Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Arctic Replenished Very Little Thick Sea Ice

A new NASA study has found that in 2005 the Arctic replaced very little of the thick sea ice it normally loses and replenishes each year. Replenishment of this thick, perennial sea ice each year is essential to the maintenance and stability of the Arctic summer ice cover. The findings complement a NASA study released in fall 2006 that found a 14-percent drop in this perennial ice between 2004 and 2005. The lack of replenishment suggests that the decline may continue in the near future. For the full article: Click Here . Look at the satellite data provided by NASA/JPL. It puts the lie to the prevaricators.

Quote from article
"Kwok points to a possible trigger for the declining perennial ice cover. In the early 1990s, variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale atmospheric seesaw that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean, were linked to a large increase in Arctic ice export. It appears the ice cover has not yet recovered from these variations. "

Canuk,
Isn't it the large temperature differential between the poles and lower latitudes which keeps several cycles (incl. NAO) going?

My point being that what we're seeing may be the beginning of (one of many of) those positive feedback loops where change in one factor causes the other to change...(I think we all know the scenarios).

Yes, or may NOT be the beginning....

Regardless of cause or course (into the future), wouldn't it be nice to have a thermostat control over the earth? For whatever reason, climate changes. God has kept the planet very stable for our species infancy and adolescence. I think it's time to go out and start making our own way now.

I think we need some satellites? to either increase or decrease solar insolation in the polar regions by some small percentage of up to 1 or maybe even two percent.

Am I being too presumptious God?
Are we going to sit around waiting for the rapture, or are we going to do something?

Bring it on, I can take it!

~~SA
(Sam or samwik)

samwik wrote "Bring it on, I can take it!"

Sorry Sam - I'm not going to play that game. I've come to learn that honest discussions regarding climate change are not welcome on this board. There's simply no room on this board for opinions that don't line up with Morgan's.
It's a pity that when somebody simply asks a question, they get accused of being a person with mulitple accounts, or on the payroll of Exxon.

WTF

I suppose that's why nobody responded to my posts on CO2 to Fuel either.

Just ignore whatever you don't like, that's what I do.

What a petty response on your part (to me personally). I suppose it is a noble response relative to the whole forum, but I am insulted. I am not a puppet!

~WTF

You say "I'm not going to play that game. I've come to learn that honest discussions regarding climate change are not welcome on this board."

...and then you put on your own post! WTF


I suppose I'll get kicked off for a week because of this, but what does it matter.
This forum is the important one. I enjoy the philosophical and physics discussions and enjoy contributing, but it's only to pass the time waiting for someone to help me evolve my thinking on climate change.
I learned a lot last Fall reading and conversing a bit on this topic, did a lot of reading this winter while recovering from a back injury, and now I'm finally back online ready with new positions from which to learn.

And I can't get as much as a hello due to gradeschool politics.

Good going; way to perpetuate the problem!

Sam - I'm sorry, but I have no desire to get into a discussion with somebody who finishes his opening salvo with "Bring it on, I can take it!".

It's a sure sign that the person is not looking for a honest exchange of ideas, but rather a fight.

No thanks.

Well, that is a meaningful answer; and understandable given the climate on this forum.

It was totally an afterthought; simply an attempt on my part to encourage some response (since I had received none on CO2 to fuel bla, bla, bla).

If you look at any of my other posts, you'll see that I don't attack others.
The worst I've ever done is directly above.
I think the second worst I've ever done was to write:
"C'mon DA, doesn't the rest of my post indicate that I have picked up a few physics books in my life." -I'm sure you can imagine what I was responding to. (and that was my second post ever on SAGG)

I got a good ironic chuckle when I realized that my attempt to encourage response actually had the opposite effect. If you could re-read my posts without the little (intended) tease at the end (and the other post too), I'd sure appreciate a response, even if to say I'm all wet.

As impossible as it is to predict the climate of Earth, maybe it's just as impossible to be certain of the climate here on this forum.

Hopefully,

~SA
(shower-curtain tech) -google that phrase

Sam: "it's just as impossible to be certain of the climate here on this forum."

It's not just this forum, is it Sam? I've toured the net quite a bit, and it looks like forums do this to people. Making a post is often like stepping into the arena, and I understand your line "I can take it". It's the kind of anticipation that builds up with forum experience. I sometimes think forums are not worth the time, but then there are some interesting people around with fascinating ideas.

When I was still at school (40yrs ago!)we kids used to say "discuss anything with your friends except religion and politics." Some of us never learn...

Good luck. I'll let you get back to the topic

(shower-curtain tech) -google that phrase

Okay Samwik - I googled it. Which of the 220,000 results should I be reading?



Blacknad.

I googled it as well - turned up a bunch of...............wait for it............shower curtains



As far as your post Sam, I gather what you're getting at is an engineered solution to global warming (either through increasing the productivity of the ocean, or "sun-shades").

Without going into the issues of whether the solution will have any impact on the problem, or the cost of the solution compared to the cost of the problem, or our ability to carry out those solutions - here's my take on it (coming from an engineer).

Creating an engineering solution to an engineer-caused problem will never work in the long run. They're usually band-aid solutions, that don't get at the under-lying problem.

Sorry about the misgoogle. Never mind....

It seemed to me that it'd be cheaper, especially considering you get food/fuel in the deal also. I figured sunshades would cost about the same as an asteroid deflecting mission, or even 10 or 50 times as much (still pretty cheap considering the result).
I'm mostly guessing at these numbers, obviously.

Even as a temporary solution, if very effective, wouldn't it be worth it?
***

Mainly though I'd like to discuss your point:



It seems to me that the ocean's dwindling ability to soak up CO2 is the underlying problem.

I think most people see air pollution as occurring inside of a sealed system like a glass jar. But isn't it more like a glass jar with a giant sponge for the lid?

That is my main goal -understanding the root of the problem (I know, overpopulation; but how...).

Probably the numbers don't add up, or there is more to it in some way. Should I just dig deeper or should I go in a different direction? Have others gone down this road before?
I'll appreciate any more input.

Thanks muchly,

~samwik

Canuk, something you said on that "Is Science the answer?" thread made me realize that I'm assuming CO2 is problematic, as well as assuming that there is a problem.

We do know that climate changes naturally (and sometimes suddenly).
Whether our climate is changing or not, shouldn't we as a species try to prepare to maintain our climate knowing that it will change at some point?

~SA

Hi Sam - sorry I've been busy recently, and don't have sufficient time for a full post, so this will be short.

Instead of trying to influence our climate (whether that is in response to anthropogenic or natural causes) in hopes of mitigating damages, I'd rather see us try to improve our ability to adapt. Why, being more adaptable will not only help us deal with a changing climate, but a host of other possible issues as well.

Just my 2 cents

Either way, adaptation is being forced upon us; but I think what you're saying is that resources should be diverted from climate modification to adaptation technology, right?

What do you have in mind?

Yes, good question. Do we adapt for a hotter, wetter world; hotter, drier world; colder, wetter world; Euro glaciers & American deserts; etc.?
Are there other examples of adaptation preceding the pressures in evolution?

Don't we see historical evidence of rapid (decadal) climate change. Adaptation will allow some to survive (it's the law!), and there won't be any wars to stifle cooperation or drain resources.

Wouldn't adapting in such a way as to prevent the problem be just as easy or easier? It's easier to maintain the status quo, than to adjust to unknowable changes.

I think there would be enough change to adapt to, even if we do manage to maintain a relatively stable climate.

~~SA

Samwik asked:

"Don't we see historical evidence of rapid (decadal) climate change."

I think it's accepted the change at the end of the last ice age was spectacular. I'll try to find a link. From memory, temperature rose rapidly, over a decade or two, about 10,000 years ago to warmer than today, dropped back to near ice age temps again, then rose more slowly from about 8000 years ago.

You also asked:

"Are there other examples of adaptation preceding the pressures in evolution?"

I very much doubt it. There have probably been times when some members of a species are pre-adapted to conditions that develop.
Then that gene combination would take over the population. If we pull off adaptation preceding evolutionary pressure I would say this could be the first. Unfortunately we don't really know what we need to adapt to.

Yes, that whole adaptation tactic (to deal with climate change) strikes me as a kind of "non-solution." It's like saying nature isn't a problem, our ability to adapt is a problem.

Gee, I think I'd agree with that, as a general philosophical statement.
But in this case....

I guess it's a semantic problem. What do we mean by adapting?

Would being smart enough to change the climate be an adaptation?

Hmm, we've been doing that for thousands of years already.
That's been the secret to our success, so far!

Maybe it's time to start changing climate on a larger, more intentional, sustainable scale.

~~SA

Yes, "Adapt, Improvise and Overcome" (U.S Marines). It's the secret of our success, but it may transpire that it's the secret of our failure. Humans have impeded genetic adaptation to many of their habitats because they have instead modified the environment to meet their needs. This is self-perpetuating: we modify the habitat, so obviating the need to evolve - i.e., we preclude the opportunity for Darwinian evolution - and so are compelled to continue to modify it. The result is the ever increasing complexity and sophistication of human civilization. Human beings are a phenomenally successful product of evolution.

