Betting

Wed NH Ice update.

81 Comments

I’ve been planning to post updates on Wed., plus “Andrea” is agitating to have us all see that the JAXA NH sea ice extent is no longer below the 2007 minimum. So, today, I bring you the supplemented JAXA NH se ice extent figure:


The JAXA data has been supplemented with gsfc.nasa.gov data prior to 2002. The method of merging was: Find the first day for which JAXA has data; this was in June 2002. Trim off all gsfc data prior to that day. Merge the two sets. I made no attempt to smooth, find shifts or do anything fancy.

After that, I removed all missing data and smoothed over 7 adjacent remaining days. (This means, if a day is missing, the average is over 7 entries, but they may span more than 7 days. This type of average is useful for betting when data might drop out but it’s odd for science.) The current level is now only the 2nd lowest in the JAXA record and also the 2nd lowest in the merged record.

I’m sure that Andrea will be pleased to point out that the black line indicating the current 7 day smooth ice-extent no longer falls below the 2007 ice extent for the similar time in 2007.

Also, although the legend doesn’t fit in the image, some of you will notice the colors were created by moving along the color spectrum with time. The pink/magenta colors are all in the lower region indicating a general trend toward lower minima. I could show a graph with the trend with time. Maybe next week.

Instead, I’ll show the loss rate computed using weekly changes in the 7-day smooth ice extent:

Bill Illis commented that the loss rate is at record minimum levels for this time of year using his slightly different method of computing loss rate; so we are both getting this. Bill suggested the possibility of a sensor error. That’s something that should always be suspected when data are fresh and a value is at the extremes of the range observed. I wouldn’t be shocked if we learned of some sort of sensor failure. By the same token, the loss rate is not so far out as to be unbelievable.

For now all I can say is: This is the loss rate based on reported numbers. If this low loss rate is real and it remains low, we may even see the ice minimum remain above last years level. That said: if betting was still open, I wouldn’t bet on that!

On to Betting!
Below, I’ve posted a scatter plot of 7-day smooth ice extents from the merged files vs. the minima (black circles) for a given year along with a simple linear fit in blue and the ±95% confidence intervals computed neglecting the uncertaity in the coefficients of the fit(blue and blue dashed):

The orange circle represents the current 7-day ice extent and the corresponding prediction for the minimum that will occur this year. Last years value is highlighted in black.

Using this method of prediction the current best estimate for the 2011 ice minimum is 4.8 millions square kilometers. This exceeds my bet of 4.569 million square km placed on July 31. (My bet was computed using the smoothed value from July 28, and a fit based on JAXA only data.) Using the more recent data and the fit based on the merged data and neglecting uncertainty in the fit parameters, I estimate the ±95% confidence interval to be 4.14 to 5.45 millions square kilometers. ( Including uncertainty in the fit parameters would increase the spread of my confidence intervals. )

I’ve also been reporting my estimate of the probability we will break the 2007 record. Using my simple linear fit, and assuming residuals are normally distributed, the probability of breaking the record is supposedly 6%. However, including uncertainty in the fit parameters would increase the estimate of that probability. Moreover, the method assumes no instrument error. This means that based on this method, I estimate the probability of breaking the record is more than 6%.

Meanwhile, I estimate the probability the 7 day minimum ice extent falls below last years minimum roughly 59%. For this prediction, considering the uncertainty due to sensor error or statistical uncertainty in the fitting parameters would reduce my estimate of the probability, moving it toward 50%. I’d judge that this method is telling us that beating last years ice extent minimum is a statistical dead heat.

Purple!
Are any of you wondering what the purple lines are? The solid purple line is the average bet by Blackboard bettors computed by utterly ignoring Dr. Jay/Shoosh’s bet (which exceeds the surface area of the earth) and fixing iv0p’s error in decimal place. The dashed lines contain 95% of the bets placed. (The full range was 3.872 to 8.69 million sq. km).

Blackboard bettors exhibit a wider spread in predicting the sea ice than my curve fit would suggest we should expect based on the current 7day ice extent. The Blackboard betters spread may very well be more realistic since a) I didn’t include uncertainty in the fit coefficients when computing the uncertainty based on the curve fit, b) Blackboard bettors may have bet early when they should have a greater level of doubt, c) it’s not clear that my method of predicting is “true”. That is, even given current ice extent, it may be that I should use a non-linear fit of some sort or there may be a factor left out that would suggest the 2011 ice ought to be higher or lower. Finally d) my method doesn’t consider the possibility of sensor malfunction.

I find it interesting the average Blackboard bet corresponds to a value just a hair below last year’s 7 day minimum, particularly since the ice extent was rather low near the time bets closed.

If you would like to see your bets, visit: the betting page which now displays the bets. I’ll be fixing iv0p’s bet for him. If your bet is missing or entered in error in a way that is pretty obvious, let me know. (I don’t know if the bet for 8.69 millions sq. km is ‘obviously wrong’, but iv0p’s is obviously wrong.)

I’ll try to post again mid week until the contest closes. Because less “weather” can happen in 4 weeks compared to 8, and the orange error bars are based on the most recent observation, the error bars should tighten over time. Within a few weeks we may be declaring some people are “already losers” while other’s will begin to be in contention. Of course, I hope I win. We’ll see!

81 thoughts on “Wed NH Ice update.”

  2. Doc–
    I think your parasol is winning. I’ve been trying to read whether people think the ice is fracturing and spreading out, or what.

    For what it’s worth, last week, with the Jaxa only data, I found rate of change to have little to no predictive power above current extent. I froze my method before getting the extra data so I didn’t try to explore whether knowing the current rate of change added predictive power beyond knowing the current extent. Rate of change is very noisy.

  3. Lucia:
    At 4.75 I am pretty close. Yay! We all get lucky, well maybe.

    This concludes my contribution to climate science. LOL

    On a more serious note, since this is supposed to be tied to temperatures in the Arctic or global warming, has anyone tried matching the DMI temperature graph (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php) to the sea ice extent above from JAXA? I have not, as yet, seen that kind of comparison done and I do not have the ability to graph it myself.

    Mr. Mosher, if I am comparing apples to oranges I apologize in advance, but would like to know why.

    Thank you.

    Roy Weiler

  4. You’re close to my current best estimate of the future value. There is still plenty of time for others to edge you out!

    JAXA and DMI are both similar. But I think JAXA and DMI may use slightly different land masks and possibly slightly different concentration cut-offs when counting extent so the numbers end up a bit different. People who are fascinated with sea ice will know. I just bet. 🙂

  5. Intuitively it seems to make sense that a very high loss rate is followed by a very low loss rate, as these brief effects in either direction cannot be sustained-a loss rate too fast and then there isn’t enough for conditions typical for this time of year to keep up the rate, too low and then the excess of ice is more easily lost. Basically the rate can oscillate about those typical for any time of year, but they will tend to deviate from it in alternating directions in immediately follow periods. Of course this doesn’t require that the values integrate to exactly the same amount every time, if the “background” about which they vary itself varies or changes over time. This very low loss rate will probably be followed soon by a near normal loss rate or above average, and so on.

    Lucia, do you think maybe you can show a chart of the “climatology” of loss rates, that is the average cycle through a year over all observed periods? The current plots of all the individual years are nice, but difficult to get a sense for the “typical” rates since there are so many series laying on top of one another.

  6. Lucia:
    I understand what you are saying (My HT to Mr. Mosher will set me right). I was just curious if a connection/correlation between the temperatures and ice melt (extent) could be fashioned.

    I bet someone will know too 🙂

    Roy

  7. AndrewFL–
    Do you mean could I create an average and super-impose it on the figure of loss rates? Sure.

    Roy– The correlation or connection might exist– but someone would have to find convenient data sources. Otherwise it’s a lot of work. It would be hard to motivate oneself to do the work unless they thought something important could be learned.

  9. “Mr. Mosher, if I am comparing apples to oranges I apologize in advance, but would like to know why.”

    well, just by looking at the DMI Values ( and the spread) In the melting months you can probably guess that the ice loss rates vary a lot more than the temperature. ( thats really a question) Combine that with physics which tells us that ice melts primary from the bottom ( water temps probably matter more ), combine that with the strong effects currents have, and AO, and where and how the wind blows the ice.. I would bet against air temps as a Driver. contributor, ya. driver? probably not. The causes are thermal ( water temps) and mechanical. Nasty problem.

    So i wouldnt expect the average air temp will explain much of the variance in the ice loss rates. but hey, knock yourself out. Ice temperature…

  10. “a paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that “dramatic interannual changes” in Arctic sea ice extent are due to varying storm activity in the months of May-July, which impacts “cloud cover and ice motion, and consequently sea ice melt.” The authors find fewer cyclones in the Arctic Ocean “appear to favor a low sea ice area at the end of the melt season.””

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-paper-finds-arctic-sea-ice-strongly.html

  12. steven mosher (Comment #80070)-All very good points, however water temperature under the ice does not seem to be an observed variable. So Air temp may be less than satisfactory, but it is what we have to work with..

    Just as a general observation, having examined some data for the Arctic temps, from what I’ve been able to determine there has been more warming during the coldest times of year, when the sea ice is pretty extensive and also the time of year for which there isn’t as much trend in ice. The warmest days, that one would associated with the (later) minimum in sea ice, have had much less warming. Clearly the relationship between these variables is more complex than some simple linear function, or even one which assumes some time lag (since the minima and maxima of sea ice occur later than the corresponding maximum and minimum air temps). Of course, this makes sense as one needs to cross a threshold to melt ice. Still, I wonder if anyone has tried to statistically determine the relationship between these variables with some kind of function.

  14. One simple way to think about it is this.

    1. the rate of heat transfer from the water to the ice is greater than from the air to the ice.
    2. the heat capacity of the water is greater than the air
    3. When the ice exposed to air melts a thin film of water forms insulating the ice.

    as I noted there are many forces that work together to melt the ice. mechanical and well as thermal. Mechanical. The wind, that drives the ice into places where the water is warmer, for example. Well is the “wind” the cause? or the warmer water? I take an ice cube out of the fridge. Its now exposed to warm air and melts. what’s the cause? But for my action, it would still be ice, But taking it out of the fridge if the fridge is at the north pole wont cause it to melt. so we need to take care when talking about the word ’cause’

  15. I did something similar to combine the data sets, but what I did was average them in the region where they overlap. I also using a cubic spline to interpolate missing data values. This is all easy enough to do with the tools I’ve developed over the years, that I went ahead and set up a script to update the combined file on a daily basis..

    You can find my version of the merged file here.

    The other thing I’ve considered doing was use the other GSFC data set to somehow estimate a scaling correction between the older GSFC and the JAXA series. I suspect this is overkill.

    Maybe somebody like Mosh could write an R script to do the same thing? I’m no R guru.

  17. Slightly O/T, but does anyone out there know of any well-sourced papers giving estimates of total latent heat gain/loss associated with ice melt on a seasonal, interannual and multidecadal basis?

  18. Andrew_FL–
    Doubltess there is an easy way to do it in R, but I don’t really know how. It would be easy if there were 365 days in a year and all years had 365 days, so I could match days. But some years have 366. Also, I was inconsistent with the JAXA vs. earlier data so I have the early stuff going from 1-365 and later stuff sometimes 1-366. So, my days don’t match.

    (I could fiddle to get around this… but I lack motivation.)

  20. Dr. Jay,
    People who are moderated are not permitted to post OT.
    The management

  21. Lucia:

    Doubltess there is an easy way to do it in R, but I don’t really know how. It would be easy if there were 365 days in a year and all years had 365 days, so I could match days. But some years have 366. Also, I was inconsistent with the JAXA vs. earlier data so I have the early stuff going from 1-365 and later stuff sometimes 1-366. So, my days don’t match.

    I also resampled leap years, so they have the same number of samples as non-leap years. I needed to do that for my anomalization algorithm to work.

  22. The JAXA extent may be above 2007, but the area is below 2007. The location of the ice is also very different from 2007.

    2007
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/_2007/aug/asi-n6250-20070803-v5_nic.pdf

    2011
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2011/aug/asi-n6250-20110803-v5_nic.png

    The prevailing winds in 2007 pushed the ice towards the Atlantic, resulting in a lot of transport through the Fram Strait. That isn’t happening, or at least not as much this year. Yet the extent and area are still very close to 2007. The global ice area (Arctic plus Antarctic) is at or near record lows as well. It looks like the 365 day moving average of global ice area will set a new record low this year, probably in early September.

    Direct absorption of solar radiation is also a significant heat input for ice melting. That’s why cloud cover reduces the loss rate.

  25. lucia (Comment #80084)-I recently encountered a similar problem when I was considering looking into how the trends vary with temperature rank in the year from year to year (that is, rank the temperatures within the the year, then ask, say, what is the trend in the warmest day/coolest day, 180 warmest or coolest day, etc. to get an idea how the temperature distribution changes. I came up with a few ideas, none of which were entirely satisfactory. One was to simply delete the most mild day in leap years (the one closest to the annual average, another was to count the most mild day twice in non-leap years. I also considered using arbitraily all 365 day “years” or all 366 day “years”. For the kind of analysis I want to do, I think the first two options are probably okay, but for computing an annual climatology not so much. The other two solutions are also less than ideal. I haven’t actually implemented anything yet, so I won’t know if it makes a difference for what I am going to try to do, but for this I suspect the associated problems will be different.

    Perhaps fitting a sinusoid with period of about 365.2425 days would work? Although this assumes some properties of the annual cycle I am not confident hold.

  27. Andrew-
    I’ve thought through the solutions. The “difficulty” is that I’ve got existing code to do certain things. Changing stuff means proof reading to make sure re-numbering the dates doesn’t screw up other stuff. The reason I didn’t switch to Carrick’s file was pretty much… not wanting to proof-read the impact this sort of things.

    So, basically: I don’t want to know the mean enough to go through the proof-reading (or fit a sinusoid) etc. Right now, I can tell the melt rate is low. I’m not going to “know” anything I consider important if I know just how far below the mean we are. So… while I appreciate your desire to see this, I’d rather code other things to answer other questions. That’s pretty much the situation. So the answer is: Yes. I could add a trace for the mean melt rate to that graph, but I’ve decided it’s more work than I am interested in doing.

  29. Over a two week melt time-frame, 2011 is by far the lowest melt rate (but it was near the highest in early July).

    (I think we more-or-less did this the same way; I used the NasaTeam Algorithm data since Jaxa uses a variant of this – the NasaTeam helped them develop it, whoever they are).

  30. lucia (Comment #80104)-Fair enough. Considering I don’t want to know enough to try to do it myself, I can’t expect you to do so.

    I should get back to that temp analysis anyway! 🙂

  32. lucia (Comment #80117)-? I was refering to me getting back to my temp analysis described at Andrew_FL (Comment #80094). For me to have demanded you get back to the analysis of temps you do would be just rude! 🙂

  33. Lucia, Mosher, et al:
    Thank you, you have given me much to ponder, especially from a water temperature standpoint. Clouds matter more then air temperature, and ocean temperature matters more then air temperature. I wish I could find the animation that shows the heat from an El Nino working it’s way up into the Arctic. I remember the series, but cannot remember the lag. 🙁

    Roy Weiler

    P.S. It is only right the lady gets mentioned first 🙂

  34. Re: Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Aug 4 13:16),

    Here I go feeding the t***l again:

    Wrong. Antarctica sea ice shows an increase over the “precious” 30yr. trend.

    Try reading what I actually posted rather than what you imagine I posted.

    Antarctic sea ice may be increasing very slightly, but Arctic ice is decreasing faster, so the sum of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice for the same day, global sea ice, is decreasing and the rate of decrease is accelerating.

  36. Carrick

    “Maybe somebody like Mosh could write an R script to do the same thing? I’m no R guru.”

    I’d love to, but I just finsihed posting my second package

    CHCN candadian historical climate network

    350MB of data scraped from Environment canada. Shit took a whole day to download and process. hehe

    So, if its a quick job I can do it now, I have to finish getting nicks code integrated with Rghcnv3.. then some really cool GIS work.. more better UHI data.. way better I hope. we will see.

  37. Wow, that last update from Andrea sure shows a shift of rate of change, moving back towards my original decision to make 2008 the basis of my guess for 2011.

    It does not look unusual per se, but moving from a rapid drop to a more tepid one seems interesting. Perhaps having a tad more older ice then last year?

    Roy Weiler

  38. Roy–

    Perhaps having a tad more older ice then last year?

    Short term melt rates are pretty noisy because they are influenced by so many things. If the winds kick up and start pushing ice toward the Straights of the Fram (east of Norway) ice could be pushed out of the arctic and melt fast. If you think of the arctic as being surrounded by an ice-retaining ring with a gap at the Fram, you wouldn’t be far off. When the winds happen to push ice toward that gap, the melt rate soars.

    I’m not going to say this melt rate can’t remain low relative to past melts for this time or year, but it’s unlikely to do so. The various fits I’ve tried suggest that melt rate gives very little additional predictive value over things like current levels or ice or the trend over time.

    But

  40. Ouch. Can you people, please, and I mean pleez… look at the physical system? Your eyes and attention are all focused on the statistics. Please look at the physical system, and try to see what is actually happening.

    Compared to 2007, this year (2011, for those of you who need supporting data for every observation), has an ice extent difference of 422k sq km. Where is the ice extent difference located?

    Please note, this is a very simple question about the physical system. Also please note, that ice extent in the central Arctic Basin is unlikely to melt, versus ice in the Hudson’s Bay or the Greenland Sea, which is at much lower and warmer latitudes.

    So is where is this “extra” ice extent located? Well, the East Siberian sea has almost 400k more sq km in extent this year, and the Greenland Sea has about 130k more sq km, adding up to 530k, significantly more than the 2007 to 2011 delta.

    Why is this important? Because the East Siberian and Greenland Seas are where ice pack goes to die! During the melt season, these seas are essentially dead ends, that if the ice pack moves into these areas, the pack is doomed!

    Where can we find data on ice extents of the various northern seas etc.? Here is the place where you can look at the actual extents measured in each sea. Check out the difference between the 2007 and 2011 extent data for the East Siberian and Greenland Seas.

    Conclusion: We still have a good shot at beating 2007; and even if we don’t, that is simply because a lot more ice has moved into the ice pack “graveyards’. This shows the extremely poor condition of the ice pack, as global warming impacts destroy our planet in front of our eyes (as we spend ever more time manipulating data).

  42. Paul_K2,

    This shows the extremely poor condition of the ice pack, as global warming impacts destroy our planet in front of our eyes (as we spend ever more time manipulating data).

    Well, nobody is going to accuse you of not being at least entertaining. “Destroy our planet” while we spend time “manipulating data”? A little over the top, even you you. Our planet has survived thousands of PPM of CO2 in the past, and nobody suggests that is the level the atmosphere will reach due to combustion of fossil fuels. I think more measured statements would help your credibility, even if shrill ones are more entertaining.

  43. I agree with Paul_K2 that there is still a good shot for a new extent low. While extent loss slowed in late July, area loss didn’t (according to Cryosphere Today, anyway). The projected area minimum is currently very close to the 2007 minimum and is trending down. So it’s about even odds that the actual minimum will be lower than 2007. The EWMA smoothed JAXA extent rate anomaly is currently far ( ~20,000 km²/day) above the average. That can’t last and, historically, large positive anomalies are followed shortly by large negative anomalies. There is some evidence the last few days that this is starting to happen.

    There is good evidence that Arctic sea ice was nearly non-existent during the Holocene optimum ~6kya and the world didn’t end and polar bears didn’t become extinct. A Chicken Little tone doesn’t lend one credence.

  44. DeWitt: I don’t think it is particularly trending down.

    See also this:

    Thus, the sea-ice extent is always larger than the sea-ice area. Because of the possible errors in SIC mentioned above, satellite-derived sea-ice concentration can be underestimated, particularly in summer. In such a case, the sea-ice area is more susceptible to errors than the sea-ice extent. Thus, we adopt the definition of sea-ice extent to monitor the variation of the Arctic sea ice on this site.

    DeWitt:

    There is good evidence that Arctic sea ice was nearly non-existent during the Holocene optimum ~6kya and the world didn’t end and polar bears didn’t become extinct. A Chicken Little tone doesn’t lend one credence.

    It’s funny how people can believe in evolution, and yet reject the notion that they can/will adapt to changes. The truth is they already have.

    (And as more prey species migrate northwards, the long hard months for the polar bear will likely be over.)

  45. Re: Carrick (Aug 7 11:03),

    Based on Cryosphere Today data, I see a downtrend in the projected minimum (current area – loss to minimum for the 30 year average 1979-2008 for the same date). CT 2011 area is still lower than CT 2007 area, unlike JAXA. I prefer CT to JAXA for area because they have a longer track record. I like Uni-Hamburg as well, but they only update monthly.

    Polar bears only diverged from Brown bears relatively recently (< 1Mya). IIRC, there are clades(?) of Brown bears that are closer genetically to Polar bears than to other Brown bears.

  46. DeWitt/PaulK2

    We might beat the 2007 ice minimum. What I don’t understand is why Paul think that is some sort of nail in the coffin to lukewarming. It’s not as if ‘lukewarmers’ have been suggesting the 2007 ice minimum will never be broken. In fact, they’d all say the opposite– the 2007 minimum will likely be broken. It’s not as if lukewarmers say that the minimum can’t be broken this year or that it can’t be broken this year or that it can’t be broken in a La Nina year or … something….

    So, as far as I can see, PaulK2 is describing a large number of things all of which are consistent with the ‘lukewarming’ position and then decreeing these are counter evidence for the lukewarming position.

  47. Lucia,

    What I don’t understand is why Paul think that is some sort of nail in the coffin to lukewarming.

    Maybe the rational is buried in the statement:

    ..as global warming impacts destroy our planet in front of our eyes (as we spend ever more time manipulating data).

    You known, Lukewarmers do look at data, and even manipulate it sometimes, to come to their position on GHG warming. So if our planet is being destroyed because of evil data manipulation… we’re all, even lukewarmers, going to have nails in our coffins!

  48. The interesting sociological/psychological issue is that a statement like Paul_K2 made earlier (“destroy our plant in front of our eyes”) is standard fare at many CAGW blogs. If you just read the comments at those blogs (and get past the initial shock), it becomes plain that different people are not even looking at the same data, or maybe not looking at data at all. Lots of those folks appear honestly to believe the planet is going to be destroyed if atmospheric CO2 rises to 500 PPM. For me, it is very peculiar. Maybe another Paul (Paul Simon) was right when he wrote.. “a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest”.

  49. SteveF, in the end, it isn’t about data, it never was… it’s always been about political philosophy. The question is whether central government can save us from ourselves (those are the believers), or whether it just makes things worse (those are the deniers).

    PaulK2 can try and coach objections to the mantra that the government must save us as “manipulation of data”, but the fact that he objects to people looking at data tells you what you need to know…this is about political rather than scientific truth.

    My basic point, is you could buy every word of the IPCC report, line and sinker, and you still could vehemently disagree with the Copenhagen protocol or other global government solutions for fixing the problem.

  50. Carrick,

    Yes, I suppose that is most of it. But still, I might as easily try to understand the world view of a Martian as the world view on display at the CAGW blogs; when I read those blogs, I do feel a bit like I just landed on another planet.

    (I assume you really meant “couch” not “coach”.)

  51. Re: lucia (Aug 7 12:45),

    What I don’t understand is why Paul think that is some sort of nail in the coffin to lukewarming.

    When I see a phrase like “nail in the coffin” or “the greenhouse hoax is coming apart”, I tend to tune out on everything else. It means that the person has an axe to grind and is more interested in grinding than actually understanding what’s going on.

  52. I guess the NSIDC has finally started putting up its daily sea ice extent numbers (csv format) broken down by the various basins.

    You can find the file along with other info on this page which was created in November, the csv file, however, only starts on July 8th.

    http://nsidc.org/data/masie/index.html

    The sea ice extent decline was only -18K on Aug 5, but jumped to -124K on Aug 6.

  53. ‘Destroy our planet’ is often hyperbolic code for ‘do a large amount of damage of various kinds’. It can be difficult to work out precisely what people mean, as among alarmists like me there are a wide variety of views – someone might agree with Lovelock, for example, that the human population is going to crash to one billion, or with Lynas that six degrees of warming will set of methane explosions that will kill everyone and most of everything else. Or they might hold my view, which is that three to four degrees of warming will place the lives of hundreds of millions of people at risk (mainly due to agricultural decline), cause a significant number of extinctions and reduce the living standards of most people in the world.

    All of these could be considered ‘end of the world’ scenarios – or, at least, ‘end of the world as we know it’ scenarios. And end of the world scenarios for individuals and some species.

    As to politics and what I believe could save us from these scenarios, a combination of a variety of efforts by everyone – government, business, research institutions, charities and individuals, with the last probably the most important, given that all of those other groups are made up of individuals.

    As to record low ice, I do not think that it will happen this year. And – channelling hunter – that will be the final nail in the coffin of this CAGW scam. 😉

  54. “All of these could be considered ‘end of the world’ scenarios”

    David, these would be considered hyperbolic as well.

    andrew

  55. Andrew_KY,

    If someone literally believes them, then they are not hyperbole. They may be considered fantasy or delusion or just plain wrong. But they would not be hyperbole.

  56. Hyperbole is deliberate exaggeration used for effect/impact, not simply being wildly wrong. If I honestly believed that the Norweigan mass-murderer killed hundreds of people, me saying that would not be a use of hyperbole.

  57. David Gould,
    .
    I guess it is (a little) reassuring to hear that maybe much of what I read at CAGW blogs is hyperbole. It would sure be nice if those people using hyperbole at those blogs would at least sometimes say what they really think. It is hard to imagine political compromise with someone who honestly thinks all of humanity will soon die in global methane explosions (never even heard that one before). That sort of thing sounds a bit like the “scare the public with frightening scenarios” approach which has been used by some climate scientists.
    .
    There are honest and substantial differences of opinion about the future scale of global warming, and even larger differences of opinion about the magnitude/importantce of down-stream consequences from whatever warming actually takes place. There are absurdly large differences in opinion on the present day economic value of trying to resolve today potential problems 50 to 200 years in the future.
    .
    Under these circumstances, I suspect hyperbole only inhibits compromise and the building of consensus. Certainly, I had not a clue that Paul_K2 comments eralier in this thread might have been intended to be hyperbole. If I accept the plain meaning of his words, it would appear further discussion with him will not be fruitful… ‘end of the world’ (and similar) is kind of hard to strike a compromise on.

  58. SteverF,

    I agree that hyperbole is often a barrier to understanding, communication and compromise. And labels can be, too. I label myself as an alarmist, but I am not as alarmed as Lovelock or Lynas, for example, so maybe some kind of numeric ‘alarm scale’ might be more helpful in terms of identification …

    And it is possible that Paul_K2 was not using hyperbole – if he agrees with Lynas, then we are getting pretty close to a literal end of the world scenario.

  60. As to record low ice, I do not think that it will happen this year.

    It’s not out of the question, but I think it’s unlikely. Tomorrow I’m going to add some ice area data to the mix and tweak a correction on the ice extent (I’d used the most simple minded merge possible.)

    I’ll see if I change my mind on my most probable estimate for 7 day minimum. Of course, there are all sorts of possible minima: lowest absolute day, lowest September, lowest area, lowest volume etc. We could conceivably hit a minimum for one and not the other. If we do, there will be arguments about whether it’s the “real” one we should use.

    I’m predict ice extents because that’s what my bets are on.

  61. I don’t think it is possible that with all the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere, and the universe in general, that we will eventually get a complete flash-over event that will destroy the Earth and the entire universe as well. There may be a little universal warming, but not complete destruction.

    I could be wrong but I would still like to see the evidence for that.

    I also don’t think the big bang was caused by CO2 but I could be wrong about that as well. The cosmic background radiation, however, does have a CO2 signature under the fourth principle component analysis.

    On the other hand, the sea ice could completely melt out this summer and it may not return in the winter if CO2 causes the Earth’s tilt to switch back and forth opposite to the current change. Remember the PETM which reversed the normal 6 months of darkness.

  62. @Carrick

    It’s funny how people can believe in evolution, and yet reject the notion that they can/will adapt to changes. The truth is they already have.

    (And as more prey species migrate northwards, the long hard months for the polar bear will likely be over.)

    The rate of change is going to be faster than the adaptation can occur. Also, what happens to species that are isolated on mountainous areas, or where a continent ends, or where they hit a civilisation’s boundaries? The northward or southward option may not exist.

  63. bugs

    Also, what happens to species that are isolated on mountainous areas, or where a continent ends, or where they hit a civilisation’s boundaries?

    What happened to Rhondodendrons in regions with east-west rather than n-s running mountains during natural ice age/ interglacial cycles? What happens when animals hit civilizations boundaries absent AGW?

    I realize that now that we exists, some people think we need to go to great lengths for every possible animal– but I don’t. Some extinctions happen without AGW. I’m not particularly concerned about polar bears.

    Other species yes. Massive extinctions yes. Polar bears? I don’t think an animal at the top of the food chain in an inhospitable isolated niche like the arctic is all that big a deal. I’m not worried we’ll be overun by seals if Polar Bears go extinct. I really don’t see huge problems.

    So, you want to argue by rhetorical question? Bear in mind you might find the answers are unexpected. Discussions can go in directions you disprefer. It’s really advisable to try to make your point with positive statements instead of by questions that you imagine have only 1 answer.

  64. “They may be considered fantasy or delusion or just plain wrong.”

    David, yes it makes one question how serious these “beliefs” actually are.

    Andrew

  65. bugs:

    The rate of change is going to be faster than the adaptation can occur.

    That’s a completely unsubstantiated theory. And most like it’s wrong to boot. Climate changes pretty rapidly, even naturally.

    Besides most of the anthropogenic change that is happening now is coming from other sectors than anthropogenic climate change associated with CO2 emissions. This is what bothers me with isolating CO2 as if fixing that is a cure-all.

    The reality is, it’s a cure virtually nothing. We’ll still expand into natural areas, overexploit natural reserves, use too much fresh water, etc. (I include China and India especially in the “we”.)

    (Now we return to our regular scheduled program where Al Gore points at a thunderstorm as if they never occurred before man put CO2 into the atmosphere.)

  66. @Lucia

    Other species yes. Massive extinctions yes. Polar bears? I don’t think an animal at the top of the food chain in an inhospitable isolated niche like the arctic is all that big a deal. I’m not worried we’ll be overun by seals if Polar Bears go extinct. I really don’t see huge problems.

    This is setting us up for a mass extinction, already we command so much of the biosphere, or exploit it, that species are disappearing at a rapid rate. Add in global warming, and we are making things even worse. This is a global phenomenon, which is the whole point of the concern. Just about every species will be affected, since most of them depend on the climate in some way.

    The Tralfamador option doesn’t appeal to me at all. We also need to remember that we are just one more species.

  67. bugs:

    The Tralfamador option doesn’t appeal to me at all. We also need to remember that we are just one more species.

    LOL. You may be just one more species. I put a bit more priority on us than say field mice.

  68. bugs

    This is setting us up for a mass extinction,

    If you think that, say it directly instead of leaving people guessing what point you are trying to make by asking a mysterious rhetorical question.

    If you say this directly, we can discuss whether or not we agree whatever is happening is setting us up for mass extinction. This will include our definitions of ‘mass extinction’ and also, given someone’s definition, whether or not ‘mass extinction’ is such a terrible thing. I have no idea what your criterion for considering an extinction to achieve a “mass extinction” might be. So, I can’t evaluate whether your claim is a) true or false or b) whether if true, it’s something to even worry about.

    Maybe if you got more specific, your comments would sound like more than just rhetorical sound bites.

    Just about every species will be affected, since most of them depend on the climate in some way.

    There is not “just about” about it. All species are affected by climate.

    That something will be ‘affected’ is a pretty mild claim. Every species also is, was and will be ‘affected’ by the magnitude of seasonal variability– a fact few would dispute and no one worries about. So, yes, obviously, every species will be ‘affected’ by climate– whatever it might be.

    Every species was, is, and would be, affected by natural climate variations too. Unless you get specific and make a claim about what the effect will be the fact that climate ‘affects’ everything is both obvious and inherently meaningless.

    We also need to remember that we are just one more species.

    Of course. I’ve never forgotten it. I doubt anyone forgets it.

  69. bugs,

    The PETM was hard on benthic foraminifera, but not much else. The planet was a lot warmer then to boot. If a rapid increase in temperature and CO2 were going to cause a mass extinction, it should have been seen then. It wasn’t. The polar bear population, like a lot of the large predators, was under pressure because we were shooting them, not from loss of habitat due to climate change.

  70. Lucia,

    I’m not worried we’ll be overun by seals if Polar Bears go extinct.

    .
    Well, on Cape Cod (where I am at present), there were never any seals to speak of up until about 25 years ago; when I was a kid, there was a bounty on seals, because they eat a lot of in-shore fish that local fishermen want to catch. People who shot one would cut of the nose and turn it in for a reward. My understanding is that local stocks of seals were controlled/reduced by Native American hunting prior to European settlement, as well as by European settlers after they arrived. Seals have been 100% protected from hunting for many years, and the local population on Cape Cod has exploded to at least several thousand. What in the past was a small wintertime population is now a large and growing year-round population. These are big animals, often approaching 400 pounds. Their haulout beaches are (no surprise) covered with foul smelling excrement, and essentially unusable, even if there happen to be no seals out of the water. (They are too dangerous to be close to when they are out of the water, and they are protected from ‘harassment’ as well!)
    .
    Needless to say, they have reduced inshore fish stocks, especially fish species that are slower moving (like flounder). The seals are smart enough to understand it is easier to steal a fast swimming fish (like a bluefish or a stripped bass) from a fisherman than to catch one on their own, so they wait in the water close to where people are fishing (boat or shore) and watch the people. When someone hooks a fish, a seal swoops in and tears it off the line. Makes for very unhappy fishermen (and women!). Someone shot a couple of seals this spring, and there was lots of local media coverage and a ‘manhunt’ for the ‘killer’, so he/she could be thrown in jail (never found AFAIK).
    .
    Last year my cousin and I simply gave up when several seals arrived… and promptly took three fish off our lines in a row; it was impossible to boat a fish. People have size and catch limits on most fish species of course (we release below the minimum size), but seals don’t think a lot about size limits, and eat any size fish that has been hooked. There have been recent near shore sightings of Great White sharks, because sharks like to eat seals… and any other warm blooded animals that might be in the water. So beaches have been closed from time to time, and vacationers sometimes can’t go in the ocean.
    .
    In Eastern Canada, the seal situation is far worse (a population of several million and growing), and the seals are adding to the threat of a fish stock collapse (no doubt helped along by commercial overfishing).
    .
    So, we very well may be overrun by seals if they can’t be hunted. We might hope for a booming population of Great Whites to do our dirty work for us, but that might be considered a mixed blessing, at least by some. Polar bears might also help, but they like to eat people even more than Great Whites do. It is an absurd situation. Beware of unintended consequences.

  72. Solution to the seal problem from Greenland:
    http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/kultur-sjael/mode.aspx
    “You can go on a shopping spree in Greenlandic designer clothes with a clear conscience. Greenlandic sealskin is exempt from the EU ban on sealskin. The animals live in freedom until the day they’re shot. They’re shot for their meat; the sealskin is always secondary. It’s therefore ethically correct to buy sealskin products from Greenland.”

  73. @Bugs

    “All polar bears will die” and “we are just one species”

    The polar bear population is growing and they can swim for 60 miles. Only a retarted polar bear would drown.

    We are the most powerful, exclusive and dominant species the world has ever known. We can do so many things that no other “species” can do that we are not comparable to other animals.

  74. Tamara,
    Let me understand this. If you are willing to eat the thing, it’s ok to harvest the skin? it does sound reasonable but i can imagine that we’re seconds away from one of the local wits coming up with an exception.

  76. j ferguson–
    I suspect some people think it’s unethical to kill animals for meat as well as hide. But I’ve known those who think it’s ok to kill for meat, and use hides rather than waste the hides but don’t think it’s ok to kill for just hides. I’m not entirely sure I understand this. Then again, somethings are more religious than anything else.

  77. Andrew_KY,

    I am perfectly serious in my alarmism: I honestly believe that three to four degrees of warming will lead to a large number of animals goings extinct, hundreds of millions of human lives being at risk and the living standards of most people in the world being reduced.

    However, I should clarify the last point in particular: I mean reduced relative to where they would have been had that warming not occurred. I still think that it is pretty much guaranteed that living standards will in general be higher a hundred years from now for at the very least most of those people living in nations that are developed or developing today.

  78. David, person to person you have never given me a reason to doubt your sincerity. However, in the world of observation, and replication, and evidence, you may as well sincerly believe that Elvis just delivered you a pizza, for all that it matters.

    Andrew

  79. j ferguson
    Just to make sure there’s no misunderstanding, that was a quote from the website not my own opinion on whether or not the practice is ethical.

    In fact, I find that stance to be at least ironic, if not downright ridiculous. As if the animal cares whether you use one of its part or all of them (or even none of them).

    I have to admit, though, that I have always been curious about sealskin clothing from a practical standpoint. Does it out-perform modern materials in Arctic conditions? How comfortable is it?

  81. Pingback: The Blackboard » NH Ice Update & Vulnerable Ice Method

Comments are closed.