noiv
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by noiv
-
-
Latest issue of the journal American Psychologist is exclusively on Psychology and Global Climate Change. Unfortunately behind a scientific pay wall, a few aspects are described in detail here. http://climateforce....climate-change/.
One articles covers 'Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States' and reminds me of the discussion here, so following is a lengthy cite. I'm sure the one or the other will enjoy a meta view on the discussion. The authors are Elke U. Weber, Columbia University and Paul C. Stern, National Research Council.
... In the climate policy debate, the American mass me-
dia have, sometimes inadvertently, promoted the view that
even aspects of climate change that are uncontroversial
among scientists are matters of serious scientific debate
(Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004). On one side of the controversy
portrayed in the media are predictions emanating from
some environmental movement organizations, supported
by scientists concerned about the potential consequences of
climate change, of catastrophes resulting from climate
change, including famine and political instability in devel-
oping countries, loss of species and ecosystems, and new
public health disasters. Advocates have publicized vivid
images of the future they fear, in films such as An Incon-
venient Truth (David, Bender, Burns, & Guggenheim,
2006), and emphasized the growing scientific consensus
about many climate change conclusions and the human
responsibility for climate change. This narrative empha-
sizes elements of dread and unknown risk, which induce
concern and make for a dramatic media story, and activates
personal moral norms to act to reduce such risks through its
claims that negative consequences from climate change
will be large and highly probable and that people are
responsible. This view has sometimes been characterized
as a “Pandora’s box†frame (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). By
suggesting that future catastrophe is certain unless action is
taken, it goes beyond what many scientists consider defen-
sible. However, the idea that continued emissions of green-
house gases increase the likelihood of catastrophe is en-
tirely consistent with scientific knowledge (National
Research Council, 2010a).
The “other side†presented by the media presents
various forms of reassuring pictures of the future and
critiques of climate science. Such accounts tend to cite (a)
the small number of legitimate scientists who interpret the
existing evidence base on climate change from a skeptical
perspective, focusing more on existing uncertainty about
future climate events and their consequences for human
welfare than on the potential downside risk of these uncer-
tain events, as well as (less scientifically expert sources
(see Footnote 2) engaged in an ongoing movement in the
policy world to deny the reality and recently, even the
science, of climate change. This movement has been
funded by some major oil and gas companies and wealthy
conservative individuals and is largely implemented by
conservative think tanks (Dunlap & McCright, 2010; Hog-
gan, 2009; McCright & Dunlap, 2003). It has been guided
by research conducted for Republican Party strategists and
aided by a small number of contrarian scientists, several of
the most prominent of whom were veterans of an earlier,
industry-funded campaign to minimize the health effects of
tobacco smoke (Oreskes & Conway, in press). Not orga-
nized from a single place, these efforts are best character-
ized as an elite-driven social movement to shape public
perceptions, interpretations, and concerns, motivated by
objectives that include a desire to maximize the welfare of
corporations in the fossil fuel sector and an ideological
opposition to federal regulation, which movement propo-
nents see as the likely consequence of a national commit-
ment to contain climate change (Hoggan, 2009).
The climate change denial movement has promoted a
number of beliefs about the physical phenomena of climate
change that, if widely accepted, are likely to favor the
movement’s policy objectives: the beliefs that climate
change is not happening or has not yet been demonstrated
to be happening; that if it is happening, its causes lie in
natural phenomena rather than human activity; that its
consequences will be familiar and relatively mild (e.g., a
small increase in average temperature); and that actions to
limit greenhouse gas emissions will be catastrophic for
economic and other widely held values.
An important part of the denialist framing has been to
characterize the science concerning the existence, causes,
and consequences of climate change as “uncertain†and to
suggest that “uncertainty†means that the global climate
may not be changing and that delays in action are therefore
prudent. The policy argument is that it is unwise to under-
take expensive “fixes†to a problem that may not exist and
that action should wait until the science is definitive. The
denial movement has emphasized scientific uncertainty by
publicizing events and evidence that appear to contradict
parts of the scientific consensus. It has exploited the pro-
pensity in U.S. journalism to cover controversies by pre-
senting its view of climate change as “the other side of the
story.†The influence of this “scientific uncertainty†frame
has probably increased as a result of economic pressures on
news outlets, which have thinned the ranks of science
journalists and left fewer professionals with time to de-
velop informed judgments about which factual claims have
enough veracity to deserve serious coverage. ...
