Reply: Spam? Hard to tell ~ ctm

Bill Illis (05:13:57) : “‘With global warming, will there still be sea ice in the Arctic?’ There will still be 6 months of darkness in the winter. The average annual temperature at the north pole is -25C. The ice really only melts back for about 2 months out of the year. If the ice melts back a little further and a little earlier, the Arctic will still be frozen solid for at least 9 months out of the year.”

True. Note that seawater has an emissivity of 0.993, much higher than ice. Sea water is also a far better heat conductor than the ice. The albedo of seawater at high zenith angles overlaps the albedo range of ice. Those three factors favor the presence of ice at the poles. “”"

Over what spectral range does water have an emissivity of 0.993 ? In the solar spectral range water has a refractive index of 1.33 which gives it a normal Fresnel reflection coefficient of 2%, and a Brewster angle of about 53 degrees. So the total Fresnel reflectance is pretty near constant over that 53 deg range, which includes about 64% of the reflected diffuse irradiance. Including the remainder of diffuse irradiance, water reflects about 3% of the solar spectrum. This would seem to limit the emissivity for that spectral range to 0.97.

I have never seen long wave refractive index data for water, so I can’t comment on the long wave IR emissivity; but somehow 0.993 sounds high but by an irrelevent amount IMHO.

In any case there is a reason for ice in the arctic; so I wouldn’t look there for any great contribution to earth’s radiation balance. Try the mid-day tropical equatorial deserts to find out where the real radiative cooling of this planet takes place; and it happens in broad daylight for all to see. UHIs also do their part for cooling the planet.

George

Hmmm. So those other animals are like……..food to Polar Bears. Right? The largest and meanest carnivore on Earth is scared of lemmings and rodents? Birds and walruses? What am I missing here? “”"

Pat you just won yourself a cigar; maybe a hat too. What really made me laugh my A*** off, is the efficient way you put it.

According to a recent PBS program, Polar Bears, and Grizzlies (Kodiaks) are darn near the same thing; sort of like Stoats, and Ermine.

And both those bears are quite happy to hunt and ambush humans, and any other calories on the hoof critter that comes into their territory.

If I’m not mistaken, Alaska is the only place on earth, where it is not legal to hunt polar bears. Not that I am advocating that; as it turns out I think PBs (Kodiaks too) are kind of neat critters. Growing up in a land that has NO native land mammals, I get a kick out of anything that walks on all fours.

But thanks for the daily humor Pat; it’s been a week that could use some of that.

George

“…the golden rule that you do not intervene in the outcome of the processes that you are observing.”

I’m sympathetic to such principles from academic biologists. But I note that they’re on the losing side of the argument. (I’ll pass over the condor and the whooping crane, as special cases.)

A FEW EXAMPLES:
…Poisoning of small lakes, to kill off the intruder species.
…Alaskan killing of wolves from helicopter to increase big game populations.
…Similar hunting season decisions elsewhere.
…In the west, rounding up wild horses, to favor burros and the desert bighorn sheep.
…Bounties on predators.

I think that the polar bear situation fits your concept, “where man has a direct interaction with the environment and therefore has a natural part to play in the outcome.”
In part…I’m only suggesting the reintroduction of the polar bear hunting seasons, that have existed in the past.
(Obviously, we’re assuming a warming world…whatever the cause.)

These are triage considerations contemplated only to protect the brown bear gene pool from cold weather genetic adaptations that would be disadvantageous in such a warming world:
…large size
…adaptations for head-butting ice
…greater insulation
…etc.
The first thing that comes to mind is running ability. Brown bears are fast. I’ve never seen (on TV) polar bears running fast. But then, they were running on ice…

“Just my two cents worth: commas placed before conjunctions drive me nuts. Mr. Spock would probably suggest that “… placing a separator immediately before a joiner is not logical…” .”

In addition to the necessity for a comma before a conjunction is a serial list to avoid ambiguity (as has been pointed out above), it’s generally recommended to place a comma before a “but,” which is generally where a pause for breath occurs and where a logical turn occurs.

“Also, somewhat logically, if the comma or period following the quote terminates the phrase or sentence the quote is embedded in, it should be outside the quotation marks. A complete sentence used as a quote should either use ellipses, as I have done above, or it should be placed in a separate block quote.”

That’s the style followed in Britain, and it makes more sense. For several years I used it myself, for that reason. But unfortunately the alternative style is now cast in concrete in the US and it is impossible to change it. (I’ve read that it was adapted because typographers thought it looked prettier.)

“Keep in mind that commas are generally placed in locations in the sentence where you would normally pause for emphasis or draw a half breath while speaking. Unfortunately, the illiterati that write current style manuals haven’t had the good grace or sense to consult with me.”

That’s because everybody has different ideas about where to pause for breath, which makes for chaos–and sometimes these idiosyncratic choices make it harder to follow the logic of a sentence. It’s been years since I’ve read material on the matter, but the justifications I read in favor of “logical” rather than phonetic comma-placement were very persuasive.

(However, in fiction and poetry, idiosyncratic comma placement is not only OK but sometimes essential. James Thurber once showed Harold Ross how mangled certain famous passage of poetry would become if they were edited in accordance with the New Yorker’s style.)

Sudden cooling is fairly common…i.e., from volcanoes or asteroids. Or the freezing of all those Russian mammoths, with flowers in their stomachs.
And I think the polar bears could handle the cold spell, if the seals can.
Other causes of sudden (the non-Mann hockey stick blade) warming are harder to envision. Any suggestions?
The MWP doesn’t come into play. It makes an appearance on the recent Arctic hockey stick graph, but only a small one.

ADAPTATION:
Obviously, the first step would be to read the paper, for more specifics. Then the next step would be to ask a zoologist. How long would it take for polar bears to give up hibernating on the ice, and learn to do it in a den?
1. Need enough polar bears to learn it…to maintain genetic diversity.
2. Will they be too warm for comfort underground?
3. Do hibernating bears dig their own dens?
But I don’t know enough to be an interesting conjecture-er. So remember from the paper, “These species may be headed for extinction.”

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/792309/funny_polar_bears_1/

Enjoy

Second, twenty or more species go bye-bye every single day on this planet, and it’s been going on since long before man appeared on the stage.

Anybody who thinks that we can, or should, preserve every single species on this planet is too stupid to get a job as a spell-checker in an M&M factory.

Dinner.

(I tried it with prey, breakfast, and lunch – and dinner seemed the best idea…)