Sunday, September 2, 2012

Weekend Links

  • Israel needs to put up or shut up about attacking Iran, says the NYT.
  • More big cyber attacks on oil and gas concerns.  My day job and my morning moonlighting are starting to overlap and I don't like it...
  • Why you should care about disappearing sea ice.
  • Wettest summer since 1912 in the UK (h/t Michael R.  I was there for much of July and I can attest that the weather sucked).
  • The 2010 collapse in sea ice thickness.
Feel free to add anything else of interest to the blog.


James said...

With respect to whether the complete absence of a polar ice cap will shift change the momentum of the climate change debate, I fear it will not because of the
Duhem-Quine problem (i.e., those on the other side of the debate will concede that the earth is warming but that it is not "man made" and so we cannot do anything about it.

With respect to Stuart sounding a bit hawkish (to my ears) regarding Iran, it is worth keeping in mind why hawks win.

noiseformind said...

If the word verification would just let me comment...

Stuart Staniford said...


Comments are moderated. So when you submit a comment it isn't immediately posted but only whenever I get to a computer and approve the latest batch of comments.

Almost all comments are approved - exceptions are a certain individual who was banned for mindless repetition of climate denialist talking points which were degrading the quality of the conversation, and then a certain amount of judicious pruning of comments which seemed xenophobic, racist, or otherwise hostile with little redeeming value.

Anonymous said...

I was playing with this cryosphere today form where you can compare how the arctic ice coverage looks at different dates druing ice reformation over the course of the winter.

My idea is that the reforming of ice in a lake for example is easier when a big ice pack is there to grow off of or when it is near to land.

Looking at lots of dates one sees that the remaining ice pack grows after september outward from the remaining ice base and later in winter the starts to form somewhat at some opposite arctic shores (Siberia) independently and in the islands and Baffin Bay it grows as well. So I think once the big remaining block of ice in the middle is gone then it will be a very slow regrowth from the sides and in the archipelago but maybe a solid block of ice across the whole surface of the sea (from one side to the other combing the several coasts) would be hindered by wave action and wind.

Stuart Staniford said...


I'm not exactly hawkish. I think it's perfectly clear that the Iranian's are not negotiating in good faith, and are in fact trying to develop a weapon (the regime's basic character became very clear in the 2009 election sham, and the deception over Fordnow and the long-standing prevarication with the inspectors clearly establish bad intent wrt enrichment). The recent acceleration in enrichment strongly suggests that negotiation was just a way of stalling for time.

But given that, is it better to risk an attack on Iran, or simply accept a nuclear armed Iran (and presumably after a while a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia etc)? I don't have a strong position - the risks seem pretty serious either way and the ultimate best course of action unknowable.

Stuart Staniford said...

Galactic surfer - I followed your suggestion and I think you have a point - it does seem that this effect might significantly retard the regrowth of the ice (though I would guess once the ice belatedly did start to form at the edges it would then grow very rapidly into the center).