Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Stupid" Questions :o  (Read 538618 times)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1508
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1900 on: June 03, 2019, 01:32:30 PM »
IIRC, AGW can wipe out the arctic and subarctic climate zones, making the poles temperate in wind circulation. Is this correct?
Could AGW create a new equatorial climate zone, a "supertropical" one to coin a term?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1901 on: June 03, 2019, 02:34:34 PM »
The main change is the high latitude cold disappearing.

This gives a bit of an idea:
https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/climate.html
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Dharma Rupa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1902 on: June 03, 2019, 04:33:52 PM »
IIRC, AGW can wipe out the arctic and subarctic climate zones, making the poles temperate in wind circulation. Is this correct?
Could AGW create a new equatorial climate zone, a "supertropical" one to coin a term?

There are three cells, Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar.  It is my understanding that having 2 cells is unstable. and therefore if the Polar cell collapses you will end up with just one cell running from the equator to the pole.  (I don't remember where I heard that two cells is unstable or why this would be true.)

Some of us think we are witnessing the collapse of the Polar cell now.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1508
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1903 on: June 03, 2019, 04:58:48 PM »
Can someone find where I can get a copy of the Club of Rome's World model  (preferably for a Mac)?
I had one for my Apple ][+ put that was twenty years ago.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1508
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1905 on: June 03, 2019, 06:07:40 PM »
Thanks, Sleepy!
I'll try them out (didn't know about them).
BTW, one thing I remember was when I set Resources too high to reduce (runoff error erased usage).
The values went into a 100 year cycle of rise and fall.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

ShortBrutishNasty

  • New ice
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1906 on: June 03, 2019, 08:08:36 PM »
Thanks to Crandles and Gerontocrat for their responses to my Miami Sea Level Rise stupid math question--both advising I put my numbers in a spreadsheet.  Of course.

The relevant joke:  An engineer, a mathematician and an accountant are given 24 hours to come up with the most scrumptious souffle.  The engineer toils all night with his tables, the mathematician models every conceivable outcome, and the accountant calls his mother.

Thanks again,

mr. bob, who lived in Ft Lauderdale in the 70s before "sunny day flooding" became a thang

VaughnAn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1907 on: June 04, 2019, 08:06:11 AM »
Quote
I have a "stupid" question concerning microplastic particles in sea water and its influence on the freezing point of water.

Quote
What happens if micro- or nanoplastic particles are "dissolved"? As most of them are insoluble in water, it is rather a dispersion.

Quote
I don't suppose plastic in the Arctic Ocean will help the situation.
12,000 pieces of microplastic particles per litre of sea ice (and a lot in the water presumably)
Anyone done the physics on that?

The Arctic Ocean is now "a major global sink for plastic pollution, many times more concentrated than the well-known great Pacific garbage patch."

There have been discussions about smoke and dust affecting albedo of sea ice too.  I am wondering how much microplastics affect the heat retention and heat collection of sunlight in the ice.

I have watched pond and lake ice melt with debris and plastic bottles and pieces of plastic embedded in the ice.  Wherever there is debris and plastic the ice melts there first.  I have seen melt area around a piece of plastic in a pond of about 1 meter in diameter before the rest of the ice melts.

I have a greenhouse that I cover with a piece of plastic and the temperature inside can get quite warm even on a cold sunny day.

So, it follows that all this plastic in the ice would increase the absorption of heat in the ice more efficiently than frozen water. The extra heat absorbed by the pieces of plastic should create pores of liquid water surrounding these small pieces of plastic much like what happens in a pond.

So, my "stupid" questions:
1. How effective are these little pieces of plastic at collecting heat in the ice and transmitting said heat into the ice to melt it when the sun is shining?
2. With 12,000 pieces of plastic per liter of ice, might it be possible for pores surrounding some of these little pieces of plastic to join together and eventually act like a porous sponge creating drainage channels in the process? 
3. Would this allow melt ponds to effectively drain even as they are trying to form especially on relatively thin ice?
4. Might this be another feedback to consider when forecasting sea melt?
5. Will all these pieces of plastic in the water effectively collect extra heat in the water too, similar to plastic over a greenhouse?

Sterks

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1908 on: June 04, 2019, 09:43:28 AM »
It is not that they collect heat, but that they do not allow part of IR escape to atmosphere, and this would be most relevant in the Arctic from August to December, when there is substantial open water much warmer than atmosphere...
Hell of a PhD thesis, or five.

