3to1
Super Anarchist
hey jerkz, pull your head out of your shitter yet? no?
COP27 climate summit
- Thread starter Alan H
- Start date
phill_nz
Super Anarchist
he lost me when he went totally homocentric
humans are but one species on this planet and as the dominant species on the planet deserve some advantages
but not at the expense of everything else
that's not just overly selfish its straight out dumb as fuk
humans are but one species on this planet and as the dominant species on the planet deserve some advantages
but not at the expense of everything else
that's not just overly selfish its straight out dumb as fuk
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 12,995
- 478
Who said at the expense of everything else?
If there is a polar bear drowning in the water and a human kid drowning in the water, and we can save one of them, we save the kid every time.
Meanwhile, the polar bears are doing just fine. I agree that if they were endangered, humans should stop hunting them.
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 12,995
- 478
Umm......
Have polar bears ever drowned?
3to1
Super Anarchist
polar bears aren't abstract concepts or cartoons.
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
Danceswithoctopus
Cephalopod
Female polar bears have been recorded to swim about 500 NM, male polar bears as much as 800 NM, Cubs have to give up after 300NM. When time has run out they drown. Unfortunately they need to do it because of retreating sea ice, they never needed to as little as a generation or two ago because there wasn't that much open water.
Things are changing so F'ing fast up there, to me it is absolutely mind boggling that there are still people that wave it of as saying" Oh, that is normal, the planet has done it for billions of years. Or even worse: Nothing is happening, it is doing just fine! NO!!!!! The fucking planet has not ben doing this for billions of years!!!!! The change that we are witnessing has happened over just a few decades, a natural cycle is tens of thousands of years for the same change. That is the whole difference. Eco systems cannot evolve that fast. Without these eco systems human life is not possible either. How the fuck can anybody be OK with ruing your own living space and that of your (grand)children? How can you leave them with such a mess with a clear conscience?
Things are changing so F'ing fast up there, to me it is absolutely mind boggling that there are still people that wave it of as saying" Oh, that is normal, the planet has done it for billions of years. Or even worse: Nothing is happening, it is doing just fine! NO!!!!! The fucking planet has not ben doing this for billions of years!!!!! The change that we are witnessing has happened over just a few decades, a natural cycle is tens of thousands of years for the same change. That is the whole difference. Eco systems cannot evolve that fast. Without these eco systems human life is not possible either. How the fuck can anybody be OK with ruing your own living space and that of your (grand)children? How can you leave them with such a mess with a clear conscience?
giegs
Super Anarchist
- 1,159
- 664
I'm concerned that a polar bear and child seem to have found their way onto a trolley track.
@Bagheera thanks for sharing your insight as someone who has actually spent a ton of time in the region. Have you been running science expeditions specifically for ice cover, or was that more incidental to what the team was studying?
@Bagheera thanks for sharing your insight as someone who has actually spent a ton of time in the region. Have you been running science expeditions specifically for ice cover, or was that more incidental to what the team was studying?
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
Quick, JZK don your cape and rush to the rescue!
Oh wait, ice loss isn't really happening...
I'm not a scientist myself, only facilitate research projects. This specific one (some years ago) was about optimizing the data gathering from sat images. On a very systematical basis we sailed through arctic waters and measured ice volume. Drilling holes through ice sheets to drop a stainless ruler down to measure thickness in grids of 1m by 1m. We also dropped markers on square mile corner points and with help of drone footage iterated the actual coverage. The outcomes of those measurements (we took 5 weeks of 16 hours a day) were very sobering. The situation is a lot worse than sat images do suggest.
Due to the fact that cloud cover and fog are often present in the Arctic, you can't just snap a picture and 'look'. The images taken are based on surface roughness and on surface temperature. Thicker ice is colder and open water has little chop on the surface that shows 'roughness'. A super computer calculates what is ice and what is open water based on surface structure. Sea ice can be very rough and on a flat calm day the water is as smooth as a mirror. So interpretation is a best guess method. Add to this that sea ice forms pressure ridges that can be as thick as 20m and you get salty icebergs that don't melt in a summer and re-freeze to an ice sheet in the following winter to become multi year ice. The thickness is so uneven that a sat image is really just a best guess. Here some random pictures of what sea ice actually looks like above the water:
And here some pictures under water (photo credit to "Under The Pole").
Does anyone seriously think that a satellite can take a picture from 30km above the earth, separated by clouds and fog from the actual object and than accurately calculate the volume of the ice?
That is why they have come up with the rule that if 15% is covered in ice, it is counted as fully ice covered. That is the only way that ice forecasts can be made on a daily basis and the only way to compare things. Though with the disappearance of ice, the leads are getting bigger (a lead is an open section of water between ice sheets) and the number of blocks that have open water is increasing significantly and remember, as much as 85% of open water is counted as 'frozen over'.
One more picture. The upside down ice 'castle' is about 7m or 23 feet deep under water. Yes, arctic water is about the clearest water on earth for visibility. A 12 foot RIB for size reference.
Due to the fact that cloud cover and fog are often present in the Arctic, you can't just snap a picture and 'look'. The images taken are based on surface roughness and on surface temperature. Thicker ice is colder and open water has little chop on the surface that shows 'roughness'. A super computer calculates what is ice and what is open water based on surface structure. Sea ice can be very rough and on a flat calm day the water is as smooth as a mirror. So interpretation is a best guess method. Add to this that sea ice forms pressure ridges that can be as thick as 20m and you get salty icebergs that don't melt in a summer and re-freeze to an ice sheet in the following winter to become multi year ice. The thickness is so uneven that a sat image is really just a best guess. Here some random pictures of what sea ice actually looks like above the water:
And here some pictures under water (photo credit to "Under The Pole").
Does anyone seriously think that a satellite can take a picture from 30km above the earth, separated by clouds and fog from the actual object and than accurately calculate the volume of the ice?
That is why they have come up with the rule that if 15% is covered in ice, it is counted as fully ice covered. That is the only way that ice forecasts can be made on a daily basis and the only way to compare things. Though with the disappearance of ice, the leads are getting bigger (a lead is an open section of water between ice sheets) and the number of blocks that have open water is increasing significantly and remember, as much as 85% of open water is counted as 'frozen over'.
One more picture. The upside down ice 'castle' is about 7m or 23 feet deep under water. Yes, arctic water is about the clearest water on earth for visibility. A 12 foot RIB for size reference.
Danceswithoctopus
Cephalopod
The cape might scare the bear. Better to use some camouflage. Maybe disguised as a seal or something?
Ask away, I'm happy to share my (limited) knowledge and experiences.
giegs
Super Anarchist
- 1,159
- 664
I'm looking at some job opportunities helping to run ocean conservation expeditions at the moment, so what you do as a non-scientist helping the scientists do their thing is as interesting as the science itself for me.
Has the lack of sea ice changed how you have to think about weather windows and forecast reliability? Are the trips going further and further afield as access routes open up? I imagine there's more traffic in the region. Are you seeing signs of that too, or any changes in logistical constraints as more people are relying on what's available?
Dog 2.0
Super Anarchist
- 4,831
- 767
Look at 3to1 "contributing" to the conversation.
phill_nz
Super Anarchist
most of it seems reasonable
if you take out
idiot squared and idiot cubed
if you take out
idiot squared and idiot cubed
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 12,995
- 478
Are we in agreement that polar bear populations have been significantly increasing since the 1950s?
tybee
Super Anarchist
got any data to support that claim? i mean from a reputable source, not the National Enquirer kind of source.
