For species, I have heard (e.g., from reviewers when I have misused the word extinct) that when there are no more in a region or in the wild, the appropriate term is (from biology online):
Extirpation The act of extirpating or rooting out, or the state of being extirpated; eradication; excision; total destruction; as, the extirpation of weeds from land, of evil from the heart, of a race of men, of heresy. Extinction only applies when there are none either in the wild or in captivity. I am not sure that applying this word to sea ice would work very well, however. Mike MacCracken On 7/18/11 3:53 PM, "Emily" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > a term used for species extinctions comes to mind - when a species is > reduced to such a small number of animals in the wild but isn't extinct, > it is sometimes referred to as 'functionally extinct'. > > If we consider the functions of the Arctic sea ice - in areas it is > pretty near functionally extinct already... eg in Hudson Bay... > > Sea ice performs so many different functions it's hard to even list them. > > best wishes, > > Emily. > > > On 18/07/2011 17:24, [email protected] wrote: >> Ken (cc list) >> >> I have tried (as a rank amateur observer, not participant) to >> follow this retreatjng September arctic ice topic for the last 5 >> years. I have come to a different conclusion than expressed in your >> two articles.. The website I have found most valuable can be located >> by remembering the name "Neven" - and googling with "arctic" and "ice" >> . This blog averages more than one message per hour - and the folks >> commenting there seem to be putting a lot of time into the topic. Not >> experts on this blog, but dedicated amateurs, who do seem to be >> talking to the ice experts, however. >> >> The key question is what are we to be measuring when we talk of >> "gone"? I gather that 10% remainder is considered "gone". One also >> has to consider whether one will be talking area, extent, or volume. >> I like the volume definition - as thickness is dropping much more >> rapidly than area (the smaller number) or extent - and the volume is >> easier to find data on than thickness. A good (April 2011) >> discussion of these differences is at >> >> >> http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/trends-in-arctic-sea-ice-volume.html#m >> ore >> >> This short write-up, using experimental volume data, suggests about >> 2016 as a best guess to get to this 10% value. This uses a "Gompertz" >> model - which has no particular theoretical validity - but seems to >> have more validity than a linear or quadratic approach to absolute >> zero. It might be overly conservative. >> >> For today's blog exchange (several dozen so far today), go to just >> the early part of the above URL. >> >> The modeler who seems (to me) to have done the best job in modeling >> this (the subject of Ken's two articles) is Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski who >> has supported this 2016 "gone" date since 2008 or so (and again this >> year). The following 2008 cite is given in the above URL for a >> Maslowski Ppt: >> >> http://www.ees.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/dc2008/DC/report/Maslowski.pdf >> >> His work doesn't show up in literature comparisons such as in >> Ken's articles because his (highly detailed) model is limited only to >> the Arctic; it is not a global model, although of course it is linked >> to the rest of the world. We should also note that Maslowski has >> supported 2013 as not being out of the question. (and still does) >> >> I don't believe we have the luxury of relying on a "gone" date in >> the 2030's or even 2020's - and this is based on interpretations of >> recent data - not model outputs. It seems to me the lesson is that >> the global models need retuning. >> >> Ron >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *"Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> >> *To: *"geoengineering" <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Monday, July 18, 2011 6:41:17 AM >> *Subject: *[geo] September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much >> sooner) >> >> Folks, >> >> There has been a fair amount of discussion on this group that talks >> about imminent September sea ice loss in the Arctic. >> >> The attached paper indicates that around half of the normal September >> sea-ice should still be around in the 2020-2040 time frame. >> >> Boe, J., Hall, A., Qu, Z. Nature Geosci 2, 341-343 (2009). >> >> I am not saying that the situation in the Arctic is not dire, however, >> are the suggestions that September sea-ice in the Arctic is soon to be >> a thing of the past a bit overblown and without foundation? >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
