Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

Are 3 dimensions better than 2?

No!
5 (8.9%)
Yes!!
51 (91.1%)

Total Members Voted: 56

Voting closed: April 17, 2019, 02:11:19 PM

Author Topic: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?  (Read 5561 times)

epiphyte

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2019, 11:18:38 AM »
> Having a thickness of zero is only applicable in abstract mathematics, not real world physics.

KK  - I do believe that even according to your own arguments, transition between a thickness of 1mm and a thickness of zero is extremely significant, since, it flips the albedo and biases the overall energy equation toward accelerated warming (in summer), or cooling (in winter).

...and regardless of how precisely one can measure it, I hope you would agree that whether one can see or not, change in thickness do occur, and that the warmer it is, the thinner the ice gets.

In this context, I simply don't understand your insistence that the 2D picture is the most important;

    - the area cannot change unless the thickness goes from something to 0
    - If the thickness decreases year-on-year, as it has done for almost three decades straight,
      it makes it more likely that at some point it will go from something to zero.
    - When the thickness _does_ go from something to zero, It makes the planet warmer
      than it otherwise would have been, compounding the problem.




oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 494
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2019, 12:24:41 PM »
Well said epiphyte.

LRC1962

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2019, 12:43:16 PM »
Earlier I said I would not vote because I much prefer density. KK arguments have changed my mind.
His facts are so not that anyone who has read or studied should shake their heads in disgust.
Ask any microbe, seal, polar bear if there is a difference between an inch of ice and 10 meters of ice and their changing behaviour in the Arctic in the last 20 years would tell you all you need to know that volume matters.
As for KK's assertion that somehow extent and volume are related?  ??? If you check with the Antarctic you would find in the last few years max extent has increased. At the same time though volume has fallen as a result the ice sheets are moving much faster then ever before.
Ice will always form in the dark of winter in the Arctic, but unless things do a 180 there is no question of seeing sometime with  no ice as a minimum, it is only a question of when.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4016
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 160
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #53 on: April 06, 2019, 12:49:28 PM »
I believe that for kissing 24 dimensions are best.  ;)

I believe that you're inadvertently slipping off topic into the 4th dimension?

Only 2 or 3 are allowed in here!
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Dharma Rupa

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #54 on: April 06, 2019, 01:29:44 PM »
I believe that for kissing 24 dimensions are best.  ;)

I believe that you're inadvertently slipping off topic into the 4th dimension?

Only 2 or 3 are allowed in here!

I'm with Neven on this one.

Dharma Rupa

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2019, 01:37:04 PM »
KK  - I do believe that even according to your own arguments, transition between a thickness of 1mm and a thickness of zero is extremely significant, since, it flips the albedo and biases the overall energy equation toward accelerated warming (in summer), or cooling (in winter).

I don't think the case in winter is nearly that cut and dried.  If the water surface gets warm enough to support a reasonable humidity then fog will form leading to accelerated warming, not cooling, in winter.  It's the difference between a desert climate and a maritime climate.

And I still think we need the 12 dimensions some physicists think there are to reasonably model the ice.  (24 would be good too)


LRC1962

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2019, 01:45:04 PM »

And I still think we need the 12 dimensions some physicists think there are to reasonably model the ice.  (24 would be good too)
And less we forget. Chaos Theory! Just when we have things all figured out Chaos jams up the spokes and sends us into orbit.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #57 on: April 06, 2019, 02:14:50 PM »
> Having a thickness of zero is only applicable in abstract mathematics, not real world physics.

KK  - I do believe that even according to your own arguments, transition between a thickness of 1mm and a thickness of zero is extremely significant, since, it flips the albedo and biases the overall energy equation toward accelerated warming (in summer), or cooling (in winter).

...and regardless of how precisely one can measure it, I hope you would agree that whether one can see or not, change in thickness do occur, and that the warmer it is, the thinner the ice gets.

In this context, I simply don't understand your insistence that the 2D picture is the most important;

    - the area cannot change unless the thickness goes from something to 0
    - If the thickness decreases year-on-year, as it has done for almost three decades straight,
      it makes it more likely that at some point it will go from something to zero.
    - When the thickness _does_ go from something to zero, It makes the planet warmer
      than it otherwise would have been, compounding the problem.

Yes, when the thickness decreases from 1mm to zero, it is extremely significant.  However as you stated, it is due to the large albedo change, with resulted from the areal loss. 

I have always maintained that thickness decreases, resulting in thinner ice as the temperature warms.  That is my main argument about volumetric losses being greater (percentage wise) than areal losses.  Others here have contended that volume can increase, while area decreases, due to very specific circumstances.  That may be true, but it is cherry picking the data.

Regarding your individual points:
- thickness must go to 0, in those places where ice area is lost.
- if thickness continues to decrease, at some point it would reach 0
- when thickness goes to 0, the open water would warm, due to more sunlight reaching the surface.  It would cool somewhat during night/winter, but that is unlikely to counter the incoming heat.