Also interesting I found the idea to consider climate change as way too complex for an average human brain to understand from personal experience. Which leads to different framing strategies actuated by affect, values, and worldviews , e.g. relying on intermediary sources, eventually opinionated or driven by interests (see above) or focusing the easier part of the concept only or complete denial.
Whatever the preferred strategy is, depends also on risk perception, which I translated into weather and started asking family, friends and colleagues about their most scary weather experience. Currently snow/rain has the lead, and the scary part is mostly getting stuck.
I would say communication is challenging, because CC is a very abstract concept having a very concrete manifestation (weather) and therefore everybody has his very own mindset. We are not talking same thing, but use same words, both not exactly a receipt for consensus.
-
1
-
-
Alan,
I strongly suggest you dive a bit deeper into Earth science and start making your conclusions from there. And I'm sorry for posting a graph and not explaining it. Look for example here: http://en.wikipedia..../Solar_constant (The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²).) Greenhouse gases can not cool a planet by definition.
Jethro is quite right, questioning and answering climate science belongs to another thread.
Edit: This pdf sums it all up: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
-
> trying to get through that debate to get to what you want with the sea ice discussion!
I'll try, may be someone is interested on what's my personal take-away info from here today: http://www.arctic.io/sea-ice-charts/, http://www.arctic.io...4-N89-E0/Arctic and here https://sites.google...icseaicegraphs/. Usually first step is the forecast, GFS sees high pressure developing over Greenland with a western tendency. As result SE wind will continue to blow offshore from the Canadian Archipelago. Current temps there are around 10'C, one station reported 27°C, may be I check tomorrow whether a BBQ was close
. I would say with given temperature and direction of wind the fragmented NW Passage will continue to open fast. But that's 3 days ahead.On the Russian side I see no clear picture not only because of the clouds. But looks like the wind drives the floes in new directions all days and icebreakers are ordered back from holidays. However, good mixing of ice and water uses all available energy to melt and reported water temp is around 0°C, so no sensations here.
Beside NWP there is only ice left in the Arctic Ocean, that's why the extent graph slowed down. As long as there are multiple pressure systems involved I do not expect anything worth to announce will happen, the ice just continues melting. Usually I look more on area than extent this time, because the 15% threshold of the latter is tricky and depends on the wind (compaction). But since finally the most thrilling thing is extent I also have an eye on latest typhoon, which might shuffle all cards again a few days, if the remnants are powerful enough.
In one sentence: Same procedure as last year with less ice.
If you scan through the various threads in this section and choose a more appropriate one to ask those questions in, I'll happily answer (if my dodgy/sick computer allows).
You gave up?
-
Alan Robinson > My question to you is, where do we stand on the logarithmic curve, and does the function used in the mathematical models have coefficients and constants. perhaps you can point me to it in published literature?
Found here: http://www.csiro.au/...i_pageNo-2.html also try google or wikipedia and pick what you like. If you are interested doing the math check out the discussion here. Indeed much more CO2 is needed to achieve an effect the more you are on right the side of the graph. However, discussing how much petatons of CO2 are needed to higher the temperature from 100°C to 101°C is at best ridiculous business. Once we changed the temperature by +6°C - a value at the upper end of business as usual scenarios for this century - this is a different planet and most probably features like e.g. Amazon Rainforest will become part of history lessons at school.
Reuters: Climate change brings tea and apricots to Britain
I read this thread to find out about how the Arctic is doing through the year, not to read what I see as an unnecessary debate that can be given its own thread elsewhere instead of cluttering this thread!
Agreed, some questions could be handled via private messaging. But you will understand assertions similar to "do we need sea ice?" can not remain without response here, hence the discussions.
-
> I think you need to spend more time reading the science and less time shouting the odds at other people. The only proven fact in all of this is that CO2 is a GHG. Everything else is still open to debate, that debate is still being had by all the climate scientists.
