
We’re witnessing the fastest decline in Arctic sea ice in at least 1,500 years - jseliger
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/12/16767152/arctic-sea-ice-extent-chart
======
badmadrad
Stop using polar bears for climate change propaganda. Most data shows that
polars bears have adapted to melting ice with some populations even
increasing. Some polar bears whose populations are in decline are actually
thought to be effected by overhunting. Overall, polar bear populations are
stable to increasing. The starving polar is thought to have been old or
suffering from cancer.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/12/the_viral_photo_of_a_starving_polar_bear_might_be_dying_of_cancer_not_climate.html)

If you use lies and mistruths to bolster your point then you scuttle your
entire argument.

~~~
549362-30499
This is not propaganda, it's science. Anthropogenic climate change is a
factual reality.

The polar bear is mentioned in the article as a simple example of species
whose habitats are changing because of human actions. It's a bad faith
argument to suggest that the article is invalidated by this reference.

~~~
badmadrad
They way I read it is that the changing habitat will hurt the polar bear (now
click here to see polar bear starving because it can't find food due to ice
melting).

The data does not YET bear(no pun intended) this out and alluding to a viral
video is a sympathy play and not anything backed in reality but rather
speculation and prognostication.

So by its very nature its propaganda since it's using misleading information
to put forward a point of view as absolute truth.

Misleading tactics will always hurt your argument in the long run.

------
jsilence
In the "average monthly sea ice extent" the y-axis cutoff is at 13, making the
loss look much more dramatic than it is.

Don't get me wrong: it IS dramatic, but I despise graph trickery to get across
a point.

~~~
tyrionsrke
It's not really trickery then, if it's both dramatic and accurate. Where would
you like the origin point to be? Starting at 0 would flatten the loss over the
same time span and would be both misleading about the importance of the loss
and might be used to temper the climate change argument.

The loss amount itself isn't even as important as what it means or how
scientists are interpreting it. If the ecological impact of a loss of this
magnitude needs to be represented, this chart does exactly that. If the impact
were unimportant or negligible, the chart would be altogether unnecessary.

~~~
jsilence
Since an average monthly sea ice extent of zero is actually the physical
reality this process is approaching, the Y-axis should be at zero.

Since the process started at something around 15.5 such a graphical
representation would give the reader the chance to intuitively grasp that we
lost somewhat about 15-20% of the ice extent.

------
kpil
So, I tried but failed to find how they came up with the first graph. It must
be a model as I doubt the Vikings had sophisticated satellite coverage set up
for measuring the arctic ice in the open sea?

------
akkat
What is the meaning of 1,500 years? Are there no earlier records or was the
Arctic declining faster 1,500 years ago? If the later, do we know the effects?

~~~
Arnt
No earlier records (or very spotty).

~~~
astrodust
These sorts of records depended on explorers. I'm supposing someone had to
read through endless ship logs to find data on ice patterns.

If there's one thing that sea captains were good at it was keeping
excruciatingly detailed logs.

~~~
lurquer
Indeed. The logs of sea captains sailing across the Arctic ice during the past
1,500 are endless. The entire 1492 hoopla was kind of overrated in light of
the fact that endless amounts of ships were zipping across the Arctic Ocean to
North America (taking excellent ice-sheet measurement as they went) for a
thousand years before Columbus.

------
thriftwy
I wonder if North Polar Route will become commerciably viable.

~~~
RobertRoberts
This seems possibly relevant.

[http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/02/12/timelapse-
video-...](http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/02/12/timelapse-video-
shipping-first-lng-tanker-crosses-arctic-winter-without-icebreaker-escort/)

aside: I've seen time lapse videos of the arctic sea ice melting and
refreezing repeatedly. (on youtube or somewhere) Also not sure if relevant.

~~~
sambe
First sentences: "The Arctic Ocean once froze reliably every year. Those days
are over.". Climate aside, there are still seasons - it's not surprising to
see time-lapse videos of this happening.

You can see the seasonal chart later in the article, across several decades.
The concern is the long-term trend. The strong El Nino effect of the last few
years appears to go unmentioned, which would be my only concern.

~~~
RobertRoberts
I actually loath debating topics that are both extremely controversial and I
have no influence over. And if there is a claim I have influence over it, and
I demonstrate how damaging and ineffective it is to push the _very specific_
changes recommended, it just turns into a head butting match no one wins.

But, how do we _know_ beyond all shadow of doubt "those days are over"? * sigh
* (not sure I should bother asking this, but I know I am not a predictor of
the future)

~~~
cohomologo
Is "beyond a shadow of doubt" the standard of proof we need to take action? I
would advocate for an actuarial standard. (i.e. estimate the probabilities and
costs/benefits of various outcomes and take the path with the best expected
outcome, while continually updating your probability estimates with new
information.) The issue with climate change is not that it is 100% certain,
but that the responses require globally coordinated action where every nation
is incentive to cheat; and as with other types of economic transition, there
are huge inefficiencies if we try to transition too fast (i.e. global
recessions required to build the necessary infrastructure as in
[https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-
trap/](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/)). So the downside
risk if we fail to act and climate change is real is tremendous.

~~~
RobertRoberts
> _I would advocate for an actuarial standard._

Who would argue against this? (I am sure it's someone of course...)

> _The issue with climate change is not that it is 100% certain, but that the
> responses require globally coordinated action where every nation is
> incentive to cheat;_

Famine, war, poverty, etc... their are many things that we are 100% certain
are happening right now. Compare what is more rational to solve with finite
resources?

To attempt to solve absolutely certain problems that exist right now? Or
divert those resources to a _mostly certain_ problem that _may_ exist in the
future?

> _So the downside risk if we fail to act and climate change is real is
> tremendous._

I grew up in a doomsday cult, and I see this statement as inflammatory. I've
heard many similar statements meant to instil fear of a "possibility" of a
doomed future. It manipulates the hearts of men to fear and to follow other
men that champion an ideal, but not to address reality.

Maybe this is not your intentions. If so, please clarify.

------
txsh
Deceptive graphs, polar bear name drop, typical nonsense.

~~~
astrodust
I don't think you realize that in the grand scheme of things here we're the
polar bear.

