I have wondered why I have less desire to post about arctic sea-ice than I once had, and have decided one major reason is that the people I call Alarmists, who I once liked to debate with, increasingly reminded me of petulant children.
Because my Childcare business makes me a “Child Care Professional”, I often deal with children who cannot be reasoned with. The young mind, usually so charming and dream-like, abruptly goes into a sort of attack mode. In fact our word “petulant” is derived from “petere”, an ancient Latin verb which means, (among other things), “to attack”.
(Cartoon from New Yorker Magazine from 1923,)
The two main responses to such childish stubbornness are to either walk away, or to gently restrain. It depends on the levels of danger and/or extreme inconvenience involved. In theory the adult knows what is best, and the child is merely “testing their limits”. Therefore it is best to show them what the limits are.
Sometimes when one “walks away” one is allowing the child to learn what the limits are on their own: “Oh? You don’t want to put on your snow suit? You want to go out into the deep snow in shorts? I guess we can conduct that experiment.” However, midst a tantrum, any actual reasoning with the child is temporarily out of the question.
Over the past twenty years I have found reasoning to be increasingly useless, when talking with Alarmists about arctic sea-ice. Some describe the Alarmist attitude as “the la-la-la-I’m-not-listening approach.” When Alarmists state, “The science is settled”, it is just a way of refusing to listen. What is one to do? Increasingly I simply walk away. If they do not want to talk, I’ll find people who do.
Just to give you an example of how foolish the “settled science” now appears, simply go back a little over sixteen years to December 12, 2007, shortly after a summer when the sea-ice reached the second lowest extent “in the satellite era”; (IE: since 1979). (At the time the 2007 summer extent was the “lowest”). In December the following excitement appeared in the BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
Well, that old news states that, in 2007, sea-ice was suppose to vanish six years in the future, in the summer of 2013, but the stubborn stuff refused to vanish, and still refuses to vanish. You might think this would provoke Alarmists to be humble, and to wonder why they got it wrong, but instead they more closely resemble petulant children dissolving into a blue-faced tantrum.
One thing about petulant children is that, when they go mad, they resort to strategies they think will back the grown-up they are dealing with off. One is to scream, at the top of their lungs, “You are hurting me!” In actual fact all I may be doing is, in the most gentle manner, preventing them from walking out onto dangerously thin ice on our center’s farm pond. I am in fact saving their life. However the small persons thrash about and even slightly hurt themselves, banging their small foreheads against the frozen earth, they are so angry that I won’t let them walk on the thin ice. But I am unmoved by their fury, and eventually they give up, and as we walk away I always am touched by the forgiveness they demonstrate towards me, for they reach up, and we walk hand in hand.
I am not so touched by Alarmists, for they have not yet reached the level of maturity displayed by a four-year-old. Quite the contrary. My small and admittedly inconsequential website has faced “shadow banning” and other aspects of “cancel culture”, which in my opinion is the equivalent of a tantruming child screeching, “You’re hurting me!”
I suppose it could also be seen as a form of bullying, but I cannot really take the bullying of a four-year-old seriously, and the same goes for Alarmists. I tend to simply walk away. If they don’t want to talk, I’ll find people who do.
And there are indeed some interesting things to talk about, which Alarmists are prevented from talking about by the very cancel culture they think they are inflicting upon others, but rather are inflicting upon themselves.
One interesting thing is that ocean temperatures are warmer than they were fifty years ago, but the sea-ice is not melting in the manner one might expect. I personally have seen many of my own ideas (which involve expectations, if not predictions) be challenged, if not demolished. I wonder what is going on. Here is my latest hypothesis:
We tend to look towards the sun and see it as the heater of the seas. The heat at the equator is far greater than at the Pole, (except for during the peak of the the Pole’s midsummer 24-hour days), and in a simplistic way this causes cold polar water to sink and flow south, and warm Equatorial water to rise and flow north. Usually the polar water is below the tropical water. But I say “usually” because there is a contrary state of affairs. Polar water tends to be fresher than Equatorial water, which means that, when temperatures approach equality, saltier Equatorial waters will sink below fresher Polar waters, which complicates matters. Men much smarter than I am have worked hard to understand these differences brought about largely by temperature but to a lesser degree by salinity, and some have endured great hardship and danger going out onto the sea-ice to gather actual data concerning the cold currents heading south and the warm currents heading north, and how they effect sea-ice. However all their hard work betrays a certain prejudice, in my humble opinion. And what is this prejudice? It is that they see currents as horizontal things, or in horizontal terms. They have a harder time factoring in the up-down of vertical currents.
The most common idea of a vertical current involves the situation which occurs when prevailing winds are offshore. Because the surface water is blown away, water from somewhere must replace it, and the water tends to be from the depths.
A second idea of a vertical current involves the fact that when seawater freezes it exudes salt, usually in the form of brine. This largely happens during the refreeze between October and January, and hardly happens at all when the purified ice melts in the summer. Consequently the Arctic Ocean, with the regularity of a heartbeat, experiences a sort of vertical current of descending brine.
However an uncommon idea of a vertical current seems to involve 2000 degree lava abruptly warming 32 degree water, and sending it soaring as a “plume”.
Here is some video of the West Mata Volcano spewing out extremely hot Boninite lavas 4000 feet below the surface of the Pacific ocean:
It seems to me that our planet does not gush lava in a steady manner, but rather is in some odd way controlled by the sunspot cycle, and produces more lava when the sun is “quiet”. It is helpful when such eruptions occur above sea-level where we can see and study them or, even if we can’t, we can see the ash from such above-ocean eruptions in the ice-core samples of both Greenland and Antarctica.
During a period of solar “quiet” called the Dalton Minimum, roughly 200 years ago, there were two massive above-ocean eruptions, one on the island of Tambora on April 10, 1815, but the location of the second (five years earlier) is a mystery, yet the ash from these enormous eruptions was so extensive it can be seen in ice-cores from both Greenland and Antarctica.
I provoked a wonderful discussion about these above-ocean eruptions eleven years ago.
The above post was reposted on the WUWT website. Check there, and you will see the wonderful exchange of ideas occurring in the 158 comments, below the post.
However that discussion all focused on above-ocean eruptions. More recently I’ve been wondering about sea-bottom eruptions. For it occurs to me that, if they occur more frequently above the ocean, during an extended period of “Quiet Sun”, than they would also likely occur more frequently below the surface of the sea, at the same time.
But why would they occur more frequently?
The theory goes something like this:
Our planet has an iron core, which makes it a sort of a giant magnet, and causes it to have a relationship with our sun, which pours out magnetic storms of varying intensity. These magnetic storms occur in a cycle along with the sunspot cycle, and also have the effect of very slightly accelerating and decelerating our planet’s speed of rotation. Although these accelerations and decelerations are so slight they couldn’t even be measured until the invention of modern instruments, they do have an effect on the motion of continental plates. (Think of how you lean forward when a car brakes, and then are pressed back in the seat as the car accelerates). This in turn has an effect on the rate of sea-floor spreading along rifts, which in turn results in the amount of lava warming sea-water not being a steady amount, but rather an amount which increases and decreases in a cycle which is in tandem with the sunspot cycle. Lastly, when the sun becomes particularly quiet, for example during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums, volcanic events may become particularly extreme.
(Mind you, this is all theory, and is subject to ongoing criticism.)
During the Dalton Minimum the two major eruptions occurred more than twenty years into the Quiet Sun period, and, during the current period of having the sun be “quiet” we have seen the massive Tonga eruption more than twenty years in. However what we don’t see, because it is occurring more than a mile down, may matter more, in terms of warming the ocean.
I first wrote about how the volcanoes might melt sea-ice in May of 2021 here:
Then last year, around this time, I brought up the subject again, including the phenomenon of research on such subjects apparently being discouraged, because any sort of “lava-is-melting-sea-ice” hypothesis goes against the Alarmist “CO2-is-melting-the-sea-ice” narrative:
ARCTIC SEA ICE: Undersea Volcanoes In the Arctic; Part 1
This discouragement of research, when it appears remotely threatening to Alarmists, is sad, because, what is so threatening? Largely the threat seems to be to their wallets, and to the power associated with having enough money to buy the assistance of others for various projects (both scrupulous and unscrupulous). (For even a “John” buys the “assistance” of a harlot, when he has certain “project” in mind.)
Cue sidetrack into economics.
It is very hard to be a self-reliant homesteader in modern society. I have first hand experience for, as a poet, I’ve been adverse to getting a Real Job, and at times have avoided needing the “assistance” of others by erecting primitive shelters, cutting my own wood for heating and cooking, growing my own vegetables and raising my own meat (or hunting and fishing and clam-digging.)
Such self-sufficiency takes much time and effort, and little time is left to write poetry. It actually takes less time and effort, and is more rewarding, to find a Real Job in modern society (providing it doesn’t suck you dry.) In simplistic terms, others buy your assistance, and you are paid enough to buy assistance you yourself require. No man is an island. However, to conclude this sidetrack into economics, I fear many Alarmists have taken a Real Job that sucks them dry spiritually. It asks too much, and pays too little.
Many Alarmists are scientists and researchers, but the Real Job they have taken has stringent rules that command they only research in stipulated regimes. They must operate with the myopic vision of a horse wearing blinders, and pay no attention to wonders to either side. This stifles their curiosity, and some ways redefines the word “research” into a narrowness. It is like telling Columbus he can discover all he wants, as long as he never leaves the harbor. It exasperates the very spirit of research.
This is not to say that a scientist shouldn’t specialize. The mind needs to concentrate, in order to focus its light. However such specialization shouldn’t include gross selfishness. It shouldn’t prevent others from specializing in other areas, for this creation we inhabit is far too grand for any single mind to grasp.
Outside the cloistered thought of Alarmists a researcher, Dr. Veterito, has noticed a correlation between sea-bottom seismic activity and the warmth of our oceans:
While Alarmists must stick to their straight and narrow path with the dedication of nuns, I prefer to wander the broad uplands of free thought, and Dr. Veterito has definitely piqued my interest in sea-floor lava, and the possibility of rising plumes of warmer water.
This returns me to the subject of vertical and horizontal currents, and how we need to increase our understanding of them. This is exactly what Dr. Bill Gray desired to do, forty years ago, when he expressed the opinion we needed to better understand the thermohaline circulation of the oceans. I believe Dr. Gray has been vindicated, for here we are, forty years down the road, facing the above graph, which indicates we need to study exactly what Dr. Gray said we should study, forty years ago.
What has held us back? Largely it has been those who believe “the science is settled”. “Further research is not needed”. And the spokesperson for this erroneous belief has been Al Gore. Brimming with confidence that he is righteous, the poor gentleman will likely be remembered as the worst thing to happen to science since Galileo tried to show the Pope the moons of Jupiter through his primitive telescope.
It is likely unfair to portray Al Gore as a moron, for he did demonstrate brilliance in terms of navigating the whitewater rapids of politics, and in monetary terms his net worth is somewhere between 200 and 300 million dollars, which does not suggest stupidity. However science is not about making money or gaining power. Science is about discovering what the truth is. And in this respect Al Gore was less than helpful.
I haven’t the time to go through the sad soap-opera of the clash between Al Gore and Bill Gray in this post, but in a nutshell Bill questioned Al’s belief in Global Warming, and Al responded by cutting Bill’s funding. Research into the way thermohaline circulation works was put on hold.
How can such a thing happen? Well, you had to be alive in those times to understand how bad the pollution was, and how obvious it was. The Cuyahoga River was so polluted that over two decades it six times caught on fire. The picture below is from the 1952 fire.
The tipping point was a much smaller fire on the first day of summer in 1969. The fire was put out in a half an hour and only did some minor damage to the trestles of bridges, but the media back then was as guilty of sensationalism as the modern media is, and Time Magazine used the above photo from 1952 in its article about the 1969 fire. It had the desired effect. Shortly after the first day of winter that same year the EPA was created.
You should notice that the science involved in the above societal change is not subtle, and does not involve much careful measuring. It is crude. “Things are getting really gross, and we need to do something”.
Because I was alive in those days, I can assure you the pollution was indeed very bad. To go into a city was to have your eyes sting. It was common for cars to exude blue smoke from their exhaust pipes. Many young people, myself included, said “we can do better.” That’s all it took to be an environmentalist. One could do badly in science classes, as Al Gore did, and avoid Math classes, as Al Gore (apparently) did, and still be a leader in the environmental movement, as Al Gore was.
However to be a leader in the environmental movement should also include respect for true scientists who do take careful measurements, and who understand how complex our environment actually is, and who are humbled by it. The humbleness of Bill Gray is demonstrated by the simple fact he, in a manner of speaking, stated, “We do not know”, when he urged, “We need to research.” Such humbleness is utterly opposed to the audacity of, “The science is settled.”
Thus one is confronted by an ambiguity wherein the people who know most are most humble, whereas the people who know least wield political power and control the funding.
In this unequal struggle the truer scientists often appear naive, in terms of power and money, though they are brilliant in their field. For example, Roger Revile was a true idealist in terms of getting scientists all over the world working together, but had to deal with antisemitism in San Diego, which eventually cost him his chance to run the oceanographic institute he had worked long and hard to found. So he wound up across the continent, at Harvard, and met Al Gore. Al scooped up only the most superficial details of Roger Revile’s interest in studying CO2’s effect on planetary temperatures, assuming “the science is settled”, when Revile actually desired further research. The year he died in 1991 Revile wrote, “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” The political furor this simple statement unleashed hasn’t died down even to this day, and during his lifetime Revile seemed to be to some degree bewildered by people’s warlike desire to make a fight out of a simple desire to learn more through research.
This warlike tendency to pollute Science with political and economic concerns (which have nothing to do with pure research) is a pollution as bad as the Cuyahoga River fire. It makes things so blatant that one does not need to be a sociologist to have one’s attention grabbed. It is a warped mentality like racism or sexism or antisemitism, and scientists have to waste a lot of time attending to it, like Galileo had to attend to the Pope. Just as few poets are allowed to do what they do best, and instead must work as dishwashers, few researchers are allowed to do what they do best, and instead must work as quasi-politicians. A lot of time, and great minds, are being wasted.
This works me back around to my initial topic, which, in case you have forgotten, is that we need to research more about what is warming our oceans. The science isn’t settled.
The thing which grabs my attention is that the sea-ice is not melting despite the fact the oceans are warmer. To me this suggests something is going on, concerning the currents that transport that warmer water to the Pole.
I chanced upon a study, or a report of a study behind a paywall, which got me thinking. (Unfortunately I neglected to save the link, and cannot give credit where credit is due.) A researcher was working very hard to understand the Gulf Stream, being very careful to measure the thickness and speed of currents at various depths, as the waters were layered due to differences in temperature and salinity, but he was distressed because something came along and totally messed up the layering he was taking such pains to study. The disruptions occurred as the Gulf Stream crossed the Mid Atlantic Rift.
Because of my interest in sea-floor volcanoes my mind immediately jumped to the conclusion that vertical currents above hot lavas were disrupting the Gulf Stream’s horizontal currents. In this manner warming might cause cooling, in a way contrary to what one might expect.
In other words, where a plume of warming water above a Gakkel Ridge volcano might melt the sea-ice directly above it, a plume of warming water south of Iceland might interfere with the Gulf Stream getting to the Pole, in which case warming could cause an increase in sea-ice.
Hey, it’s just an idea, and many of my trial balloons go down in flames like the Hindenburg. However we should be free to exchange all sorts of ideas, and not be cancelled just because we suggest something other than CO2 may control things. We also should be free to leave the land of dreams and conduct actual research, which nudges ideas towards reality.
Quickly glancing at actual facts, the warmer oceans have allowed surges of warmer than normal air to reach polar regions.
It should be noted that such surges of “mild” air, even when twenty degrees above normal, are still ten degrees below the melting point of sea-ice. Furthermore, milder air is moister air and therefore the Pole, a veritable desert, sees increased snowfall. To some degree the snow may inhibit the growth of sea-ice, by insulating the water from the frigid air, but it also encourages the growth of sea-ice for a couple of reasons. First, the snow tends to become stiff and starchy, due to small amounts of salt exuded upwards by the freezing waters, and therefore the snow becomes incorporated as part of the sea-ice’s bulk. And second, when the sun finally rises, white snow does a better job, in terms of “albedo”, than blue sea-ice does. It takes longer for the sun to create melt-water pools when the snow is deeper.
What is most mystifying to me is the “extent” graph, which shows the current extent as the highest of the past six years. We are already well above last year’s maximum.
How is this even possible? With both air and seawater temperatures so much above normal? Inquiring minds want to know. Which is why we should stop abusing our scientists, and instead pay them for doing what they most delight in, which is pure research.
Stay tuned.
Sunrise's Swansong 