Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Filski]

Chris, I agree for the most part. Changes in the arctic will lead to a decrease overall in biodiversity in the oceans. I beleive the natural order tends towards to increased diversity with an ultimate balance acheived that shifts only marginally over long time scales. If we are the instrument of change that forces massive change over short time scales then we throw things out of whack, detrimental not only to other plants and animals but also ourselves.

[Chris Knight]

It is, but it doesn't mean we have to impose it on life.

Why must we so exploit/despoil this planet that whales, whales those vast blubbery things, are thin because they can't fine enough food? Or that cod disappear from places they we once super abundant? Or that, yes do call me an alarmist, polar bears can't find ice? Or that etc etc.

No, you sit back and watch us play god by our careless way - I wont.

I wish I could be so certain to know what to do without worrying I was possibly adding to the problem - what is your answer?

Edited September 11, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Gray-Wolf]

Think you might want to research the Polar Bear situation a bit, I did and what is portrayed in the media is a LONG way from the reality of those who observe real life as it is. For instance, all that scrabbling for ice malarky was filmed during melt season. Plankton or no plankton, AGW or no AGW, it'll take a lot to outstrip our predecessors in the demise of the Whale; Japanese still hunting them as we speak.

As far as my research goes this has been one of the worst years for finding 'drowned' Polar Bears since records of such thing were started (and in the memory of the Native peoples of the areas concerned).

The 'Cryosphere Today' movie of the summer melt and rotation of the shattered pack shows well the fate of those bears to the North and west of Canada and Alaska as the solid ice they were hunting from broke up and drifted out to sea whilst rapidly ablating. Records are records so the data is there for those who wish to seek it (however unpleasant the data sets prove to be).

[Guest Mike W]

I agree with you GW about about how bad this warming is and I'm probably more pesamistic than you in cetain ways, but I think it's been an open secret that Polar Bear numbers have actually increased, this maybe to be fair only in cetain areas, but I have seen news reports before in recent years where eye-witness and expets who live in these areas that have Poalr Bears have notced more of them and counts of them have increased, but as I say this could be in cetain areas only. I think though that the more it warms to the point where it's turned to a cliamte like we have and star getting longer hotter summers like continental europe and even perhaps sumemrs like we had in 2006 over here or 1995 etc, then I don't think their skin would be able to let enbough heat out for them as their skin and coarting is made for cold not heat, their probaly not geting hit a the moment as they prbably aeren't fussy eaters so they can deal with that but not the longer hot spells that are stating.

[Chris Knight]

Cryosphere Today now reports that the sea ice in the southern hemisphere has broken the previous record maximum by 1.4% at 16.26 m sq km. So we may need to change the title of this thread, as we approach the equinox.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Chris Knight

[eddie]

Cryosphere Today now reports that the sea ice in the southern hemisphere has broken the previous record maximum by 1.4% at 16.26 m sq km. So we may need to change the title of this thread, as we approach the equinox.

I find it truly amazing that we have one hemisphere recording the lowest sea ice extent ever recorded and the other recording the maximum! What on earth is going on!? I wonder if there is something strange happening with ocean currents?

Somebody in the 'I need to scream' thead linked a blog where I found this link which talks about a cyclical transfer of heat between the two hemispheres.

Atlantic Ocean heat piracy and the bipolar climate see-saw...

[Gray-Wolf]

I find it truly amazing that we have one hemisphere recording the lowest sea ice extent ever recorded and the other recording the maximum! What on earth is going on!? I wonder if there is something strange happening with ocean currents?

Somebody in the 'I need to scream' thead linked a blog where I found this link which talks about a cyclical transfer of heat between the two hemispheres.

Atlantic Ocean heat piracy and the bipolar climate see-saw...

Though of intersest the studies show it as an event taking 'hundreds of years' to occur whereas what we are witnessing has taken less than 30yrs. We see processes that we 'know' can occur happening in 'fastframe' speeds. In other words the 'pathways' for this 'exchange' are within the environment but the 'driver' for this change seem to be more a sledgehammer than a toffee hammer (as in the D.O. events).

[Gray-Wolf]

A little add on to the above;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70913133001.htm

[jethro]

Interesting stuff GW, certainly supports the paper from Polyakov I posted a while ago. This may be completely off the wall but could alignment of planets or orbits have any effect on the direction of ocean flows?

[Devonian]

Interesting stuff GW, certainly supports the paper from Polyakov I posted a while ago. This may be completely off the wall but could alignment of planets or orbits have any effect on the direction of ocean flows?

I'd be so bold as to say no.

The distances away of the planets are so huge and therefore the forces so tiny I simply can't see how they might effect currents. Nope, that's in the realms of astrology imo....unless, that is, you've some evidence, a mechanism, a paper?

[jethro]

I'd be so bold as to say no.