Jethro,
I hesitate to ask about your source of news, it appears disconnected. Is it latest edition? The national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, UK, US, etc. closed in 2005 the debate [pdf] and proposed to prepare for the consequences. In 2009 a online survey among +3000 scientists, listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, found near-unanimous agreement by climatologists, however some petroleum geologists and meteorologists disagreed by ~50% with human involvement [CNN]. Some weeks ago the Australian scientific community stated: The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.
But there is progress: You've confessed CO2 is a greenhouse gas, would you also agree on burning fossil fuel releases CO2? And the amount of human CO2 is rising? And GHGs heat the atmosphere?
Or are you saying there is still a debate over why 30 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 per year do nothing?
-
What you say is correct. A post I made a couple of days back said virtually the same
thing, the Arctic ice discussion thread is and always has been made up of 90% plus
speculation but to the less knowledgable it is put across as if it were fact or at least
going to be.
At the start of the Arctic spring people offer up their wags ( wild ar-e guesses) as to
what will be the final ice extent minimum. From then on in the speculation grows
and grows with some posters offering up every scenario possible for record summer
melt where as others including myself normally sit back and wait and see.
Every year since 2007 the likes of G.W. and co. have regurgitated the same mantra
over and over which is nothing more than speculation but without it there would be
no thread I suppose. As for my guess of 5.8 million that probably has as much
chance as the the Arctic being ice free within the next 50 years.
I think the final figure will stay above 5 million though. We shall see.
At least your estimates have a downward trend
-
Oh dear. OK, please tell me what is the source or reference for that graph and has it been peer reviewed and validated.
I think the thing that bothers me most is the word "reconstructed" in that graph. This means "man-made" or "engineered", not measured. And if we are talking about quantifiable data sets it makes them by definition invalid.
I wonder, whether the line "Statiscically that to me looks like an outlier and, if anything, the movement trend is upwards." has been reviewed with same rigorous discipline you usually expect. The graph above can be most probably excluded from the list of "quantifiable data sets" , even Google does not really know what that means. If you do not accept proxy data from sediments, focus the right-hand red line, assuming your screen is not up-side-down trend movement is steep down.
-
I am sorry, I normally keep quiet on these forums as there are waaaay too many posts that are based on personal opinions rather than hard data. But how on this good earth can you say that '07 was a step change? Statiscically that to me looks like an outlier and, if anything, the movement trend is upwards.
Would say it depends on the time range you take into account. Looking at the last 900 years, it is hard to see an upward trend.
-
If we do sea ice transport through the NW Passage , Fram and Nares we may find a different 'slowing down' portion to the graph with a lot of ice reaching lower latitudes around the time of the high Arctic freeze up?
Will we see a 'flat bottom' to the graph into Sept with melt balancing gains?
EDIT: and will the lack of 'collapse and spread' will the season appear longer?
Sounds reasonable, together with more drift I also assume further mixing of different ice types, leading to more holes next season.
-
While loss of extent slowed down, sea ice concentration becomes an issue. Picture covers 128km x 128km.
-
Alan Robinson > My understanding is that the laws of gravity cannot be reconciled with what is thought to be happening between tiny particles. General relativity explains - so they say - phenomena on a huge scale, quantum theory explains what goes on on a tiny scale - so they say - and the two theories are compatible except regarding gravity. I also gather that the attempt to unify these two grand theories is what caused quantum theory to be renamed and adjusted so many times, and in light of this, it seems reasonable to expect further adjustments if full unification is ever to be achieved.
This was why I raised the question about criteria of proof and acceptance of hypotheses.
My way of seeing is both theories hardly overlap, QM works perfectly at atom scale and GR delivers predictable results on a planet's scale. Both survived nearly hundred years full of sophisticated attacks in order to disprove. The Copenhagen Interpretation explaining e.g. entanglement is now widely accepted, even Einstein failed to falsify.
Between both is a huge gap: You as a person don't disappear by quantum interference and every time you lift a stone, you have an example how weak the gravitational force of a whole planet actually is. But every GPS satellite shows both are working pretty good together, the electronic is framed by QM and the position system calculates with a spacetime different as the one down on earth.
I assume, there will be many more attempts to build up a unifying theory, I also think, it is overrated, what ever has been shown is far away from explaining how the human brain and languages work. And the hardest work is not to develop a theory, it is exposing an interface open to falsification, ever tried to measure something in Planck units?
