Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask  (Read 642087 times)

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1783
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 436
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1300 on: January 22, 2018, 07:02:36 AM »
I think Sebastian has the correct answer. When I was younger we boys would run down rabbits on hot days in a large field. One runner would start then when he got tired a second runner would take up the chase until the rabbit got too hot and gave up. Jack rabbits were tough to catch but cotton tails were pretty easy.
 I think the fact that we could build shelters and make clothes made hair for keeping warm at night unnecessary. So long distance running in heat , building shelter and communications in hunting strategies resulted in hairless ( mostly ) humans.

El Cid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1090
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1301 on: January 22, 2018, 08:33:50 AM »


Contemporary hunter gatherers still utilize this technique. Where I live, there are still Elders who grew up running down caribou....which, if you ever seen a caribou move across the landscape is almost unbelievable.

This is awesome! I never heard about running down big game. Did not know that was even possible! So we all really are marathon runners at heart :)

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3401
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1302 on: January 22, 2018, 10:25:00 AM »
Thanks for all the answers. So, our ancestors were running around in the tropical heat while all the other predators were lying around sunbathing. Our ancestors were dumb, should've invented stuff instead.

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7680
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1039
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1303 on: January 22, 2018, 10:33:04 AM »
Two stupid questions for the price of one:-

Qu 1. Is it an accident of history that "Stupid Questions" is in "Arctic Sea Ice" ?, because:-

"Stupid Questions" is in "Arctic Sea Ice" because it's stupid.  :P ;)
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

johnm33

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1453
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1304 on: January 22, 2018, 10:44:20 AM »
Fur,
 Years ago i read an article N.S. i think, based in south america it was a study of primates and how the closer you got to their origin [genetic diversity] the darker their fur. So the further a population was from it's origins the blonder/redder/greyer they became. They hypothesised that less dominant individuals were always pushed out to the periphery of the groups range, so any 'colonists' were generally less 'mature', darker fur being a sign of seniority. If you tie that to 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis' by Elaine Morgan where she accounts for many of the idiosyncrasies of human development, including hairlessness, by allowing for a period of beach living you could form the idea that our evolution was driven by a constant hybridisation between the beach bums and whatever hominid group they met.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1305 on: January 22, 2018, 10:45:18 AM »
Thanks for all the answers. So, our ancestors were running around in the tropical heat while all the other predators were lying around sunbathing. Our ancestors were dumb, should've invented stuff instead.
Eventually modern man evolved and invented television. Recently they showed why we don't have fur, our DNA was engineered by aliens. Our ancestors were probably not that dumb.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 653
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 262
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1306 on: January 22, 2018, 02:26:18 PM »
Thanks for all the answers. So, our ancestors were running around in the tropical heat while all the other predators were lying around sunbathing. Our ancestors were dumb, should've invented stuff instead.
Eventually modern man evolved and invented television. Recently they showed why we don't have fur, our DNA was engineered by aliens. Our ancestors were probably not that dumb.

Hahaha!

Maybe we should call it "Not so Intelligent Design".

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3401
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1307 on: January 23, 2018, 10:36:27 PM »
Sorry, chaps and chapesses, another stupid question.

Shit a brick, suddenly I am upper class.

I liked being a lurker, loitering without intent.
I liked being a citizen, on the barricades with the communes in Paris in the 19th century.
I did not like being middle class - in the UK voting conservative and being boring,
                                               - in the USA becoming Alt-Right and voting Trump.

Now I am upper class, does it mean I have a Trust Fund ?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3447
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 638
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1308 on: January 24, 2018, 12:12:23 AM »
Yes, gerontocrat, you do have a Trust Fund.  Now just have to remember where it is.  (Old age is the pits.) :'(
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Human Habitat Index

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1309 on: January 24, 2018, 03:36:48 AM »
Can the earthquake near Alaska upset methane deposits and cause a methane spike and can it be measured ?
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1310 on: January 24, 2018, 04:18:35 AM »
Gerontocrat, it means you do not have to worry about mundane things, like climate change, because you can move to whichever climate is most optimal with your trust fund,  As long as you keep posting. lol

El Cid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1090
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1311 on: January 24, 2018, 07:54:16 AM »


Now I am upper class, does it mean I have a Trust Fund ?

Yes , you do have a Trust Fund! Your Fund contains 1 km3 of Arctic Ice. Try to keep it (at least this summer)!

