noiv

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:

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.

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. 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 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? Plot: Arctic sea ice area still comparable to 2007

At least your estimates have a downward trend

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.