Starship Asterisk*

apodman wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:Could you get the photographer to go back and take another picture of the same area showing current ice extent? Saying it has changed is vastly different from showing the effects of warming.

This article linked from the APOD description leads me to believe that we would see nothing but open water where the level ice field is, but I too would like to see a more recent photo. I found the images on this web page (also linked from the APOD description) visually informative, but I'd like to know where the mountains from the APOD are located in these images.

Antarctica is a long trip to take a photo, but I'll go if everyone else chips in for expenses. For your money I will not only take a photo but I will install a solar-powered webcam so you can see the vista year-round without another special trip. If we have robots with cameras on Mars, why not Earth?

This is an interesting image from your link(s). It shows the dramatic change at the northern pole WRT sea ice extent and the dramatic decrease that has occured

To simplify the case for global warming a lot, I hear that one of the signs of global (as opposed to local) warming is melting in both the northern and southern hemispheres in the same span of years or decades. I hear that some ice age cycles of the past resulting from the characteristics of the Earth's orbit and inclination have alternated between hemispheres - warm north with cold south and vice versa.

I also hear that along with the ice goes the evidence, as gas concentrations (CO2, etc.) of the past are frozen into deposited ice at various depths; once melted, the record is gone (and local data from as many locations as possible is desirable). So somebody is out there gathering core samples of the world's glaciers right now - while the getting is still possible.

I also hear the alarming but convincing opinion that we may be approaching the "knee" in the melting curve in some locations such as Larsen A-B-C and Greenland. When Larsen B collapsed, it went surprisingly fast; the same is feared for Greenland. A little melting produces a less white and less reflective surface for the sun, and positive feedback is created to accelerate melting. Positive feedback can become very strong and difficult to reverse if it gets into full swing.

Why don't you show the current image instead of the summer image?

I can't speak for BMA, but we can only link to available images. Sometimes the desired image is a little hard to find. At least the summer image above includes a comparison to other summers (1979-2000 median ice minimum).

Chris Peterson wrote:

Yearly records are completely useless. The shortest time scale that is used in models and predictions is decadal ...

We're expected to believe that the ten year projection is good when the one year isn't? That doesn't make any sense.

Besides, if you look at figure 10.5 of the IPCC AR4 it sure looks like the resolution is much finer than your ten year claim.

StACase wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:

Yearly records are completely useless. The shortest time scale that is used in models and predictions is decadal ...

We're expected to believe that the ten year projection is good when the one year isn't? That doesn't make any sense.

It's snowing outside right now in Washington, D.C.;
I don't know if it will snow again in two weeks but I'd be happy to bet any amount of money
that it won't be snowing here six months from now.

There is even a moderately well establish ~66 year (AMO) natural North Atlantic ocean cycle:

that can mask even decadal changes global changes
(both pro & con) if one is too sloppy, e.g.:

George Will wrote: <<Washington Post :Sunday, February 15, 2009; Page A03

In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable"
because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate
"has been getting cooler since about 1950" (The New York Times, May 21, 1975).>>

Note: On the night of 14 April 1912, during her maiden voyage,
the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank two hours and forty minutes later.

StACase wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:

Yearly records are completely useless. The shortest time scale that is used in models and predictions is decadal ...

We're expected to believe that the ten year projection is good when the one year isn't? That doesn't make any sense.

Besides, if you look at figure 10.5 of the IPCC AR4 it sure looks like the resolution is much finer than your ten year claim.

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand how any of this works. I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion. Decadal analysis and prediction isn't the same as predicting for ten years (although yes, I do think that we can make reasonable predictions about the climate decades into the future). You don't seem to understand the difference between weather (which is basically what a one year projection would be) and climate (which is what a ten year projection deals with). And you can make a plot with any time scale resolution- days if you want- where every point is a 10-year average- and that's what most of the IPCC trend plots are doing.

Study some statistics, learn how to properly analyze these reports and papers, and then come back with a well-founded opinion.

BMAONE23 wrote:Well, This subject certainly has increased posting to the BBS for this subject. I looked back over the thread and found that the majority of negative posts toward the APOD come from first time posters and about half of those only posted one remark. Only some, but not more than 1/4 have stayed to argue their point. It also seems that ALL of those first time posters stand against global warming. I guess the APOD regulars are by far more educated in such matters. Still,
Could you get the photographer to go back and take another picture of the same area showing current ice extent? Saying it has changed is vastly different from showing the effects of warming.

Chris Peterson wrote:

StACase wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:

Yearly records are completely useless. The shortest time scale that is used in models and predictions is decadal ...

We're expected to believe that the ten year projection is good when the one year isn't? That doesn't make any sense.

Besides, if you look at figure 10.5 of the IPCC AR4 it sure looks like the resolution is much finer than your ten year claim.

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand how any of this works. I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion. Decadal analysis and prediction isn't the same as predicting for ten years (although yes, I do think that we can make reasonable predictions about the climate decades into the future). You don't seem to understand the difference between weather (which is basically what a one year projection would be) and climate (which is what a ten year projection deals with). And you can make a plot with any time scale resolution- days if you want- where every point is a 10-year average- and that's what most of the IPCC trend plots are doing.

Study some statistics, learn how to properly analyze these reports and papers, and then come back with a well-founded opinion.

It has been my experience on bulletin boards of this type that a few bullying posters with lots of free time and little practical knowledge tend to dominate the conversations through shear repetitiveness, with hundreds and even thousands of posts. They reinforce each others prejudices and dilute the scientific value of otherwise rational and informative discussions.

Redbone wrote:It has been my experience on bulletin boards of this type that a few bullying posters with lots of free time and little practical knowledge tend to dominate the conversations through shear repetitiveness, with hundreds and even thousands of posts. They reinforce each others prejudices and dilute the scientific value of otherwise rational and informative discussions.

Yes, it is unfortunate that science-oriented discussion groups tend to attract so many people with a very poor knowledge of what science is, but who surely love discussing non-science as if it were scientific. Of course, the core problem is that so many people don't understand science- a very serious thing in today's world.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Redbone wrote:It has been my experience on bulletin boards of this type that a few bullying posters with lots of free time and little practical knowledge tend to dominate the conversations through shear repetitiveness, with hundreds and even thousands of posts. They reinforce each others prejudices and dilute the scientific value of otherwise rational and informative discussions.

Yes, it is unfortunate that science-oriented discussion groups tend to attract so many people with a very poor knowledge of what science is, but who surely love discussing non-science as if it were scientific. Of course, the core problem is that so many people don't understand science- a very serious thing in today's world.

Hmm, says someone who has intonated that floating icepacks, when melted, will raise ocean levels.

Redbone wrote:Hmm, says someone who has intonated that floating icepacks, when melted, will raise ocean levels.

They do, and I explained why (as have others; it was also explained that the suggested 5m rise is not from this, however). If you don't understand this very simple idea, how can you expect your other ideas to be taken seriously?

Chris Peterson wrote:Yes, it is unfortunate that science-oriented discussion groups tend to attract so many people with a very poor knowledge of what science is, but who surely love discussing non-science as if it were scientific. Of course, the core problem is that so many people don't understand science- a very serious thing in today's world.

Yes, and of course these discussion groups tend to attract people who consider themselves scientific experts, some with PHDs, when they're still at the baking soda and vinegar stage.

It's also unfortunate that 'scientists' consider aboriginal people living in primitive conditions unscientific, when all the science in the world can't allow those scientists to survive under those conditions without destroying the eco systems which enabled the primitives to survive. Who the true scientists are in such a case is obvious to all but the highly educated.

neufer wrote:You are correct that I have confused "Sea Ice" with "Shelf Ice" and that even the mere possibility of "Shelf Ice" collapse due to global warming is a serious concern. However, I think that the observed Larsen B "Shelf Ice" collapse is serious enough, in itself, that discussion of a rather ambiguous Ross Ice Shelf situation should probably have not been included.

Why is this stuff considered serious? Mankind's 'civilizations' have been destroyed, have risen, been destroyed, risen .. countless times in countless places .. the present Babylon Earth is just one more in the cycle. It will be good when its gone.

Chris Peterson wrote:...I'd expect the time for the WAIS to melt would be long- centuries anyway- but even a fraction of 5 meters ocean rise over a few decades would be pretty disastrous. There's good reason to be concerned.

Try 50 years, Chris.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Why is this stuff considered serious? Mankind's 'civilizations' have been destroyed, have risen, been destroyed, risen .. countless times in countless places .. the present Babylon Earth is just one more in the cycle. It will be good when its gone.

Your view might be correct in the long run. But personally, I'm selfish enough to prefer that the present civilization collapse after I'm gone!

starnut wrote:
I have a selfish reason too for believing that we are responsible for the climate change, and it is to hope that we wake up and do something to stop it, or at least not make it worse, for my children and grandchildren's sake.

Gary

Move your family to high ground, Gary, because we can't do anything about the sun's effect, and whatever we try to do to combat mankind's contribution will be negligible, as our efforts require technology, and technology demands energy, and energy creates heat. We also can't scrape the black oily crap off glaciers and ice caps which are hastening their heat absorbtion and melting .. we all put that crap there.

aristarchusinexile wrote:It's also unfortunate that 'scientists' consider aboriginal people living in primitive conditions unscientific, when all the science in the world can't allow those scientists to survive under those conditions without destroying the eco systems which enabled the primitives to survive. Who the true scientists are in such a case is obvious to all but the highly educated.

Aboriginal people are largely unscientific, although every culture (and individual) makes some use of scientific methods- see, explain, predict. Being unscientific doesn't mean being unfit to survive, any more than being scientific equips somebody to survive under difficult conditions. The point is, aboriginal people don't make any claim to being scientific- unlike a number of posters on this thread (and others) who do claim to be scientific, when they clearly don't understand what that even means.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Why is this stuff considered serious? Mankind's 'civilizations' have been destroyed, have risen, been destroyed, risen .. countless times in countless places .. the present Babylon Earth is just one more in the cycle. It will be good when its gone.

Your view might be correct in the long run.
But personally, I'm selfish enough to prefer that the present civilization collapse after I'm gone!

But who care's if the Shelf fish collapse! And what has posterity ever done for us !

Rocky Planet wrote:Does that mean we should sit by and drown in melt-water because we didn't cause it, or do you think we should try to do something about it anyway?

Look at the Real Estate opportunities. Impress your neighbours. Park your luxury yacht at your top floor condominiiums front door. Is the planet half empty or half full? Has mankind's mentality ever deal in anything besides $$$$$$$$$$ ? (and that includes writing in the "correct" answer to get that educational diploma that qualifies a person as a scientist when they know the answer is WRONG.)

neufer wrote:But who care's if the Shelf fish collapse! And what has posterity ever done for us !

Neuf .. I clicked on your link, and I think mankind's problem is that we have passed the point at which rats 'extra' senses seemed to have caused them to abandon ships while safely in Port, before the ships sailed to catsastrophe .. at this point in time, despite all our education, all our technology, all our wealth (minus a bit now of course) there seems no safe harbour to abandon ship in. Such a dilemna for our modern intellect. Is there a spiritual escape?

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Why is this stuff considered serious? Mankind's 'civilizations' have been destroyed, have risen, been destroyed, risen .. countless times in countless places .. the present Babylon Earth is just one more in the cycle. It will be good when its gone.

Your view might be correct in the long run. But personally, I'm selfish enough to prefer that the present civilization collapse after I'm gone!

I have no idea when that might be, Chris, you never did answer my question as to your age .. not that age of a skull matters to a meterorite intent on crashing into that skull.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Redbone wrote:Hmm, says someone who has intonated that floating icepacks, when melted, will raise ocean levels.

They do, and I explained why (as have others; it was also explained that the suggested 5m rise is not from this, however). If you don't understand this very simple idea, how can you expect your other ideas to be taken seriously?

It would amount to a small percentage of the floating water and would have an insignificant effect on sea level. Thermal expansion and contraction (not freezing) has an overwhelming larger effect. Someone doesn't understand basic physics.

Chris Peterson wrote:Aboriginal people are largely unscientific, although every culture (and individual) makes some use of scientific methods- see, explain, predict. Being unscientific doesn't mean being unfit to survive, any more than being scientific equips somebody to survive under difficult conditions. The point is, aboriginal people don't make any claim to being scientific- unlike a number of posters on this thread (and others) who do claim to be scientific, when they clearly don't understand what that even means.

Science is a search after knowledge, Chris. Aboriginals search after certain knowledge in a way sufficient to allow them to live in environments the rest of 'scientific' mankind cannot. You would probably be surprised a the technological heights of aboriginal equipment. Your definition of scientific 'exclusivity' has always been the contention between you and I .. nevertheless, that is of minimal importance to me as you and I together view the wide horizon and narrow path before us.

Redbone wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Redbone wrote:Hmm, says someone who has intonated that floating icepacks, when melted, will raise ocean levels.

They do, and I explained why (as have others; it was also explained that the suggested 5m rise is not from this, however). If you don't understand this very simple idea, how can you expect your other ideas to be taken seriously?

It would amount to a small percentage of the floating water and would have an insignificant effect on sea level. Thermal expansion and contraction (not freezing) has an overwhelming larger effect. Someone doesn't understand basic physics.

I see, yes, global warming contributes to oceanic temperatures, creating a rise through increase in volume, as well as the many other factors.

Redbone wrote:It would amount to a small percentage of the floating water and would have an insignificant effect on sea level. Thermal expansion and contraction (not freezing) has an overwhelming larger effect. Someone doesn't understand basic physics.

It amounts to a few millimeters for the Ross Ice Shelf. For all the floating ice, probably a couple of centimeters. That seems small against the other possible causes, but it isn't necessarily insignificant. Even a few millimeters is enough to make the difference between minor and major flooding in a hurricane, for instance.

Just because an effect is small doesn't mean it can be ignored. And it doesn't really matter, since that wasn't the point. What you said is that melting surface ice doesn't affect sea level, and that's just plain wrong.