Regarding climate the noise in the data is always an invitation to challenge. There is a chance candidates for a different explanation exist, however none has survived so far. And yes, we do not have a final unified theory of physics yet, but that does not induce science isn't capable of anything.
-
4wd > I would think quite a bit of the recent high 'melting' which seems to have been delighting some was actually wind/current compaction. The graph showing temperatures above 80N shows near average.
Both points are tricky. Have you considered, that before compaction actually can happen there must have been melting? Saying a loss of 100,000 sqkm is due to compaction, means same amount has melted up-front.
The maximum temperature atop an ice pack is determined by the physics of melting. The frozen ice absorbs all latent heat to change phase and thus keeps 2m temperature low. In summer the temperature line of the DMI chart will stay very close to the average as long there is enough ice to consume incoming energy.
-
> How about adding some links for peer reviewed papers to support all the rhetoric flying around.
I'd like to start with "The History of Sea Ice", here is the abstract:
Arctic sea-ice extent and volume are declining rapidly. Several studies project that the Arctic Ocean may become seasonally ice-free by the year 2040 or even earlier. Putting this into perspective requires information on the history of Arctic sea-ice conditions through the geologic past. This information can be provided by proxy records from the Arctic Ocean floor and from the surrounding coasts. Although existing records are far from complete, they indicate that sea ice became a feature of the Arctic by 47 Ma, following a pronounced decline in atmospheric pCO2 after the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Optimum, and consistently covered at least part of the Arctic Ocean for no less than the last 13–14 million years.Ice was apparently most widespread during the last 2–3 million years, in accordance with Earth’s overall cooler climate. Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability.
The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities. (Polyak et al., Accepted 3 February 2010, Quaternary Science Reviews, Elsevier)
For the sake of discourse it might be of interest to take position in outer space and watch sea ice emerging and passing. Back on Earth you'll find the desire to adapt to a dinosaurs supporting climate within life time is rarely spread.
-
The Arctic has been through periods similar to this many many times before in the pre
satellite era. This been pointed out many many times before but posters looking for
some new natural catastrophe do not want to here thesethings.The Arctic is going through
a prolonged period of its negative oscillation which accounts for higher pressure over the
Arctic which during summer months can lead to more melt than otherwise is normal.
The knock on effect of the negative oscillation though is for many northern hemisphere
countries to see colder and snowier winters again.
The science is still far from settled even NOAA are starting to doubt the satellite temperature
data which is taken from hot zones such as airports and inner city heat islands and in less
than a week or so when NOAA announces record ice melt it looks as the 2011 ice melt will
be slipping inside that of 2007, which in my opinion is quite irrelevant anyway unless of course
you are one of the ones hyping up a global apocalypse or some other unfounded scare
mongering story.
That all would make perfectly sense, if there were only two facts pointing to humans induce climate change. What is your intention dropping all other? There even was a time without Arctic and Earth, let me know when your space ship is fueled and you are ready to continue your planet looting mission through the galaxy.
-
> Take for example the inconsistencies between relativity and quantum-whatever-version-they-advocate-right-now-theory.
Would you mind to elaborate on that point?
Beautiful photo of melting sea ice in Chukchi Sea found here.
-
> As for the Arctic ice, it's looking a bit on the low side.
Correct, Arctic lost 40% in the last decades, if another 1.5 bits get lost, Arctic is ice free. Won't you smell a conspiracy, if 100% of all scientists agree on any subject? I would consider science then as blocked and useless, because it can't move forward. Actually, if there were no doubt, someone had to invent it. To question and challenging makes science robust. But there was a lot of time, still nothing substantial to read and the clock is ticking.
> Nobody as yet has had a "Eureka" moment and made all these observations fit together.
There have been many Eureka! The observation not fitting is ...?
-
> Can we please not go down the line of childish name calling again?
Agreed. It is just that "people having dissenting opinion to settled science" is too long. Please, make a political correct proposal. (no irony here, I'm willing to integrate what ever comes up)
-
Stunning video taken by a buoy webcam located here: http://www.arctic.io...60/Beaufort-Sea. Video starts end of March with daily updates, switches to hourly updates first of July, tilts finally over to sky view and will probably become soon a sea floor fish cam.
via neven's sea ice blog, thanks to Rob Dekker.