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3401
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1312 on: January 24, 2018, 02:16:46 PM »
Can the earthquake near Alaska upset methane deposits and cause a methane spike and can it be measured ?

There has been much debate on this in the permafrost /methane release thread. Below a quote from AbruptSLR from 2016. Suggest you do a search on the forum e.g. "submarine landslides" to find more.

ps: A geologist on the BBC said that unusually the Alaska earthquake was a horizontal slip along a fault line instead of  a vertical up-and-down quake more usual in that part of the world - hence no Tsunami.

pps: Very unlikely that there would be measurements of any methane release in that area at that time. No resources.

Quote
AbruptSLR
ASIF Emperor
Posts: 13848

Re: This is not good.
« Reply #143 on: January 07, 2016, 03:36:35 AM »
Quote
I note without links to references that I have seen model results indicating that warm ocean currents will not penetrate far enough into the Arctic Ocean Basin to trigger significant Clathrate Gun failure mechanisms until after 2035-2040; and separate model results indicating that the Ferrel Cell should not collapse until well after 2100 even assuming reasonably high climate sensitivity values.  Now neither of these two points mean that methane releases from Arctic marine methane hydrates will not accelerate year by year, only that massive collapses associated with Clathrate Gun (submarine landslides along the Continental Shelves), nor with Ferrel Cell collapse, are likely before 2035-2040 and 2100, respectively.
This is but one of many different views.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Human Habitat Index

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1313 on: January 24, 2018, 11:37:01 PM »
Thanks Gerontocrat, it seems there may have been disruption to nearby continental shelf methane deposits but that is speculative.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

CalamityCountdown

  • New ice
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
    • Calamity Countdown
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1314 on: January 27, 2018, 05:02:47 PM »
Has Novaya Zemlya ever been as ice free on one side of the island during the satellite era as late into the season as in 2018?

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7680
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1039
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1315 on: January 27, 2018, 06:26:59 PM »
Has Novaya Zemlya ever been as ice free on one side of the island during the satellite era as late into the season as in 2018?

There's a segment on the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs website comparing sea ice concentration maps on various dates. I've never added December, January and February, but on March 1st Novaya Zemlya is free of ice on the ocean side in 2008, 2012 and 2016.

I think the other side of Novaya Zemlya is more interesting. In 2011 and 2012 the ice retreated a lot during February/March (but the open water froze over again before the melting season started). I wrote about it on the ASIB at the time here and here.

Here's a comparison for February 6th 2005-2012:

Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2187
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 196
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1316 on: January 28, 2018, 04:41:26 AM »
...
I think the other side of Novaya Zemlya is more interesting
...
+1, Barentz Sea is just a part of Atlantic nowadays, Kara Sea still has Arctic qualities
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

Capt Kiwi

  • New ice
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1317 on: January 28, 2018, 05:08:32 AM »
Hi guys, I know this is stupid question country but I’m afraid my one is cutting edge stupid! Please bear with me, I would love a quick answer! (I read this forum every day and love it)
I understand the risk of linear becoming exponential with methane, currents, albedo, jet stream, a blue ocean event and such like but..... the situation right now, despite record low ice extent, is that the arctic is “only” about 10% down on previous 20 year averages. I know it’s bad but I’m struggling to get it all in perspective with -10%
Is it all about thresholds or tipping points? If it only drops 10% every 10 years or so that might be manageable. I know it’s not manageable and I know it’s because I’m missing something but can’t see what!
Many thanks in advance for your tolerance, patronising condescension will be happily accepted!

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7680
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1039
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1318 on: January 28, 2018, 01:07:41 PM »
The question is the answer, Cap (see italics).

Quote
the situation right now, despite record low ice extent, is that the arctic is “only” about 10% down on previous 20 year averages.

Right now it's winter, and even though the Arctic has become much, much warmer during winter (GHG-induced warming takes place faster during winter), it's still cold enough to freeze. And remember, the Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land, and so it still fills up with ice, so to say. If land wasn't a limiting factor, the retreat would have been even more obvious.