As you can see, all these arguments support the 2D approach.  The 3D picture only come into play, when the third dimension goes to 0, but that is because the area goes to 0 also.  Smaller changes in thickness have little overall effect.  Let me pose the question in this manner:  what would have a great effect; 50% loss in area, with no change in thickness, or 50% thickness loss, with no change in area?  After that, a third comparison; 70% loss in both volume and thickness.  In all three cases, volumetric changes are similar.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #58 on: April 06, 2019, 02:17:43 PM »
Sorry, that last part should read 30% loss in each; 70% remaining.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1478
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 1451
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #59 on: April 06, 2019, 02:48:06 PM »
Yes, when the thickness decreases from 1mm to zero, it is extremely significant.  However as you stated, it is due to the large albedo change, with resulted from the areal loss. 

I would argue even the difference between 1 and 0 cm of ice is not a binary difference. It's also gradually. I don't know at what thickness ice has it's highest albedo, but sure it's not at 1 cm.

You can view it from whatever angle you want, the 3Dness of ice is always to consider.

(btw, talking about 0 cm ice makes my logic engine break! Please, let's not do this anymore)

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1918
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #60 on: April 06, 2019, 03:22:11 PM »
Thickness is the magnitude of 1 dimension, height.

Area is the magnitude of 2 dimensions, width and length.

Volume is the magnitude of 3 dimensions, height, width and length.

Which one is more important? 42.

ASI is not just a shapeless, massless, inert 3D object in a vacuum.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1756
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #61 on: April 06, 2019, 04:06:07 PM »

And I still think we need the 12 dimensions some physicists think there are to reasonably model the ice.  (24 would be good too)
And less we forget. Chaos Theory! Just when we have things all figured out Chaos jams up the spokes and sends us into orbit.

Chaos inserted to (any) system might be the extra dimension we need to figure things out again. Then the weak force needs another one at least. Dark matter is a thing that depends on where the observer is located? How many dimensions do we need? (Glanced at a book of Quantum ElectroDynamics, totally over my head  :) :D
Amateur observations of Sea Ice since 2003.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #62 on: April 06, 2019, 04:10:18 PM »
Thickness is the magnitude of 1 dimension, height.

Area is the magnitude of 2 dimensions, width and length.

Volume is the magnitude of 3 dimensions, height, width and length.

Which one is more important? 42.

ASI is not just a shapeless, massless, inert 3D object in a vacuum.

42 definitely!  It has ultimate meaning.

I have to agree that reducing the sea ice to a numerical value has less meaning.  However, that is the data that we have.  Most of these posts are opinions about how we can relate the data to the reality of the Arctic, and its consequences.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5023
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 743
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #63 on: April 06, 2019, 04:17:49 PM »
Yes, when the thickness decreases from 1mm to zero, it is extremely significant.  However as you stated, it is due to the large albedo change, with resulted from the areal loss. 

I would argue even the difference between 1 and 0 cm of ice is not a binary difference. It's also gradually. I don't know at what thickness ice has it's highest albedo, but sure it's not at 1 cm.

You can view it from whatever angle you want, the 3Dness of ice is always to consider.

(btw, talking about 0 cm ice makes my logic engine break! Please, let's not do this anymore)
We are talking about sea ice - winds, currents, swells. Not sure if 1mm or even 1cm ice thickness as significant sheets ever exists. There is not a lot on how sea ice melts, but an awful lot of stuff on the various stages and two main ways sea ice develops. How sea ice developed seems to have importance on the later development of melt ponds (from resulting differences in topography?) and melt ponds is the key to accelerating sea ice melt?

Here is a 114 page pdf on melt ponds. Enjoy a little light reading

https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/34794/1/Schwarz_2013_diploma_thesis.pdf
Fachbereich VI, Geographie/Geowissenschaften
Fach Umweltmeteorologie
Diplomarbeit
im Studiengang Angewandte Physische Geographie
Quantitative characterisation of sea ice melt stages in the Arctic by means of airborne  photographs
Vorgelegt von: Pascal Schwarz
Matrikelnummer: 888254
Im Doerrengarten 14, 66453 Herbitzheim
Eingereicht am: 06.03.2013
Gutachter:
Univ. Prof. Dr. Gunther Heinemann ¨ , Fach Umweltmeteorologie, Universit¨at Trier
Univ. Prof. Dr. Markus Casper, Fach Physische Geographie, Universit¨at Trier
[/i]
Quote
Abstract
During the melt season, the surface conditions of the Arctic sea ice cover change enormously. The uniform high reflective winter surface transforms to a heterogeneous compound of several surface classes. This change is associated with a strong decrease of the surface albedo, caused by the melting snow cover, the formation of melt ponds and the increase of open water fraction. The goal of this work is to classify images from the MELTEX 2008, NOGRAM 2011 and TIFAX 2010 flight campaigns to determine melt pond parameters, such as concentration, size, size distribution, density, density distribution, shape and shape distribution. These are important quantities for the sea ice atmosphere interaction. A further objective is to evaluate the broadband albedo  measurements of the MELTEX campaign. Overall the work gives a quantitative description of the sea ice melt stages by means of the evaluated quantities mentioned above.