-
"Why you are interested in sea ice?"
I think that this is a question that we all might like to consider.
I think I am drawn to it by it's possible impacts on us and it's accessibility for us tied to our computer chairs?
I believe that it truly is 'The Canary in the mine' as far as the climate change we see is concerned.
I'm in no way saying that we do not see natures 'ups and downs' in our recent climate history but I also see that 'drives' that mans usage of the planet have brought about.
Funnily enough I feel it will be 'Mother Nature' ,and her carbon inputs, that will bring about the worse of the climate 'changes' we are yet to face (because of the course we seem set upon..in my way of witnessing/reasoning?) as the permafrost out-gasses both Methane and CO2 over the years to come.
I have no faith in 'humanity' taking any realistic steps toward solving either our climatic impacts,poverty or hunger any time soon, Hey! , it's only one mans standpoint?
Where does that leave my son and daughter?
Well that's up to us?
Great, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'd like like to add in the Arctic climate change gets real very soon. And the deniers are becoming really nervous already. They are literally on thin ice and see their claims melting. [press this button, J] I'm a bit less pessimistic, because I see a chance with CC solved some other sacrificed principles are given up.
-
> If you show me how we have created the weather in the Arctic or elsewhere on Earth...
Jethro, please, there is no interpretation needed to understand this proposal, there is obviously no reference in the whole paragraph. Get your language straight and precise, stop weaseling. And I suppose my "religious link" refers to Grumbine, right? ROFL. Please name the scientists you would accept without comment having linked here. Make a white list of what you allow to discuss. And stop reading here or get your moral button under control. You hardly achieve writing a few lines without contradicting yourself. Mostly it is you bringing up that moral issue, what exactly is your problem, why do you feel guilty?
-
> how much effect the ice breakers are having on single year ice?
Yeah, that point comes up quite often. 2 possible replies: We are talking about 5-10 millions of square kilometers ice and perhaps ten icebreakers having let me guess 30m width. Can flies shatter mountains? Sea ice is already fractured by nature, it is constantly drifting, breaking, opening cracks, leads and polynyas, etc.. The latter is also the reason why so many submarines surfaced and got pictured at North Pole, it is not that difficult to find a hole there in summer. Have a look at concentration maps, 80% of sea ice means 20% room for icebreakers and submarines.
Why you are interested in sea ice?
-
Looks like the NE and NW passages will be fully open in the next couple of weeks, with the NE passage easily travelable now and totally ice free(i.e no ice in sight) soon
Indeed, Russian Icebreaker have holidays now. Anyway was strange job last week, having offshore wind of 20°C, ice floes to break and cubes on deck. Budjem sdorowy!
-
> If you show me how we have created the weather in the Arctic or elsewhere on Earth...
It seems you constantly mix up climate and weather. Or you don't, but know above is not possible by all logic. There is a clear trend to a warmer climate on Earth, so what is your conjecture? Can you formulate in a way it is open to falsification? And please, don't come up with something already dropped by IPCC or any other peer reviewed paper. Otherwise there is no reason why you intercept the discussion here, remember this is the Internet, everybody here is old enough to reject moral drivel himself, patronizing is gratuitous.
-
I'm still wondering how the planet recovered last time from an ice free Arctic. Anyway got to admit the melt is disappointing but talk of the perfect a storm and perfect melt is going a bit far.
Start here: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Carbon_cycle
. I would say with given temperature and direction of wind the fragmented NW Passage will continue to open fast. But that's 3 days ahead.
Arctic Ice Discussion
in Climate Change
Posted
Jethro, are you writing this to sound cool? You wouldn't bother even if sea ice disappears completely tomorrow, right? Where do you draw the line towards being ignorant? Any other features on this planet you could easily miss? I hope there will always be something left you actually enjoy and consider motivating.
I like the new layout here, post are better readable, also when editing, very inviting. Had to laugh while scrolling the list of emoticons, will there be Easter bunnies next spring?
But where is the post preview button?
The quotient of extent to area indicating sea ice fragmentation reached a new all time high and the Central Arctic extent is running downhill now: