Arctic Ice Discussion

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that as the Arctic melts out, more open water will be exposed during the melt season, and that this will increase radiation back to space, thereby acting as a negative feedback and slowing the rate of melt.

If that is indeed what you meant (and I apologise if I've misread you), then you are overlooking the second law of thermodynamics. Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body. Open surface water cannot radiate extra heat to space during the Arctic summer, when the Sun is up, and the sky is radiating heat downwards! Open water during the melt season will absorb more of the Sun's energy, speeding the melt. Open water after the equinox, when the Sun has set - that will indeed radiate to space: meaning the re-freeze will be faster. This is pretty simple stuff, and has been clearly observable for several years in succession now.

You seem to be confused between Nares strait and the Northwest Passage. Nares is not important as a shipping route: the northern end is in the Lincoln sea, where the oldest and thickest ice resides. Anyone sailing through it (in the very rare occasions it's been possible) winds up in a lead along the northern shore of Ellesmere island, with nowhere to go subsequently except the pack ice. Nares is of interest due to ice loss through the channel when the bridges are broken. Extent-wise it's no great shakes: even in 2007 (if I recall correctly) it only exported around 10% as much as got exported through the much wider Fram strait. However, due to the positioning of the northern end of the strait, ice lost through Nares is disproportionately the older, more durable ice.

The last few years it's barely formed a bridge at all. Historically, it was rare for the strait to open at all, with an ice bridge remaining year-round. If it opened at all, it would be late summer (August-ish). The situation this year is of a newly-formed bridge after the Strait being open all last summer. I honestly don't think there's enough historical data to have the faintest idea how long such a bridge will last: whether it persists through the summer and restores the historical closed status of the strait, or whether it fails at some point and allows the ice to continue draining. For what it's worth, as of the 23rd of May, the Canadian ice service were still reporting it as thick first-year ice (> 1 metre).

This paper is likely of interest: http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1003/2009GL041872/2009GL041872.pdf

On your first part, the emission of Black Body Radiation happens all year, whether the sun is up or not, the net balance is what is affected by the sun being above the horizon

I'm not confused between the Nares Strait and the NWP, What I was saying is that there is a record of it (the strait) being traversed by a ship in June for the first time a few years ago

Can you split out what you mean by "The last few years" so I can understand what you mean between that and "Historically"? I was of the understanding thatit's "Normal opening period was from late August up to the end of the melt.

Thanks

[Iceberg]

I didn't say emissions were not rising, I said measures are being taken to change the situation; countries the world over are looking at green energy. It won't happen over-night but it will happen so the future vision of endless rising emissions is an unfounded one - if nothing else, the dwindling stocks of fossil fuels will ensure this happens.

As I said, there is peer reviewed evidence for and against positive feedback from clouds; it's possible to pick and choose depending upon your viewpoint.

You are completely missing the fact that ice free water radiates heat away to space, this is a very important and often over-looked part of the equation. Thick sea ice is an effective insulator keeping the extra warmth in the ocean, hence most Arctic melt has been driven from below the surface - remove the surface and the heat can radiate away to space.

Arctic ice is not meant to be a static entity or in an ever increasing spiral of more and thicker ice - less ice is a symptom of a climate system working as it should. In the early decades of the 20th century there was a sharp decline in ice, estimates say there was more than today but the decline had been as sharp; the Arctic went from sharply declining to increasing ice levels in a few decades, reaching the pinnacle of extent in the 1960'/'70's that sparked fears of an impending ice age.

The ice waxes and wanes, it is a clearly visible illustration of the Earth's temperature, the mercury in the thermometer. Heat is transferred from the Tropics to the Arctic, whether that be atmospheric or ocean current makes no difference, it is a system working properly.

Measuring the workings of that system over short time periods merely captures a moment, that moment is not indicative of the future. Any possible visions of the future can only be vaguely judged by looking at past events, history shows the Arctic to be dynamic not static Judging the future of the Arctic on knowledge that we have contributed to the warming is IMO a misnomer, it doesn't matter where the extra heat has come from so long as the natural climate systems in place continue to work, there is no evidence to even suggest we have altered the climate system in the Arctic, it's merely working quicker than we have previously experienced and have data for. That is a system in fine working order, not one in a death spiral.