And here is a nice easy one on the formation of sea ice, from NSIDC

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/formation.html
Ice formation
Quote
As the ocean water begins to freeze, small needle-like ice crystals called frazil form. These crystals are typically 3 to 4 millimeters (0.12 to 0.16 inches) in diameter. Because salt doesn't freeze, the crystals expel salt into the water, and frazil crystals consist of nearly pure fresh water. See also Salinity and Brine.

Sheets of sea ice form when frazil crystals float to the surface, accumulate and bond together. Depending upon the climatic conditions, sheets can develop from grease and congelation ice, or from pancake ice. These processes are described below.

In calm waters, frazil crystals form a smooth, thin form of ice, called grease ice for its resemblance to an oil slick. Grease ice develops into a continuous, thin sheet of ice called nilas. Initially, the sheet is very thin and dark (called dark nilas), becoming lighter as it thickens. Currents or light winds often push the nilas around so that they slide over each other, a process known as rafting. Eventually, the ice thickens into a more stable sheet with a smooth bottom surface, called congelation ice. Frazil ice cannot form in the relatively still waters under sea ice, so only congelation ice developing under the ice sheet can contribute to the continued growth of a congelation ice sheet. Congelation ice crystals are long and vertical because they grow much slower than frazil ice.

If the ocean is rough, the frazil crystals accumulate into slushy circular disks, called pancakes or pancake ice, because of their shape. A signature feature of pancake ice is raised edges or ridges on the perimeter, caused by the pancakes bumping into each other from the ocean waves. If the motion is strong enough, rafting occurs. If the ice is thick enough, ridging occurs, where the sea ice bends or fractures and piles on top of itself, forming lines of ridges on the surface. Each ridge has a corresponding structure, called a keel, that forms on the underside of the ice. Particularly in the Arctic, ridges up to 20 meters (60 feet) thick can form when thick ice deforms. Eventually, the pancakes cement together and consolidate into a coherent ice sheet. Unlike the congelation process, sheet ice formed from consolidated pancakes has a rough bottom surface.

Douglas Adams was right. The answer is 42. Just need to find the right question.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2019, 04:24:06 PM by gerontocrat »
"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)

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #64 on: April 06, 2019, 04:47:56 PM »
What is 7 million km2 at 6 cm thick?

be cause

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 535
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #65 on: April 06, 2019, 06:00:35 PM »
a quick question to the 42 conundrum .. my local village , Caledon , lies between Belfast and Enniskillen .. how far is it from both in miles ? .. smiles b.c. 
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 ...

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5023
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 743
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #66 on: April 06, 2019, 06:28:12 PM »
What is 7 million km2 at 6 cm thick?
Has to be a BOE - 1 million km2 @ 42 cms average thickness, or is it 42 million km2 @ 1 cm thick?
"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)

Juan C. García

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1209
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 404
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #67 on: April 06, 2019, 06:29:38 PM »
It is interesting all the debate that this question has created. From my point of view, 2 dimensions can be useful in some calculations, but we cannot ignore the 3 dimensions in real life. Especially, when we are looking to tell the world how much we have lost of Arctic sea ice.

I have sometimes been tired of my signature on this Forum and I have been thinking on change it. I will post it here, just to keep a record of what it has been all this time.
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 494
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #68 on: April 06, 2019, 06:45:15 PM »
Quote
As you can see, all these arguments support the 2D approach.  The 3D picture only come into play, when the third dimension goes to 0, but that is because the area goes to 0 also.  Smaller changes in thickness have little overall effect.  Let me pose the question in this manner:  what would have a great effect; 50% loss in area, with no change in thickness, or 50% thickness loss, with no change in area?  After that, a third comparison; 70% loss in both volume and thickness.  In all three cases, volumetric changes are similar.
KK - it seems you are repeatedly claiming thickness does not matter unless it goes to zero. Only the 2D area/extent matter. I want to verify I understand you correctly.
Let's assume the Arctic sea ice is half the thickness it was in the 1980s. Does this make it more vulnerable to area/extent loss?
There is much less MYI in the arctic these days, and the FYI is thinner than it used to be, due to warmer winters and shorter freezing seasons. Does this matter? Is this important?
Thickness as the 3rd dimension helps predict area/extent losses. Thin ice could melt soon while thick ice is more resilient. Correct or not?
I'll be happy to see clear yes/no answers to these questions.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #69 on: April 06, 2019, 07:14:40 PM »
Quote
As you can see, all these arguments support the 2D approach.  The 3D picture only come into play, when the third dimension goes to 0, but that is because the area goes to 0 also.  Smaller changes in thickness have little overall effect.  Let me pose the question in this manner:  what would have a great effect; 50% loss in area, with no change in thickness, or 50% thickness loss, with no change in area?  After that, a third comparison; 70% loss in both volume and thickness.  In all three cases, volumetric changes are similar.
KK - it seems you are repeatedly claiming thickness does not matter unless it goes to zero. Only the 2D area/extent matter. I want to verify I understand you correctly.
Let's assume the Arctic sea ice is half the thickness it was in the 1980s. Does this make it more vulnerable to area/extent loss?
There is much less MYI in the arctic these days, and the FYI is thinner than it used to be, due to warmer winters and shorter freezing seasons. Does this matter? Is this important?
Thickness as the 3rd dimension helps predict area/extent losses. Thin ice could melt soon while thick ice is more resilient. Correct or not?
I'll be happy to see clear yes/no answers to these questions.

Answers to your specific questions are:  yes, yes, yes, and yes.

All your questions pertain to how thickness might affect future ice melt.  Thinner ice is easier to melt - no doubt.  My contention was that area has a much greater impact on the bigger picture; incoming solar radiation, evapotranspiration, weather, and wildlife.  Thickness has little to no impact in these areas. 

jdallen

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #70 on: April 06, 2019, 08:07:31 PM »
What is 7 million km2 at 6 cm thick?

Impossible.

Straw man question. You will never have 7 million KM2 at 6CM thick, not even as an average.

In fact I consider it dubious to call anything less than 15CM thick anything other than slush.
This space for Rent.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #71 on: April 06, 2019, 08:22:03 PM »
What is 7 million km2 at 6 cm thick?

Impossible.

Straw man question. You will never have 7 million KM2 at 6CM thick, not even as an average.

In fact I consider it dubious to call anything less than 15CM thick anything other than slush.

lol

Dharma Rupa

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #72 on: April 06, 2019, 09:15:29 PM »
What is 7 million km2 at 6 cm thick?

Impossible.

Straw man question. You will never have 7 million KM2 at 6CM thick, not even as an average.

In fact I consider it dubious to call anything less than 15CM thick anything other than slush.

lol

Thanks for all the fish.

vox_mundi

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 746
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #73 on: April 06, 2019, 09:27:19 PM »
As Wolfgang Pauli, Viggy, Jim Hunt and many others have observed: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" 

See also: Gish Gallop
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

epiphyte

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #74 on: April 06, 2019, 10:23:19 PM »
Yes, when the thickness decreases from 1mm to zero, it is extremely significant.  However as you stated, it is due to the large albedo change, with resulted from the areal loss. 

I would argue even the difference between 1 and 0 cm of ice is not a binary difference. It's also gradually. I don't know at what thickness ice has it's highest albedo, but sure it's not at 1 cm.

You can view it from whatever angle you want, the 3Dness of ice is always to consider.

(btw, talking about 0 cm ice makes my logic engine break! Please, let's not do this anymore)

All important points in most contexts, such as observing and modeling real-world behavior.

I left them out to try and keep things simple - IMO adding more nuance (dare I say 'depth') wouldn't help expose the core fallacy.

All of which prompts me to explain why I post here much less often and more tersely than I used to:

    Epiphyte's 1st Law: Don't get suckered into games of logical whack-a-mole. 

    Epiphytes 2nd Law: Don't dig more holes; it emboldens the moles.

epiphyte

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #75 on: April 06, 2019, 10:38:04 PM »


      Which one is more important? 42.


@Arachmid: I fear you misstate the question. All true HHGTTG scholars know that the true
question is "What is six times nine?"
 

      42 definitely!  It has ultimate meaning.


That, at least, we can agree on.

(Aside - We can therefore conclude that the world only makes sense in base 13)

Viggy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #76 on: April 06, 2019, 11:11:02 PM »
As Wolfgang Pauli, Viggy, Jim Hunt and many others have observed: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" 

See also: Gish Gallop

I finally learnt something in this thread!

Also, I think both the pro and con sides can agree that due to the nature of this thread, it will continue on circuitously till we have all burnt out far too much intellectual capital. There will be no agreement or conclusions here. Lets move on to more fruitful conversations.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #77 on: April 06, 2019, 11:33:10 PM »
As Wolfgang Pauli, Viggy, Jim Hunt and many others have observed: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" 

See also: Gish Gallop

I finally learnt something in this thread!

Also, I think both the pro and con sides can agree that due to the nature of this thread, it will continue on circuitously till we have all burnt out far too much intellectual capital. There will be no agreement or conclusions here. Lets move on to more fruitful conversations.

Agreed.  We will never come to agreement on matters of opinion.

LRC1962

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #78 on: April 07, 2019, 05:02:24 AM »
For those of you who agree to some extent that thin ice is very little different to thick ice in regards to heat this study begs to differ. https://www.arctictoday.com/thinning-arctic-sea-ice-influences-atmosphere-spinoff-effects-eurasia-study-says/
Quote
Low concentration of ice – spotty coverage of the water’s surface that leaves large areas of open water – will still play a much bigger role in creating warm temperatures, the new study finds. But if ice is thin, the amount of heat that seeps through it can cause up to a third of the warming that is caused by low ice concentration, the study found.
most heat still is most important in open water, but up to a third goes through thin ice.
Direct weather influence.
Quote
While it found that thinner ice does influence the lower and middle levels of the atmosphere, potentially shifting the jet stream southward, the study found “no significant response” to loss of ice thickness in the stratosphere. That upper level is the site of the polar vortex, the counterclockwise flow of air around the low-pressure system above the North Pole. The study did find that lower sea ice concentration influences the stratosphere and strengthens the polar vortex.
Thin ice effects lower and middle levels of atmosphere. Those are where you get the surface winds and rain/snow from.
This is not opinion it is science. Thinning ice does effect heat, weather, wildlife ....
Anyone remember the green ice that was seen a few years back? It was not an illusion. Not opinion.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1756
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #79 on: April 07, 2019, 05:06:13 AM »
(Aside - We can therefore conclude that the world only makes sense in base 13)

Is this eposode of "measurement error paradox" aka "accuracy dependent on wavelenght" sponsored by SquareSpace?

LRC1962:
Are you saying that thick-walled igloos keep the eskimos warmer than thin-walled? This depends also on how well these are construced, i.e. thick walls do not help much if the roof is 1cm thick. Tested this with snow, which is by the way whiter than ice, although still ice. I'm tempted to use word "allotrope" on millions of different snowflakes, but the difference isn't fundamental in this case, I think. If what you say is true, thicker insulating material might be noticed off the loss of heat flow from radiating material behind that. This might mean we can measure the thickness in the middle of a wood plank by other means than drilling a hole and a measuring tape?

("Add extra dimensions as is needed", world-builders handbook)

What is the inertia of a 2d-layer? How would one go about constructing one? Are f.e. black holes 2d?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 05:57:33 AM by Pmt111500 »
Amateur observations of Sea Ice since 2003.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #80 on: April 07, 2019, 05:36:55 AM »
For those of you who agree to some extent that thin ice is very little different to thick ice in regards to heat this study begs to differ. https://www.arctictoday.com/thinning-arctic-sea-ice-influences-atmosphere-spinoff-effects-eurasia-study-says/
Quote
Low concentration of ice – spotty coverage of the water’s surface that leaves large areas of open water – will still play a much bigger role in creating warm temperatures, the new study finds. But if ice is thin, the amount of heat that seeps through it can cause up to a third of the warming that is caused by low ice concentration, the study found.
most heat still is most important in open water, but up to a third goes through thin ice.
Direct weather influence.
Quote
While it found that thinner ice does influence the lower and middle levels of the atmosphere, potentially shifting the jet stream southward, the study found “no significant response” to loss of ice thickness in the stratosphere. That upper level is the site of the polar vortex, the counterclockwise flow of air around the low-pressure system above the North Pole. The study did find that lower sea ice concentration influences the stratosphere and strengthens the polar vortex.
Thin ice effects lower and middle levels of atmosphere. Those are where you get the surface winds and rain/snow from.
This is not opinion it is science. Thinning ice does effect heat, weather, wildlife ....
Anyone remember the green ice that was seen a few years back? It was not an illusion. Not opinion.

Yes, but the study concluded by stating, “low concentrations of ice - spotty coverage of the water’s surface that leaves large areas of open water - will still play a much bigger role in creating warm temperatures.”

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #81 on: April 07, 2019, 07:12:35 AM »
1) I've been surprised how much fervor has gone into this thread.
2) I'm grateful to KK for "sticking to his guns"
3) "Are 3 dimensions better than 2?":  Better for what?

I voted for "3" because I was considering things like comparing 1980 Arctic ice health with today - the ice volume difference 'really matters'.  Like, really matters a great deal.

This doesn't mean that "2 dimensions" isn't highly significant for many aspects of Arctic climate dynamics, fairly independent of whether the ice is 2 meters thick or 10 meters thick.  Knowing only a "2 dimensions" number is certainly "better" for calculating albedo than knowing only a "3 dimensions" number.  (Does that 1,000,000 km3 cover 500,000 km2 or just 5,000 km2?)