VaughnAn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1909 on: June 04, 2019, 09:56:06 AM »
Quote
It is not that they collect heat, but that they do not allow part of IR escape to atmosphere

That is what I meant, Plastics collect the IR and heat up more than the surroundings.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4465
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1285
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1910 on: June 04, 2019, 10:03:43 AM »
Has this amount of plastics in sea ice actually been measured?

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1911 on: June 04, 2019, 01:06:00 PM »
Scientists have found a record amount of plastic trapped in Arctic sea ice, raising concern about the impact on marine life and human health.

Up to 12,000 pieces of microplastic particles were found per litre of sea ice in core samples taken from five regions on trips to the Arctic Ocean – as many as three times higher than levels in previous studies.

Researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) found fragments of packaging, paints, nylon, polyester and cellulose acetate which is commonly used in making cigarette filters in every sample they took in 2014 and 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/24/record-levels-of-plastic-discovered-in-arctic-sea-ice

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4465
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1285
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1912 on: June 04, 2019, 01:29:18 PM »
Wow. Thanks.

Adam Ash

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1913 on: June 04, 2019, 01:49:07 PM »
Quote
It is not that they collect heat, but that they do not allow part of IR escape to atmosphere

That is what I meant, Plastics collect the IR and heat up more than the surroundings.

Pragmatically one would imagine that you are correct.  Particulate matter in water will capture the heat of incoming radiation nearer the surface.  Crystal clear water will allow that same radiation to penetrate much deeper before it eventually hits something and warms it up.  Thus more plastic will confine warming to upper layers, impacting more directly (or at least more promptly) on ice melt, IMH(and uneducated)O.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1508
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1914 on: June 04, 2019, 03:37:02 PM »
What is the Dewey Decimal Number for AGW books?
For other libraries than mine, what is the LC code?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

VaughnAn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1915 on: June 04, 2019, 05:58:08 PM »
Quote
It is not that they collect heat, but that they do not allow part of IR escape to atmosphere

That is what I meant, Plastics collect the IR and heat up more than the surroundings.

Pragmatically one would imagine that you are correct.  Particulate matter in water will capture the heat of incoming radiation nearer the surface.  Crystal clear water will allow that same radiation to penetrate much deeper before it eventually hits something and warms it up.  Thus more plastic will confine warming to upper layers, impacting more directly (or at least more promptly) on ice melt, IMH(and uneducated)O.

That bring up another question.  Have any quantitative measurements been made to determine how much extra heat is retained by seaice and/or seawater due to the volume/number of plastic particles in the seaice and seawater?

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 886
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 5814
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1916 on: June 04, 2019, 07:25:55 PM »
Maybe it is a good idea to start a separate thread for this important discussion?
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

VaughnAn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1917 on: June 04, 2019, 08:02:13 PM »
Maybe it is a good idea to start a separate thread for this important discussion?

Thanks for the suggestion.  I will do that after work today unless someone else beats me to it.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1918 on: June 05, 2019, 08:24:25 AM »
X-posting this here because i think it will get buried in the thread it was posted:

The years with the lowest summer extend were 2007, 2012 and 2016. Can someone explain what were the most important factors causing that low extend for those years?

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4465
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1285
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1919 on: June 05, 2019, 10:53:19 AM »
Off the top of my head (and take it with a grain of salt - I've only been following this since 2014):
2007 - warmest year in the Arctic, lots of thick multi-year ice exported into the Atlantic sector never to return. The year that crashed volume.
2012 - high pressure/clear skies, causing lots of melt ponds and an extreme June cliff, and then the Great Arctic Cyclone during August finished off large regions of thin ice. The year that crashed all records and cleared out every region in September except the CAA and the Greenland Sea (and the CAB of course). Had the advantage of following 2011 which broke previous extent and volume records.
2016 - early open water inside the Arctic ocean, soaking up energy in the spring. A cold June-July stalled it, but then August saw a GAC. The year that proved 2012 was not a statistical fluke, and came very close to it in the Central Arctic Basin (see attached area chart), though ice in other regions failed to clear completely, also due to a relatively early refreeze, and extent was higher due to low compaction.