Sorry Jethro I thought you were saying that since we are tackling emissions they will soon not be increasing. As the report shows they are still rising as quick if not quicker than they ever have done.

Re the emissions going up for ever I would suggest looking at the emission scenario's from the IPCC and the models as this is not what is factored in to most models.

So the rising emissions future being unfounded is therefore a total strawman as this is not what the IPCC or major climate modellers are saying or have said.

As has been said above ice free water does not always radiate more heat to space, the Albedo effect of ice means that more heat is radiated back under white ice coverings.

What tends to happen under arctic shrinkage is that more heat is absorbed in the summer months by the open water, as the freeze season kicks in the top layer of the water quickly cools and freeze, once you have the layer of ice it acts to insulate the water underneath from losing more heat, this is one of the major contributors to ice loss i.e the warmer water underneath.

Yes less ice is a mechanism for planetary control, however no ice is the system failing and that it a point we are moving closer and closer to.

An inverse anology might be having a flame in an gas oven, you keep turning the flame down as it's getting too hot, this is a right and proper response, however if you turn it down to the point where the flame goes out you render the mechanism useless.

[DeepSnow]

I have been following this thread with interest. I just found this in an article online

" though the Sun will warm the ocean more strongly in the summer months, the lack of the ice blanket will likewise cause the ocean to lose heat to the atmosphere more quickly during the dark winter months. Therefore, one ice-free summer will not necessarily be the tipping point that leads to another and another."

I was just wondering what peoples views were on this, and if there have been ice free summers before? as I would have thought that if there are ice free summers, through the different cycles on the earth it would find a way of balancing this, leading to somewhere in the futue the re-growth of the ice sheet?

[jethro]

Sorry Jethro I thought you were saying that since we are tackling emissions they will soon not be increasing. As the report shows they are still rising as quick if not quicker than they ever have done.

Re the emissions going up for ever I would suggest looking at the emission scenario's from the IPCC and the models as this is not what is factored in to most models.

So the rising emissions future being unfounded is therefore a total strawman as this is not what the IPCC or major climate modellers are saying or have said.

As has been said above ice free water does not always radiate more heat to space, the Albedo effect of ice means that more heat is radiated back under white ice coverings.

What tends to happen under arctic shrinkage is that more heat is absorbed in the summer months by the open water, as the freeze season kicks in the top layer of the water quickly cools and freeze, once you have the layer of ice it acts to insulate the water underneath from losing more heat, this is one of the major contributors to ice loss i.e the warmer water underneath.

Yes less ice is a mechanism for planetary control, however no ice is the system failing and that it a point we are moving closer and closer to.

An inverse anology might be having a flame in an gas oven, you keep turning the flame down as it's getting too hot, this is a right and proper response, however if you turn it down to the point where the flame goes out you render the mechanism useless.

The most important means of oceans losing heat is not radiation but a loss of latent heat through evaporation.

The albedo of ice varies enormously depending upon cleanness and thickness; the Arctic isn't pristine and white, much of it is dirty and has a greatly reduced albedo level.

When it comes to measuring the loss of albedo against the increase of open water and extra absorbed heat, it isn't as simple as it seems. It's not a direct comparison of dark surface, energy absorbing, versus white reflectivity. The determining factor in ice melt is sunlight hitting the surface, hence break-up forecast dates varying dependant upon expected weather:

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

Open ocean generates increased cloud levels, the more open water there is, the cloudier the Arctic becomes. The area beneath the clouds may well be dark and absorbing more energy but only if the cloud is thin enough to allow adequate penetration of the Sun. The extra cloud generated by the open water has a top of the atmosphere albedo effect, clouds are far more reflective than dirty sea ice. As for how this balances out, the short answer is no one knows. All that is currently known is that it is the dominant factor determining ice levels. More research is being done but until it is, anyone who thinks dark, open ocean means more and more heat is absorbed is looking at a multi-dimensional situation through a pair of 2 dimensional glasses.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=16900&tid=282&cid=58549

http://www.nwra.com/resumes/liepert/pdf-files/Gorodetskaya_etal.pdf

No ice isn't a sign of a failing system, it is a sign of a system in a state of equilibrium different to one we have previously experienced. Your analogy only holds true if there is only one mechanism, Arctic ice level isn't the only mechanism associated with climate variability, it is simply the most visible to the human eye.

[Gray-Wolf]

Many years of atmospheric temp profiles over 'open water' that used to be ice at that time of year shows very well that temp accrued over summer has a big impact on the air above when the sun has set in Autumn.

If we had a 20c +ve anom above us in early Nov folk would be very concerned!

To suggest that people 'don't know' is not really the case J' , We now have enough data of the phenomena to have had papers published using the years of new data. I am with Mr Serezze on this one! the more dark water the more heat is absorbed, the more heat absorbed the more the ocean needs to shed before it can freeze, shedding the accrued heat leads to a later re-freeze and a later re-freeze means thinner ice the next year (a process we have been seeing increase in the Beaufort sea area over the past 4 years with IceBridge data showing a year on year reduction in ice thickness and last years total melt out of sea ice there).

Were it all just speculation not support by hard data running since the end of the 90's then your stance would be more valid , as it is we have the observations and most of us on here have experienced the consequences of the circulation changes this that warm air brings.

Hopefully with more and more open water we will have less and less cold pooling over the Arctic ocean in Autumn/early winter and so the past few years of displaced Arctic air flowing over N.Europe/USA will not repeat (nor the WAA this displacement draws into the basin?).

Back to today and it looks like IJIS has us joint lowest on record as we enter into melt seasons high losses stage , baring in mind 06' was a low extent but held a lot more volume and that 2010's ice was thicker with the last of the paleocryistic still plumed up from Alaska into the Beaufort sea i'd say we are just about to see how fragile thin,young ice really is.

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

that 'down-tick had better level off or we'll be falling vertical!!!

Edited June 2, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

that 'down-tick had better level off or we'll be falling vertical!!!

Un-dramatised version:

- It looks like last year -

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh how you try and ignore stuff Four!

Less ice this year(volume) .Thinner ice this year(thickness). Same 'extent' as 06' and 2010.

[jethro]

Many years of atmospheric temp profiles over 'open water' that used to be ice at that time of year shows very well that temp accrued over summer has a big impact on the air above when the sun has set in Autumn.

If we had a 20c +ve anom above us in early Nov folk would be very concerned!

To suggest that people 'don't know' is not really the case J' , We now have enough data of the phenomena to have had papers published using the years of new data. I am with Mr Serezze on this one! the more dark water the more heat is absorbed, the more heat absorbed the more the ocean needs to shed before it can freeze, shedding the accrued heat leads to a later re-freeze and a later re-freeze means thinner ice the next year (a process we have been seeing increase in the Beaufort sea area over the past 4 years with IceBridge data showing a year on year reduction in ice thickness and last years total melt out of sea ice there).

Were it all just speculation not support by hard data running since the end of the 90's then your stance would be more valid , as it is we have the observations and most of us on here have experienced the consequences of the circulation changes this that warm air brings.

Hopefully with more and more open water we will have less and less cold pooling over the Arctic ocean in Autumn/early winter and so the past few years of displaced Arctic air flowing over N.Europe/USA will not repeat (nor the WAA this displacement draws into the basin?).

Back to today and it looks like IJIS has us joint lowest on record as we enter into melt seasons high losses stage , baring in mind 06' was a low extent but held a lot more volume and that 2010's ice was thicker with the last of the paleocryistic still plumed up from Alaska into the Beaufort sea i'd say we are just about to see how fragile thin,young ice really is.

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

that 'down-tick had better level off or we'll be falling vertical!!!

It's not my stance GW, it is the stance of experienced, respected, scientists.

