Ocean Concerns

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

And then there was this! News report this morning of a new federal report. At least new to me.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-AAupxHY?pfr=1

Ooh, wonder who's head is gonna roll over that one. 😆

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by rgleason

What is interesting from a physics perspective, is that all that cold energy released by greater surface area from broken up glaciers and sea ice needs to go somewhere.

If I recall correctly it takes something like 7 years for the sinking cold water to resurface somewhere along the coast of East Antarctica. We were pulling arctic water up from 800 meters just off the Mertz, Ninnis, and Totten glaciers at the beginning of the year from the icebreaker Aurora Australis.



I had the pleasure this year of working with a bunch of very talented and devoted scientists around some of the fastest melting glaciers in East Antarctica. We did krill sampling, ice sampling. And thousands of deep water CTD ocean samples. During my time aboard the Aurora Australis we had a chance to talk about the science with experts in their feilds, and Talented PHD students. Much of it was way over my head, and when asked simple questions most of them mumbled about just how complex the whole system really was.

It seemed to me that these guys (and girls) were operating at a level so far above what I have seen on forums and websites that they just groaned when I tried to get a simple answer out of them about what seemed to me to have been a straightforward question. I guess for them its like when some well meaning novice sailor asks me a technical but broad and nuanced boat question, like what boat type is best, what anchor to get, or what rig is best... I could talk for a few hours about each topic, and most of it would go over their heads.... No absolute consensus would be possible because there are so many variables.

Here is a short video of the trip.

https://vimeo.com/208792357

I was driving the small boats, shifting scientists and cargo. But working with the scientists really made me respect the dedication, integrity, intelligence and specialized knowledge they had. I guess I just wanted to put a plug in for these remarkable people. It must be terrible for them seeing their work being torn to pieces or misrepresented by people with no (or minimal) qualifications in those areas of study.

[rgleason]

Snowpetrel, that must have been a great experience.

[rgleason]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryo...energy_storage

[rgleason]

Above to respond to Stu re "cold energy"

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

If I recall correctly it takes something like 7 years for the sinking cold water to resurface somewhere along the coast of East Antarctica. We were pulling arctic water up from 800 meters just off the Mertz, Ninnis, and Totten glaciers at the beginning of the year from the icebreaker Aurora Australis.

Attachment 158777

I had the pleasure this year of working with a bunch of very talented and devoted scientists around some of the fastest melting glaciers in East Antarctica. We did krill sampling, ice sampling. And thousands of deep water CTD ocean samples. During my time aboard the Aurora Australis we had a chance to talk about the science with experts in their feilds, and Talented PHD students. Much of it was way over my head, and when asked simple questions most of them mumbled about just how complex the whole system really was.

It seemed to me that these guys (and girls) were operating at a level so far above what I have seen on forums and websites that they just groaned when I tried to get a simple answer out of them about what seemed to me to have been a straightforward question. I guess for them its like when some well meaning novice sailor asks me a technical but broad and nuanced boat question, like what boat type is best, what anchor to get, or what rig is best... I could talk for a few hours about each topic, and most of it would go over their heads.... No absolute consensus would be possible because there are so many variables.

Here is a short video of the trip.

https://vimeo.com/208792357

I was driving the small boats, shifting scientists and cargo. But working with the scientists really made me respect the dedication, integrity, intelligence and specialized knowledge they had. I guess I just wanted to put a plug in for these remarkable people. It must be terrible for them seeing their work being torn to pieces or misrepresented by people with no (or minimal) qualifications in those areas of study.

Remarkable experience Snowpetrel, and very interesting video. Thanks for sharing it all.

Easier said than done, but I often think the best way to move the scientific debate forward is a purely scientific body who can conduct their debate and advance the science unencumbered by all the politics. All of these various govt agencies, incl. the IPCC, suffer from political influences, and the scientists who they employ -- along with the science itself -- are the real casualties, imo. Political passions can get aroused with few facts as we all know, and the distortions become rampant on both sides, unfortunately. And as we see in even these forum threads, the passions wind up impugning the credibility & reputations of the scientists themselves.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

If I recall correctly it takes something like 7 years for the sinking cold water to resurface somewhere along the coast of East Antarctica. We were pulling arctic water up from 800 meters just off the Mertz, Ninnis, and Totten glaciers at the beginning of the year from the icebreaker Aurora Australis.

Attachment 158777

I had the pleasure this year of working with a bunch of very talented and devoted scientists around some of the fastest melting glaciers in East Antarctica. We did krill sampling, ice sampling. And thousands of deep water CTD ocean samples. During my time aboard the Aurora Australis we had a chance to talk about the science with experts in their feilds, and Talented PHD students. Much of it was way over my head, and when asked simple questions most of them mumbled about just how complex the whole system really was.

It seemed to me that these guys (and girls) were operating at a level so far above what I have seen on forums and websites that they just groaned when I tried to get a simple answer out of them about what seemed to me to have been a straightforward question. I guess for them its like when some well meaning novice sailor asks me a technical but broad and nuanced boat question, like what boat type is best, what anchor to get, or what rig is best... I could talk for a few hours about each topic, and most of it would go over their heads.... No absolute consensus would be possible because there are so many variables.

Here is a short video of the trip.

https://vimeo.com/208792357

I was driving the small boats, shifting scientists and cargo. But working with the scientists really made me respect the dedication, integrity, intelligence and specialized knowledge they had. I guess I just wanted to put a plug in for these remarkable people. It must be terrible for them seeing their work being torn to pieces or misrepresented by people with no (or minimal) qualifications in those areas of study.

Thanks for the perspective Snowpetrel! I highlighted that last part.
Scientific progress is made by claims or conclusions being subjected to peer review. I doubt there are many here, (or often in the media?,) who are truly qualified to be called "peers." These days it seems just about anyone can have an accepted, actionable, opinion, as long as enough people, or the right people, agree with it, regardless of their education, experience or knowledge.

[john61ct]

Cold is an absence of thermal energy.

Dark is an absence of light.

Fear is an absence of love.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Cold is an absence of thermal energy.

Dark is an absence of light.

Fear is an absence of love.

While I appreciate the philosophy, technically "cold" is really a human judgement call. All things have thermal energy, even cold things, unless they are at 0 dgrees Kelvin. Not likely on this planet.
but here is something intersting:
https://www.livescience.com/25959-at...lute-zero.html

Thermal energy and temperature are not the same thing.
A block of ice has more thermal energy than a lit match because it has more stuff (well, atoms) than the match does, even though it has a lower temperature. (One lit match cannot overwhelm and melt a large block of ice.) So even really cold water has a lot of thermal energy, just not as much as an equal volume of the same water at a higher temperature.

If really cold water meets up with REALLY cold water, the energy will be transferred from the really cold to the REALLY cold until they are both just REAlly cold.

So it behooves one to ponder, "compared to what?" when considering our physical world....

[john61ct]

Yes interesting.

My point was that "coldness" is not in itself a thing, but the absence of energy.

It makes no objective sense when discussing insulation for example to talk about "keeping the cold out" (or in).

The purpose of insulation is slowing down the movement of heat in all cases.

A minor point, and not worthy of dismissing everything someone has to say, but I was just clarifying to rgleason what the remark made by StuM actually was about.

[StuM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgleason
... all that cold energy released by greater surface area from broken up glaciers and sea ice needs to go somewhere. ...

Originally Posted by rgleason

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryo...energy_storage

Basic high school chemistry:
Why Cold Doesn't Exist | Energy Foundations for High School Chemistry

"energy is always transferred from a body at higher temperature to a body at lower temperature and, as a result, there is no such thing as “cold” flowing from the ice"

[Don C L]

Yes it is important to understanding the nature of the currents, to understand energy and "coldness" and then density, relative to water, ice and salt. As I am sure many know, as the polar ice melts, it releases cold (but not REALLY cold) fresh water. This water does not have the density either in terms of salinity or temperature, to sink, which is the primary driver of the deep ocean currents, which in turn move large masses of coldness () around the globe. Hence the potential slowing of deep currents... When ice is freezing at the poles, there is more dense salty water sinking which is able to displace more water below and generate an albeit very slow but steady cold current. This is a simplification because there are other currents resulting from other variations in salinity and temperature. Some may remember the stories of World War II subs using the salinity driven currents to drift silently in and out of the Med past Gibraltar submerged at the depth of the current corresponding to the direction they wanted to travel.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...n-current3.htm

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Exile

Easier said than done, but I often think the best way to move the scientific debate forward is a purely scientific body who can conduct their debate and advance the science unencumbered by all the politics. All of these various govt agencies, incl. the IPCC, suffer from political influences, and the scientists who they employ -- along with the science itself -- are the real casualties, imo. Political passions can get aroused with few facts as we all know, and the distortions become rampant on both sides, unfortunately. And as we see in even these forum threads, the passions wind up impugning the credibility & reputations of the scientists themselves.

Well said. It seems as a society we don't value the scientists enough overall. most of them do not get rich, or rewarded by anything other than knowing that they have advanced the pool of knowledge a notch further up. Not all scientists are perfect by any stretch, and when science and politics merge the water sure seems to get murky pretty quick. The AAE expedition of 2013-2014 is a good example of the harm that can be done when science, politics, tourism and journalism are merged.

Originally Posted by Don C L

Thanks for the perspective Snowpetrel! I highlighted that last part.
Scientific progress is made by claims or conclusions being subjected to peer review. I doubt there are many here, (or often in the media?,) who are truly qualified to be called "peers." These days it seems just about anyone can have an accepted, actionable, opinion, as long as enough people, or the right people, agree with it, regardless of their education, experience or knowledge.

Yep exactly, I think it's important that we try to understand the issues and explain them to others as best we can, but its always going to be a gross simplification of a complex subject. That is fine until someone goes and takes this simplification and then twists, distorts, uses only half the story or denies it to suit their own ends.

To use the earlier example of the penguins dying due to thick ice. I assume it refers to the Cape Denison area events over the last 7 years or so. This case is due to the tip of the mertz glacier breaking off and a large berg B09B grounding in the middle of the Bay. This drastically changed the area. I sailed my 33 foot yacht right into Boat Harbour in Commonwealth bay in 2006/7. we had to negotiate lots of heavy sea ice but no fast ice and a clear inshore lead.


Now not even the biggest icebreaker can get closer than about 60nm from the place I had my tiny yacht due to persistent fast ice trapped by B09B . This has decimated the Adele penguin population. The reasons for this chain of events are complex, in some regions ice is getting thicker, others much thinner. We were able to get the Aurora into a few spots that had not ever been open to a ship. There seemed to be a pretty clear agreement that the area was changing quickly, climate wise.

This is the same area now, 60 or so miles out to sea.


This is Akademic Shokalski, stuck in ice east of the Mertz glacier. A rather silly place to put a ship with anything other than a perfect forecast, but due to the fast ice in Commonwealth bay they were forced east to try to land passengers with a very poor forcast. Predictably it did not end well. I know a fair bit about it since both my parents were on board at the time. They were both horrified that the ship was putting herself into such danger during days before she got trapped. None of their team went ashore, considering it far to dangerous. luckily no one was lost.

Originally Posted by Don C L

Yes it is important to understanding the nature of the currents, to understand energy and "coldness" and then density, relative to water, ice and salt. As I am sure many know, as the polar ice melts, it releases cold (but not REALLY cold) fresh water. This water does not have the density either in terms of salinity or temperature, to sink, which is the primary driver of the deep ocean currents, which in turn move large masses of coldness () around the globe. Hence the potential slowing of deep currents... When ice is freezing at the poles, there is more dense salty water sinking which is able to displace more water below and generate an albeit very slow but steady cold current. This is a simplification because there are other currents resulting from other variations in salinity and temperature. Some may remember the stories of World War II subs using the salinity driven currents to drift silently in and out of the Med past Gibraltar submerged at the depth of the current corresponding to the direction they wanted to travel.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...n-current3.htm

A fair portion of our ice sampling work was related to the decay and salt water flows under melting ice, and the way it also concentrates iron. We had to be extremely careful not to contaminate the sites with any iron from the ship or our zodiacs. It was dangerous work, and we had to abort a few four hour digs and return to the ship due to the ice moving and in one case trapping us a fair distance from the ship.

It seems like in the Southern Ocean iron is the limiting factor, so understanding the iron cycle is critical to understanding the oceans ability to sustain life, and absorb CO2. https://phys.org/news/2014-03-southe...imate.html#jCp

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Thanks for the perspective Snowpetrel! I highlighted that last part.
Scientific progress is made by claims or conclusions being subjected to peer review. I doubt there are many here, (or often in the media?,) who are truly qualified to be called "peers." These days it seems just about anyone can have an accepted, actionable, opinion, as long as enough people, or the right people, agree with it, regardless of their education, experience or knowledge.

Its called thinking Don. One doesn't have to be a scientist in order to understand what the science and the scientists are trying to tell us. Many researchers are very skillful communicators and can present peer reviewed information in a way that an interested lay person can understand. These people often are linked to Universities from around the world and present the information in very articulate ways. The trouble comes, IMO, when a person lets religious and/or political beliefs interfere with their thinking processes. One other thing that interferes in the dissemination of facts, perhaps the most important, is financial greed.

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Scam just keeps going on and on and on....
What you need to do is find out what the next scam is and get in on it early.
Population Bomb...that was so 70s.
How about Fiberglass Boats won't hold up as well as wood ones...heck that is what the consensus of wooden boat builders once told us....