Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Phoenix

Pages: [1]
1
Arctic sea ice / DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 25, 2020, 04:21:43 PM »
Hypothesis (definition) - a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The subject suggested to be explored here is not proposed to be a theory. The scientific method typically proceeds in the following order.

Observation => Hypothesis => Experiment => Review Results => Theory

Background

It is clear that there is a lot of interest in the future of the Arctic sea ice. Both within the context of a longer term future and within the context of a single melt season. This is obviously an important topic because Arctic sea ice is an important element of Arctic ecosystems and a component of N. Hemisphere weather systems.

The primary factors influencing the Arctic sea ice future appear to be the chronic progression of AGW and weather variation. Given the high degree of volatility in weather patterns, predicting the future of the sea ice with any degree of precision is not considered likely at this time (at least not by this author). Nonetheless, it's may be worthwhile to pursue inquiry which helps us to move in the direction of better understanding the factors which influence the progression of sea ice loss.

I've only been actively following the discussion here at ASIF since early 2019, prior to the commencement of the melt season. At the conclusion of the season, I asked myself the following questions. WHY is the ice remaining in the regions where it still existed and WHY did the other areas become ice free?

Observations

There was basically little or no ice remaining south of 75N.

There was no ice remaining adjacent to continental land masses in N. America and Asia, but there is a lot of ice adjacent to Greenland.

The areas where sea ice loss penetrated N. of 80N were primarily those where the ocean was of relatively shallow depth.

Hypothesis

What is the causation for the location of the sea ice at the minimum?

The hypothesis includes the rationale that there is no sea ice adjacent to N. America and Asia due to frequent warm air advection as the continents heat up during the spring and summer. Ice adjacent
 to Greenland and smaller land masses near the CAA are not subject to the same magnitude or intensity of warm air advection.

The hypothesis also includes the rationale that bathymetry influences the progression of melt. The low density cold fresh water on/near the surface provide a layer of defensive protection against warmer saltier water below. Without being an expert on the details, it seems possible that the deeper water is more resilient because there is more room for layer stratification.

The observations led me to question an alternative hypothesis that the Arctic will lose ice in the future at a linear rate which is reflected in losses from 1979 until today. The possibility exists that the remaining regions of the Arctic (primarily CAB, CAA and N. Beaufort) are fundamentally different from the regions that have lost ice in recent decades and future ice loss will be at a much reduced rate.

Note: just to be clear, I'd like to re-emphasize the distinction between that which I hope to better understand and predict (the chronic progression of AGW on sea ice loss) and that which I don't intend to try and predict (short-term weather variability).

Almost forgot - The acronym DHACSOO stands for Distant From Heat Advecting Continents and Shallow Open Ocean.

Why a separate thread ?

in order to determine if a hypothesis has any predictive value, you have to kick the tires. I welcome criticism and observations that might be disruptive on other threads.

The hypothesis heavily emphasizes the distinction on areas based upon their likelihood to retain ice at the annual minimum. The hypothesis might indicate that the 2020 melting season is currently substantially less advanced than the 2019 melting season at a similar point in time even though 2019 is ahead in aggregate Arctic ice loss.

It may be useful to explore alternatives measures of the strength of a melt season while it is in progress.

2
The politics / The American Progressive Movement
« on: April 16, 2020, 01:12:39 AM »
Now that Bernie Sanders has endorsed Joe Biden for President, the American Left is in transition.

At 78, Sanders is almost certainly too old to run for POTUS in the future and the process of iterating to a new generation of progressive leadership is under way.

The near term interests of the left are:

1) negotiating with the Biden campaign / Democratic establishment for as much as possible in return for pledges to support progressive policy ideas.

The more militant voices on the left (Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, Kyle Kulinski, etc. ) are not in favor of supporting Biden and are interested in the possibility of trying to destroy the corporate Democratic establishment via a Biden loss.

The more establishment voices on the left (such as Sanders) are playing "good cop" and offering an endorsement of Biden in advance of policy concession and signaling that stopping Trump is alone a
sufficient condition for offering that endorsement.

The middle ground on the left is being maintained by people like AOC and Cenk Uygur who are acknowledging the work that Biden needs to do to generate the enthusiasm necessary to motivate progressives to vote for him.

At this point, Biden has made relatively little concession and his initial overturwe were panned by the militant left as inadequate.

His adoption of $15 min wage is already a consensus opinion among Democrats.

His proposal to reduce Medicare eligibility from 65 to 60 was described by AOC as an "insult" and further right than Clinton's proposal to reduce the age 50 in 2016. The establishment choice in 2020 is further right on health care than the 2016 choice.

His proposal to make public university tuition free for families earning under $125K is probably the most substantive concession. Basically the plan that Pete Buttigieg campaigned on and much more prone to being undermined down the road than the universal programs that Sanders and Warren campaigned on.

Climate policy will obviously be one that will be scrutinized heavily.

2) Sustain motivation for down ballot candidates

The progressives have had a few small pickups with the election of Marie Newman to a congressional seat in Chicago and the election of a WI Supreme Court Justice. There are a lot of progressive candidates remaining in races to come and that would represent good topics for this thread going forward.

Some high profile races such as Nancy Pelosi vs. progressive Shahid Buttar in San Francisco are not likely winnable, but important for establishing the depth of progressive support and pressuring neoliberals like Pelosi to at least compete for votes.

3) Iterating to new leadership and increasing youth participation.

Sanders will remain an important and credible figure on the left simply as a result of inertia. He has been a heroic figure in terms of helping build a coalition on the left, but he has not been able to lead them to the promised land in terms of implementing transformative policy.

Nature abhors a vacuum and the left will be looking for a new alpha dog to represent their interests. They aren't content to settle for the scraps and they know that demographics are on their side. Young people in America are overwhelmingly progressive. Unfortunately, too many of the young people are tuned out of participating.

Someone like AOC with her nearly 7M twitter followers is poised to be a force in progressive politics. Liz Warren destroyed her progressive credentials by kneecapping Bernie in the primary and will never be trusted again.

4) Continuing to build progressive media outreach.

The difference in the 2020 primary was clearly the combination of free corporate media on behalf of Biden and establishment politicians like Obama and James Clyburn moving the levers of influence on behalf of Biden.

The US corporate media will not embrace progressivism. They are an obstacle that must be overcome.

5) Post-election activism

Progressives need to maintain their pressure on the government after the 2020 election. The only way to achieve some of their objectives is through strikes.

Pages: [1]