billvon 3,112
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
QuoteAgreed. However there are a few steps missing there:
-climate change is causing warmer temps in arctic
-the past few years were very warm years in the arctic
-warm water melts ice
-ice is at record lows
Therefore climate change is the very likely cause of the record low ice levels.
That leaves out something else: a big ass storm hit in early August. (NSIDC called it "The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012"). The NSIDC couldn't rule out the storm's effects:
QuoteWhile much of the region influenced by the August cyclone experienced a sudden drop in temperature, areas influenced by winds from the south experienced a rise in temperature. Coincident with the storm, a large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea (concentrations typically below 50%) rapidly melted out. On three consecutive days (August 7, 8, and 9), sea ice extent dropped by nearly 200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles). This could be due to mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm. However, it may be simply a coincidence of timing, given that the low concentration ice in the region was already poised to rapidly melt out.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/category/analysis/
Yes - warm conditions dominated this year in the Arctic. conditions were cold in Winter and early spring such that April had ice extent on average.
Then some things happened starting in May and ice extent tanked! Weather. The same sort of weather variance that, despite the good kallend's statements, caused Antarctica to be above average in ice extent from December through May. (We're talking greater than 2 standard deviations higher).
What we're seeing in the Arctic is being opposite in Antarctic. And is it because of climate and warmth? No. It's because Antarctica was dominated by high pressure and caused off-shore winds, which spread the ice out. Not because it was colder in the oceans around Antarctica but because ice was blown out.
As I also stated, even Gavin Schmidt says that wind is numero uno. I agree that climate change is causing ice to accrete less efficiently and ablate more swiftly. But wind patterns best explain the steep decline. (My conclusion - "best explain" is not a fact.)
Antarctica's sea ice extent was affected by winds. So was the Arctic. I'm not offering different explanations for what's going on on both poles. I'm offering the same explanation for both.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,112
>That leaves out something else: a big ass storm hit in early August.
It also leaves out any effects from solar storms or icebreakers.
But again, feel free to propose that. And again that requires two explanations:
1) Why the warmer waters were prevented via some mechanism from affecting the ice
2) Why the new mechanism DID affect the ice
You have proposed a reasonable alternative explanation for 2). Do you have an alternative explanation for 1)?
It also leaves out any effects from solar storms or icebreakers.
But again, feel free to propose that. And again that requires two explanations:
1) Why the warmer waters were prevented via some mechanism from affecting the ice
2) Why the new mechanism DID affect the ice
You have proposed a reasonable alternative explanation for 2). Do you have an alternative explanation for 1)?
QuoteBut again, feel free to propose that. And again that requires two explanations:
1) Why the warmer waters were prevented via some mechanism from affecting the ice
Two things:
(1) showing warmer waters. Every year we see extremely warm waters on the graphs for July-October in the northern latitudes (except the high northern above 80 degrees)
(2) The NSIDC suggests that the August storm mixed warmer subsurface water. (And note
(3) Warm air can also melt sea ice, in the same way as warm air melts land ice. Thus, when you have strong southerly winds a blowing up from Siberia and the Bering sea, you've got a triplewhammy of: (a) air and currents pushing ice north and west; (b) winds and currents breaking up ice; and (c) warm air and winds melting the ice. (Note: the storm made it colder where it was but the outlying areas were warmer due to winds blowing in)
I can go on but those are just some initial thoughts. Yes, warm winds can melt ice the same way they can tinder dry vegetation on the California Coast during the Santa Ana Winds.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,112
>(1) showing warmer waters. Every year we see extremely warm waters . . . .
Agreed - especially in the past 20 years.
>(2) The NSIDC suggests that the August storm mixed warmer subsurface water. . .
OK. So it sounds like you are arguing FOR the idea that warmer water melts ice; again, you'd have to postulate a mechanism whereby warmer water does NOT melt ice to remove the influence of climate change.
(Note that storms happen with some regularity; even so we are seeing record melts.)
>(3) Warm air can also melt sea ice, in the same way as warm air melts land ice . . .
Also agreed. But again, that's an argument that warm air can melt ice (which I agree with.) It does not demonstrate that warm water can't melt ice.
There is no doubt that there are a great many factors that cause Arctic ice to melt. Most are cyclic (seasons) or random (storms.) Yet there is still a very strong trend pointing to less arctic ice over time - which matches the trend for warmer oceans caused by AGW.
Agreed - especially in the past 20 years.
>(2) The NSIDC suggests that the August storm mixed warmer subsurface water. . .
