Excellent piece of work in this analysis. So odd that we can't get similar analyses of the record. As you note nature employs forces that we can't fully understand and which are well beyond human capability. We have no idea about the feedback mechanisms that exist in climate. Whatever weather extremes we see today seem to have happened in the somewhat recent past as well. We just have a press inclined to predict a crisis that must be fixed immediately.
Thanks for your excellent article. I have read that Antarctic ice is increasing except for one area which is thought to be melting due to geothermal activity although overall it is increasing.
I also wondered if the thickness of the ice should be taken into account?
One last comment. The Guardian has reported things like "Sea levels to rise by 200feet" which would take about 20000 years on current rates of rise. I think we can cope with that. I don't understand what their motives are.
I am tuning up a piece on sea ice around Antarctica right now. Your comments motivate me to explicitly revisit "chaotic," "dynamic processes," basically, the idea that it is really hard to make predictions that are any good more than just a little out into the future.
So, I will be revisiting Edward Lorenz (1969) on "the Butterfly Effect" as well as the "Nobel Prize Weatherman" Ken Arrow.
So, three points for now. First, it seems plausible to suggest that the sea ice process around Antarctica is harder to get a grip on than the process in the Arctic, because a big land mass right at the South Pole is involved. Second: The Science and the media always present the sea ice processes as deterministic, linear processes when it suits their purposes. But, if these processes are chaotic, then maybe the science and media aren't really any good. Third: The ultimate point is "So what?" Sea ice processes are complex and defy long-term prediction. The Science and the media slyly suggest that human activity can channel these complex processes, but The Science really can't establish a mechanical, causal relationship. There are big, inexorable, complex, long-run processes at work. Just getting a grip on those would be fun, but the conceit that we can intervene effectively in these things may be just that: a conceit.
Excellent piece of work in this analysis. So odd that we can't get similar analyses of the record. As you note nature employs forces that we can't fully understand and which are well beyond human capability. We have no idea about the feedback mechanisms that exist in climate. Whatever weather extremes we see today seem to have happened in the somewhat recent past as well. We just have a press inclined to predict a crisis that must be fixed immediately.
Thanks for your excellent article. I have read that Antarctic ice is increasing except for one area which is thought to be melting due to geothermal activity although overall it is increasing.
I also wondered if the thickness of the ice should be taken into account?
One last comment. The Guardian has reported things like "Sea levels to rise by 200feet" which would take about 20000 years on current rates of rise. I think we can cope with that. I don't understand what their motives are.
Greetings, Steve --
I am tuning up a piece on sea ice around Antarctica right now. Your comments motivate me to explicitly revisit "chaotic," "dynamic processes," basically, the idea that it is really hard to make predictions that are any good more than just a little out into the future.
So, I will be revisiting Edward Lorenz (1969) on "the Butterfly Effect" as well as the "Nobel Prize Weatherman" Ken Arrow.
So, three points for now. First, it seems plausible to suggest that the sea ice process around Antarctica is harder to get a grip on than the process in the Arctic, because a big land mass right at the South Pole is involved. Second: The Science and the media always present the sea ice processes as deterministic, linear processes when it suits their purposes. But, if these processes are chaotic, then maybe the science and media aren't really any good. Third: The ultimate point is "So what?" Sea ice processes are complex and defy long-term prediction. The Science and the media slyly suggest that human activity can channel these complex processes, but The Science really can't establish a mechanical, causal relationship. There are big, inexorable, complex, long-run processes at work. Just getting a grip on those would be fun, but the conceit that we can intervene effectively in these things may be just that: a conceit.