money went from the mining industry into our right wing party and then acceptance went down to under 50%. Now acceptance is slowly but steadily growing such that the right-wing party (LNP) is not able to deny it as policy (even though individuals in the party do) .  However, the LNP does everything it can to delay actually doing anything effective.
I think eventually acceptance of Climate Change will be so high that it will be political suicide for a party not to do something.

I think after the next city to have a disaster. There wont be a lot of minds changed but the roar from the people who accept climate change may actually move the politicians to do something.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #620 on: November 26, 2016, 02:34:38 PM »
Didn't that already happen, losing one large city (or a goodly part of it) in the developed world...in the US, in fact..during some freak storm...? New Orleans?....but of course, that didn't count. New Orleans is....you know.

 :(

No, cities built under mean sea level do no count. As doesn't Venice since it's always flooding. Neither counted are cities in the third world. It's weird but the deniers want to drown these, at least that's my interpretation. Not very humane.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #621 on: November 26, 2016, 10:08:01 PM »
By 2070, we will be abandoning southern Florida. People will be angry and there will be nothing we can do about it.

Iceismylife

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #622 on: November 28, 2016, 06:21:51 PM »
By 2070, we will be abandoning southern Florida. People will be angry and there will be nothing we can do about it.
There are three possible cases:

1.  Global climate change is overestimated and over blown.  (Big river in Egypt any one?)

2.  Global climate change is happen as predicted.

3.  Global climate change is under estimated.

Looking at the history. People have been modeling CO2 and its effects.  Accurate climate models have lagged CO2 predictive models.  If something like Albedo was the main driver of climate change not CO2 then we are in for a rude awakening. 

My money is on case number three.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #623 on: November 28, 2016, 06:44:01 PM »
<clip>

2.  Global climate change is happen as predicted.

3.  Global climate change is under estimated.

Looking at the history. People have been modeling CO2 and its effects.  Accurate climate models have lagged CO2 predictive models.  If something like Albedo was the main driver of climate change not CO2 then we are in for a rude awakening. 

My money is on case number three.

it so happens that Antarctic ice is at a local minimum during the early southern summer 2016-7. Once arctic goes ice free the warmed up airs of northern hemisphere may cool only over Greenland accelerating the melt there. Large ice/snow fields generate their own weather by the albedo mechanism. This may lead to rainstorms constantly circling Greenland and as ice and water don't mix for long at least, the melt there should accelerate.

Antarctica glaciers and ice sheets are better protected from this sort of attack but as many of them are grounded in the ocean, tqhey're vulnerable to the heat of the oceans.

JuniorMint

  • New ice
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #624 on: December 11, 2016, 06:50:02 AM »
Hello,

First post, longish time lurker...

I have a potentially really dumb question. I've been following all the major threads here for a while now. I was wondering why there was such a difference in the reported SIEs....For example....

IJIS Dec 9 = 10,365,460 km2
NSIDC Dec 9 = 10,624,000 km2

I am really only really beginning to understand all the various resources you guys use and so I am not familiar with how they might measure SIE differently. Maybe someone could also enlighten me on the pros/cons of the different measuring methods. I have very little in the way of background in this subject matter and its been a very steep learning curve just trying to figure out what y'all are saying ;) (which is why I lurked so long). You'll have to explain it as simply as possible...although I think I have some basics down.

On the NSIDC website under FAQ they say that they may differ slightly from others because "extent measurements differ because of variation in the formulas (algorithms) used for the calculation, the sensor used, the threshold method to determine whether a region is “ice-covered,” and processing methods." - Which I totally get and understand. So my questions are:

* Why is the difference so big say between IJIS/NSIDC right now?

* Could I possibly have some enlightenment on the pros/cons of these different sources?

* I wouldn't mind your opinions on which ones you prefer (and why)

Sorry if this has been asked before, I can't seem to find much information that would enlighten me on these various methods of measuring SIE.

Please be kind. :P

JuniorMint

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #625 on: December 11, 2016, 11:21:48 AM »
That's a very good stupid question, JuniorMint.  ;)

The difference that is easiest to understand, is that one dataset may look at a larger region than the other. For instance, some measure lake ice, other's don't. Or perhaps sea ice as south as Newfoundland Bay. I don't know these differences in detail, but that could also be a possible explanation, besides different interpretations/algorithms of what the various microwave bands present, and differences in land mask.

Another difference between JAXA and NSIDC is that the former uses data from the ASMR2 sensor (higher resolution) and the latter uses SSMIS (lower resolution).
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #626 on: December 11, 2016, 11:53:11 AM »
(Adds a more stupid answer) It's not like there aren't differences between datasets. The situation is pretty much the same as when you asked several people in the old days what's the exact time, you'd normally get hours right, minutes less securely, and seconds were pretty much random. Of course nowadays we have internet time to rely on so there's no need to discuss whose clock is the most accurate. On sea ice we have 3-5 various satellites measuring the ice with different accuracies so we get various results. Then there are various ways to include and exclude data (refers back to Nevens answer

Jim Hunt

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6268
  • Don't Vote NatC or PopCon, Save Lives!
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #627 on: December 11, 2016, 12:43:11 PM »
I was wondering why there was such a difference in the reported SIEs

Apart from different satellite sensors there are also a variety of different algorithms for extracting sea ice concentration numbers from the raw data. For an overview see:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/sea-ice-concentration-data-overview-comparison-table-and-graphs

Quote
The most widely used sea ice data sets for climate research are derived from passive microwave instruments, including SMMR, SSMI, SSMIS, AMSR-E and AMSR-2, flying on various satellite platforms. The algorithms applied to the microwave brightness temperatures use different combinations of channels, making different corrections for weather, satellite drift, and other factors. Users of sea ice data should be aware of the different algorithms and their attributes, the different spatial footprints of the satellite instruments and channels, and the methods for combining different source data into long-term data sets.
"The most revolutionary thing one can do always is to proclaim loudly what is happening" - Rosa Luxemburg

Tealight

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
    • CryosphereComputing
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #628 on: December 11, 2016, 01:13:23 PM »
I highly recommed watching this webinar from the Sea Ice Prediction Network. It explains all sensor differences better than we could do on the forum.


dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #629 on: December 11, 2016, 02:31:55 PM »
Not sure if this is right in this case, but some of the measures present a daily measure and others a five day trailing average.  IJIS daily and NSIDC five day?

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #630 on: December 11, 2016, 03:47:09 PM »
Not sure if this is right in this case, but some of the measures present a daily measure and others a five day trailing average.  IJIS daily and NSIDC five day?

Yes 10.624 is on chartic graph which shows 5 day average.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_nrt_v2.csv
shows daily numbers: 10.809 for Dec 9th which is a bigger difference.

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4220
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 1025
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #631 on: December 11, 2016, 06:12:54 PM »
Quote
I have a potentially really dumb question

Not dumb at all. I am trying for years to get some quantitatively  answers to these questions.

Some reactions point to the different algorithms used. This is true, but the fact is that the NT algorithm used by NSIDC almost always calculates a lower sea ice concentration than the BT algorithm used by Jaxa. That explains a lower area (NSIDC area about 300k below Jaxa), but not why the extent is higher.

Now it is important to realize that extent is inherently and by definition depending on the resolution of the sensors and the grid in which sea ice concentration is represented. Extent, by definition calculates the open water in grid cells with 15% ice or more as 100%. High enough resolution to be able to resolve the open water would not and give the same amount of ice as area.
Higher resolution also reduces "false coastal ice" from land spillover. If not effectively filtered this will increase extent of the low resolution product.

Quote
* Why is the difference so big say between IJIS/NSIDC right now?
Resolution and land spillover, that will have to be my answer to your first question.

Best advice is to compare likes with likes. So Jaxa with Jaxa and NSIDC with NSIDC.

Quote
* Could I possibly have some enlightenment on the pros/cons of these different sources?

Jaxa uses the better sensor (better resolution and accuracy), the algorithm is probably better (but opinions differ), but that is only true for AMSR2 data available since August 2012. Earlier dates are using different satellites, the influence of that is unknown to me.

NSIDC on the other hand has taken care to produce extent data that can be reliably compared over the longest time span available (since end 1978).

Quote
* I wouldn't mind your opinions on which ones you prefer (and why)

I depends, reason given above. Jaxa will produce the better day-to-day numbers, but in comparing them with pre-AMSR2 years I hold  a healthy skepticism.
For climatology relevant work there is only NSIDC.
 
NT=Nasa Team algorithm
BT=Bootstrap algorithm

ktonine

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #632 on: December 11, 2016, 06:26:26 PM »
NSIDC on the other hand has taken care to produce extent data that can be reliably compared over the longest time span available (since end 1978).

This is an important point.  It's why we don't want to use MASIE for year-to-year comparisons.  In science, for long-term comparisons, consistency of method is as important -- if not more important -- than the accuracy of the method. 

We can scan the earth from space with much better resolution today than we could 40 years ago, but the results will then be *inconsistent* with results generated 40 years ago.  Comparisons of the two will be inherently misleading. 

JuniorMint

  • New ice
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #633 on: December 11, 2016, 07:03:26 PM »
Wow! Thank you for all your great answers. Its very helpful and I think I understand a little bit more then I did yesterday :) I don't have any follow-up questions but if I think of some I will be sure to ask.

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #634 on: December 12, 2016, 04:20:08 AM »
Didn't that already happen, losing one large city (or a goodly part of it) in the developed world...in the US, in fact..during some freak storm...? New Orleans?....but of course, that didn't count. New Orleans is....you know.

 :(

No, cities built under mean sea level do no count. As doesn't Venice since it's always flooding. Neither counted are cities in the third world. It's weird but the deniers want to drown these, at least that's my interpretation. Not very humane.

Building a city below sea level has always been a gamble. Consider the flood history of Holland, which has nothing to do with man-made climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_Netherlands
Feel The Burn!

Darvince

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #635 on: December 12, 2016, 05:41:38 AM »
And so is burning massive amounts of carbon stored in rocks and as sludge underground which has not been a part of the biosphere for many millions of years. And another, even bigger gamble, is betting on a stable climate when this carbon is released through burning and combustion, and betting that ice currently stored above sea level will not melt when this warming agent is added to the atmosphere. And an even bigger gamble yet is conducting government actions acting as if this is not happening, making your society incredibly vulnerable to changes in the climate which your society also initiates by burning carbon that was stored underground through processes which took millions of years.

And perhaps the biggest gamble of all is acknowledging that all of this may come to pass, yet seeing it as a good thing for a society which thrives off of unchanging earth systems.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3410
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #636 on: December 12, 2016, 08:24:36 AM »
Succinct summary, Darvince.
This space for Rent.

Jim Hunt

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6268
  • Don't Vote NatC or PopCon, Save Lives!
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #637 on: December 12, 2016, 09:27:36 AM »
This is an important point.  It's why we don't want to use MASIE for year-to-year comparisons.  In science, for long-term comparisons, consistency of method is as important -- if not more important -- than the accuracy of the method.

NASA's Walt Meier on the pros and cons of MASIE:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/dmi-masie-and-the-sea-ice-index-an-interview-with-walt-meier/
"The most revolutionary thing one can do always is to proclaim loudly what is happening" - Rosa Luxemburg

shmengie

  • New ice
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #638 on: December 16, 2016, 09:54:22 PM »
I feel like an idiot or horrifyingly mis-informed.

Every paper and website I can find about methane (CH₄) attribute rapid increases to something other than fossil fuels.

I don't have a full understanding of fracking, but...  The idea is basically to unlock and extract methane and oil from shale deposits roughly a mile below ground level.

Oklahoma’s earthquake epidemic has been linked to fracking.  240 quakes in 2014 alone.  Fracturing releases methane from shale deposits and earth quakes can create fissures, what study links these two together.  None that I can find.

How true is it that methane leaks from water wells near fracking sites?  I've seen reports citing it, but I don't know if they simply anti-fracking propaganda or real.  If they're real, why would water wells be the *ONLY* place excess methane leaks out of the ground???

This paper suggests that Fossil fuel industry grossly under reports methane spill, from dilling sites.  I doubt they bother with incidentals like well and fissure leaks either.

Frack production of methane aligns well, with increased atmospheric methane content in recent years.  So why does every paper look for other sources?

I believe Factory farming may be a serious contributor, but that seems to be another set of industrial secrets, not easily cracked.

Perhaps a small plane carbon tax could include methane monitoring equipment, then we could have substantial information to base more comprehensive understanding.  Wouldn't Trump just love that....  OMG.
Professor Trump, who'd thought it was that complicated?

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #639 on: December 16, 2016, 10:36:17 PM »
Most of the problems in Oklahoma are not from fracking but from wastewater disposal. The oil has water mixed in when it comes out and when separated, the water is contaminated and they drill down below the original well to have a place to dispose of it. It is injected into rock that has not been touched before, whereas fracking is done where oil and gas has been extracted once already.
 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php

Edit: Yes methane leakage is believed to be astronomically higher than reported.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 11:02:13 PM by Tigertown »
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

shmengie

  • New ice
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #640 on: December 16, 2016, 11:25:26 PM »
Most of the problems in Oklahoma are not from fracking but from wastewater disposal. The oil has water mixed in when it comes out and when separated, the water is contaminated and they drill down below the original well to have a place to dispose of it. It is injected into rock that has not been touched before, whereas fracking is done where oil and gas has been extracted once already.

Okay, so it's not directly caused by fracking...  Tho I doubt that's *entirely* true... It's not a "myth", if it is indirect consequence of fracking.  But the point I was making is that methane is fracked loose from shale.  Now the Earth quakes more than before, which likely create fissures thru which non contained methane freely seeps into the atmosphere. 

But who bother to make a case to studying it???  The Oil industry probably doesn't like the fact and any publication of what appears an obvious consequence will not encourage fracking.  They already work diligently (as I understand) to suppress fresh water contamination...  Nobody talks about this stuff, so they're not likely to bring it up...

But every study I can find points to agriculture or sea or other natural sources.  Its everywhere, but the most obvious culprit, why???????
Professor Trump, who'd thought it was that complicated?

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #641 on: December 16, 2016, 11:40:16 PM »
What I was trying to get across for one thing, is that there is a lot of conventional  drilling going on that doesn't involve fracking, which I am not saying is harmless.

It is also well known about methane leaks from drilling sites and pipelines.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-from-oil-and-gas-wells-now-top-polluters/

www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/obama-methane-epa.html?_r=0

Edit: I do see where you are coming from, though.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 11:50:44 PM by Tigertown »
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #642 on: December 17, 2016, 03:02:51 PM »
I am aware that methane CH4 is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. What about H2O? We know the moisture load is increasing in the atmosphere and will continue to do so as it warms. How does it compare as a greenhouse gas? Given its physical state (liquid versus gas), how does it behave (perform) as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and how is this different than CO2? Does it have different (more complicated) impacts than CO2? Is it a stronger greenhouse gas or weaker?

Well....OK....that's 5 questions.  8)


(Note: Neven...I would have posted this on "Stupid Questions" in the Science section but could not find it. Maybe we should create and pin a stupid questions topic for each of the major sections. It'll give me my own personal sandbox to play in.)  :o

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #643 on: December 17, 2016, 03:23:27 PM »
I am aware that methane CH4 is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. What about H2O? We know the moisture load is increasing in the atmosphere and will continue to do so as it warms. How does it compare as a greenhouse gas? Given its physical state (liquid versus gas), how does it behave (perform) as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and how is this different than CO2? Does it have different (more complicated) impacts than CO2? Is it a stronger greenhouse gas or weaker?

Well....OK....that's 5 questions.  8)


(Note: Neven...I would have posted this on "Stupid Questions" in the Science section but could not find it. Maybe we should create and pin a stupid questions topic for each of the major sections. It'll give me my own personal sandbox to play in.)  :o

Water as a liquid in atmosphere is clouds which are complicated.

Water as a gas is a stronger GHG than CO2. However the level of water vapour in atmosphere adjusts quickly to temperature - average residency time is just 11 days. Therefore emitting steam is not considered a climate forcing. Increase other GHG and this is a forcing which increases temperature which increases water vapour level which further increases temperature. This is well known and in built into the effects expected from that 'increase other GHG' forcing.

Tealight

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
    • CryosphereComputing
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #644 on: December 18, 2016, 12:50:19 AM »
I am aware that methane CH4 is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. What about H2O? We know the moisture load is increasing in the atmosphere and will continue to do so as it warms. How does it compare as a greenhouse gas? Given its physical state (liquid versus gas), how does it behave (perform) as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and how is this different than CO2? Does it have different (more complicated) impacts than CO2? Is it a stronger greenhouse gas or weaker?

Water vapour is without question the strongest greenhouse gas on earth. Its absorbtion sprectrum is much wider than CO2 and it is more abdundant then any other greenhouse gas. Calculating its global warming potential is difficult because unlike CO2 its abdundance varies significantly across the globe. Adding a bit of water vapour to the tropics won't increase warming because there already is a lot of water vapour reflecting its specific wavelengths. In dry climates like the Arctic this is not the case and additional water vapour will have a very high warming potential. I don't feel the low average residency time of water vapour deceases its warming potential because it gets constantly replenished.



Greenhouse warming by gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Impacts_on_the_overall_greenhouse_effect
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 03:59:09 PM by Tealight »

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #645 on: December 18, 2016, 03:01:49 AM »
Thanks tealight. This, to me, is the central reason that we are likely to see the Arctic move rather rapidly into a condition where ice barely recovers through the winter. It seems to me that this GHG effect of water vapor in the Arctic has not been given the play and publicity it needs.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #646 on: December 18, 2016, 10:37:07 AM »
There is a chemical link between methane and water vapor:

When methane oxidises it produces not only CO2, but water as well:
CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O

Increasing levels of methane is a major source of water vapor in the stratosphere, which is otherwise very dry.
Levels of both water vapor and methane are increasing, see links:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/wvap/
https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor#In_Earth.27s_atmosphere

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #647 on: December 18, 2016, 10:44:03 AM »
"The amount of methane oxidized in the stratosphere increased considerably during 1980–2010, but this source can account for at most 28 ± 4%, 14 ± 4%, and 25 ± 5% of the net stratospheric water vapor increases during 1980–2000, 1990–2000, and 1980–2010, respectively."

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sean_Davis2/publication/216809524_Stratospheric_water_vapor_trends_over_Boulder_Colorado_Analysis_of_the_30_year_Boulder_record/links/0d6f16832d1df8c7626bbdc4.pdf

logicmanPatrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
    • The Chatter Box
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #648 on: December 18, 2016, 04:28:04 PM »
Does anyone know of a paper or discussion on the heat energy of falling water in the cryosphere?

The power of falling water is given as P = ηpQgh where

η = efficiency factor, percentage efficiency expressed as a decimal
P = power in Watts
p = density of the water
Q = flow rate in cubic meters/second
g = gravitational acceleration
h = head in meters (difference between inlet and outlet levels)

For ice, as for turbines, an efficiency factor is needed. When water flows over ice or falls through it, heat is generated at each disturbance in the flow.  This heat is less than would be generated by water falling unimpeded.

My point is that water flowing over ice or through it into the sea must be heated to at least some degree on its downward journey.  This will likely promote melting of glacier ice and / or promote local sea temperature rise.

So, has this been discussed anywhere?
si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

longwalks1

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #649 on: December 18, 2016, 05:23:01 PM »
I can't lay my hands or eyes on the sources, but I am pretty sure that the splitting of methane in the atmosphere is rate limited by the hydroxyl radical. 

Found some    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pc.39.100188.002055?journalCode=physchem
Quote
Ann. Rev. Phys. Chern. 1988. 39: 367-94
KINETICS OF RADICAL REACTIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERIC OXIDATION OF CH4   1

Quote
A R. Ravishankara Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Boulder,Colorado 80303

Shame it is not opensource   DOI: 10.1146/annurev.pc.39.100188.002055  Especially shameful as footnote one states
1 The US Government has the right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty-free license ...

Copy and paste not working on the pdf  Highlights  - 30% of the carbon monoxide is from CH4 oxidation.    The photolysis of methane is unimportant below the mesoshpere. 

Anyone finding a newer and or better distillation of methane atmospheric oxidation and posting it would be a stellar individual..  Possibly post into the Methane thread with the excitable name.  peace out