OK. So it sounds like you are arguing FOR the idea that warmer water melts ice; again, you'd have to postulate a mechanism whereby warmer water does NOT melt ice to remove the influence of climate change.
(Note that storms happen with some regularity; even so we are seeing record melts.)
>(3) Warm air can also melt sea ice, in the same way as warm air melts land ice . . .
Also agreed. But again, that's an argument that warm air can melt ice (which I agree with.) It does not demonstrate that warm water can't melt ice.
There is no doubt that there are a great many factors that cause Arctic ice to melt. Most are cyclic (seasons) or random (storms.) Yet there is still a very strong trend pointing to less arctic ice over time - which matches the trend for warmer oceans caused by AGW.
Quote>My point is that saying "ice is recor low, therefore global warming" is as accurate as
>"person has lung cancer, and therefore she smoked, which caused it."
Agreed. However there are a few steps missing there:
-climate change is causing warmer temps in arctic
-the past few years were very warm years in the arctic
-warm water melts ice
-ice is at record lows
Therefore climate change is the very likely cause of the record low ice levels.
Compare that to:
-cigarette smoking causes cancer
-this guy smoked a lot
-this guy got lung cancer
Therefore smoking is a very likely cause of his cancer.
>That's what I'm saying. Before we blame smoking let's look at alternatives. Not saying
>smoking didn't cause it but am saying that maybe smoking didn't cause this one.
Sure. But if they are a heavy smoker then that's the most likely cause.
I'm all for looking for alternatives. But if your interpretation of "looking for alternatives" also includes "don't tell people that smoking causes cancer because the science isn't settled" or "don't tell people to quit smoking because that hurts tobacco companies" then I am very much against that - because that results in more risk to the general population to support someone's political position or financial well being, and that's not OK.
And that's what I find most abhorrent about these consistent anti-environmental posts from the same posters over and over again. They work in the energy business, and no matter what facts are presented to them, they won't change because that's what lines their pockets. It's very similar to some posters here years ago who worked as military contractors who were all for the Iraq war and wouldn't begin to consider any opposing viewpoints. Now take that to the institutional levels and we all have a very real problem.
Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.
Quoteyou'd have to postulate a mechanism whereby warmer water does NOT melt ice to remove the influence of climate change
Why? I stated above that climate change is a factor. Why would I disprove my position? I simply stated that a massive storm pushed it over the top. But, if we're on the subject:
The mechanism of ice formation is somewhat different on water than it is on land. Ice formation does not have to occur with a frozen ocean. Freezing air creates the ice.
Next – what is warmer? A warmer ocean (let’s say the ocean is at 30 degrees F versus 28 degrees F) can make it so that ice does not melt. Indeed, depending on currents and depths, the ocean itself may be a balmy 40 degrees on the ocean floor but have ice forming on the top due to a lower temperature. Anybody with a minimum of scuba diving experience knows a thermocline. Hell, skydivers feel them, too. Hence – as you’ve pointed out in the past – we can have ice formation above 32 degrees.
Furthermore, the warmer ocean can melt the ice but the melting may not be able to keep up with the ice accretion (even black holes evaporate).
Note: this is different from formation of ice on land, where such formation in large amounts requires precipitation. And talking about the “warming of Greenland” – yeah. Four hours above 32 degrees in a year does not portend to massive ice melt. Come to think of it, if temperature over Greenland’s ice sheet increased 5 degrees (maybe to an average of -10 Degrees) we’d expect to see MORE ice accretion due to increased precipitation. My goodness, if we end up with a warmer ocean and cold, dry low pressure masses heading east from Northwest Territories across Baffin Bay, the precipitation seen would be mind blowing!
But – it would be different for sea ice. We’ve got to understand the different mechanisms.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,112
>And that's what I find most abhorrent about these consistent anti-environmental posts
>from the same posters over and over again. They work in the energy business, and no
>matter what facts are presented to them, they won't change because that's what lines
>their pockets.
Lawrocket doesn't work in the energy business. Of the anti-AGW posters here the only one that I know works in the energy business is RushMC.
I think your statement is more applicable to who is driving the political argument over AGW. In general they are conservative think tanks or people/organizations funded by oil/coal companies - and these people DO have a financial incentive to try to claim "the science isn't settled."
>from the same posters over and over again. They work in the energy business, and no
>matter what facts are presented to them, they won't change because that's what lines
>their pockets.
Lawrocket doesn't work in the energy business. Of the anti-AGW posters here the only one that I know works in the energy business is RushMC.
I think your statement is more applicable to who is driving the political argument over AGW. In general they are conservative think tanks or people/organizations funded by oil/coal companies - and these people DO have a financial incentive to try to claim "the science isn't settled."
QuoteAnd that's what I find most abhorrent about these consistent anti-environmental posts from the same posters over and over again. They work in the energy business, and no matter what facts are presented to them, they won't change because that's what lines their pockets.
I don't work in the energy business.
Not even Bill considers me a "denier" because he understands that I've taken the time to educate myself about it.
I find your characterizations to be abhorrent ad hominem. Got a problem with what I am writing, then let me know instead of attributing non-existent motives to me.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote>And that's what I find most abhorrent about these consistent anti-environmental posts
>from the same posters over and over again. They work in the energy business, and no
>matter what facts are presented to them, they won't change because that's what lines
>their pockets.
Lawrocket doesn't work in the energy business. Of the anti-AGW posters here the only one that I know works in the energy business is RushMC.QuoteI know Lawrocket doesn't work in the energy business, and my statement wasn't directed toward him, but rather toward people like rush and the OP, who do work in the energy business. They're not the only ones in these forums that work in the energy sector with that same posting pattern.
QuoteI think your statement is more applicable to who is driving the political argument over AGW. In general they are conservative think tanks or people/organizations funded by oil/coal companies - and these people DO have a financial incentive to try to claim "the science isn't settled."
My point was just that, illustrating that the individual's "financial incentive" (the posters here who work in the energy business who close their ears because the status quo is what earns their $) is the fundamental problem that results in those collective think tanks and organizations funded by oil companies that affect public policy.
Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.
QuoteQuoteAnd that's what I find most abhorrent about these consistent anti-environmental posts from the same posters over and over again. They work in the energy business, and no matter what facts are presented to them, they won't change because that's what lines their pockets.
I don't work in the energy business.
Not even Bill considers me a "denier" because he understands that I've taken the time to educate myself about it.
I find your characterizations to be abhorrent ad hominem. Got a problem with what I am writing, then let me know instead of attributing non-existent motives to me.
Okay, this post right after I post my clarification to Bill. Argh. I should have clarified that it wasn't directed toward you at all in my original post.
Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.
No prob. 
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteyou'd have to postulate a mechanism whereby warmer water does NOT melt ice to remove the influence of climate change
Why? I stated above that climate change is a factor. Why would I disprove my position? I simply stated that a massive storm pushed it over the top. But, if we're on the subject:
But no-one is disputing (well, except brenthutch) that there are local and temporal variations in conditions. That is why we look at long term trends and try to filter out short term fluctuations. Looking at long term trends, the MASS of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic is decreasing.
Note that ice MASS is not the same as ice extent - that is far more variable depending on the local conditions.
And the fact remains that we are seeing more record high temperatures than record lows, when statistically in the absence of a trend, we'd expect the same of both.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteBut no-one is disputing (well, except brenthutch) that there are local and temporal variations in conditions. That is why we look at long term trends and try to filter out short term fluctuations.
Indeed.
QuoteLooking at long term trends, the MASS of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic is decreasing.
Disagreed re: Antarctic. Agreed re: Arctic.
QuoteNote that ice MASS is not the same as ice extent - that is far more variable depending on the local conditions.
Agreed. But the news is all about "extent."
QuoteAnd the fact remains that we are seeing more record high temperatures than record lows, when statistically in the absence of a trend, we'd expect the same of both.
Much study indicates the UHI is also contributory.
And - to reiterate. I believe that climate change is real and human activities are a factor in it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
>"person has lung cancer, and therefore she smoked, which caused it."
Agreed. However there are a few steps missing there:
-climate change is causing warmer temps in arctic
-the past few years were very warm years in the arctic
-warm water melts ice
-ice is at record lows
Therefore climate change is the very likely cause of the record low ice levels.
Compare that to:
-cigarette smoking causes cancer
-this guy smoked a lot
-this guy got lung cancer
Therefore smoking is a very likely cause of his cancer.
>That's what I'm saying. Before we blame smoking let's look at alternatives. Not saying
>smoking didn't cause it but am saying that maybe smoking didn't cause this one.
Sure. But if they are a heavy smoker then that's the most likely cause.
I'm all for looking for alternatives. But if your interpretation of "looking for alternatives" also includes "don't tell people that smoking causes cancer because the science isn't settled" or "don't tell people to quit smoking because that hurts tobacco companies" then I am very much against that - because that results in more risk to the general population to support someone's political position or financial well being, and that's not OK.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites