Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels 635
schwit1 writes Scientists have declared a new record has been set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice since records began. Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometers covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent. Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago. "Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area."
Time for new terminology (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of talking about the impending melting of the polar ice caps, we should now talk about polar ice cap change.
Re:Time for new terminology (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be silly. If one cap is melting and the other growing it can only mean a change of tilt of the worlds rotational axis.
Clearly it is a result of the increasing obesity in America and Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the obesity in the northern hemisphere increase the tilt and wobble? That means it would be colder up north where it tilts away from the sun. Yet this is saying it is colder at the South Pole.
Re:Time for new terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
You jest but first it was global warming, then global cooling, than warming again and finally climate change. What it should be is "atmospheric CO2 level rise"
That is all the more we can really say in macro. All these attempts to predict outcomes have only damaged their credibility. Rational thinking people should still find it of great concern that we have ever increasing and never before seen (while humans have walked the earth) CO2 levels, and you follow that up with and their exist relation ships between solar energy retention, ocean currents, ocean acidity, and mean temperatures, etc with that.
Nobody really knows what will happen at least not on a short ( 0-50 year) time scale. If they just would have been honest up front about the fact that human activity is radically altering the composition of the atmosphere and that there will be consequences but those can't be entirely identified because its a hugely complex interconnected system maybe it would be taken seriously.
Instead we got decades of alarmist and bogus predictions. its no surprise that so many folks are so dismissive now.
Re:Time for new terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
You jest but first it was global warming, then global cooling, than warming again and finally climate change.
The greenhouse effect was first proposed by Fourier (yes, that Fourier) in 1825. Way back before modern technology and computers he already figured out the basic relationship between heat trapping gases and planetary temperatures. From his paper in 1827:
"The establishment and progress of human societies, the action of natural forces, can notably change, and in vast regions, the state of the surface, the distribution of water and the great movements of the air. Such effects are able to make to vary, in the course of many centuries, the average degree of heat; because the analytic expressions contain coefficients relating to the state of the surface and which greatly influence the temperature."[
In 1864, John Tyndall furhter refined Fouriers work to show that different gases had different absorption spectra, and that water vapor, methane, and CO2 specifically were potent green house gases.
In 1896, Svante Arrhenius (considered the father of modern chemistry) put forth the first climate model and was one of the first to quantify the impact of CO2 on planetary temperature.
Since then, the science has only improved. We've gone from basic physics models to complex integrated global climate models. And they all show the same thing.
There was never any "global cooling". There were a handful of discredited papers in the 70's that tried to establish a possible cooling scenario. However the overwhelming majority of papers on the topic were all discussing warming and it's impacts.
And warming, while accurate, doesn't really define what the real problem is. Warming isn't the problem. It's what happens as a result of the warming that's problem. The additional energy into the climate system shifts the climate, which we, as a civilization, depend on. Also, warming gives the impression that every place on Earth is going to get warmer, which is not the case.
Climate change is a more accurate description of what's happening.
What it should be is "atmospheric CO2 level rise"
That is all the more we can really say in macro. All these attempts to predict outcomes have only damaged their credibility. Rational thinking people should still find it of great concern that we have ever increasing and never before seen (while humans have walked the earth) CO2 levels, and you follow that up with and their exist relation ships between solar energy retention, ocean currents, ocean acidity, and mean temperatures, etc with that.
Nobody really knows what will happen at least not on a short ( 0-50 year) time scale. If they just would have been honest up front about the fact that human activity is radically altering the composition of the atmosphere and that there will be consequences but those can't be entirely identified because its a hugely complex interconnected system maybe it would be taken seriously.
Instead we got decades of alarmist and bogus predictions. its no surprise that so many folks are so dismissive now.
Incorrect. We can say quite a bit about the macro. There is quite a compendium of science out there. The problem is that people don't know the difference between a projection 100 years into the future about general climate conditions and the weather in their backyard. Ignorance is the problem, and there are those who hope people stay that way.
Re: (Score:2)
If seasonal ice is increasing, it has to counterbalance sea level rise. Ice doesn't just appear from nowhere; it comes from sea water becoming solid. Its ultimate effect is lessened compared to perma-ice by exactly how seasonal it is (i.e., for how many months out of the year it is solid), but that doesn't mean there is no change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't confuse an stress-puppy laden with guilt and need to self-flagellate over the many benefits energy use has brought mankind (which far, far outweigh any health problems caused).
Re:Time for new terminology (Score:4, Informative)
"The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937" ??? That's a hell of a lot of adjustment, given that no year from the 1930s makes it into the top TWENTY warmest years globally. Are you sure 1937 was ever really a contender?
The raw data sources AND the code for the GISTEMP rankings have been available for years. Surely the acute minds of the warming skeptics would have long since ferreted out the deliberate falseness in their work.
There is someone who has taken the time to analyze data independently as objections have been raised. It's been a few years since he did the bulk of the work but it should still be valid - http://tamino.wordpress.com/20... [wordpress.com]
More recently, there are the findings of the BEST project - http://berkeleyearth.org/summa... [berkeleyearth.org]
Re: (Score:3)
1937 was the hottest year in US records, not globally. Please don't confuse the issue.
Of course there is more ice in Antarctica. (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't everyone remember that heat rises and cold settles. Antarctica is colder and has more ice because it's at the bottom of the world.....
Re: (Score:2)
I get better gas mileage when I'm driving South because it's downhill.
ozone layer (Score:4, Informative)
IIRC, back in the 80s, we used to see satellite pics of Antarctica and the effects of ozone depletion
there was a *huge* evironmentalist movement to ban CFC's from aerosol cans...and of course the conservative/big biz backlash saying that "there is no ozone hole" or "it's a natural cycle" or [insert anti-science argument]....**just like the global warming debate**
well...the laws passed and the ozone layer recovered... [washingtonpost.com]
i can't help but think this might be a factor in the new ice...and a useful guide as to how to handle our current problems with idiot conservatives/big biz types who irrationally deny that pollution harms the environment
that's the final analysis of the situation **pollution is harmful & should be regulated**
claim needs evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
this directly contradicts the academic literature...for you to make this claim you need to link to some kind of evidence
also, the fact that you say "To assume is wasn't a natural cycle is ridiculous" shows you are misrepresenting your opposition...
pollution harms the environment...you cannot contradict that fact
Re: (Score:3)
No, you do not need a control to draw conclusions.
What control do we use for the conclusion we have about gravity?
Please See: (Score:5, Informative)
http://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Antarctica gaining SEA ice is neither new, nor contradictory to global warming.
Re: (Score:3)
well, "climate change" they call it now. Anything different in the last few decades is called "climate change"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
False. Climate change is climate change, global warming id global warming. Anyone who says they are the same, or that it has been changed, is either a liar, or ignorant.
Probably ignorant.
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test
Some thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
1.The land Ice is moving to the sea (due to warming, increasing sea level).
2. Fresh water run off and/or higher precip cause the sea to be slightly fresher, causing it to freeze at higher temperatures (still warming caused, and if from runoff still increasing sea level).
3. It is colder, causing more sea ice.
We know for a fact that on average it is not colder ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publication... [www.ipcc.ch] ), so my money is on some combination of the first two.
More sea ice does increase albedo and thus reduce infrared absorption, which is a negative feedback, but is it enough to reverse the trend locally or globally? That is beyond my ability to predict.
Re: (Score:2)
4. Winter is turning to spring in the SOUTHERN hemisphere (where Antarctica is)
5. 2D surface measurements over a short period of time, over ocean, not land. Land you can possibly find evidence, while the sea washes it away.
6. Sea ice melts quicker and is not as thick as the land ice (which is a problem if it goes into the sea.)
Fleas on a dog arguing how much the land goes up and down as the dog breaths:
Short sighted flea: It's just the same natural cycle we've always seen.
Wise flea: There is a long term tr
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an audio file linked from the article which pretty much confirms that #1 and #2 from your list are the prevailing theories for why this is happening. Basically, as warmer air comes through, more of the land-based ice melts and moves into the sea, which is supported by measurements on land indicating that the land-based ice has been steadily decreasing in mass for some time now.
Additionally, warmer air also brings more moisture, which equates to more precipitation than is usual. Precipitation naturally has a lower salinity than the ocean waters on which it lands, causing the water to more easily freeze.
The audio file also indicated that this really doesn't have any impact on the major climate models since scientists have known for some time that the Antarctic ice may respond in a fashion similar to this, but it also pointed out that it runs contrary to public perception of how things are supposed to work.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
The point is that less ice in Antarctica was bad because it would contribute to sea levels rising. If global warming is helping reduce sea levels, then this is a good thing, right? (Yes, I know thermal expansion probably is the main driver, so it's still probably going to be a net "bad.")
Sea ice is irrelevant to sea levels.
Land ice matters for sea levels, and the land ice is shrinking [skepticalscience.com].
This means ice is melting (Score:5, Informative)
I waited to post this to see if the usual "this means global warming is a lie" posts began, and indeed they have. So let me cut this off: Increased arctic sea ice is caused by global warming. This is a CONFIRMATION of warming, not a CONTRADICTION.
Short version:
1. Summer: Arctic land ice melts
2. Melt spreads over water
3. Winter: Old ice freezes. Newly melted ice freezes.
4. Repeat steps 1 - 3 forever
At step 3, there is more frozen ice on the surface than there was last year because more ice melted. A separate measure, the arctic ice "volume" decreases every year while the arctic ice "extent" which is the surface area of the ice increases.
Previous discussions on this:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Re:This means ice is melting (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's about Antarctic ice (Score:4, Insightful)
Fresh water freezes faster than salt (Score:5, Informative)
Remember it is the end of winter there (Score:2)
Second and more importantly, this is the Antartic, not the Artic. For those of you that are ignorant, the antartic consists of a huge land mass with ice sitting on it, and a little bit of ice surrounding it. The Artic on the other hand is just one solid mass of ice.
What that means is that more sea ice in the Artic is called by cold weather. More ice freezes, etc.
But more sea ice in t
Krill dis-information (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Too Fine Grained. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think one thing is clear. All these studies are way to focused and fine grained. They look at micro aspects of the climate and then try to apply the observations to a system that is many orders or magnitudes larger.
It's like examining 1" square sections of the Sistine Chapel paintings and then trying to predict the color in the next 1" square based on the color in the current square. Hit and miss, misleading successes and baffling failures because you don't understand the totality of the entire painting.
Re: It's getting hotter still! (Score:2, Informative)
The arctic and the Antarctic are two completely different places.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that's not what they're saying. Rather, it goes like this: all unusual weather events, whether they be powerful hurricanes in summer or severe blizzards in winter, are proof of warming. Record Antarctic ice is proof of warming because the effect of global warming is to make all weather scary.
Re: It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Informative)
What record accumulation? You missed the important bit:
"two dimensional area,"
It's still loosing MASS.
Please fucking learn.
Re: It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Informative)
It is proof of increased temperature if you understand the scientific principles involved. The sea ice extent is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily and further out in the winter. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ManBearPig is REAL!!!!!
Lets not forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming", and even received the Nobel Peace prize for his peddling (not surprising, Obama won it for merely speaking an opinion).
Yes, we need to change how we interact with the Earth and there are some real problems. Pollution is a real problem, long term energy without fossil fuels is a problem, and I could co on. A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to impleme
Re:Lets not forget (Score:5, Interesting)
A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.
The first Cap-and-Trade program in the US was under Ronald Reagan and came out of his administration.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 includeds GHWB's cap-and-trade proposal for sulfur pollution.
GWB included a cap-and-trade proposal in his "clear skys" bill.
While running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.
I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.
Re:Lets not forget (Score:4, Informative)
A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.
The first Cap-and-Trade program in the US was under Ronald Reagan and came out of his administration.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 includeds GHWB's cap-and-trade proposal for sulfur pollution.
GWB included a cap-and-trade proposal in his "clear skys" bill.
While running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.
I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.
Cap and Trade is not the same thing as a Carbon Tax. They're two distinct approaches to the same problem. Under a Carbon Tax, a company could emit unlimited carbon as long as they paid the tax. Under Cap and Trade, their carbon emissions would be limited to their "cap". They could then buy rights to emit more carbon from other companies, reduce the amount that they're emitting sell their rights to emission, or offset their emissions in some way (planting trees, etc.).
Cap and Trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
Carbon Tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
I think a Carbon Tax is the wrong approach because it does not explicitly limit emissions in any way; as long as its still profitable, emissions will occur. Cap and Trade, on the other hand, explicitly limits industry-wide emissions and requires individual companies to set a value on their limited emissions in the free market.
That said, UN Agenda 21, as mentioned by a previous poster, has nothing to do with which of these approaches is better.
Re: (Score:3)
Only four sentences and you find time to take unrelated shots at Obama and the UN (Agenda 21).
Why do I get the feeling your opinions are driven by partisanship instead of science and economics?
Re: (Score:3)
Likewise, complaints about Agenda 21 are a certain indication that person wears a tinfoil hat.
Re: (Score:3)
A Pigovian tax is a subset of taxes claiming it will modify a specific behavior. You somehow believe that it will work, even though taxes have never changed any other subset of bad/immoral business behavior. In general terms, your pigovian tax is no different than a slavery tax and would bring the same result. No end of bad behavior, just higher cost to consumers and increased revenue for the people that own the companies behaving badly.
As stated, taxes are not enforced regulation. Historical attempts t
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Informative)
Let me count the ways you are wrong:
. Wrong pole
. He didn't say that
. Even if he did (which he didn't) it wouldn't mean shit
. Most climate scientists didn't agree with what he actually said (which isn't what you claimed)
. Again even if the statement he said would be falsified it changes nothing in the science and models
. You doubt something that is proven to exist which is frankly a very stupid thing to do
Re: (Score:3)
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free and it's completely covered in ice still, I would say they have a point. Back to the drawing board with the models at least. If there is one. Which I doubt.
So let me get this straight. Some grandstanding politician makes some dumb-ass statement about climate change and, by your logic, all climate change science is broken. Have I got that right? Or did you have a point that was supported by some kind of actual logic?
Re: (Score:2)
that politician had HEAVY influence in setting up laws and markets to profit from climate change fear mongering, and not just in the USA
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free and it's completely covered in ice still, I would say they have a point. Back to the drawing board with the models at least. If there is one. Which I doubt.
Why are you talking about the Arctic in an article about the Antarctic?
Furthermore why are you talking about Al Gore and models? Sure Gore is somewhat important in his role as an advocate, but Al Gore saying something wrong doesn't mean the models are wrong, it's means Al Gore is a politician who doesn't know the science. I'm not up to date on the models but I never got the impression that an ice free artic in this timeframe was the consensus of the scientists (sure, some thought it could happen, but that's not the same thing).
Btw, on that topic the Arctic ice is still shrinking [nsidc.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Which university did Al Gore get his climatology degree from again?
Oh, you mean he's just a spokesperson? Like Bill Cosby was for JELL-O? Why would you give a shit what he said?
Of course if you have the reference for the prediction he was just repeating that might be from a slightly more believable source than Mr "I have a nobel peace prize, and an Oscar!". Though chances are pretty good that actual source says something like "X% chance" making it less of a slam dunk.
Also north != south, but that doesn't in
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Informative)
Citation please!
Here, let me Google that for you [lmgtfy.com]
Also, from 2008 Davos [blogspot.com]:
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring science in favour of conspiracy theories is ignorant.
Citing the errors of celebrities as evidence of the failings of science is... jibberish.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Gore isn't just a "celebrity", he is also a powerful politician, author, lobbyists, and influential policy advocate. If he makes wrong statements about the policies he advocates, yes, it matters.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Interesting)
How many times did your boss tell his customers it would be ready next week after you told him it would take a month. I've seen that too many times. This is just another example of the top wig tailoring the information for his needs.
Not saying that's what happened but I'd be surprised that the scientists would put the end of ice in the north pole so close.
BTW, how did we start talking about the north pole when this article is about the south pole? or am I confused as usual?
I'm not sure why this stuff gets modded up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Citing the errors of celebrities, powerful politicians, authors, lobbyists, or influential policy advocates as evidence of the failings of science is... also jibberish.
Ignoring science is being ignorant. Pretty much by definition.
As for Gore being wrong, I'm not so sure about that:
I'm sure you can find one instance where he spoke off the cuff and oversimplified, but whatever.
Do you deny the opening of the arctic passage?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-shipping-coal-arctic-idUSBRE98Q0K720130927 [reuters.com]
Are you supporting this conspiracy theory of a "global warming hoax?" If you know something, speak up, it could be one of the greatest upsets in the history of science.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:4, Insightful)
as opposed to the hundreds of Republicans in congress who make wrong statements daily?
Statements like "God created the Earth, and as such global warming is impossible", "CO2 is a natural, harmless gas", "Coal ash is harmless", "CFCs have no effect on ozone", "Nicotine doesn't cause cancer", etc, etc etc etc?? Seriously, the list is endless. I dont have to post em all. And these are the same individuals on the science committee btw.
Al Gore is an activist with little real power unless he decides to run for office again.
He's also not that influential anymore, as basiaclly everyone has alrady taken a side in regrards to him (hint: only one side is backed by actual science!)
However all those Congress critters are actually current serving politicians. I'd be far more worried about them if you're going to play the "what he says matters" card.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ignoring science in favour of conspiracy theories is ignorant.
No, science should not be ignored but that does not mean that conspiracies do not exist. They do.
Citing the errors of celebrities as evidence of the failings of science is... jibberish (sic).
Al Gore is not just a celebrity. Sadly, many people are influenced by his gibberish. I agree with your basic premise but most AGW advocates ignore and will not address contrary evidence, preferring instead to ridicule and cast aspersions, as you do. What is there to fear from an open discussion and equal treatment of all available evidence, unless a predetermined outcome is the goal?
Perfection is the enemy of progress. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with your basic premise but most AGW advocates ignore and will not address contrary evidence, preferring instead to ridicule and cast aspersions, as you do.
Increasing seasonal sea ice in Antarctica is not "contra-evidence", it's a prediction that most models have been making for over 20yrs now, the mechanism that causes the counter intuitive result is well understood. So called "skeptics" are flogging a dead horse in their attempts to cite it as some sort of "smoking gun" that climate scientists are attempting to hide. The often intentionally misleading claim is ranked at #10 on skeptical sciences list of most popular climate myths [skepticalscience.com].
As for Al Gore, any internet idiot can play "gottcha science" by taking words out of context and deliberately misinterpreting them. However the scientists who were lead authors of the IPCC reports that Gore's documentary was based on gave it a good review [realclimate.org] for it's representation of the report. Of course there were minor errors, and yes, the scientists pointed them out. The reason Gore shared the Nobel prize with the IPCC is that he put the IPCC's monumental lit-review effort squarely at the center of public policy debate.
Useful idiots? - As someone who has followed climate science with interest since the late 70's, Gore's documentary was an excellent (but imperfect) explanation of the science and it's real world consequences. It's a shame so many slashdotters mindlessly join in when the Gore bashing starts, he's the only well educated geek that has come close to sitting in the whitehouse for a very long time. History will admire his charitable public education efforts, even if most american's currently do not.
Disclaimer: I've been well known on slashdot for commenting on climate related stories for around 15yrs now, I'm not and have never been an "AGW advocate", I'm a science advocate.
Re: (Score:3)
Regrettably, there has been little to no efforts made from the scientific community to distance itself from Gore's extreme proclamations and warnings.
Sigh, the scientific community almost unanimously came out of the lab to praise the documentary [realclimate.org] because they felt it was a "bloody accurate" representation of their work.
Yes, I know scientists don't appreciate having to come out of their research labs where they are doing actual real work to do stuff like that, but it's important. It's all the more important the more impact you believe your research has to society as a whole.
Agree, now if you do some fact checking you will find the vast majority of climate scientists have already come out of their labs to loudly defend Gore's work, I'm not sure what your reading/viewing habits are, but you obviously missed the last 10yrs of debate, so the question is now - what will you tell your kids? - Can you set a good exa
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual scientists may be formulating their claims conservatively indeed. And the morphing does occur.
But it is not the critics, but rather the politicians and journalists — peddling the global warming panic — who are doing the morphing. "The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff," — are the actual words of Al Gore from 2007 — "It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now."
Yeah, he said "could be" — about as evasive as Geico's "could save you 15% or more"... But it increased — a lot — instead of shrinking so he was not even in ball-park. And thus, any scientific models used by to make that dire prediction are invalid and any policies based on those models ought to be abolished at once — regardless of how many solyndras have been financed already following those policies.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Insightful)
"North Polar ice cap" is not "Antarctic sea ice". Wrong side of the planet. Note here that the one that is increasing is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sheesh! Sea ice has essentially zero effect on sea level whether it forms or melts. It's the land based ice like the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that have an effect on sea level. If you're not paying enough attention to the science to understand even that simple concept why should I think anything else you have to say is worth listening to.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow a quite conservatively formulated claim (subjunctive mode, "some models, 75% chance, 5-7 years, during some month of the summer") magically morphed into the strong claim "Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free".
And two years ago the summer arctic ice cover dropped to the lowest level ever recorded [nsidc.org], only 1/3 of the average cover from 1981-2010, which is a divergence of more than three standard deviations, with all of the ice coverages since 2010 being far below that long term average.
It is pitiful how the existence of random variation superimposed over a very strong long term trend seems to succor the fantasies of denialists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Likewise, every time AGW is brought up some fuckwit will bring up Al Gore as though it proves something... besides that person's tribalism and ignorance, I mean.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Informative)
There is a distinction between the two, of course, but it is without difference to the topic of this thread. Both ice-caps were supposed to shrink (with dire consequences [nytimes.com] for the rest of the world, of course).
One expedition set out to measure the loss of the ice, found itself stuck in it [climatedepot.com] — not that it changed the leading professor's [unsw.edu.au] opinion about the global warming...
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Informative)
There is a distinction between the two, of course, but it is without difference to the topic of this thread. Both ice-caps were supposed to shrink (with dire consequences [nytimes.com] for the rest of the world, of course).
One expedition set out to measure the loss of the ice, found itself stuck in it [climatedepot.com] — not that it changed the leading professor's [unsw.edu.au] opinion about the global warming...
The Antarctic sea ice extent was not and is not projected to shrink in the near term. It was expected to expand as a result of the influx of fresh water from increasing land ice melt. As the planet continues to warm it will reach a point where the ice extent will start shrinking again (as the 0C starts pushing further south), but that isn't projected to happen until later this century.
Re: (Score:2)
Since 9/15 is also the day of lowest ice cover in the Arctic, how does this year's minimum compare with history?
Re:You Fail at Quotations (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one of the lowest in history but not the lowest. It's very close to tieing with last year.
Sea-ice volume appears (it's harder to measure reliably although it's more significant that area or extent) to be up on last year which in turn was up on the previous year. That might be a good sign for Arctic ice feedbacks or it might not - 2-3 years is far too short a time to separate signal from noise. Volume is still exceptionally low compared to the historical record.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, it was still called GLOBAL warming, no? Are the arctic and Antarctica on different planets?
Re: (Score:3)
No, but one is a mix of land and sea ice, and one is entirely sea ice. Note here that the one that is increasing is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Climate models are exercises in curve fitting. They're programmed to fit the data. They are adjusted to fit actual reality, not predict it in advance. This is the pea under the thimble.
You couldn't be more wrong.
FAQ on Climate Models [realclimate.org]
FAQ on Climate Models: Part 2 [realclimate.org]
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. The "spreading out" of thin ice might just be due to a lot of ice falling off the Antarctic and more precipitation -- if it were cooler, you'd have less.
This might a good "negative" feedback mechanism that reduces overall infrared absorption -- at least in Antarctica, but likely not enough to curb the trend.
But those who say " we need more research" before affecting someone's profits -- well, they will think this proves something.
Re: (Score:2)
NOTE: Ahead of the expected misconstruing of what I'm saying; the Antarctic is considered a desert due to it's very low rainfall. However, if there is more fresh water rain -- that could be creating the ice, or when we have many icebergs calving that are the size of Rhode Island -- that means the ice gets broken up or sloughs off, creating a spreading.
The ice may also be very thin. More or less ice doesn't automatically mean anything -- and I don't KNOW the facts, I'm just throwing down reasons for what we
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:4, Insightful)
It stands to reason...
...that the Earth is flat.
"It stands to reason", "it just makes sense", "it's common sense"... these are not just not arguments, they are anti-arguments: anyone using them is saying loudly and clearly "I have nothing to contribute to this discussion but here's some noise to dilute the signal."
Any time you find yourself offering an opinion based only on your imagination, please don't. Get some data, learn some modelling, do some statistics before you speak.
Philosophers attempted to understand the world for thousands of years based on what "just makes sense" and failed completely and utterly. After three hundred years of scientists showing us a better way--and showing that what "stands to reason" has absolutely nothing at all to do with the way the world actually is--there is really very little excuse for continuing to promulgate this erroneous and basically useless way of knowing.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's a lot to ask on /. but if you plow past TFS and actually RTFA then you will find they say exactly why they think this is *realted to global warming not a contradiction of it.
"As the area covered in sea ice expands scientists have said the ice on the continent of Antarctica which is not over the ocean continues to deplete.
CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns."
Conjecture but they at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The "spreading out" of thin ice might just be due to a lot of ice falling off the Antarctic and more precipitation -- if it were cooler, you'd have less.
That is just as speculative as those who argue differently. The article specifically mentions the role of wind patterns as the primary factor in ice generation, and there is no statement that overall ice has thinned at the same time this expansion has occurred. AFAIKT, there is no established basis that ties this ice growth occurrence to either side of the warming debate. It doesn't need to be defended, it is happening, and it is not completely understood.
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Funny)
nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening.
Your double negatives threw me for a second there, but I think I see what's happening. You're concerned about their opponents. (I'm referring to the opponents of the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean that global warming isn't happening.) No doubt, you're familiar with the movement opposing those nutcases, and you with to make sure they don't get a foothold in the media, public perception, or in the legislature. There are a number of groups involved in that, and several of those are politically active. There is a bill in the legislature kowtowing to those groups, and a number of committees are organizing to keep them from making any progress. They aren't sufficiently organized at present, but with enough help they will be able to push forward enough to reach their goals. I think you'll be relieved to learn that I'm thoroughly opposed to the groups seeking to weaken the proponents of the bill making illegal the actions of committees organized to oppose the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean global warming isn't happening. At least...so far as it's consistent with the first Amendment.
~Loyal
Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that what's important isn't areas so much as volume. Please read and learn something.
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm done fighting, arguing and whatnot. I offer to you what I offered everyone so far: I move inland, you move to the coast. If you're right, you get a wonderful piece of seaside real estate. If I am right, I get to shoot you if you try to escape drowning.
Deal?
Re: (Score:3)
DYRTFA? Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
IF you inadvertently live in a "danger" zone THEN you should plan on moving sometime in the next 200-300 years just to be safe.
If you are really risk adverse, change the eval period from 10k years to 100k years and relocate at least half the distance to your desired position in the next 50 years.
Ah, Mr. Long [wikipedia.org], glad to know you're on Slashdot. You should get an account, I'm sure you would entertain us with your meaningful and expressive comments [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Forget single digits, in Canada the temperature gets into negative numbers. We use the metric system.
Re:What is the point of these articles? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that how this science works?
Re:What is the point of these articles? (Score:5, Informative)
As the area covered in sea ice expands scientists have said the ice on the continent of Antarctica which is not over the ocean continues to deplete. CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns.
This isn't dissenting data.
Re:What is the point of these articles? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the summary made it sound like it would be, and that's enough for deniers to latch onto.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Since when does science reject new data? That's not the empirical science I was taught.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is never settled, you clod.
It is when it has become religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because 1 and 1 is eleven.
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with this. But it does demonstrate how fucking clueless your conventional wisdom is.
Everyone who makes a comment about how this "disproves" global warming is a drooling moron.
Thanks for that. I feel better now, but it still doesn't mean that we won't get a flurry (ha ha, snow!) of denier bullshit to follow. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
In the conditions aplicable to this article (make it 1 atm.) water ONLY freezes at 0 celsius. so there is no way "hot water freezes faster than cold". You're probably repeating something someone told you about the energy it takes to raise/lower the teperature of water being related to it's actual temperature, but that's a diferent thing.
Learn some thermodynamics before spewing shit like that...
Re: (Score:3)
Bitch, please. [arxiv.org]
If you're going to lawyer on technicalities, at least know what the fuck is being discussed.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called the 'Mpemba effect '. You might want to look it up.
It doesn't apply here, but it's a real thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Warmists never bother debating anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
What mystical crap?
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through.
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated.
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle.
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those fact to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is.
How about you actual look at the science?
Re:What this proves is: (Score:4, Insightful)
1. False. AGW has a set of tests and facts. Deniers refuse to accept them. These are tested and testable facts.
2. True about most thing, but frustrating when one side has fcts and the other side totlea argument in NU-UH! However this is irrelevant it happens in many field byu people who aren't the actual scienctist. No bearing on science.
3. False, again.
here:
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth. Testable? Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those fact to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is: the impact of AGW on the climate.