I am surely doing the answer an injustice. For 2012 and 2016 it is best to read Neven's posts in the Arctic Sea Ice Blog at the time. Not sure if there is a similar summary of the 2007 season anywhere.
There is also a multi-year NSIDC animation on Youtube that can show some of the differences. I am sure someone can post the link.


Krakatoa

  • New ice
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1920 on: June 05, 2019, 12:41:49 PM »
X-posting this here because i think it will get buried in the thread it was posted:

The years with the lowest summer extend were 2007, 2012 and 2016. Can someone explain what were the most important factors causing that low extend for those years?

Thanks for that.

And Oren, thanks for your answer.

be cause

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 885
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1921 on: June 05, 2019, 06:00:13 PM »
OK .. I have finally cracked and want to block our resident thread spammer . Can anyone advise me of the methodology ? b.c.
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 ...

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1922 on: June 05, 2019, 06:07:16 PM »
OK .. I have finally cracked and want to block our resident thread spammer . Can anyone advise me of the methodology ? b.c.

- profile
- account setting
- modify profile
- buddies/ignore list
- ignore list
- add the name, there will be a multiple choice help if you start typing.

unfortunately this does not solve the unread thread and the quoted messages proble but
it helps. since i'm interested in about 15-20 threads daily i wouldn't want that many emails in addition to my 50+ business emails ;)


Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1508
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1923 on: June 05, 2019, 08:09:18 PM »
What is a "buddies" list?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1508
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1924 on: June 10, 2019, 09:08:23 PM »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Glen Koehler

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1925 on: June 11, 2019, 04:49:20 PM »
     Instead of extent, area & volume, has anyone ever calculated a total Arctic Sea Ice thermal mass index?

     Such a value could incorporate all three of the current measures (E, A, V), along with an average salinity % of the ice to estimate how many megajoules of melt energy would be required to transition it all from ice to water. 

      It might also include a measure of fracturing or average floe size to represent the surface area of remaining ice.  A square meter of ice as a separate little chunk surround by ocean water has a lot more exposure to warm water (and a tiny bit more to solar energy) than a square meter of ice embedded in a solid pack. 

     Going even farther, it might be possible to add in the average transport speed relative to floe size, and use that to include an estimate of exposure to loss by export into the Fram Strait or another ice killing zone.  It seems to me that as ASI decline continues, a point will be reached where mobility will become a huge factor.  But neither E, A, or V will reflect that as it happens, only after the effect of increased mobility leading to increased export losses occurs.     

     With so many levels of estimation, the resulting index would have a large noise to signal ratio. But an attempt to include all the relevant factors into one index to rule them all would be interesting for comparison to the standard measures.  Even with internal variability, because it represents a broader range of influences, a long term trend of a thermal mass index might have lower interannual variability than E, A, or V because it accounts for factors they overlook.  And it might be a better indicator and predictor for where we are in the process of losing summer Arctic sea ice.

    The main point is that the existing metrics do not include any measure of the quality of the ice beyond thickness.  A thermal mass index would represent the fact that the ice that remains has a much higher portion of "rotten ice".  Volume by itself represents the thin vs. thick ice factor, but not the fact that thin ice not only has less volume, but has higher salinity and lower melt temperature, which in addition to structural aspects, makes it qualitatively different and less resistant to melt, i.e. has less thermal mass per unit volume. 

       So the index would be S (avg. salinity) * M (avg. mobility, due to fracturing and floe size vs. continuity of ice cover) * X (avg. exposure to melt energy through solar energy on top and ocean water on the side) = Q (qualitative measure of ice quality).  That cumulative value Q * the Volume would be the Thermal Mass Index.  Hey it's the "Stupid Question" forum, right?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 05:20:51 PM by Glen Koehler »

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1926 on: June 12, 2019, 01:43:10 PM »
I don't think so because it is even less precise then Vol.
You can guesstimate salinity from the age of the ice.

You cannot really predict export since it depends on recent weather.

And when do you calculate it?

If you start from the max vol day there will be days were ice melts and were it refreezes etc.

So it offers no advantages and it does not really have a use as a daily , monthly or yearly measure. With A, E and V you can already plot spirals (with nice piano music optional).  8)
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1508
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1927 on: June 12, 2019, 06:21:14 PM »
This sounds stupid, but it might be smart..
Is warning of climate disaster counterproductive?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/life-death-and-the-self/201906/the-psychology-combatting-climate-change
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1928 on: June 12, 2019, 06:40:27 PM »
From Toms link:

Quote
Recent findings suggest some hard, counterintuitive lessons about the effects of climate change messaging. First, there’s evidence that awareness of the threat posed by climate change enhances people’s allegiance to what they perceive as their ingroup. Subjects exhibited greater conformity with ingroup norms when climate change threat was made salient to them, and this effect does not seem to be confined to any particular side of the ideological spectrum. The takeaway appears to be that bombarding people with information about the threat climate change poses to their lives will have the effect of further cementing allegiance to whatever group they already identify with—be it a nation, an ethnicity, a race, a political ideology, a religious denomination, etc. This finding poses a challenge for those who think that greater awareness of the dangers of climate change will spur collective action due to a motivation to preserve humanity in general.

A second finding is that people’s responses to information about the threat posed by climate change vary depending on their values. Materialistic subjects responded to anxiety-inducing messages about climate change by exhibiting greater materialism; environmental subjects responded to such messaging by exhibiting greater environmentalism. The researchers note that this has implications for climate change messaging. Collective action to combat climate change will be best promoted by carefully tailoring messages to different groups of people based on their existing systems of values.

Very interesting!

HapHazard

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 1025
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1929 on: June 12, 2019, 08:11:30 PM »
It's the backfire effect. Too many people fall into this category.

Quote
The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

An easy & obvious example being political beliefs. It's a great article, worth a read.


LeftyLarry

  • NewMembers
  • New ice
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1930 on: June 13, 2019, 03:51:27 PM »
The information and postings here are brilliant, thank you very much for them.

I’m not a scientist but am interested in the future , for my Grandchildren , so I have a few questions that if answered , might help me understand the issue better.

1.If there were a time I could have walked on the same piece of ice from here in Long Island all the way to Wisconsin, doesn’t that suggest that ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts?

2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

3. Could a natural event like a volcanic eruption, bring enough cooling to regrow the lost ice and stop the long term patterns of continued loss?

4.If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?

Not asking about the politics just wondering if the worry is real or would life just change a little and both people and animals would evolve and adapt as they always have.

Thank you in advance.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1931 on: June 13, 2019, 04:50:16 PM »
The information and postings here are brilliant, thank you very much for them.

I’m not a scientist but am interested in the future , for my Grandchildren , so I have a few questions that if answered , might help me understand the issue better.

1.If there were a time I could have walked on the same piece of ice from here in Long Island all the way to Wisconsin, doesn’t that suggest that ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts?

2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

3. Could a natural event like a volcanic eruption, bring enough cooling to regrow the lost ice and stop the long term patterns of continued loss?

4.If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?

Not asking about the politics just wondering if the worry is real or would life just change a little and both people and animals would evolve and adapt as they always have.

Thank you in advance.

Sounds like a few denier talking points which won't get you many friends round here. Is this just a drive by posting or are you going to want to participate and understand replies? If you are not going to participate, there seems little point wasting time giving replies.

But assuming good faith, a quick reply to the first question.

"The Wisconsin glaciation extended from approximately 75,000 to 11,000 years ago."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation

Not much civilisation around then so it doesn't really say anything about ability of civilisation to cope with such changes. Even if it did indicate civilisation could adapt that might only be to a slow rate of change and it wouldn't say whether it can or can't adapt with a faster rate of change.


b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1932 on: June 13, 2019, 05:05:56 PM »
Hello and welcome Larry to the forum! :)

suggest that ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts?

Well, that's the 100 trillion dollar question, isn't it?

Mankind will face generational suffering with billions of 'unnatural' deaths, waterwars, migration and so on. Will some people survive in the long term? I think so. Does that count as 'mankind will adjust'?

Quote
2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

No, the decline acelerated in recent years.

Quote
3. Could a natural event like a volcanic eruption, bring enough cooling to regrow the lost ice and stop the long term patterns of continued loss?

Extremely unlikely. That would be like hoping for a lottery win.

A volcano errupting needs to be extraordinary in many aspects to change global weather. But even if it did, volcano impacts are short lived. CO2 stays there for thousands of years. It will bounce back into a hothouse.

Quote
4.If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?

Very hard to predict. But increasing weather extremes will likely shrink the habitable zones quite a lot.

Quote
Not asking about the politics just wondering if the worry is real or would life just change a little and both people and animals would evolve and adapt as they always have.

You need to understand, even when we talk about abrupt climate changes in the past, those events took place over thousands of years, and still, some of them where mass extinction events nonetheless.

What we are facing now is a change faster than the planet has ever seen. Most higher life forms will not adapt.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2360
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1933 on: June 13, 2019, 05:08:21 PM »
Is warning of climate disaster counterproductive?

Is telling the truth counterproductive?

No. Specially not when they are scary truths like climate change and the collapse of the Arctic. Even taking into account the very true phenomenon described by your link it is worth es.

 Do the math:

Let’s assume two groups one pro climate change action (group A) and one against climate change action (group b).  If you tell both groups something scary but likely true like “civilization will collapse as the Arctic collapses” group A will work harder and group b will hide their head in the sand deeper.

Group A will work and group B will not work, just like before. Thus there is a net gain of action against climate change.

add to that the fact that the majority of the world is neutral about climate change, that is,  they are too busy with life to care one way or another. They will do as told by leaders.

Add to that the other link Tom posted. Climate change disasters makes people believers out of people when they are hit by it. This is accumulating. More people will get hit harder.


Alarm is the right tone because the situation is the most alarming in the history of mankind. That is literal, not hyperbole.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1934 on: June 13, 2019, 05:12:40 PM »

Is warning of climate disaster counterproductive?

Wait, that's not the premise here.

The question is, do we understand the human psyche and use that to get to our goal.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 274
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1935 on: June 13, 2019, 05:18:10 PM »
2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

No, absolutely not. The current climate era, which is called the Holocene, started at the end of the last Ice Age about 11.000 years ago and reached it's expected maximum a few thousands of years later, the so-called Holocene Climate Maximum some 8000 years ago.

This is typical behaviour for interglacial periods which have been repeating every 120.000 years or so for the last million years or more.

So the ice declined pretty rapidly for some 3000 years (from the end of the ice age to the holocene maximum) and has since been growing at a fairly constant rate, i.e. the last 8000 years has seen glaciers growing, as well as sea ice, with some minor fluctuations.

The steady fall in temperatures since the maximum fits the effects of the Milancovich cycles which are generally thought to explain the glaciation/interglacials fluctuation. The current rise in temperatures is totally out of the expected, as can be seen in the following graph.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1936 on: June 13, 2019, 05:28:24 PM »
2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

No, the decline acelerated in recent years.

Connolly et al 2017 has some long term ice extent graphs.
When does the ice start reducing?

(and what do you suggest correlating this to in
https://xkcd.com/1732/ )



gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6556
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1511
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1937 on: June 13, 2019, 05:37:53 PM »
Read this very carefully, I will write it only once.

1."If there were a time I could have walked on the same piece of ice from here in Long Island all the way to Wisconsin, doesn’t that suggest that ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts?"

Ice is declining through the basic laws of physics. Mankind is causing CO2 concentrations to increase at a rate that is unprecedented during human existence. Those same basic laws of physics make unprecedented (during human existence) accelerating ice loss on land and sea inevitable.

Some believe that mankind was nearly wiped out by the last ice age, and was saved by the benign climate that started 11,000 years ago when there were a few thousand? a million? human beings on the planet. Now there are approaching 8 billion people. Not loads of room and already consuming more than the planet can provide. Man may adjust, but how many billions should die on the way (including most in the so-called developed world)?

The pace of change in the climate is unprecedented at any time since.....
Mankind already consumes more resources than the planet can provide. "Earth overshoot day" is now very early August. Suggest you google the phrase.

2. Yes, ice has been declining since the end of the last ice age. The rate of decline is now many times that of the historical average.

3. Unless a super-volcano erupts (a very remote chance of n,000 to 1) , global cooling from a volcano eruption only lasts a maximum of two to three years. We have the evidence from Krakatoa in the 19th century to major events this century.

4. If all the ice including the ice sheets melt the climate will be so hot that large parts of the earth will be unlivable and of zero use for growing food. Nearly all the major cities of the world will be inundated - e.g. most of the 50 million (and growing) people living in the NE USA Megalopolis would have to relocate. That's a lot of climate refugees.

Hardly a minor change to adjust to.

You have written something that reads like something written by that ghastly man Happer for the Heritage Institute or American Enterprise Institute and swallowed whole by the likes of Trump and his acolytes.  Even Fox News is starting to retreat, trying to use more subtle denier crap.
"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)

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 274
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1938 on: June 13, 2019, 05:41:25 PM »
2. Yes, ice has been declining since the end of the last ice age. The rate of decline is now many times that of the historical average.

Sorry to disagree but this is not correct - the ice has been increasing for the last 8000 years, something that only turned around some decades ago and is now going rapidly in the other direction.

The ice declined rapidly between 11.000 and 8.000 years ago, but then started to increase again. This is a very important point to make, the current changes are not "the same but bigger", but do in fact go against the recent trend, and against all the exptected changes caused by changes in  all the natural causes.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1939 on: June 13, 2019, 05:45:14 PM »
4.If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?

There may well eventually be large gains but it takes time to melt out the permafrost and make it usable rather than having constant subsidence as permafrost slowly melts.

Sea level rise is also slow.

Which comes first is one question.

However, even if we can be sure there will be sufficient replacement habitable land, moving whole communities/cities is going to be very expensive. Even in places safe from sea level rise, our infrastructure is built for what weather we expect. If that changes it is going to be costly whether we scrap what we have and rebuild or to try to fix things.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1940 on: June 13, 2019, 06:19:11 PM »
2. Yes, ice has been declining since the end of the last ice age. The rate of decline is now many times that of the historical average.

Sorry to disagree but this is not correct - the ice has been increasing for the last 8000 years, something that only turned around some decades ago and is now going rapidly in the other direction.

The ice declined rapidly between 11.000 and 8.000 years ago, but then started to increase again. This is a very important point to make, the current changes are not "the same but bigger", but do in fact go against the recent trend, and against all the exptected changes caused by changes in  all the natural causes.
Since the climatic maximum, some 8000 years ago, glaciers have advanced and receded several times.  Exactly how many times this has occurred varies among scientists, as global glacial advance has not been in sync.  Most recently, glaciers were receded until the start of the 14th century, when European and Asian glaciers began advancing.  North American glaciers did not start their advance until about a century later.  The Himalayan glaciers were the first to stem their advance sometime in the 17th century.  The Canadian Rockies and Alaska appear to be the last, holding out until the end of the 19th century.  Individual glaciers can buck this trend, due to factors other than temperature.  Hubbard glacier in Alaska receded during the entire Little Ice Age, but has been advancing for the last century.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6556
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1511
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1941 on: June 13, 2019, 06:50:23 PM »
Whoops, thinking about 8,000 years general change, instead of the uncertain movement perhaps to a new ice age n'000 years in the future perhaps starting in the brief span of the last few centuries, until mankind with gay abandon started to change everything since the year?.

Thanks for the correction.
"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)

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4465
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1285
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1942 on: June 13, 2019, 06:57:19 PM »
The information and postings here are brilliant, thank you very much for them.

I’m not a scientist but am interested in the future , for my Grandchildren , so I have a few questions that if answered , might help me understand the issue better.

1.If there were a time I could have walked on the same piece of ice from here in Long Island all the way to Wisconsin, doesn’t that suggest that ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts?

2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

3. Could a natural event like a volcanic eruption, bring enough cooling to regrow the lost ice and stop the long term patterns of continued loss?

4.If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?

Not asking about the politics just wondering if the worry is real or would life just change a little and both people and animals would evolve and adapt as they always have.

Thank you in advance.
Welcome Larry. You ask good questions, which also happen to be denier talking points, so care should be taken with them.
Let's focus on point 4, sea level rise, along with rising temperatures. Think of all the hundreds of millions or maybe billions of people living in huge coastal cities and in doomed regions such as Florida and the Nile Delta; of all the power plants cooled by ocean waters; of all the sea ports; and coastal airports; and highways; and railroads. Think how many resources would be required to relocate all these people and infrastructure in less than a hundred years; while not having any ports for shipping said resources; now think how the federal budget, in eternal deficit, can barely spare enough resources to maintain the current road network and the many crumbling bridges across the USA. Think of all those living in  the tropics and in India and Iran and the Middle East, and in Phoenix and Las Vegas, that will need to relocate due to extreme heat. Humankind will probably survive the catastrophe, but human civilization will not. I assume you'd rather have your grandchildren live in the comfort of modern civilization, rather than as cavemen hunting wild animals; which have mostly gone extinct so that won't work either.

The problem is with the rate of change, and with the number of humans on the planet, and the level of civilization. What could work over a thousand years and with a hundred million humans living in tents and huts, cannot work over a hundred years and with 7.5 billion humans, expected to become 10 billion mid-century, living in skyscrapers and expecting their food to be shipped across half the globe.
The last 10,000 years have seen a very stable climate, due to luck or what not, and also the rise of human civilization. The coming century will probably take both of these away.

I hope this helps.

LeftyLarry

  • NewMembers
  • New ice
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1943 on: June 13, 2019, 06:59:00 PM »
The information and postings here are brilliant, thank you very much for them.

I’m not a scientist but am interested in the future , for my Grandchildren , so I have a few questions that if answered , might help me understand the issue better.

1.If there were a time I could have walked on the same piece of ice from here in Long Island all the way to Wisconsin, doesn’t that suggest that ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts?

2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

3. Could a natural event like a volcanic eruption, bring enough cooling to regrow the lost ice and stop the long term patterns of continued loss?

4.If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?

Not asking about the politics just wondering if the worry is real or would life just change a little and both people and animals would evolve and adapt as they always have.

Thank you in advance.

Sounds like a few denier talking points which won't get you many friends round here. Is this just a drive by posting or are you going to want to participate and understand replies? If you are not going to participate, there seems little point wasting time giving replies.

But assuming good faith, a quick reply to the first question.

"The Wisconsin glaciation extended from approximately 75,000 to 11,000 years ago."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation

Not much civilisation around then so it doesn't really say anything about ability of civilisation to cope with such changes. Even if it did indicate civilisation could adapt that might only be to a slow rate of change and it wouldn't say whether it can or can't adapt with a faster rate of change.

Don't know that I have much to contribute as i am not a scientist like many of the people , apparently are on this board and I am neither a denier or a believer, I'm on the fence, trying to read as much as I can so I can make a determination.

So far I am pretty much convinced that the planet is warming, somewhat quicker since man started using fossil fuels, farming, etc.etc. I am on the fence about the notion that we, especially in America, can suddenly do anything about it that will make a significant difference.
Additionally, I'm not convinced that the dire predictions are based on Scientific fact and that is what I'm trying to find out.
Does that make me a denier?
I don't deny it is happening, I questioned it 10 years ago, not now, what I am skeptical about is the results and if there is a cure.

I read something Bjorn Lomborg said awhile back and I paraphrase, "There are problems in the world and we don't solve all of them.Would it be better to spend Trillions NOW to help some guy stay near the water in Sri Lanka 75 years from now or spend just Millions now to help his grandfather get sanitary drinking water, maybe some education and health care etc."
To me that's the crux of the issue, unless the situation is as dire as some say and humanity is going to end immediately,
I haven't been convinced of that yet.
That's why I'm reading this site and aksing these questions.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2360
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1944 on: June 13, 2019, 08:19:35 PM »

Is warning of climate disaster counterproductive?

Wait, that's not the premise here.

The question is, do we understand the human psyche and use that to get to our goal.

As I understand the problem is two fold

1. Efficient and accurate messaging. Without a clear picture of the problem we have a very low chance to solve  it. For example if we focus on solving climate change by 2050, then we will not solve the problem by 2030, which about how long we have of climate order, could be sooner, depending on the ASI

2. message reception. This is the part Tom’s post addresses. Climate change is scary. If we tell it straight up some people will panic (ie: climate change deniers), but other people will recognize the danger and react properly with climate change action.

If we blunt the message to protect the people that are too scared to face climate change then we give up the people that will jump into action.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 274
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1945 on: June 14, 2019, 06:57:57 AM »
2. Yes, ice has been declining since the end of the last ice age. The rate of decline is now many times that of the historical average.

Sorry to disagree but this is not correct - the ice has been increasing for the last 8000 years, something that only turned around some decades ago and is now going rapidly in the other direction.

The ice declined rapidly between 11.000 and 8.000 years ago, but then started to increase again. This is a very important point to make, the current changes are not "the same but bigger", but do in fact go against the recent trend, and against all the exptected changes caused by changes in  all the natural causes.
Since the climatic maximum, some 8000 years ago, glaciers have advanced and receded several times.  Exactly how many times this has occurred varies among scientists, as global glacial advance has not been in sync.  Most recently, glaciers were receded until the start of the 14th century, when European and Asian glaciers began advancing.  North American glaciers did not start their advance until about a century later.  The Himalayan glaciers were the first to stem their advance sometime in the 17th century.  The Canadian Rockies and Alaska appear to be the last, holding out until the end of the 19th century.  Individual glaciers can buck this trend, due to factors other than temperature.  Hubbard glacier in Alaska receded during the entire Little Ice Age, but has been advancing for the last century.

Not sure where you have your information from but you seem to be talking about short term fluctuations. In Iceland it is well established that over the last 8000 years, glaciers have grown from practically non-existent to covering some 10.000 km2. Absolute maximum extent was reached around 1930.

And this of course fits in with a world that is generally getting colder - by a massive 0.5C over 8000 years up to the middle of the 19th century. Since then, of course, the world has warmed by at least 1 degree.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

johnm33

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1284
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1946 on: June 14, 2019, 10:12:23 AM »
I used to wonder about that circular feature on north west Greenland, what's this one about?

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 274
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1947 on: June 14, 2019, 10:58:30 AM »
I used to wonder about that circular feature on north west Greenland, what's this one about?
A possible crater structure, with the Parry Peninsula being the remnants of the central peak of the impact crater. Apparently called "The Parry Peninsula Structure".
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

be cause

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 885
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1948 on: June 14, 2019, 11:31:10 AM »
LeftieLarry , fence sitting can be dangerous . The one you are on is on fire to your left and underwater to your right . Those that tell you all's fine have no interest in your survival .. b.c.
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 ...

Krakatoa

  • New ice
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1949 on: June 14, 2019, 01:15:00 PM »
The information and postings here are brilliant, thank you very much for them.

I’m not a scientist but am interested in the future , for my Grandchildren , so I have a few questions that if answered , might help me understand the issue better.

1.If there were a time I could have walked on the same piece of ice from here in Long Island all the way to Wisconsin, doesn’t that suggest that ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts?

2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

3. Could a natural event like a volcanic eruption, bring enough cooling to regrow the lost ice and stop the long term patterns of continued loss?

4.If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?

Not asking about the politics just wondering if the worry is real or would life just change a little and both people and animals would evolve and adapt as they always have.

Thank you in advance.

Sounds like a few denier talking points which won't get you many friends round here. Is this just a drive by posting or are you going to want to participate and understand replies? If you are not going to participate, there seems little point wasting time giving replies.

But assuming good faith, a quick reply to the first question.

"The Wisconsin glaciation extended from approximately 75,000 to 11,000 years ago."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation

Not much civilisation around then so it doesn't really say anything about ability of civilisation to cope with such changes. Even if it did indicate civilisation could adapt that might only be to a slow rate of change and it wouldn't say whether it can or can't adapt with a faster rate of change.

Don't know that I have much to contribute as i am not a scientist like many of the people , apparently are on this board and I am neither a denier or a believer, I'm on the fence, trying to read as much as I can so I can make a determination.

So far I am pretty much convinced that the planet is warming, somewhat quicker since man started using fossil fuels, farming, etc.etc. I am on the fence about the notion that we, especially in America, can suddenly do anything about it that will make a significant difference.
Additionally, I'm not convinced that the dire predictions are based on Scientific fact and that is what I'm trying to find out.
Does that make me a denier?
I don't deny it is happening, I questioned it 10 years ago, not now, what I am skeptical about is the results and if there is a cure.

I read something Bjorn Lomborg said awhile back and I paraphrase, "There are problems in the world and we don't solve all of them.Would it be better to spend Trillions NOW to help some guy stay near the water in Sri Lanka 75 years from now or spend just Millions now to help his grandfather get sanitary drinking water, maybe some education and health care etc."
To me that's the crux of the issue, unless the situation is as dire as some say and humanity is going to end immediately,
I haven't been convinced of that yet.
That's why I'm reading this site and aksing these questions.

In my experience, the people who now say that we can't do anything about it are the same who 15 years ago said that the world wasn't warming and 10 years ago that is wasn't caused my humans.