Antarctica is Missing an Argentina-Sized Amount of Sea Ice This Year (cnn.com) 124
The world just broke "another terrifying climate record," reports CNN:
Antarctic sea ice has fallen to unprecedented lows for this time of year. Every year, Antarctic sea ice shrinks to its lowest levels towards the end of February, during the continent's summer. The sea ice then builds back up over the winter.
But this year scientists have observed something different.
The sea ice has not returned to anywhere near expected levels. In fact it is at the lowest levels for this time of year since records began 45 years ago. The ice is around 1.6 million square kilometers (0.6 million square miles) below the previous winter record low set in 2022, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). In mid-July, Antarctica's sea ice was 2.6 million square kilometers (1 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. That is an area nearly as large as Argentina or the combined areas of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.
The phenomenon has been described by some scientists as off-the-charts exceptional — something that is so rare, the odds are that it only happens once in millions of years. But Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado Boulder, said that speaking in these terms may not be that helpful. "The game has changed," he told CNN. "There's no sense talking about the odds of it happening the way the system used to be, it's clearly telling us that the system has changed...."
This winter's unprecedented occurrence may indicate a long-term change for the isolated continent, Scambos said. "It is more likely than not that we won't see the Antarctic system recover the way it did, say, 15 years ago, for a very long period into the future, and possibly 'ever.'" Others are more cautious. "It's a large departure from average but we know that Antarctic sea ice exhibits large year to year variability," Julienne Stroeve, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center told CNN, adding "it's too early to say if this is the new normal or not."
The glaciologist describes the change as "so extreme that something radical has changed in the past two years, but especially this year, relative to all previous years going back at least 45 years." And CNN adds that meanwhile in the Arctic, "sea ice has been on a consistently downwards trajectory as the climate crisis accelerates."
Other possible consequences of the missing sea ice:
But this year scientists have observed something different.
The sea ice has not returned to anywhere near expected levels. In fact it is at the lowest levels for this time of year since records began 45 years ago. The ice is around 1.6 million square kilometers (0.6 million square miles) below the previous winter record low set in 2022, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). In mid-July, Antarctica's sea ice was 2.6 million square kilometers (1 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. That is an area nearly as large as Argentina or the combined areas of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.
The phenomenon has been described by some scientists as off-the-charts exceptional — something that is so rare, the odds are that it only happens once in millions of years. But Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado Boulder, said that speaking in these terms may not be that helpful. "The game has changed," he told CNN. "There's no sense talking about the odds of it happening the way the system used to be, it's clearly telling us that the system has changed...."
This winter's unprecedented occurrence may indicate a long-term change for the isolated continent, Scambos said. "It is more likely than not that we won't see the Antarctic system recover the way it did, say, 15 years ago, for a very long period into the future, and possibly 'ever.'" Others are more cautious. "It's a large departure from average but we know that Antarctic sea ice exhibits large year to year variability," Julienne Stroeve, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center told CNN, adding "it's too early to say if this is the new normal or not."
The glaciologist describes the change as "so extreme that something radical has changed in the past two years, but especially this year, relative to all previous years going back at least 45 years." And CNN adds that meanwhile in the Arctic, "sea ice has been on a consistently downwards trajectory as the climate crisis accelerates."
Other possible consequences of the missing sea ice:
- Sea ice reflects sunlight back into space, CNN notes, so when it melts, it "exposes the darker ocean waters beneath which absorb the sun's energy."
- Sea ice floats on the water, so its loss doesn't directly affect rising sea levels, CNN points out. But the disappearance of sea ice does leave coastal ice sheets and glaciers "exposed to waves and warm ocean waters, making them more vulnerable to melting and breaking off."
In February NASA reported that global sea levels "are rising as a result of human-caused global warming, with recent rates being unprecedented over the past 2,500-plus years." Seawater expands when it warms, but NASA also blames the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers, resulting in a 3.89-inch rise since 1993, and 7.97 inches (200 mm) since 1900.
Libraries of Congressional Horsepower (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me? You lost an Argentina-sized something? Please speak to me in lost Libraries of Congress by megabyte please. I'm a statistically abused product of the 80s for fucks sake.
How the hell am I supposed to know how many horsepower my EV needs on Mars with that kind of climate change dick-tax measuring. Fake it better already.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost an Argentina-sized something? Please speak to me in lost Libraries of Congress ...
Or, at the very least, in National Libraries of Argentina [wikipedia.org] ...
That's over 500 million USA football fields. (Score:2)
[Slashdot lame filters reflect sophistication of the programmers, or their decision-makers?]
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me? You lost an Argentina-sized something? Please speak to me in lost Libraries of Congress by megabyte please. I'm a statistically abused product of the 80s for fucks sake.
How the hell am I supposed to know how many horsepower my EV needs on Mars with that kind of climate change dick-tax measuring. Fake it better already.
Is this diversion or something? Says right in the summary that the ice is about 1.6 million square Kilometers less than 2022, and 2.6 million square Kilometers below the 1981 to 2010 average.
They even have it in imperial for those who might like it that way. So I'm inclined to forgive the size comparison transgression that appears to upset you.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of diversions, let me know when we're going to start evacuating Florida. Or start charging an ice cube tax, because something something million below the national clickbait trigger threshold for profit via climate change "rage" about an uninhabited wasteland. Humans barely give a shit about the places they're forced to live.
I'm still not sure what amount of imperial fucks I should truly give, if any. Perhaps it's the obvious size disparity between feelings and facts that drives policy these days,
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of diversions, let me know when we're going to start evacuating Florida. Or start charging an ice cube tax, because something something million below the national clickbait trigger threshold for profit via climate change "rage" about an uninhabited wasteland. Humans barely give a shit about the places they're forced to live.
I'm still not sure what amount of imperial fucks I should truly give, if any. Perhaps it's the obvious size disparity between feelings and facts that drives policy these days, at the expense of the rest of us.
Dunno if you saw this - but off of Florida, Ocean temps on July 21st hit 38.3 C or 101 degrees F, or 311.5 K for crazy folks like me.
I always make jokes about "scientists are stunned" This time it's for real. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f... [cbsnews.com] A friend lives in Phoenix Arizona, and it's been up to 48.3 C 119 F several times in July. apparently the short rainy season hasn't happened either
Even here in PA, it's been hot, but also rainy. That is definitely anomalous.
The weather is unstable, as it "searc
Re: (Score:2)
The weather is unstable, as it "searches" for a new normal. And people might not like that new normal.
Yup. Weather changes. That instability often falls in the same vein as Shit Happens.
Regarding what people are going to do...hold your breath if you think people from Florida or Arizona are going to move because it's now slightly hotter than it has been for the last three decades they've lived in high temp climates. People live where they want to live. Often for no other reason than Mom/Dad raised them there.
If climate actually had an impact on human behavior, "Arizona" would simply be known as yet anot
Re: (Score:2)
The weather is unstable, as it "searches" for a new normal. And people might not like that new normal.
Yup. Weather changes. That instability often falls in the same vein as Shit Happens.
What is more, a lot of people actually like it being warmer.
While that is a pretty solipsistic outlook on their part, it ties in with your post here.
I have some relatives/friends that live in Florida. They spend most of the year living inside their house or apartment. Take away their air conditioning, they's probably be dead in a short time. Same with Phoenix.
As for the shit happens stuff - yes, in any given year/season/month there can be anomalous weather. But anomalous can become a trend, and event
Re: Libraries of Congressional Horsepower (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not even the Cons favourite rag is saying that.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: Libraries of Congressional Horsepower (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
i seen it with my own eyes, that scientist is a fake full of lies, those sigauros have a kangaroo rat infestation
Great, you saw rats going into a hollow cactus and assumed they ate it from the inside. What about all the cacti that died without hosting families of rats?