So, we evolved with the ability and propensity to modify our environment. We can only hope that this evolutionary strategy proves successful enough to get us over the major hurdles that lie ahead.

How do we adapt?

(a) Do we modify the clmate?
(b) Do we develop technology to counter adverse climate changes?
(c) Both (a) and (b)?

Redewenur wrote:

"So, we evolved with the ability and propensity to modify our environment."

But most species do. Here in NZ many people wish to preserve parts of the environment in some sort of pre-European, or even pre-human being, state. But native birds are continually spreading seeds, especially berries, from introduced plants. These introduced plants invade native woodland and change it, providing a bigger variety of food for indigenous birds. Sure, the birds are not conciously changing the environment for their own advantage but have humans always known how and why they were changing their environment? Do we even know today?

Terry, as you point out, other species modify the environment. Indeed, every living organism modifies the environment; but the modifications, while they may be great, are limited in scope and, with notable exceptions among mammals, rarely oriented to a premeditated goal - certainly nothing like the extensively planned, organised and sophisticated efforts of humans.

Terry: "have humans always known how and why they were changing their environment? Do we even know today?"

- Yes, we know why we change the environment. Primarily to make the environment more conducive to survival >> healthy living >> etc (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) - including physical and psychological aspects; in a nutshell, because we perceive a benefit in the desired outcome.

- No, we evidently didn't, and almost certainly still don't, know the full implications that our activities have for the environment.

Good point, Terry, even the most innocuous actions can have an effect on the Environment. Years ago, I was flying into a Hunting Camp in Northern Manitoba. On the way up we startled a big Bull Moose that was standing in a slow moving stream that was choked solid with Wild Rice. Our passing overhead caused the Bull to run diagonally across the stream, stirring up a wake in his path. Two weeks later we were flying out along exactly the same route. When we got to the point where we had seen the Moose, we could see a rich lime-green line of new growth in the rice; while running he had aerated the water and stimulated new growth.
So a bird can spread seeds, a moose can trigger aquatic plant growth. How many species can melt a Glacier?

"...because we perceive a benefit in the desired outcome.
...and almost certainly still don't know the full implications that our activities have for the environment." -redewenur

I wonder if cavemen moved to a new cave when they saw the water levels rising, or did they wait for it to be lapping at their feet?

Terry, Wolfman; both your examples are of human induced changes. Just a coincidence? Introduced species? Startled moose?

I know! When you indirectly "aerated the water and stimulated new growth," you were offsetting your carbon emmissions!


~Sam

Sam: "I wonder if cavemen moved to a new cave when they saw the water levels rising, or did they wait for it to be lapping at their feet?"

- Yes, I'm sure they would have been able to perceive the benefit in the desired outcome, i.e., not being drowned - although, if the desired outcome was better fishing, maybe they perceived a benefit in waiting

Yup - that's what I'm saying, instead of putting all our eggs in the basket of climate modification, we should be hedging our bets by trying to increase our societies resilience to externalities (whether that be climate change, earthquakes, meteor strikes, or plagues).
Where will we be in 100 years if we've spent a few trillion attempting to reduce carbon emissions, only to find that it was too little too late, or that it is a natural warming cycle (and reductions had no effect)? We'll have wasted the resources, and more importantly the time, that would be better spent elsewhere.

So how? My first thought, is lets pay the most attention to those who are most unable to deal with a system shock - the poor, undeveloped countries. The rich countries will be able to fight our way through a catastrophic event, it won't be pretty, but we will. The poor will be slaughtered. Let's work on building their capacity to respond to an event. Whether people like it or not, this capability comes along with development.

So much like my argument in the "Population & DNA" thread in the General Science, I'm arguing for more development. Help the undeveloped become developed.

Samwik wrote:

"Terry, Wolfman; both your examples are of human induced changes. Just a coincidence? Introduced species? Startled moose?"

But the so-called balance of nature is constantly changing, with or without human influence. At present humans are changing it faster than in the past, mainly because our population is growing so rapidly. The pigeons were shifting seeds around long before humans reached NZ but their population numbers had probably stabilised to some extent within two or three hundred years of their arrival. The moose could just as likely been frightened by a wolf.

Canuck. Have you any suggestions as to how we could "Help the undeveloped become developed"?

Canuck: "So much like my argument in the "Population & DNA" thread in the General Science, I'm arguing for more development. Help the undeveloped become developed."

Yes, Canuck, I support that argument for a number of reasons, including the two which you've raised so far. Has anyone here wondered, for example, what would be the outcome of pouring development aid into North Korea, instead of allowing its population to starve whilst proposing yet more ways to cripple its economy?

Not in any particular order.....

-remove barriers to trade, lets kick globalization into high gear. Basically give the poor access to our markets so they can sell products.

-related to the first one, remove 1st world ag subsidies. For those countries without natural resources (oil, minerals), the only way to developed status is through agriculture. Farmers in the developed world can't compete with our farmers (who are getting massive subsidies)

-make it worth a corporations time and money to invest in a country. Reduce barriers to the flow of capital, work with developing countries to set up legitimate banking systems, encourage developing countries to recognize IP. Without private investment, no country is going to develop.

-Invest, invest and invest in infrastructure. Countries can't develop if they don't have transportation networks, electricity, water or sanitation.

I have spent some time thinking about the NK issue. I think before you answer the question you raised, you have to figure out if NK is governed by somebody who wants to be in the global community? So, is the present state of NK caused by externalities, or internalities.

I would argue that Kim knows he could not survive as "Dear Leader" if NK opened up to the rest of the world. There's simply no place at the adult table for somebody like that. It's a matter of personal security (and his families) - it's in their best interest to keep NK firewalled off from the rest of the world.

If you "poured development aid" into NK, how would you ensure that the money is not diverted into increasing it's 1.2 million man army? Or expanding it's nuclear weapons program? Or expanding their 13000 pieces of artillery that they have aimed at Seoul?

I previously thought China had Kim on a tight leash, and would stop him from doing anything that may destabilize northeast Asia. But after his nuclear experiment, and China's barely restrained fury at his actions - I'm not so sure.
There's only one thing more dangerous than a deranged dog on a leash........a deranged dog without a leash.

Development? Development!?

(mumbles to self) Isn't that how we got into this situation?

If we had started focusing on technologies to develop sustainability back in the 70's; we'd be in a position to export that technology around the world and do as you suggest. At this point, when I hear people talking about "exporting"
development, all I can think about is China & NAFTA (to where we have outsourced our pollution). All we seem to be able to export is "democracy." (he said sarcastically)

I was real impressed with the recent philanthropic gifts (Gates, Buffet, etc.); but what are these people that they're saving going to do? Can they find a job sequestering Carbon? Where will they get their food and water? Branson at least has a global goal (and very profitable too!).

There are signs of effectiveness, such as: Microloans &
Envirofit’s first product is a Direct In-cylinder (DI) fuel injection retrofit kit for two-stoke motorcycle engines that significantly improves fuel efficiency and reduces emissions.

But aren't we way too much "behind the curve" to rely on "business as usual" development?
Simply turning the third world into consumers will only work for one or two more generations before the whole pyramid scheme falls apart.

I do agree with your points about the subsidies. They perpetuate unsustainability.

I think developing the '3rd world' needs to be done as a part of "saving the world." It has to be done in a sustainable way.

Unless the true costs of the pollution and associated consequences of unbridled private investment are accounted for, the profit motive will overwhelm any goal of "helping" the people or the planet.


Not that I have any ideas or solutions...yet. But am I looking in the right direction?

~~Samwik

Canuck: "If you "poured development aid" into NK, how would you ensure that the money is not diverted into increasing it's 1.2 million man army? Or expanding it's nuclear weapons program? Or expanding their 13000 pieces of artillery that they have aimed at Seoul?"

It would have to be ensured. Aid doesn't have to be unconditional and, maybe, the greater its scale, the greater the prospect of complicity. Reliance upon a massive aid input could be a real deterent against its abuse and consequent cessation. The state of NK is associated with "internalities", as you say. Internal pressures and activities could also bring about a change for the better, given enough motivation. I know it's arguable, but it's 'right', it's humane, it's ethical, and it's what the religious people have been rightly preaching about for thousands of years. I can almost guarantee that it will never happen - it's not a 'bloody' and malicious solution. It's too 'naive'. It's not evil, and where would we be without that?

hellow from manawatu new zealand...could do with some global warming down here...terry has it a bit warmer...all that artic ice must be melting because we forgot to send those rockets up to replenish the ozone layer we were destroying 10 years ago, that would be why...hope we get these co2 emmissions reduced in time, or else that might melt that ice real fast. But switching to bio dieil should fix that.