Second, you talk about extent. But how about volume? Can you tell me what the percentage of lost sea ice volume is compared to the long-term average? Right now, never mind summer and September.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Alexander555

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1213
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1319 on: January 28, 2018, 01:12:43 PM »
Hi guys, I know this is stupid question country but I’m afraid my one is cutting edge stupid! Please bear with me, I would love a quick answer! (I read this forum every day and love it)
I understand the risk of linear becoming exponential with methane, currents, albedo, jet stream, a blue ocean event and such like but..... the situation right now, despite record low ice extent, is that the arctic is “only” about 10% down on previous 20 year averages. I know it’s bad but I’m struggling to get it all in perspective with -10%
Is it all about thresholds or tipping points? If it only drops 10% every 10 years or so that might be manageable. I know it’s not manageable and I know it’s because I’m missing something but can’t see what!
Many thanks in advance for your tolerance, patronising condescension will be happily accepted!


I think most loss is in volume. Since 1980 the arctic lost 75 % of it volume. That means it's losing more in thickness than is surface. That also means that it's getting thinner over the entire chunk of ice. And that it can be completly gone in a short time.

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 387
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1320 on: January 28, 2018, 08:17:00 PM »
Hi guys, I know this is stupid question country but I’m afraid my one is cutting edge stupid! Please bear with me, I would love a quick answer! (I read this forum every day and love it)
I understand the risk of linear becoming exponential with methane, currents, albedo, jet stream, a blue ocean event and such like but..... the situation right now, despite record low ice extent, is that the arctic is “only” about 10% down on previous 20 year averages. I know it’s bad but I’m struggling to get it all in perspective with -10%
Is it all about thresholds or tipping points? If it only drops 10% every 10 years or so that might be manageable. I know it’s not manageable and I know it’s because I’m missing something but can’t see what!
Many thanks in advance for your tolerance, patronising condescension will be happily accepted!


I think most loss is in volume. Since 1980 the arctic lost 75 % of it volume. That means it's losing more in thickness than is surface. That also means that it's getting thinner over the entire chunk of ice. And that it can be completly gone in a short time.

Yes quite right. Think of the Arctic Ocean as a 100 km2 lake. Let's say that historically, every winter it freezes over completely (100% area/extent). Let us say that it froze to a thickness of 2m ( 200km3 of ice). A few years later it is warmer and only freezes to a thickness of 1m (100km3 of ice), we have lost half the ice without any reduction in area/extent. Now, today, it is warmer still and the ice only freezes to 1/2m, and not all the lake freezes- say only 90%. We have now only got  45km3 of ice, an 80% loss (roughly), but area/extent is only down by 10%. So, yes, the loss of area and extent is about to go exponential....

Capt Kiwi

  • New ice
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1321 on: January 29, 2018, 12:28:38 AM »
Thanks so much guys. Totally got it! Have a happy day!

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3064
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1322 on: January 29, 2018, 03:18:49 PM »
Has the earth's rotation sped up from the loss of glacier and ice sheet ice to the sea?

Or has that been offset by all the minerals and fossil fuels we've dragged up from the depths to the surface (and spewed into the air), and from all the water we hold back in dams, and ~8% increase in water vapor from GW?

Does anyone measure or keep track of such things? I know we would be talking about minuscule differences, but...hey, that's what stupid questions sections are for, right?
"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."

Dharma Rupa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1323 on: January 29, 2018, 03:24:39 PM »
Does anyone measure or keep track of such things? I know we would be talking about minuscule differences, but...hey, that's what stupid questions sections are for, right?

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Home/home_node.html

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1324 on: January 29, 2018, 11:22:35 PM »
Hi guys, I know this is stupid question country but I’m afraid my one is cutting edge stupid! Please bear with me, I would love a quick answer! (I read this forum every day and love it)
I understand the risk of linear becoming exponential with methane, currents, albedo, jet stream, a blue ocean event and such like but..... the situation right now, despite record low ice extent, is that the arctic is “only” about 10% down on previous 20 year averages. I know it’s bad but I’m struggling to get it all in perspective with -10%
Is it all about thresholds or tipping points? If it only drops 10% every 10 years or so that might be manageable. I know it’s not manageable and I know it’s because I’m missing something but can’t see what!
Many thanks in advance for your tolerance, patronising condescension will be happily accepted!


I think most loss is in volume. Since 1980 the arctic lost 75 % of it volume. That means it's losing more in thickness than is surface. That also means that it's getting thinner over the entire chunk of ice. And that it can be completly gone in a short time.

Yes quite right. Think of the Arctic Ocean as a 100 km2 lake. Let's say that historically, every winter it freezes over completely (100% area/extent). Let us say that it froze to a thickness of 2m ( 200km3 of ice). A few years later it is warmer and only freezes to a thickness of 1m (100km3 of ice), we have lost half the ice without any reduction in area/extent. Now, today, it is warmer still and the ice only freezes to 1/2m, and not all the lake freezes- say only 90%. We have now only got  45km3 of ice, an 80% loss (roughly), but area/extent is only down by 10%. So, yes, the loss of area and extent is about to go exponential....

I am going to object.  All dimensions are decreasing rather equally.  Mathematically, a 10% linear decrease equates to a 19% areal declension, and a 28% volumetric drop.  Volume will always decrease faster than area of extent.  That in no way indicates that they are about to go exponential.  If anything, summer minimum extent will start decreasing at a lesser rate, as the most vulnerable ice has melted already.

RoxTheGeologist

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1325 on: January 30, 2018, 01:06:46 AM »
I think of a glass of water in a freezer, wrapped in a towel. If you leave it in overnight, then the whole thing is solid, if you leave it in for a little while, then there will just be a thin skin of ice on the top. The difference in terms of energy required to melt the ice in two scenarios is huge. It's not just a matter of volume versus area, its that the thickness in a fixed area has declined dramatically.




Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3094
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1326 on: January 30, 2018, 02:55:26 AM »
I am going to object. 

I'm going to object your objection.

Quote
All dimensions are decreasing rather equally. 

Only in that they are all decreasing over the long term. They have both decreased and increased at different rates and different times, sometimes  in sync sometimes out of sync.

Quote
Mathematically, a 10% linear decrease equates to a 19% areal declension, and a 28% volumetric drop.

  I don't know what you mean by this. How do you mathematically equate a one dimensional amount with a two dimensional amount and a 3 dimensional amount?

Quote
Volume will always decrease faster than area of extent


Not true. Volume can increase while area decreases and viceversa. While they both have been going down relative to the average of the satellite  record, their behavior at different periods of  time change in rates and even sign.

Quote
That in no way indicates that they are about to go exponential


If you use simple amounts devoid of any physical context or nuanced analyses sure, they indicate nothing of the sort. If you dive deeper into the behavior of these two amounts and consider the physics at play then there is good indication that it may "go exponential". 

Quote
If anything, summer minimum extent will start decreasing at a lesser rate, as the most vulnerable ice has melted already.

Pray we are at an inflection point and volume and area loss slows down and buy us a decade or two of ice in the Arctic during summer. I honestly don't see how that can happen in a warming planet. I can't  even see it happenning  if we get a hiatus.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2187
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 196
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1327 on: January 30, 2018, 03:20:45 AM »
Similar sort of dimensional stuff: The arctic waters cool only by radiating in one direction, up. The ice, once formed, stays in the same temperature by conductivity in ice (though it's pretty poor conductor of heat) in lateral direction, then in summer, once above zero°C air temperatures arrive all the directions warm the ice, but the lateral one slowest as ice is a poor conductor of heat. (re:thermodynamics of an igloo)

Thus you can expect area to stay large in relation to volume. You don't get a block of 100m thick ice in one winter in Arctic environment. Once thickness gets small enough the speed of areal destruction is notable, for the lack of a better more exact word.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 05:20:40 AM by Pmt111500 »
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7680
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1039
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1328 on: January 30, 2018, 10:47:14 AM »
As long as it isn't exponential, and only linear, things are just hunky dory.

As they were during past extinction events.  ;D
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5833
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1975
  • Likes Given: 1734
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1329 on: January 30, 2018, 12:12:31 PM »
Thank you Archimid. "All dimensions are decreasing rather equally" is simply baseless.

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1330 on: January 30, 2018, 05:21:58 PM »

Quote
Mathematically, a 10% linear decrease equates to a 19% areal declension, and a 28% volumetric drop.

  I don't know what you mean by this. How do you mathematically equate a one dimensional amount with a two dimensional amount and a 3 dimensional amount?

If all three dimension decrease 10%, the volume (a product of all three dimensions) will decrease by 28%.  Try it.

Quote
Volume will always decrease faster than area of extent


Not true. Volume can increase while area decreases and viceversa. While they both have been going down relative to the average of the satellite  record, their behavior at different periods of  time change in rates and even sign.

Highly improbably.  This would require water freezing at much lower levels below the surface, before the ice expands across the surface.  It may occur over a brief period, but it will not last long.  Ice spreads across the surface first, and then increases in thickness. 

Quote
That in no way indicates that they are about to go exponential


If you use simple amounts devoid of any physical context or nuanced analyses sure, they indicate nothing of the sort. If you dive deeper into the behavior of these two amounts and consider the physics at play then there is good indication that it may "go exponential". 

Actually, the physics would indicate the opposite.  The most vulnerable sea ice, that in the North Atlantic and Bering Sea, has already declined significantly.  The ice closer to land, especially Greenland, will be much more difficult to melt, as is it supplied by colder, glacial ice, and further removed from the warmer waters of the open ocean. 

DoomInTheUK

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1331 on: January 30, 2018, 06:22:48 PM »
Daniel - You seem to have got a bit too tied up with the 'shrunk by 10%' idea. Yes a 10% reduction in all linear dimensions does equate to a 28% volume reduction.

However, the most widely publicised metric is just extent, and so extrapolating this to volume seems a tad disingenuous.

The volume loss seems to be regularly reported as to be around 80%, and so we can conclude that the ice is a whole lot thinner than it used to be. There's only so much of the Z axis that we can lose before 'Poof' in the X and Y.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3094
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1332 on: January 30, 2018, 07:43:45 PM »

Quote
Mathematically, a 10% linear decrease equates to a 19% areal declension, and a 28% volumetric drop.

  I don't know what you mean by this. How do you mathematically equate a one dimensional amount with a two dimensional amount and a 3 dimensional amount?

If all three dimension decrease 10%, the volume (a product of all three dimensions) will decrease by 28%.  Try it.

I see. What you meant was that 2 linear 10% decreases result in an area 19% smaller and 3 linear 10% decreases result in a volume 28%, which is true in the special case that all sides have the same reduction. if you decrease one side but increase another one you can just as easily have an increase in volume or even have the volume remain the same. You really can’t equate one dimensions to two or three because there is missing information.


Quote
Quote
Volume will always decrease faster than area of extent


Not true. Volume can increase while area decreases and viceversa. While they both have been going down relative to the average of the satellite  record, their behavior at different periods of  time change in rates and even sign.

Highly improbably.  This would require water freezing at much lower levels below the surface, before the ice expands across the surface.  It may occur over a brief period, but it will not last long.  Ice spreads across the surface first, and then increases in thickness. 


 That’s the physical reality of the Arctic. In fact every year the freezing season for area ends a few weeks before the freezing season for volume. The opposite is true for the end of the melting season when area melts well into September but volume starts growing at the beginning of September while area still falls.

It also works in longer time frames. Volume has been free falling since the beginning of the satellite record but area remained mostly the same for much of it until the 2007 crash. In the colder past when the Arctic was 15m thick I’m sure volume grew yearly but area was limited by export and the Atlantic and Pacific interface.

in short the relationship between area and volume growth rate is more complicated that you make them out to be. They are governed by different physics.

Quote
Quote
That in no way indicates that they are about to go exponential


If you use simple amounts devoid of any physical context or nuanced analyses sure, they indicate nothing of the sort. If you dive deeper into the behavior of these two amounts and consider the physics at play then there is good indication that it may "go exponential". 

Actually, the physics would indicate the opposite.  The most vulnerable sea ice, that in the North Atlantic and Bering Sea, has already declined significantly.  The ice closer to land, especially Greenland, will be much more difficult to melt, as is it supplied by colder, glacial ice, and further removed from the warmer waters of the open ocean. 


Yeah but we live in a warming world with less and much thinner ice. In a glass of water a smaller ice cube in a warmer room would melt faster than a large ice cube in a colder room. Those are also important physics. Sure geography matters a lot. Greenland melt, the cold deep arctic basin, hot water and air intrusions, clouds, snow cover, salinity, they are all important factors, but the fact remains, the world is warming and the Arctic is warming the fastest. There is real danger ahead.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 389
  • Likes Given: 197
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1333 on: January 30, 2018, 10:59:12 PM »
Here is the thing, and why I've been so focused on heat exchange.