Having accrued large amounts of information and data is not the same thing as analysing and deciphering the conflicting signals. In the words of The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution "This cloud-radiation feedback, although it has been suggested to play an important role in polar amplification of the Arctic climate change, remains as one of the least understood processes." That link was last updated on the 19th May 2011 so I doubt that view has changed in the last couple of weeks.

The circulation changes you speak of also have many causes, not least the changes induced by the changing Solar activity; it has been widely confirmed that lower Solar activity alters the pressure belts and thus the air circulation. Haven't got time to source papers now but will post links later. Also of relevance are the changes to the Brewer-Dobson circulation patterns which are influenced by changes in Ozone levels: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/13829/2011/acpd-11-13829-2011.pdf

Again, you cannot view a multi-dimensional problem through 2 dimensional glasses.

You may well agree with Mark Serezze but his voice is just one of many, finding a view which supports your own and then suggesting it is the authoritative one on a subject is merely confirmation bias. I am puzzled that both you and Mark Serezze can be so certain, when so many others are not. I always thought the purpose of science was to investigate until you had the complete picture, explore every avenue, not stop when you have half the data but just enough data to support the preconceived ideas you already had.

[VillagePlank]

I think we have to dispel this myth of balance of nature, and of equilibrium, and of some arbitrary norm.

Firstly, the balance of nature myth. This has been widely discredited since at least 1979 on the basis of the discovery of pseduo-scientific practices in the ecological sciences - it's been found that the studies that showed an equilibrium, or balance of nature if you prefer, had the data massaged to fit the model rather than the model fit the data. It is unfortunate that this myth still prevails in a large section of the scientific community even though it has no basis whatsoever.

Leading on from that is the premise that somehow nature keeps within norms. We can all too obviously see this in climatological circles which consistently post anomalies. Now, there is nothing wrong in that - it has a sound, rational, mathematical treatise behind it - but there is something very wrong about it's inference - an anomaly is an anomaly against something normal.

Normal, the premise says, is governed by a complex interaction of feedbacks and feedforwards. The problem with this is, of course, every study that has used empirical data to show that the equilibirum is maintained by this complex system, has shown the premise to be false.

Of course, theorists argue, equilibrium is dynamic - that nature does achieve a steady state, but does so on many levels. By extension this argument leads to an infinite amout of states which ultimately means no equilibrium - since every point can be argued to be it's own equilibrium.

With that in mind, then, what of arctic ice? In my view it waxes and wanes like the moon; that view is supported by all of the paleo-climatological evidence. We cannot know that the rate of change is disimilar to other events since the error rate of paleoclimate records can be up to 15,000 years whilst we only have measurements of say 200 years.

That the ice is melting is a matter of empirical record. It may recover, it may not. The widely predicted cold spell (due to solar inactivity) may have some say in that. The plan must be one of mitigation. The myth, which I haven't covered here, that man can control nature (control is different from change) is another strongly embedded belief within western doctrine.

This is inspired by the recent BBC2 documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace If you get a chance, watch it on replay.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Sparticle

[jethro]

Absolutely agree Sparticle; the Arctic is, and always will be dynamic, not static.

[Iceberg]

Yes, very good, well done, 10/10, however nobody is saying it should be static or that is is static..

The posts above show nothing more than an attack on the science of climatology, with an obvious lack of understanding of that science. BTW I am not getting into a debate on this.

[songster]

Oh how you try and ignore stuff Four!

Less ice this year(volume) .Thinner ice this year(thickness). Same 'extent' as 06' and 2010.

True, but you really don't help your case when you jump on every single day's data to add another prediction of doom to this thread. I can set my watch by it, it's that laughable. I woke up this morning, checked IJIS, saw that the (uncorrected) number for the day was a big drop, and bet myself a jam sandwich you'd posted about it already. If you keep this up, I shall blame you for my inevitable Type II diabetes. For the record, there is always a sharp downward wiggle in the IJIS numbers some time around the 1st of June, due to the switch over from "dry surface" to "wet surface" processing algorithms with the onset of melt. You really shouldn't draw any conclusion from any individual day's changes within the window from about May 25th to June 5th.