The distances away of the planets are so huge and therefore the forces so tiny I simply can't see how they might effect currents. Nope, that's in the realms of astrology imo....unless, that is, you've some evidence, a mechanism, a paper?

Wow, leapt on instantly for what was merely an early morning, off the wall question; well done you. With the greatest respect Dev I expect your knowledge of such things is equal to mine, but even with my massively limited knowledge I can think of at least one planet which has a huge effect on ocean flow, twice a day, every day, the world over. Given that, I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibilty that planet alignment could have an influence, do you? Do you have any papers or evidence which says it couldn't?

[Devonian]

Wow, leapt on instantly for what was merely an early morning, off the wall question; well done you. With the greatest respect Dev I expect your knowledge of such things is equal to mine, but even with my massively limited knowledge I can think of at least one planet which has a huge effect on ocean flow, twice a day, every day, the world over. Given that, I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibilty that planet alignment could have an influence, do you? Do you have any papers or evidence which says it couldn't?

C'mon!

I'm sorry, when you say planets (plural) I thought you mean planets. The Moon is a moon not a planet...

Edited September 14, 2007 by Devonian

[Bobby]

This may be completely off the wall but could alignment of planets or orbits have any effect on the direction of ocean flows?

No. Unless you believe what Mystic Meg has to say.

[jethro]

No. Unless you believe what Mystic Meg has to say.

Unless that is, you don't understand the difference between astrology and astronomy. One is speculation, the other a science discipline.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd like to back up Jethro on this one. I don't think any of us has the depth of understanding nor the length of observation necessary to give a definitive yeah or neah as to the influence of other bodies out in space. I'm limited to my Newtonian understanding and all of his 3 main 'laws' would suggest that 'interaction' does occur.....no matter how limited we feel that influence is.

Jethro, I'm sure they mean no harm.

[Devonian]

I'd like to back up Jethro on this one. I don't think any of us has the depth of understanding nor the length of observation necessary to give a definitive yeah or neah as to the influence of other bodies out in space. I'm limited to my Newtonian understanding and all of his 3 main 'laws' would suggest that 'interaction' does occur.....no matter how limited we feel that influence is.

Jethro, I'm sure they mean no harm.

Surely the motion of the planets has been observed in great detail for several hundred years (I discount an effect by Pluto)? I'm also sure astronomers know he gravitational effect of the planets and they know they're so small as to be meaningless. But, perhaps I missed the 'Sky at night' special on the effect of the planets on the tides

[jethro]

I'd like to back up Jethro on this one. I don't think any of us has the depth of understanding nor the length of observation necessary to give a definitive yeah or neah as to the influence of other bodies out in space. I'm limited to my Newtonian understanding and all of his 3 main 'laws' would suggest that 'interaction' does occur.....no matter how limited we feel that influence is.

Jethro, I'm sure they mean no harm.

Thanks GW, I'm sure they don't either I just find it soooooooooo tiresome that any sceptic is told repeatedly to go read, look it up, learn stuff and I've spent days and days doing just that. I've learnt an incredible amount about how the world and climate all interact and it really, genuinely isn't anywhere near as simple as add Co2 and we get warmer. Yet anytime I raise my head above the parapet and throw something different into the conversation I'm deemed as ignorant, ignoring the science, blah blah blah. At the very least, I'm trying to look at the broader picture which is more than can be said for many on here. I am however rapidly reaching the point where there seems little or no purpose to all this, more hassle than it's worth, more often than not. It's beginning to look less like two sides of a debate and more and more like two gangs either side of a playground; not my idea of a good time.

[Chris Knight]

I wonder how much impact the spreading of the Atlantic Ocean has to do with year on year transfer of energy between the poles and equatorial regions. The rate of spread is a few centimetres annually, or a few metres per century, and there are no pronounced subduction zones, so the ocean area and volume are growing steadily. This rate is faster in the Southern Atlantic. So there is a greater capacity for heat storage and a greater area for irradiation and evaporation, and a growing differential between the south and north. Does the spreading lead to increased current rates, or flows, and is there an increasing tendency for currents to divide into two?

[jethro]

I wonder how much impact the spreading of the Atlantic Ocean has to do with year on year transfer of energy between the poles and equatorial regions. The rate of spread is a few centimetres annually, or a few metres per century, and there are no pronounced subduction zones, so the ocean area and volume are growing steadily. This rate is faster in the Southern Atlantic. So there is a greater capacity for heat storage and a greater area for irradiation and evaporation, and a growing differential between the south and north. Does the spreading lead to increased current rates, or flows, and is there an increasing tendency for currents to divide into two?

Not a clue is the honest answer, but I'd hazard a guess it has to have some impact, somewhere. I'd be interested in anything you can find out about it though.

[Gray-Wolf]

I wish C.K. would find his 'tongue in cheek' GIF. I would imagine that the bottom freshening measured in both polar regions has more to do with things than the couple of cm a year spread. In fact the movement north (and south respectively) of the 10c isotherm in the oceans probably has even more to do with it. If we are talking the merest nuance then planets and year on year ocean basin widening (and shrinking) must play their part.