I love people that assume all scientists are lying because they "seen" something and it doesn't agree with what the science says. Maybe all the cacti you seen die were directly under too many chemtrails and didn't get enough sunlight.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
siguaro cactus been dying for years out here, because the kangaroo rats live in them and eat them from the inside out, the cactuses are basicallg highrise aparment buildings with free food for them until they die and fall over, then they scramble to the next cactus before the predaters can eat em
Sounds like a disgusting criminal plot that might be aired on Court TV.
Didnâ(TM)t HP Lovecraft warn us about this? (Score:2)
Like 100 years ago?
How Many Wales (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One Wales times one Cook County times pi is the standard approximation.
Re: (Score:2)
That can't be right. Multiplying areas yields a hypervolume.
Chart it like SPC (Score:2)
Show it like a process in Statistical Process Control. It would from what they are saying, look like a process steadily drifting out of control.
Context (Score:3)
Here's a measured climate.gov article:
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
for those who don't enjoy the 'thrill' of triggered outrage.
You should also compare the land ice measurements for extra credit. No peeking.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link. It's a bit technical for me, but it seems to agree with the summary, in a broad way. The 1-year change LOOKS less dramatic, but it *is* at the end of 7-years of increasingly low ice.
Re: Context (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That article was written March 14th, which is before things got really weird.
Idea (Score:1)
OK, I am not an expert on this stuff .. but to fix this can we trade some states .. like say ship Florida and some other states to Antarctica?
Soon ... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The difference is it may happen in decades rather than tens of thousands of years that it took previously.
Re: (Score:1)
"Previously" Antarctica was a subtropical continent, not an "arctic" one :P
Nuclear power? (Score:2)
Can we build more nuclear power plants now? No? Okay then, we will just keep burning coal for our electricity until global warming is determined to be a greater threat to civilization than nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we build more nuclear power plants now?
We did. https://apnews.com/article/geo... [apnews.com]
It's a news server, shock gets ratings (Score:2)
News services with shocking headlines get ratings. They will sensationalise someone tearing a calf muscle.
However the underlying message is important, we're messing with the weather and fossil fuels are to blame.
If we don't change our ways the life for the people on the planet will become very difficult for some. Oceans will rise and parts of the planet will become too hot for habitation.
This will also take a significant amount of time, but we're very slowly getting closer and closer to a cliff.
The antarcti
More alarmist nonsense (Score:2)
Not the sun [Re:More alarmist nonsense] (Score:2)
The earth gets hot, the earth cools down...look at that "little" star about 90 million miles away. It changes our global weather more than humans can.
If the solar output changed it would change the climate, but we measure solar output constantly and it hasn't varied enough to explain the current warming trend of climate.
It's also worth pointing out that changes in solar output would warm both the upper atmosphere and the troposphere. The signature of greenhouse effect is that the troposphere warms but the upper atmosphere cools. We measure these, and the signature of the greenhouse effect is clearly visible. It's not the sun getting hotter.
The diffic
How many elephants would that be? (Score:2)
Or swimming pools, or football fields, or petabytes?
I have no idea how much ice is an "Argentina" unit.
Re: (Score:1)
Should not matter if you have no idea.
However if you do not know that Argentina is one of the biggest countries on the planet, you seriously should question the level/quality of your education.
Cynical view point (Score:5, Insightful)
2022 established new minimal starting point (Score:2)
These scientists note that we are seeing things happen in decades that they believe in the past happened over thousands of years wrt Antarctica and are predicting radical changes by 2050: https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
On the plus side,
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to find the data a day after such a broadly spread article as this one, but I also recall seeing that this past winter in Antartica saw record highs of ice level, too. Gotta look at more than just cherry picked alarmist data.
I Don't own Beach Front Property (Score:1)
But a LOT of people are buying it.
Ask them if the feel Safe laying down $15 Million on their Beach Front Estates.
CNN (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.... so, not CNN, then?
I'm an American (yanqui) (Score:2)
I have no sense of how big Argentina is. But this ice sheet is 484,000,000 football fields.
Obligatory xkcd post (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:1)
In the long run...
Meh, who gives a shit about the long run when you can sell clicks now, by any lie necessary.
- Root Cause
Re:Fearmongering is not helpful (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long run...
Meh, who gives a shit about the long run when you can sell clicks now, by any lie necessary.
- Root Cause
And which part is a lie? Be specific.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you could look up "lying by omission", etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you could tell us what was "omitted"?
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run...
Meh, who gives a shit about the long run when you can sell clicks now, by any lie necessary.
- Root Cause
And which part is a lie? Be specific.
Your title was referring to fearmongering, which clickbait today makes highly profitable.. I'm not sure which part you're questioning is a lie; the click, or the bait.
Greed prefers short term clickbait profit. If you're looking for the actual boring shit that doesn't sell headlines, that would be long-term fact-finding missions driven by logic, common sense, and proven need, fueled by shared pools of international resources looking to achieve a goal in a realistic timeline with logical funding, targeting a
Re: (Score:2)
And which part is a lie? Be specific.
The lie is that you have any choice or control. "Oh noes! Doomsday again!"
Fuck it. If you want to survive, you have to eat, drink and have shelter. There is no way to do that without being in "someone's back yard"; therefore, you HAVE to participate in society. Society says that if you want to eat and drink and have shelter, you have use electricity, water, and gasoline. Each individual can minimize or maximise their footprint to a certain extent, but individual contributions mean little. You could waste as
Re: (Score:2)
I agree 100%... but I am not sure what the narrative really should be to evoke constructive action.
Also... nearly 4" of sea level rise in the past 30 years seems off or at least worthy of further explanation.
Re:Fearmongering is not helpful (Score:4, Informative)
Tell me you know absolutely nothing about what's occuring without telling me. This is at least a 5 sigma event. It's not "drumbeating everything out of the ordinary".
https://twitter.com/EliotJacob... [twitter.com]
https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a legitimate complaint though. There *is* a lot of overhyping bad news. (And not just in climate. Politics is, if anything, worse.)
The effect is that a 5-sigma event gets drowned in the noise. But it's not at all clear what to do about that. The 1st order take away is that news never convinces people of things they don't want to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a problem of the news not convincing people of something... it is that without a solution that people can understand then the news is just desensitizing.
Example: "We need to stop burning fossil fuels." Ok, I bought an electric car, replaced my gas furnace, water heater, and oven with electric, and I fly less. Now what; nothing else is under my control.
Also... there just doesn't seem to be much reporting on actual solutions and strategies... just that everything is turning to shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll pick a different example: Universal suffrage.
Say Women didn't have the right to vote, and you knew it was wrong. What the hell would you, as an individual, be able to do?
Compared to "solving" emissions, women's right to vote was an easy issue.
> Ok, I bought an electric car, replaced my gas furnace, water heater, and oven with electric, and I fly less
I won't buy an electric car: with the electricity grid we have, it would take about 60-100kKm to break even carbon-wise. That's about 10 years of my dri
Re: Fearmongering is not helpful (Score:1)
"I won't buy an electric car: with the electricity grid we have, it would take about 60-100kKm to break even carbon-wise"
False. An EV has lower lifetime emissions even if you charge it only from coal because it is so much more efficient. The pollution is also moved out of population centers. Don't lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Poland - break even estimated at 80k miles.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Your turn.
Re: Fearmongering is not helpful (Score:2)
Most vehicles last a lot longer than 80k, so you've just made my point for me. Like most of my detractors, you're a lot dumber than you think you are, and I'm here for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to invest in reading comprehension skills, and not cherry pick parts of statements. Also stop insulting people.
> [100 000km ] That's about 10 years of my driving. Batteries aren't for that long...
I'm talking about myself, and my use only...
So by the time I'd hit the 80k miles (15 years?) the battery might be in quite bad shape (depending on luck, weather, storage etc...). Probabilistically viewed, driving less my current 5l/100km car for another 10 years is the same.
If you hit 80k miles in 5-8
Re: Fearmongering is not helpful (Score:2)
No, I don't need to stop insulting people whose every reply is insulting because it expects me to believe bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a problem of the news not convincing people of something... it is that without a solution that people can understand then the news is just desensitizing.
The sea ice extent is data, nothing more, nothing less. