The sea ice is already becoming dysfunctional in a number of ways--for some marine animals, for indigenous communities on barrier islands (absence means less suppression of winter storm waves), indigenous hunting at certain times of the year is disrupted, disruption of the creation of the very cold air of the Arctic in some seasons (so we have a longer season with the Arctic supplying a lot of heat to the atmosphere and affecting the weather in mid-latitudes), etc.
Even thin ice or shorter ice-in situations leads to dysfunction--we don't have to wait until 100% is gone in a particular season, etc. Mike On 7/18/11 5:00 PM, "Emily" <[email protected]> wrote: > hi > thanks, extinct, I think means it isn't in the wild or captivity for 30 > years... which is a long time to wait. > The point I'm making is that other terms are created when there is > little sense in waiting for 30 years for non existence to exist... > > The point about sea ice, is an important one. Communicating an issue is > key. If, as is possible, that some sea ice remains in pockets or as a > thin film over the Arctic in areas at some times of the year, do we wait > before accepting that the ecosystem is functionally, well, dysfunctional? > > I think a term can be adopted in this case, which refers to the sea ice > as so severely reduced that it is no longer performing its critical > previous functions. > > Communicating in phrases and terms which are accurate but also readily > accessible is key. I am not sure what the correct phrase for the > diminishing sea ice is, and I am hopeful that we wont need one. I am > optimistic that we will restore the Arctic ecosystem, just as we re > plant a forest when we realise we need it, we clean up an oil spill, and > we clean up a coal spoil heap. > > thanks so much, > > Emily. > > On 18/07/2011 21:50, Mike MacCracken wrote: >> 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.
