Continued From Facebook
I recently posted a link on Facebook to an article from a NASA site. It related to the size of the sea ice mass surrounding the Antarctic land mass. I don’t relish publicly diving into major controversies such as the global warming/climate change issue. Fine points of detail are quickly submerged in my brain beneath a layer of general concepts, so detail-oriented arguments often leave me far “outgunned.” Then why on earth did I post the link? I hope that by providing some background here, I can convey why it seemed warranted to me. Basically, the NASA article had said that sea ice around Antarctica had increased slightly in 2014. This is the middle of the 2015 cold season in Antarctica, so 2014 is the most recent winter data available so far.
Hiromi had told me about two conflicting slants he had read on the NASA information. The Conservative Tribune trumpeted the article as a “slam dunk” refutation of global warming. Japan Yahoo News, however, had made clear that global sea ice had diminished in 2014. Not only had the loss of sea ice in the Arctic continued to accelerate in 2014, but the sea ice had grown only in one area of Antarctica’s coastline.
A Facebook friend had linked to a piece (neither of the above sources) that had basically set forth a view similar to the Conservative Tribune. In response, I posted a comment saying that the news from Japan had provided a very different slant than the one linked to on Facebook. That comment thread didn’t go any further.
Then I looked up the NASA article to see for myself what NASA was saying. It was this act that eventually compelled me to post a link to the NASA article on my own wall, with this comment: “You may have seen Facebook media references to a NASA report about ice in Antarctica--as though it debunked global warming. If you read the actual NASA report you get a very different sense of what is going on. Misleading sensational headlines and irresponsible reporting and commentary both try my patience as few things do. . . . here's a link to the NASA page that contains the most relevant articles:” (I’ll post the link again at the end of this blog post) That’s why I posted the link to the NASA article–so that the data could be accessed directly, without having first passed through the filter of an agenda-driven media.
***************
I’m posting on this topic here partly because of the limits of the Facebook format. I’m fine with a public exchange of ideas and courteous disagreement, but I really hate a tit for tat format in which the whole discussion veers away from the intent of the original post, with confident, unsubstantiated assertions abounding, and the burden of documentation and refutation resting on the most cautious participants in the discussion–either that or let those comments stand unchallenged.
I will give credit, however, for the comments to have spurred on my part additional research, thinking, and now, writing on a slightly different topic than I wished to address initially. I had warned against pretending that the NASA data discredited global warming. That warning still stands. The comments shifted the discussion toward opposition to the global warming idea itself. In this post, I’m elaborating a bit on the new topic.
*******************
For reasons that I think are obvious, I had a good idea of why Conservative Tribune would be likely to spin the data toward debunking the idea of global warming. Many who self-identify as conservatives feel duty-bound to oppose the “liberal” notion of global warming, or risk fracturing their seamless armor. The Conservative Tribune certainly does. I don’t know much about the press in Japan, but I think it’s safe to say that they’re unlikely to have the same bias as the Conservative Tribune.
********************
Only one person commented on my Facebook post–many times. I was informed first that I’d been tricked by NASA’s article because the ice in Antarctica covers mostly land–not sea. Note that what was assumed here is that NASA data is agenda-driven–designed to trick. I never did understand how land ice coverage is relevant to a discussion of what is happening to sea ice. More on that later.
In response to one comment asserting that ice at the north pole was shrinking, but it was growing in Antarctica, and the Antarctica gain outweighed the Arctic loss, I posted this quote from the NASA article (especially with reference to the last clause): “Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum this past September, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Claire Parkinson, author of the study and climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.” The NASA quote was a direct contradiction to the comment on the matter of what ice in Antarctica meant for the global ice balance. The discrepancy was not acknowledged by the person commenting.
********************
Here are copies of two later exchanges ( after I had been told I was being tricked by the reference only to sea ice and not land ice):
Me: I don't see that this is a trick at all, or that it changes anything I've noted. The comparison is still of two like things--SEA ice in two different locations. It grew slightly in the south for the first time since 1979 [I'm no longer sure that this is completely accurate--I can't find the information again] and shrank in the north as it has done every year since 1979. To recap further: The amount by which it grew in the south is far lower than the amount by which it shrank in the north. In the south, the increase in sea ice was not uniform around the coastline. According to the Japanese news source, it actually increased beyond 1979 levels only on one side of the Antarctica land mass and continued to shrink everywhere else.
Comment in reply: Sure it's a trick. It's called global warming. They tell us sea ice is shrinking. Truth is polar ice caps are net growing. It's deception.
*****************
I’m aware that factors I’ve noted here may not be sufficient proof FOR global warming. As I said at the beginning, I was not setting out to prove that anyway.
******************
The person commenting eventually posted a satellite photo from the NASA article showing the entire ice-covered area in the Antarctic region, with the land ice and sea ice boundaries clearly visible–and pointed out that the land ice was bigger than the sea ice. I had looked at that photo previously and could not for the life of me figure out how that proved that global warming is a deception. I presumed, correctly, that the entire land mass has always been covered in “white” during the coldest part of the year. Whether that land mass was large or small seemed irrelevant. Slight (or substantial) fluctuations in snowfall (which eventually packs down to become ice) or temperature changes will not register on a satellite photo of the land mass of Antarctica at its coldest. Without fail, it’s all white every single year. The only possible variation of “white matter” in a satellite photo of the region occurs at the perimeter, where the “white” is sea ice.
I got sick of the discussion about that time (responding was taking too much time and energy for no apparent good and I couldn’t come up with polite responses anymore) and I left off to do other things and to do some more reading. One of the things I learned that interested me is that snowfall occurs almost entirely around the perimeter of the Antarctica land mass. The interior has almost no snowfall. That suggests to me that the land ice is not growing at all IN THICKNESS in interior Antarctica–since the formation of new ice is entirely dependent on moisture. My conclusion? That photo evidence “countering” global warming is no evidence at all.
******************
Scientists are generally very cautious about conclusions drawn from what happens around Antarctica. They emphasize repeatedly that climate has many influences. Winds and precipitation are two obvious ones, in addition to temperature. The saltiness of sea water affects its freezing temperature, serving as a limiting factor in ice formation. Falling snow, however, eventually can accumulate in sufficient quantity over water to form an ice crust. Holes in the ozone layer make a difference--allowing more or less frigid air from beyond the atmosphere to reach the earth's surface.
Reflection of sunlight is another factor. Here’s a quote from the NASA article: “One of the reasons people care about sea ice decreases is that sea ice is highly reflective whereas the liquid ocean is very absorptive,” Parkinson said. “So when the area of sea ice coverage is reduced, there is a smaller sea ice area reflecting the sun’s radiation back to space. This means more retention of the sun’s radiation within the Earth system and further heating.” I see this as a very legitimate reason for focusing on sea ice measurements, especially in the Antarctica region where land exposure to sunlight is minimal. To be very clear: I don’t see this primarily as a focus intended to deceive. It’s data, noted as part of a quest for information that can help provide advance warning of possible results before they occur.
*****************
The person who commented on Facebook made it clear that he thought proponents of global warming were simply cherry-picking data in support of conclusions that could not be substantiated otherwise. (I don’t suppose it’s possible that ______________might do something similar?) This comment came after I said something in favor of data-driven conclusions rather than prior conclusions admitting no new data.
****************
It’s probably time to reiterate something I’ve alluded to earlier. I do not intend to undertake a defense of global warming. I personally think that more evidence exists for climate change of many kinds than global warming only. If it is occurring, I don’t know for sure why that would be so–whether because of naturally-occurring cyclical changes or human activity. I’ve seen evidence pointing to human activity, but I’m not positive that it’s compelling beyond doubt. I do believe that in the time period before the flood of Noah’s time, the entire earth was a warm place. Large coal deposits (always formed from decayed plant material) are present in Antarctica, which provides evidence for a previously warm climate there. I don't think it necessarily follows that earth warming now would benefit mankind. A rise in ocean levels if all of the ice everywhere melted would be catastrophic. I read that even if only the land ice in Antarctica melted, the ocean would rise by 200 feet.
To state my position further, I will cite my intense distaste for climate or science discussions to mire down in political diatribe, or for conclusions to be driven by political preferences. Whether it’s Al Gore or the Conservative Tribune or a Facebook friend or me, it’s out of order to do that. Always. Every.Single.Time. I do recognize that it can be difficult for us to see when we’re doing these objectionable things ourselves, or when those who feed us information are doing it. For that we need humility and divine wisdom.
As I see it, the only sensible way forward is to keep on noting what scientific observation tells us, what our own limited observation and reasoning power tell us, what God tells us in His Word and by His Spirit, and then to do the things that most consistently cooperate with God in carrying out His purposes on the earth. Our stewardship charge over the earth is an important component of carrying out God’s purposes. Maybe some day I will know exactly what this means in terms of taking sides on the climate controversy. Right now what is most clear to me is that taking care of the earth means being very slow to ignore warnings that are coming our way.
*****************
Link to NASA article containing data and commentary on the 2014 observations of sea ice around Antarctica.
For further reading: Link 1 Link 2 The information scope in the links far exceeds anything I've dealt with here, although it's not too long to be read in a reasonable amount of time. I'm sure that many other good sources are available, and don't claim that these are perfect. Link 2 is especially interesting in that it contains multiple further links and input from various sources.
Hiromi had told me about two conflicting slants he had read on the NASA information. The Conservative Tribune trumpeted the article as a “slam dunk” refutation of global warming. Japan Yahoo News, however, had made clear that global sea ice had diminished in 2014. Not only had the loss of sea ice in the Arctic continued to accelerate in 2014, but the sea ice had grown only in one area of Antarctica’s coastline.
A Facebook friend had linked to a piece (neither of the above sources) that had basically set forth a view similar to the Conservative Tribune. In response, I posted a comment saying that the news from Japan had provided a very different slant than the one linked to on Facebook. That comment thread didn’t go any further.
Then I looked up the NASA article to see for myself what NASA was saying. It was this act that eventually compelled me to post a link to the NASA article on my own wall, with this comment: “You may have seen Facebook media references to a NASA report about ice in Antarctica--as though it debunked global warming. If you read the actual NASA report you get a very different sense of what is going on. Misleading sensational headlines and irresponsible reporting and commentary both try my patience as few things do. . . . here's a link to the NASA page that contains the most relevant articles:” (I’ll post the link again at the end of this blog post) That’s why I posted the link to the NASA article–so that the data could be accessed directly, without having first passed through the filter of an agenda-driven media.
***************
I’m posting on this topic here partly because of the limits of the Facebook format. I’m fine with a public exchange of ideas and courteous disagreement, but I really hate a tit for tat format in which the whole discussion veers away from the intent of the original post, with confident, unsubstantiated assertions abounding, and the burden of documentation and refutation resting on the most cautious participants in the discussion–either that or let those comments stand unchallenged.
I will give credit, however, for the comments to have spurred on my part additional research, thinking, and now, writing on a slightly different topic than I wished to address initially. I had warned against pretending that the NASA data discredited global warming. That warning still stands. The comments shifted the discussion toward opposition to the global warming idea itself. In this post, I’m elaborating a bit on the new topic.
*******************
For reasons that I think are obvious, I had a good idea of why Conservative Tribune would be likely to spin the data toward debunking the idea of global warming. Many who self-identify as conservatives feel duty-bound to oppose the “liberal” notion of global warming, or risk fracturing their seamless armor. The Conservative Tribune certainly does. I don’t know much about the press in Japan, but I think it’s safe to say that they’re unlikely to have the same bias as the Conservative Tribune.
********************
Only one person commented on my Facebook post–many times. I was informed first that I’d been tricked by NASA’s article because the ice in Antarctica covers mostly land–not sea. Note that what was assumed here is that NASA data is agenda-driven–designed to trick. I never did understand how land ice coverage is relevant to a discussion of what is happening to sea ice. More on that later.
In response to one comment asserting that ice at the north pole was shrinking, but it was growing in Antarctica, and the Antarctica gain outweighed the Arctic loss, I posted this quote from the NASA article (especially with reference to the last clause): “Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum this past September, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Claire Parkinson, author of the study and climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.” The NASA quote was a direct contradiction to the comment on the matter of what ice in Antarctica meant for the global ice balance. The discrepancy was not acknowledged by the person commenting.
********************
Here are copies of two later exchanges ( after I had been told I was being tricked by the reference only to sea ice and not land ice):
Me: I don't see that this is a trick at all, or that it changes anything I've noted. The comparison is still of two like things--SEA ice in two different locations. It grew slightly in the south for the first time since 1979 [I'm no longer sure that this is completely accurate--I can't find the information again] and shrank in the north as it has done every year since 1979. To recap further: The amount by which it grew in the south is far lower than the amount by which it shrank in the north. In the south, the increase in sea ice was not uniform around the coastline. According to the Japanese news source, it actually increased beyond 1979 levels only on one side of the Antarctica land mass and continued to shrink everywhere else.
Comment in reply: Sure it's a trick. It's called global warming. They tell us sea ice is shrinking. Truth is polar ice caps are net growing. It's deception.
*****************
I’m aware that factors I’ve noted here may not be sufficient proof FOR global warming. As I said at the beginning, I was not setting out to prove that anyway.
******************
The person commenting eventually posted a satellite photo from the NASA article showing the entire ice-covered area in the Antarctic region, with the land ice and sea ice boundaries clearly visible–and pointed out that the land ice was bigger than the sea ice. I had looked at that photo previously and could not for the life of me figure out how that proved that global warming is a deception. I presumed, correctly, that the entire land mass has always been covered in “white” during the coldest part of the year. Whether that land mass was large or small seemed irrelevant. Slight (or substantial) fluctuations in snowfall (which eventually packs down to become ice) or temperature changes will not register on a satellite photo of the land mass of Antarctica at its coldest. Without fail, it’s all white every single year. The only possible variation of “white matter” in a satellite photo of the region occurs at the perimeter, where the “white” is sea ice.
I got sick of the discussion about that time (responding was taking too much time and energy for no apparent good and I couldn’t come up with polite responses anymore) and I left off to do other things and to do some more reading. One of the things I learned that interested me is that snowfall occurs almost entirely around the perimeter of the Antarctica land mass. The interior has almost no snowfall. That suggests to me that the land ice is not growing at all IN THICKNESS in interior Antarctica–since the formation of new ice is entirely dependent on moisture. My conclusion? That photo evidence “countering” global warming is no evidence at all.
******************
Scientists are generally very cautious about conclusions drawn from what happens around Antarctica. They emphasize repeatedly that climate has many influences. Winds and precipitation are two obvious ones, in addition to temperature. The saltiness of sea water affects its freezing temperature, serving as a limiting factor in ice formation. Falling snow, however, eventually can accumulate in sufficient quantity over water to form an ice crust. Holes in the ozone layer make a difference--allowing more or less frigid air from beyond the atmosphere to reach the earth's surface.
Reflection of sunlight is another factor. Here’s a quote from the NASA article: “One of the reasons people care about sea ice decreases is that sea ice is highly reflective whereas the liquid ocean is very absorptive,” Parkinson said. “So when the area of sea ice coverage is reduced, there is a smaller sea ice area reflecting the sun’s radiation back to space. This means more retention of the sun’s radiation within the Earth system and further heating.” I see this as a very legitimate reason for focusing on sea ice measurements, especially in the Antarctica region where land exposure to sunlight is minimal. To be very clear: I don’t see this primarily as a focus intended to deceive. It’s data, noted as part of a quest for information that can help provide advance warning of possible results before they occur.
*****************
The person who commented on Facebook made it clear that he thought proponents of global warming were simply cherry-picking data in support of conclusions that could not be substantiated otherwise. (I don’t suppose it’s possible that ______________might do something similar?) This comment came after I said something in favor of data-driven conclusions rather than prior conclusions admitting no new data.
****************
It’s probably time to reiterate something I’ve alluded to earlier. I do not intend to undertake a defense of global warming. I personally think that more evidence exists for climate change of many kinds than global warming only. If it is occurring, I don’t know for sure why that would be so–whether because of naturally-occurring cyclical changes or human activity. I’ve seen evidence pointing to human activity, but I’m not positive that it’s compelling beyond doubt. I do believe that in the time period before the flood of Noah’s time, the entire earth was a warm place. Large coal deposits (always formed from decayed plant material) are present in Antarctica, which provides evidence for a previously warm climate there. I don't think it necessarily follows that earth warming now would benefit mankind. A rise in ocean levels if all of the ice everywhere melted would be catastrophic. I read that even if only the land ice in Antarctica melted, the ocean would rise by 200 feet.
To state my position further, I will cite my intense distaste for climate or science discussions to mire down in political diatribe, or for conclusions to be driven by political preferences. Whether it’s Al Gore or the Conservative Tribune or a Facebook friend or me, it’s out of order to do that. Always. Every.Single.Time. I do recognize that it can be difficult for us to see when we’re doing these objectionable things ourselves, or when those who feed us information are doing it. For that we need humility and divine wisdom.
As I see it, the only sensible way forward is to keep on noting what scientific observation tells us, what our own limited observation and reasoning power tell us, what God tells us in His Word and by His Spirit, and then to do the things that most consistently cooperate with God in carrying out His purposes on the earth. Our stewardship charge over the earth is an important component of carrying out God’s purposes. Maybe some day I will know exactly what this means in terms of taking sides on the climate controversy. Right now what is most clear to me is that taking care of the earth means being very slow to ignore warnings that are coming our way.
*****************
Link to NASA article containing data and commentary on the 2014 observations of sea ice around Antarctica.
For further reading: Link 1 Link 2 The information scope in the links far exceeds anything I've dealt with here, although it's not too long to be read in a reasonable amount of time. I'm sure that many other good sources are available, and don't claim that these are perfect. Link 2 is especially interesting in that it contains multiple further links and input from various sources.
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
11:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home