I do agree with you that it's looking bad though - we're around the same as last year (worst on record for dates), and the melt this year is penetrating to higher latitudes earlier. Beaufort especially is down relative to 2010 while Hudson Bay is higher - the latter cannot last as Hudson Bay is always seasonal ice. But hyperbole like "that 'down-tick had better level off or we'll be falling vertical" is just stupid. It will level off. It does every year. And frankly, if I searched this site, I bet I could find a post from you on or around June 1st every flipping year pointing it out.

[VillagePlank]

For UK users, here's part two of the documentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011rbws :

A series of films exploring the idea that we have been colonised by the machines we have built. Although we don't realise it, the way we see everything in the world today is through the eyes of the computers.

This is the story of how our modern scientific idea of nature, the self-regulating ecosystem, is actually a machine fantasy. It has little to do with the real complexity of nature. It is based on cybernetic ideas that were projected on to nature in the 1950s by ambitious scientists. A static machine theory of order that sees humans, and everything else on the planet, as components - cogs - in a system.

But in an age disillusioned with politics, the self-regulating ecosystem has become the model for utopian ideas of human 'self-organizing networks' - dreams of new ways of organising societies without leaders, as in the Facebook and Twitter revolutions, and in global visions of connectivity like the Gaia theory.

This powerful idea emerged out of the hippie communes in America in the 1960s, and from counterculture computer scientists who believed that global webs of computers could liberate the world.

But, at the very moment this was happening, the science of ecology discovered that the theory of the self-regulating ecosystem wasn't true. Instead they found that nature was really dynamic and constantly changing in unpredictable ways. But the dream of the self-organizing network had by now captured our imaginations - because it offered an alternative to the dangerous and discredited ideas of politics.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Sparticle

[oldsnowywizard]

"the more dark water the more heat is absorbed, the more heat absorbed the more the ocean needs to shed before it can freeze, shedding the accrued heat leads to a later re-freeze and a later re-freeze means thinner ice the next year (a process we have been seeing increase in the Beaufort sea area over the past 4 years with IceBridge data showing a year on year reduction in ice thickness and last years total melt out of sea ice there).

So what went wrong after 2007? The pack was the smallest certainly it has ever been in the last 100 years or so.. but bounced back extent wise faster than previous years and 2008 was a recovery which implies the thinner ice argument was ignored by nature at this time.

[jethro]

Yes, very good, well done, 10/10, however nobody is saying it should be static or that is is static..

The posts above show nothing more than an attack on the science of climatology, with an obvious lack of understanding of that science. BTW I am not getting into a debate on this.

No one has attacked the science of climatology, no one has shown a lack of understanding. What has been posted are views (with supporting evidence) that disagree with the general stance of "the science is settled" views from some on here.

You're clearly at liberty to not discuss this further but I find it a little odd that you would announce you're not discussing it further, straight after you've dismissed others as "lacking in understanding" of the subject - a clear effort IMO to silence the critics.

This area has been exceedingly quiet for some time, by some miracle of good fortune we seem to have sparked interest and debate again, good debate is about sharing and discussing conflicting ideas; stomping off after declaring your opponents are ignorant isn't debate.

For the record, that isn't me with my MOD hat on speaking, it's the voice of someone who initially came on here to debate these issues, I thought that was why we were all here.

Why try to stifle it, the instant it's sparked up again?

[Thundery wintry showers]

That the ice is melting is a matter of empirical record. It may recover, it may not. The widely predicted cold spell (due to solar inactivity) may have some say in that. The plan must be one of mitigation. The myth, which I haven't covered here, that man can control nature (control is different from change) is another strongly embedded belief within western doctrine.

This is inspired by the recent BBC2 documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace If you get a chance, watch it on replay.

Some interesting points there!

I don't think it's fair to tar climate science with the "over-simplistic idea of nature as a self-regulating ecosystem" brush. It's well established within the scientific community that we've recently had a period of unusual climate stability and that in the past global climate has tended to be very chaotic. When we have X going into a system, and Y going out of a system, if X and Y are roughly equal we will reach an equilibrium in which X and Y counterbalance each other. What makes global and regional climate chaotic is the fact that X and Y typically change unpredictably over time. The argument regarding AGW is that human activity may be increasing the magnitude of X and thus tipping the scales towards a warmer climate, plus concerns that with climate being a chaotic rather than self-regulating systems, we might even be capable of pushing climate "over the edge" by adding too large an additional variable (I doubt that the reality is this gloomy, but it's a genuine concern). The same is true at a regional level with the Arctic climate.

The bit that I've quoted makes me see where the likes of Iceberg are coming from, as it reads to me as if the points about self-sustaining equilibriums in nature (or lack of them) are building up to the common conclusion, "we are naive to think we can control nature by reducing anthropogenic global warming so therefore we should put ourselves 100% behind adaptation" argument or am I mis-reading this? The whole point of reducing AGW is to reduce the extent to which we are changing nature, while at the same time also addressing the other agenda of moving towards more sustainable forms of energy.

I do agree with the general premise, though, that it's unrealistic to think in terms of 100% self-regulating systems.

[stewfox]

For the record, there is always a sharp downward wiggle in the IJIS numbers some time around the 1st of June, due to the switch over from "dry surface" to "wet surface" processing algorithms with the onset of melt. You really shouldn't draw any conclusion from any individual day's changes within the window from about May 25th to June 5th.

I thought last year they mention getting this smoothed out ?

[songster]

I thought last year they mention getting this smoothed out ?

They adjusted things so it's smoother than it used to be, but it's still extremely obvious in almost every year. Don't take my word for it: look at the graphs!

[VillagePlank]

snip

Edited June 3, 2011 by Sparticle

[stewfox]

They adjusted things so it's smoother than it used to be, but it's still extremely obvious in almost every year. Don't take my word for it: look at the graphs!

Look at real data ? Never considered that B)

I thought this blog was interesting.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/barrow-break-up-1.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b0154327ea428970c

[PersianPaladin]

I think we have to dispel this myth of balance of nature, and of equilibrium, and of some arbitrary norm.

Firstly, the balance of nature myth. This has been widely discredited since at least 1979 on the basis of the discovery of pseduo-scientific practices in the ecological sciences - it's been found that the studies that showed an equilibrium, or balance of nature if you prefer, had the data massaged to fit the model rather than the model fit the data. It is unfortunate that this myth still prevails in a large section of the scientific community even though it has no basis whatsoever.

Leading on from that is the premise that somehow nature keeps within norms. We can all too obviously see this in climatological circles which consistently post anomalies. Now, there is nothing wrong in that - it has a sound, rational, mathematical treatise behind it - but there is something very wrong about it's inference - an anomaly is an anomaly against something normal.

Normal, the premise says, is governed by a complex interaction of feedbacks and feedforwards. The problem with this is, of course, every study that has used empirical data to show that the equilibirum is maintained by this complex system, has shown the premise to be false.

Of course, theorists argue, equilibrium is dynamic - that nature does achieve a steady state, but does so on many levels. By extension this argument leads to an infinite amout of states which ultimately means no equilibrium - since every point can be argued to be it's own equilibrium.

With that in mind, then, what of arctic ice? In my view it waxes and wanes like the moon; that view is supported by all of the paleo-climatological evidence. We cannot know that the rate of change is disimilar to other events since the error rate of paleoclimate records can be up to 15,000 years whilst we only have measurements of say 200 years.

That the ice is melting is a matter of empirical record. It may recover, it may not. The widely predicted cold spell (due to solar inactivity) may have some say in that. The plan must be one of mitigation. The myth, which I haven't covered here, that man can control nature (control is different from change) is another strongly embedded belief within western doctrine.

This is inspired by the recent BBC2 documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace If you get a chance, watch it on replay.

That is a sad indictment of contemporary environmentalism and it pervades throughout mainstream climate science. The idea of "climatic equilibrium" is something that I have problems with, as well as the overt dependency on computer modelling to try and predict the future based on "climate sensitivity" scenarios. The notion of "climate sensitivity" has been challenged here.

I think some of climate-science owes some of its thinking to that of Gaia theory. One of the people who helped formulate the theory describes nature in an interesting way:-

Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist who collaborated with Lovelock in supporting the Gaia hypothesis, argued in 1999, that “Darwin's grand vision was not wrong, only incomplete. In accentuating the direct competition between individuals for resources as the primary selection mechanism, Darwin (and especially his followers) created the impression that the environment was simply a static arena.†She wrote that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are regulated around "set points" as in homeostasis, but those set points change with time.^[33]

She also wrote that there is no special tendency of biospheres to preserve their current inhabitants, and certainly not to make them comfortable.^[33] According to her, the Earth is a kind of community of trust that can exist at many discrete levels of integration.^[33] All multicellular organisms do not live or die all at once: not all cells in the body die instantaneously, nor are homeostatic "set points" constant through the life of an organism.^[33]

http://en.wikipedia....n_and_evolution

My view is that there are harmonious periods of balance, but these will disconnect and re-arrange into unforeseen ways over time and on the whole....there is no set "destination". Just constant change, shifting alliances and mutualisms and shifting competitions.

Edited June 3, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[PersianPaladin]

Some interesting points there!

I don't think it's fair to tar climate science with the "over-simplistic idea of nature as a self-regulating ecosystem" brush. It's well established within the scientific community that we've recently had a period of unusual climate stability and that in the past global climate has tended to be very chaotic. When we have X going into a system, and Y going out of a system, if X and Y are roughly equal we will reach an equilibrium in which X and Y counterbalance each other. What makes global and regional climate chaotic is the fact that X and Y typically change unpredictably over time. The argument regarding AGW is that human activity may be increasing the magnitude of X and thus tipping the scales towards a warmer climate, plus concerns that with climate being a chaotic rather than self-regulating systems, we might even be capable of pushing climate "over the edge" by adding too large an additional variable (I doubt that the reality is this gloomy, but it's a genuine concern). The same is true at a regional level with the Arctic climate.

The thing is, that the very notion of "pushing over the edge" suggests that there is some "climate equilibrium" to begin with. And correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't Gaia theory (Lovelock et al) embrace self-regulating systems and also talk about magnified or "tipping point" feedbacks with respect to climate?

[Iceberg]

Before we start talking about sad indictments etc of climate science please please please read a few good definations of climate and climate science both over a 30 year average and over geological climate types and even the good old climatic types/descriptions such as Tundra, Arid, Tropical Wet etc.

You will then see how much rubbish this talk about climate equilibrium/static systems etc actually is.

If you have read it and you still hold these very strange views then there really is no hope.

I appreciate this is very blunt so sorry for that.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Iceberg

[VillagePlank]

Before we start talking about sad indictments etc of climate science please please please read a few good definations of climate and climate science both over a 30 year average and over geological climate types and even the good old climatic types/descriptions such as Tundra, Arid, Tropical Wet etc.

You will then see how much rubbish this talk about climate equilibrium/static systems etc actually is.

If you have read it and you still hold these very strange views then there really is no hope.

I appreciate this is very blunt so sorry for that.

The point is there no such thing as climate.

That's a conclusion from this line of reasoning. Look at the trends and mitigate; you can't call those trends climate since there is no valid reference point to refer to.

I trust you are not against looking at trends and/or mitigation of effects?

Edited June 3, 2011 by Sparticle

[PersianPaladin]

The climate is clearly a non-linear system, and seems to be unpredictable. A recent study came to the conclusion that "the most important question is not whether GCMs (General Circulation Models) can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms".

Also, I'm wondering if Adam Curtis in his documentary had read up on how chaos theory and complexity theory describes systems as gravitating towards variable but definable "attractor states" which will last for as long as biome-environmental factors permit. This is somewhat in the realm of "fuzzy logic", as the characteristics of these states can not be predicted with confidence given the limitations of our current deterministic toolsets.

Here is an interesting short article on "attractors":-

http://complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/attractors.html