Yes, ice that is thinner than a meter or two (and more so when thinner) is relatively transparent, allowing for solar-induced bottom melt and algae growth, and may be more likely to be rotten late in the melting season allowing a polar bear to either catch a seal or fall through and have to swim.  And then there is how waves, etc. affect thinner ice.  But all this just begs the question.  I don't think the thread's question is "Is knowing thickness better than knowing area?"
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

epiphyte

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #82 on: April 07, 2019, 07:18:06 AM »
A last parting thought, before I withdraw from this onanistic thread:

Which is more insightful - arithmetic, or calculus?

er...
That's it.


wdmn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 287
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #83 on: April 07, 2019, 07:20:17 AM »
1) I've been surprised how much fervor has gone into this thread.
2) I'm grateful to KK for "sticking to his guns"
3) "Are 3 dimensions better than 2?":  Better for what?

I voted for "3" because I was considering things like comparing 1980 Arctic ice health with today - the ice volume difference 'really matters'.  Like, really matters a great deal.

This doesn't mean that "2 dimensions" isn't highly significant for many aspects of Arctic climate dynamics, fairly independent of whether the ice is 2 meters thick or 10 meters thick.  Knowing only a "2 dimensions" number is certainly "better" for calculating albedo than knowing only a "3 dimensions" number.  (Does that 1,000,000 km3 cover 500,000 km2 or just 5,000 km2?)

Yes, ice that is thinner than a meter or two (and more so when thinner) is relatively transparent, allowing for solar-induced bottom melt and algae growth, and may be more likely to be rotten late in the melting season allowing a polar bear to either catch a seal or fall through and have to swim.  And then there is how waves, etc. affect thinner ice.  But all this just begs the question.  I don't think the thread's question is "Is knowing thickness better than knowing area?"

Thanks Tor; great post. We need to always ask "better for what," when judging between two approaches.

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1756
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #84 on: April 07, 2019, 10:30:25 AM »
A last parting thought, before I withdraw from this onanistic thread:

Which is more insightful - arithmetic, or calculus?

er...
That's it.

Ah, beauty is just surface, you need to function as well so 3d might be better.
Amateur observations of Sea Ice since 2003.

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2204
    • View Profile
    • Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multiple Sklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgia Modular Mobile Computing iOS Software OSX Android Custom Rom Rooted
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #85 on: April 07, 2019, 12:35:53 PM »
A last parting thought, before I withdraw from this onanistic thread:

Which is more insightful - arithmetic, or calculus?

er...
That's it.

somehow funny, onanistic and once done opting out, fits that pattern quite well LOL

propably a smart move before things get worn out, into repeating patterns and therefore boring.

however that may be, i definitely enjoyed the conversation thus far because things were showing that i love so much, mainly yours and other participant's mental power.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 01:14:57 PM by magnamentis »
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #86 on: April 07, 2019, 03:20:23 PM »
1) I've been surprised how much fervor has gone into this thread.
2) I'm grateful to KK for "sticking to his guns"
3) "Are 3 dimensions better than 2?":  Better for what?

I voted for "3" because I was considering things like comparing 1980 Arctic ice health with today - the ice volume difference 'really matters'.  Like, really matters a great deal.

This doesn't mean that "2 dimensions" isn't highly significant for many aspects of Arctic climate dynamics, fairly independent of whether the ice is 2 meters thick or 10 meters thick.  Knowing only a "2 dimensions" number is certainly "better" for calculating albedo than knowing only a "3 dimensions" number.  (Does that 1,000,000 km3 cover 500,000 km2 or just 5,000 km2?)

Yes, ice that is thinner than a meter or two (and more so when thinner) is relatively transparent, allowing for solar-induced bottom melt and algae growth, and may be more likely to be rotten late in the melting season allowing a polar bear to either catch a seal or fall through and have to swim.  And then there is how waves, etc. affect thinner ice.  But all this just begs the question.  I don't think the thread's question is "Is knowing thickness better than knowing area?"

Thank you Tor,

What has surprised me is how much antagonism and insults have been directed at me.  Just because they disagree!  From the voting, it is apparent that I am in the minority, but not the only one.  I have presented my argument, and been asked to defend it numerous times.  The lengths to which some posters have gone to try and refute my arguments have been staggering.  Perhaps I have hit a nerve, or some other issue that they have been unable to resolve, and taking it out on me.  I don’t know. I have yet to read any post that has given me any reason to change my views.  If someone were to prove me wrong, I will be the first to admit it.  However, unless someone presents compelling evidence contradicting my statements, I see no reason to change my views. 

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1918
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #87 on: April 07, 2019, 03:49:05 PM »
KK, what are your views? They are all over the place. Do you still believe that volume and thickness don't matter?

Also do you understand the difference between thickness and volume? You seem to be using them as interchangeable.

To me it seems like you want to focus in extent because it tells the story you want to hear. To do that you must ignore thickness and volume because they tell a very different story than just area.

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #88 on: April 07, 2019, 04:12:02 PM »
KK, what are your views? They are all over the place. Do you still believe that volume and thickness don't matter?

Also do you understand the difference between thickness and volume? You seem to be using them as interchangeable.