If we have another melt year like 2012 (18,500KM3 lost from max to min), with our current potential max volume (around 19,500KM3), we are perilously close to achieving the "Ice free" sub 1,000,000 KM2 SIE arctic we're all worried about.

This *Wasn't* *Possible* 3 years ago.  It is now.
This space for Rent.

Dharma Rupa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1334 on: January 30, 2018, 11:12:08 PM »
Here is the thing, and why I've been so focused on heat exchange.

If we have another melt year like 2012 (18,500KM3 lost from max to min), with our current potential max volume (around 19,500KM3), we are perilously close to achieving the "Ice free" sub 1,000,000 KM2 SIE arctic we're all worried about.

This *Wasn't* *Possible* 3 years ago.  It is now.

Like Pettit's graph?

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1335 on: January 31, 2018, 01:49:27 AM »
The ice cube analogy would work fine if all the ice in the Arctic was subject to the same melting action as the cube in the glass.  In an area like the North Atlantic, that is very much the case.  However, in an around Greenland and the Canadian archipelago, the physics are quite different.  Arctic currents take much of the water poleward, bypassing much of ice floes.  Less ice is contacting the warm waters, than when the sea ice extended much further southward into the Atlantic.  Consequently, summer sea ice is very likely to slow its decline.  Winter sea ice has not reach this point, and may continue its current trajectory or even increase.

Any case in which surface area (or extent) declined, while volume increased seems like a stretch.  Ocean water is coldest at the surface, -2C in an ice/water slush, warming in depth, to 4C at the bottom.  The likelihood of water freezing at a lower depth, in warmer water, while surface water does not, defies the physical properties of the oceans. 

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1336 on: January 31, 2018, 02:30:22 AM »

 Ocean water is coldest at the surface, -2C in an ice/water slush, warming in depth, to 4C at the bottom.  The likelihood of water freezing at a lower depth, in warmer water, while surface water does not, defies the physical properties of the oceans.

Not quite.  Fresh water is densest at 4C.  Seawater is densest near its freezing point.  Arctic bottom water is close to 0C or even a bit below.  See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temperature_and_salinity_profiles_in_the_Arctic_Ocean.svg

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3094
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1337 on: January 31, 2018, 03:29:12 AM »
The ice cube analogy would work fine if all the ice in the Arctic was subject to the same melting action as the cube in the glass.

The air is warmer now than it was during the 20th century.
The sea surface is warmer now than it was during the 20th century. There is much less ice now than during the 20th century.

Quote
In an area like the North Atlantic, that is very much the case.  However, in an around Greenland and the Canadian archipelago, the physics are quite different.  Arctic currents take much of the water poleward, bypassing much of ice floes.

That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is to assume that what you describe won't change. The ice and its movement is changing. More sunlight than ever is penetrating the waters. The peripheral seas are changing.

 Less ice is contacting the warm waters, than when the sea ice extended much further southward into the Atlantic.  [/quote]

True.

Quote
Consequently, summer sea ice is very likely to slow its decline. 

That does not necesarily follows the previous statement.  If external forces are greater than the reduction of surface area of ice with water then the melting will increase.


Quote
Winter sea ice has not reach this point, and may continue its current trajectory or even increase

 What you describe has been happenning to the minimum volume since  2012. The rapid minimum volume decline slowed down for the last 6 year now.

 However, the maximum has been droping fast. It is very unlikely that maximums  go much higher and very likely that it keeps dropping. Eventually the drop in maximum will start showing up in the minimums. When that point is reached minimums go down again and poof. No Ice in the summer.

Judging by the current changes in the jetstream and extreme worlwide weather i don't want to talk about the changes when there is no ice during summer.

Quote
Ocean water is coldest at the surface, -2C in an ice/water slush, warming in depth, to 4C at the bottom.  The likelihood of water freezing at a lower depth, in warmer water, while surface water does not, defies the physical properties of the oceans.


I suggest you take a look at this graph illustrating how sea ice grows in the Arctic.

 https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1611.0;attach=41509;image

Thats an empirical formula so regardeless of your understanding of the physical properties of the oceans, that formula describes the observed behavior.

It is not about likelihood of water freezing. Its all about total FDD's over the right areas.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1338 on: January 31, 2018, 05:32:32 PM »
It is about both water freezing and growth of the ice.  Obviously, ice cannot grow before freezing occurs.  Physically, a body of water will start to freeze across the surface.  Once a significant surface area is frozen, ice growth below the surface starts, as exemplified by the chart to wish you linked.  Given a large enough area (like the Arctic ocean), surface and depth growth will occur simultaneously.  Depth growth will only exceed surface growth if the surface is constrained from further growth, as is the case for inland lakes or bays. 

We can argue about how the future will unfold, without coming to an agreement.  One of the best indicators for future change is past history.  The following link shows the minimum Arctic sea ice extent during the satellite era.  For the first two decades, the ice declined at a slow rate of about 30K sq. km annually.  Then decline accelerated to over five times that rate for the next decade.  The decline slowed over the past decade, such that the minimum extent has remained fairly constant.  Nothing in the past measurements indicates that sea ice loss is about to go exponential.
 
https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/indicators/indicator-arctic-sea-ice-extent

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5833
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1975
  • Likes Given: 1734
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1339 on: January 31, 2018, 05:57:37 PM »
One of the best indicators for future change is past history.  The following link shows the minimum Arctic sea ice extent during the satellite era.  For the first two decades, the ice declined at a slow rate of about 30K sq. km annually.  Then decline accelerated to over five times that rate for the next decade.  The decline slowed over the past decade, such that the minimum extent has remained fairly constant.  Nothing in the past measurements indicates that sea ice loss is about to go exponential.
If you look just at extent measurements and ignore volume you may come to certain conclusions. But the thickness of the remaining summer ice has gone down by about 50%, so your thick and stable ice is not so thick and stable, when looking at past measurements. And when thickness gets from 5cm to 0cm, all of sudden large swaths of ice can disappear.


Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1340 on: January 31, 2018, 08:43:14 PM »
One of the best indicators for future change is past history.  The following link shows the minimum Arctic sea ice extent during the satellite era.  For the first two decades, the ice declined at a slow rate of about 30K sq. km annually.  Then decline accelerated to over five times that rate for the next decade.  The decline slowed over the past decade, such that the minimum extent has remained fairly constant.  Nothing in the past measurements indicates that sea ice loss is about to go exponential.
If you look just at extent measurements and ignore volume you may come to certain conclusions. But the thickness of the remaining summer ice has gone down by about 50%, so your thick and stable ice is not so thick and stable, when looking at past measurements. And when thickness gets from 5cm to 0cm, all of sudden large swaths of ice can disappear.



Volume has followed a somewhat similar pattern as extent.  Slow loss for the first decade of satellite measurements.  Then accelerated loss for the next two decades.  Since then, volume loss has slowed dramatically. 

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png


magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1341 on: January 31, 2018, 09:08:26 PM »
One of the best indicators for future change is past history.  The following link shows the minimum Arctic sea ice extent during the satellite era.  For the first two decades, the ice declined at a slow rate of about 30K sq. km annually.  Then decline accelerated to over five times that rate for the next decade.  The decline slowed over the past decade, such that the minimum extent has remained fairly constant.  Nothing in the past measurements indicates that sea ice loss is about to go exponential.
If you look just at extent measurements and ignore volume you may come to certain conclusions. But the thickness of the remaining summer ice has gone down by about 50%, so your thick and stable ice is not so thick and stable, when looking at past measurements. And when thickness gets from 5cm to 0cm, all of sudden large swaths of ice can disappear.



Volume has followed a somewhat similar pattern as extent.  Slow loss for the first decade of satellite measurements.  Then accelerated loss for the next two decades.  Since then, volume loss has slowed dramatically. 

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

volume loss will be smallest ever once he volume would be zero ;)

do i have to say more or is it clear what i mean, the less there is the less can be lost, not to forget that we were for a long time on lowest volume last year and won't be far from that at the end of this month.

anyways it evades me what sense it makes to discus such details about a clearly visible obvious trend. the thrend is down and the speed is way higher than anything ever observed except when there was a known reason like volcanic activities and/or impacts from space.

of course i'm aware that one cannot put an entire book into a few sentences which make everthing one writes vulnerable to detailistic arguing which is why i believe that clear trends should not be overly interpreted in on or another way, sooner or later glaciers and ice will be reduced to a very small reminder and it won't take long without yet unknown events that would trigger a turnaround.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3094
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1342 on: January 31, 2018, 10:49:56 PM »
We can argue about how the future will unfold, without coming to an agreement.  One of the best indicators for future change is past history. 

History is useless when talking about something that has never happened in that history.


Quote
Nothing in the past measurements indicates that sea ice loss is about to go exponential.

I don't know about "exponential" but the trends are clearly down, there is less ice than ever and the planet is warming. I have no clue what makes you think that it will grow. Everything points down.  The likely case is that we hit another step change soon.

I'll leave you with one of Jim Petit great graphs that points to the coming disaster.

http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_max_loss_and_ice_remaining.png
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1343 on: January 31, 2018, 11:35:26 PM »
We can argue about how the future will unfold, without coming to an agreement.  One of the best indicators for future change is past history. 

History is useless when talking about something that has never happened in that history.


Quote
Nothing in the past measurements indicates that sea ice loss is about to go exponential.

I don't know about "exponential" but the trends are clearly down, there is less ice than ever and the planet is warming. I have no clue what makes you think that it will grow. Everything points down.  The likely case is that we hit another step change soon.

I'll leave you with one of Jim Petit great graphs that points to the coming disaster.

http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_max_loss_and_ice_remaining.png

I am not arguing about the direction of the trend, it is clearly down.  I was arguing against exponential decline in the near future.  Recent data shows that, and as magnet is stated, losses will decrease as the total declines.  Both area and volume have shown less losses in the most recent decade than the previous ones,  I was stated what I believe to be the reason for that.  Yes, it has not happened in recent history, but it has happened in the past.

Iceismylife

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1344 on: February 01, 2018, 12:58:13 AM »
We can argue about how the future will unfold, without coming to an agreement.  One of the best indicators for future change is past history. 

History is useless when talking about something that has never happened in that history.


Quote
Nothing in the past measurements indicates that sea ice loss is about to go exponential.

I don't know about "exponential" but the trends are clearly down, there is less ice than ever and the planet is warming. I have no clue what makes you think that it will grow. Everything points down.  The likely case is that we hit another step change soon.

I'll leave you with one of Jim Petit great graphs that points to the coming disaster.

http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_max_loss_and_ice_remaining.png

I am not arguing about the direction of the trend, it is clearly down.  I was arguing against exponential decline in the near future.  Recent data shows that, and as magnet is stated, losses will decrease as the total declines.  Both area and volume have shown less losses in the most recent decade than the previous ones,  I was stated what I believe to be the reason for that.  Yes, it has not happened in recent history, but it has happened in the past.
The argument for exponential growth in ice loss is this.  As loss gets closer to zero remaining more heat is attacking less ice.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2708
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1345 on: February 01, 2018, 01:39:07 AM »
The argument for exponential growth in ice loss is this.  As loss gets closer to zero remaining more heat is attacking less ice.

And how much flatter does the volume loss in the most recent 5 years have to become before this is considered debunked by data?

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3094
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1346 on: February 01, 2018, 02:11:38 AM »
The argument for exponential growth in ice loss is this.  As loss gets closer to zero remaining more heat is attacking less ice.

And how much flatter does the volume loss in the most recent 5 years have to become before this is considered debunked by data?

While minimum volume has leveled off, maximum volume is still falling fast. If max volume ever levels off for long enough, then we can talk about minimum volume not collapsing. Until then, I think we are heading for disaster.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Iceismylife

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1347 on: February 01, 2018, 03:51:32 AM »
The argument for exponential growth in ice loss is this.  As loss gets closer to zero remaining more heat is attacking less ice.

And how much flatter does the volume loss in the most recent 5 years have to become before this is considered debunked by data?
While minimum volume has leveled off, maximum volume is still falling fast. If max volume ever levels off for long enough, then we can talk about minimum volume not collapsing. Until then, I think we are heading for disaster.
ESAS, mother nature is getting ready to pass a lot of gas. Disaster is assured, blue water too. When is the question.  But that isn't stoopid.


Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1348 on: February 03, 2018, 01:05:51 PM »
The argument for exponential growth in ice loss is this.  As loss gets closer to zero remaining more heat is attacking less ice.

And how much flatter does the volume loss in the most recent 5 years have to become before this is considered debunked by data?

I considered it very iffy in 2013 and debunked in 2014

Alexander555

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1213
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Stupid Questions :o
« Reply #1349 on: February 03, 2018, 01:48:47 PM »
Yesterday somebody was telling that you can predict a drought 5 years in advance, the location. Is that true ?