[olly aitch]

Thanks GW, I'm sure they don't either I just find it soooooooooo tiresome that any sceptic is told repeatedly to go read, look it up, learn stuff and I've spent days and days doing just that. I've learnt an incredible amount about how the world and climate all interact and it really, genuinely isn't anywhere near as simple as add Co2 and we get warmer. Yet anytime I raise my head above the parapet and throw something different into the conversation I'm deemed as ignorant, ignoring the science, blah blah blah. At the very least, I'm trying to look at the broader picture which is more than can be said for many on here. I am however rapidly reaching the point where there seems little or no purpose to all this, more hassle than it's worth, more often than not. It's beginning to look less like two sides of a debate and more and more like two gangs either side of a playground; not my idea of a good time.

I am not a prolific poster on here,but I read all the comments on a regular basis & also on TWO. I have to agree with Jethro's observations. The same comments can be made regarding the posts on TWO also. I find it very difficult to understand why the thoughts of pro AGW supporters are considered sacrosanct , and any alternative idea or questioning as uninformed. There obviously is global warming ,and with 60 plus years of experiencing it I can also confirm that there have been periods of cooling.I certainly do not dismiss AGW out of hand,but I dont think this has been proved conclusively nor properly quantified.Surely alternative thoughts to the " accepted"? theory should be considered and not dimissed out of hand, as is happening too often.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Surely the motion of the planets has been observed in great detail for several hundred years (I discount an effect by Pluto)? I'm also sure astronomers know he gravitational effect of the planets and they know they're so small as to be meaningless. But, perhaps I missed the 'Sky at night' special on the effect of the planets on the tides

It's a rather difficult problem, this one. Although any given gravitational field may be small it does not necessarily follow that its effect is negligible. I certainly don't believe that the planets control our destinies, as astrologers would have us believe, but that isn't to say that there is no physical effect from other gravitational fields.

It is both subtle and complex - in physics it is called the three-body problem - here's a link to the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_body_problem

Bearing in mind, also, that we're not just talking about nine planets and the sun (or eight planets if you accept the recent ruling on Pluto's planetary status), but also the moon, the moons of the other planets, the asteroid belt, the Oort Cloud, the Galactic Centre (which is a source of intense gravitational pull) and so on. Furthermore, the three-body problem is intended to describe the motion of bodies in a complex system, and says little or nothing about what happens to the bodies themselves, so even if the three-body problem is solved in terms of the Earth's actual path through space, it says nothing of how all the different gravitational fields affect atmospherics and tides on our little world.

Perhaps this is all just muddying the waters further, but anything which affects our planet must surely be taken into account?

CB

Edited September 18, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Bobby]

It's a rather difficult problem, this one. Although any given gravitational field may be small it does not necessarily follow that its effect is negligible. I certainly don't believe that the planets control our destinies, as astrologers would have us believe, but that isn't to say that there is no physical effect from other gravitational fields.

It is both subtle and complex - in physics it is called the three-body problem - here's a link to the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_body_problem

Bearing in mind, also, that we're not just talking about nine planets and the sun (or eight planets if you accept the recent ruling on Pluto's planetary status), but also the moon, the moons of the other planets, the asteroid belt, the Oort Cloud, the Galactic Centre (which is a source of intense gravitational pull) and so on. Furthermore, the three-body problem is intended to describe the motion of bodies in a complex system, and says little or nothing about what happens to the bodies themselves, so even if the three-body problem is solved in terms of the Earth's actual path through space, it says nothing of how all the different gravitational fields affect atmospherics and tides on our little world.

Perhaps this is all just muddying the waters further, but anything which affects our planet must surely be taken into account?

CB

Of course other planets affect the Earth, but the forces are surely far far too small to make any kind of noticeable difference to anything here. Even if they did have a reasonable effect, like the Moon, through what sort of process would they affect our weather and climate? I'm not aware of the Moon affecting our climate, and its effect on the Earth is many orders of magnitude greater than any other body, apart the Sun.

It's a wild muse really, one with no evidence.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Magpie

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks C.Bob! if we're gonna deflect earth collision asteroids by the merest push then we'd better hope that ,over time, small influence equals large effects!!!!

Of course other planets affect the Earth, but the forces are surely far far too small to make any kind of noticeable difference to anything here. Even if they did have a reasonable effect, like the Moon, through what sort of process would they affect our weather and climate? I'm not aware of the Moon affecting our climate, and its effect on the Earth is many orders of magnitude greater than any other body, apart the Sun.

It's a wild muse really, one with no evidence.

Tell that to anyone in a northerly storm surge on the east coast at a spring tide!!!!!

[Bobby]

Tell that to anyone in a northerly storm surge on the east coast at a spring tide!!!!!

How is that related to climate though?