To me it seems like you want to focus in extent because it tells the story you want to hear. To do that you must ignore thickness and volume because they tell a very different story than just area.
Archimid,
I have never said that thickness and volume do not matter.  That has been the straw man argument used to refute my contention that extent is the better measure.  My views have not changed on this.  You seem to be of the mistaken belief otherwise (perhaps you are listening to those who made those false claims).  If you still have issues, I suggest you read what NSIDC has to say about the issue, and why they feel extent is the better measure.  It is not a matter of belief, but scientific evidence.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1918
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #89 on: April 07, 2019, 04:40:25 PM »
Quote
I have never said that thickness and volume do not matter.

That's the impression I got after reading these:

Quote
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two.  Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
...
The factors influencing thickness, like wave action, are small compared to those acting on the overall area, sunlight and seawater.  Thickness changes does not drive the sea ice, rather they occur through these other factors.
...
Smaller changes in thickness have little overall effect.
...
Thickness has little to no impact in these areas.
 


Let's reset.

Quote
and why they feel extent is the better measure.

A better measure of what? Be specific. What is the question that Area best answers?
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #90 on: April 07, 2019, 06:16:58 PM »
Quote
I have never said that thickness and volume do not matter.

That's the impression I got after reading these:

Quote
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two.  Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
...
The factors influencing thickness, like wave action, are small compared to those acting on the overall area, sunlight and seawater.  Thickness changes does not drive the sea ice, rather they occur through these other factors.
...
Smaller changes in thickness have little overall effect.
...
Thickness has little to no impact in these areas.
 


Let's reset.

Quote
and why they feel extent is the better measure.

A better measure of what? Be specific. What is the question that Area best answers?

Less is not the same as none.

The short answer is the state of the Arctic.   For a more detailed answer, please read my previous posts.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1918
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2019, 06:44:36 PM »
Quote
Less is not the same as none

I could've sworn that you were implying that the impact of volume and thickness on the "state of the Arctic" was so small as to be irrelevant.

So let me ask you this. Currently the Arctic is at record low extent ( by a lot) but volume and thickness are not record low.  Is this the worst state the Arctic has ever been?
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2019, 06:58:10 PM »
Quote
Less is not the same as none

I could've sworn that you were implying that the impact of volume and thickness on the "state of the Arctic" was so small as to be irrelevant.

So let me ask you this. Currently the Arctic is at record low extent ( by a lot) but volume and thickness are not record low.  Is this the worst state the Arctic has ever been?
[/quote

No, just much smaller.  Someone else said irrelevant.

In a snapshot, just looking at this date, the answer would be yes.  However, on any given date, several years in the past decade can state that claim (2018 has numerous dates).  I think we need to examine how the ice grows and shrinks each year, and assess the overall changes.  For instance, last summer showed greater minimum extent than previous years, and this year showed greater maximum extent.  If ice loss slows, and reaches a similar level as last year, then my answer would be no.  Overall, the Arctic appears to have reached a new equilibrium, where ice melting in summer is replaced by new ice in the winter, but multiyear ice does not change appreciably.  I suspect this will continue, until the next force pushes the system into a new state. 

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1918
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #93 on: April 07, 2019, 07:41:13 PM »
Quote
No, just much smaller.  Someone else said irrelevant.

So you think the influence of volume and thickness on the "state of the Arctic" are not so small as to be irrelevant, nice. We are getting somewhere. Volume and thickness are relevant to the "state of the Arctic". We agree on that.

How relevant? We disagree enormously.

Quote
In a snapshot, just looking at this date, the answer would be yes.

My answer would be no. This is not the worst state the Arctic has ever been. The volume of ice on the Arctic is higher than in 2017, thus more energy will be needed to melt the remaining ice than in 2017, even when the extent is lower.


Quote
I suspect this will continue, until the next force pushes the system into a new state.

Like for example, pacification of the inner Arctic basin. Ice will still form, increasing Area numbers during the cold Arctic winter but Area hides the fact that it is thin, salty, late to form and early to melt ice.


I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6752
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #94 on: April 07, 2019, 11:33:27 PM »
If you still have issues, I suggest you read what NSIDC has to say about the issue, and why they feel extent is the better measure.  It is not a matter of belief, but scientific evidence.

Out of curiosity: Where does the NSIDC say that extent is a better measure than volume/thickness?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2204
    • View Profile
    • Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multiple Sklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgia Modular Mobile Computing iOS Software OSX Android Custom Rom Rooted
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #95 on: April 08, 2019, 02:24:10 AM »
putting aside for a moment the questin which is better ( it's almost like asking wether a circle is rounder than a triangle) perhaps the linked post helps to at least understand the significance of thickness and how large a difference it makes at the end.

at least this is the case if we agree that after first BOE that last a i bit longer than a few days not much will be as it was before that event.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2348.msg194274.html#msg194274
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #96 on: April 08, 2019, 02:51:06 AM »
If you still have issues, I suggest you read what NSIDC has to say about the issue, and why they feel extent is the better measure.  It is not a matter of belief, but scientific evidence.

Out of curiosity: Where does the NSIDC say that extent is a better measure than volume/thickness?

“When the ice melts, the polar regions have less of a reflective surface.  More hear is absorbed, which causes more warming.”

and

“Roughly half of the heat exchange occurs through openings in the ice.”

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/environment/global_climate.html

Also,
“Scientists tend to focus on Arctic sea ice extent more closely than other aspects of sea ice because satellites measure extent more accurately than they do other measurements, such as thickness.”

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 494
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #97 on: April 08, 2019, 04:18:08 AM »
Quote
As you can see, all these arguments support the 2D approach.  The 3D picture only come into play, when the third dimension goes to 0, but that is because the area goes to 0 also.  Smaller changes in thickness have little overall effect.  Let me pose the question in this manner:  what would have a great effect; 50% loss in area, with no change in thickness, or 50% thickness loss, with no change in area?  After that, a third comparison; 70% loss in both volume and thickness.  In all three cases, volumetric changes are similar.
KK - it seems you are repeatedly claiming thickness does not matter unless it goes to zero. Only the 2D area/extent matter. I want to verify I understand you correctly.
Let's assume the Arctic sea ice is half the thickness it was in the 1980s. Does this make it more vulnerable to area/extent loss?
There is much less MYI in the arctic these days, and the FYI is thinner than it used to be, due to warmer winters and shorter freezing seasons. Does this matter? Is this important?
Thickness as the 3rd dimension helps predict area/extent losses. Thin ice could melt soon while thick ice is more resilient. Correct or not?
I'll be happy to see clear yes/no answers to these questions.

Answers to your specific questions are:  yes, yes, yes, and yes.

All your questions pertain to how thickness might affect future ice melt.  Thinner ice is easier to melt - no doubt.  My contention was that area has a much greater impact on the bigger picture; incoming solar radiation, evapotranspiration, weather, and wildlife.  Thickness has little to no impact in these areas.
First, I am happy we've managed to establish an agreement on the points of importance of thickness when discussing future ice melt, after the casual remarks I've read in the melting season thread and perhaps misunderstood as claiming the contrary. For that this thread was worth it despite the off-topic comments flying around.

Certainly current area has a big impact on current conditions (evapotranspiration, weather, and wildlife, also dampening of waves). My focus at this time of year though is on impacts for the rest of the melting season. Incoming solar radiation (the Albedo-Warming Potential) is very important but its effects are still subdued and are geographically placed outside the Inner Arctic Basin at this time. So I turn to current thickness as the wildcard that can precondition a melting season - both the thickness and distribution of MYI, and the thickness of FYI especially in the Inner Basin.
I will add that at the beginning of the melting season extent and area are only slightly different from year to year percentage-wise (2%? 5%?), while thickness could be more variable. When trying to assess whether this will be a record melting year or not, current area/extent don't tell much - the rankings are quite volatile from week to week, they have relatively low correlation to September area/extent, and there is the case of 2012 that went from high to record low. A low April area/extent certainly increases risk but the change is not huge.
OTOH an abnormally low thickness could be off even by 20% compared to average years, and could greatly increase the risk of a record melting season. So I find thickness in April to be much more important than area in April to forecasting area in September. It's true that thickness is not known with the same precision as area, but it's not entirely unknown. There's SMOS for thin ice <0.5M, there's Cryosat, there's PIOMAS which although a model has been quite validated over the years, there's Operation IceBridge at this time of year, and hopefully there will soon be that new satellite that measures freeboard with precision. So I will keep my eye on April thickness whenever I can find it.
(Of course, the biggest factor affecting the melting season is the weather - cloudiness, air temps, ice transport and whatever other factors. But all of this is unknown at this point.)

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4016
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 160
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #98 on: April 08, 2019, 11:37:06 AM »
“Scientists tend to focus on Arctic sea ice extent more closely than other aspects of sea ice because satellites measure extent more accurately than they do other measurements, such as thickness.”

So? Here's the NSIDC's sea ice thermodynamics section:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/growth_melt_cycle.html
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6752
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« Reply #99 on: April 08, 2019, 11:39:51 AM »
If you still have issues, I suggest you read what NSIDC has to say about the issue, and why they feel extent is the better measure.  It is not a matter of belief, but scientific evidence.

Out of curiosity: Where does the NSIDC say that extent is a better measure than volume/thickness?

“When the ice melts, the polar regions have less of a reflective surface.  More hear is absorbed, which causes more warming.”

and

“Roughly half of the heat exchange occurs through openings in the ice.”

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/environment/global_climate.html

Also,
“Scientists tend to focus on Arctic sea ice extent more closely than other aspects of sea ice because satellites measure extent more accurately than they do other measurements, such as thickness.”

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

They don't say it's better, they say it's measured more accurately.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin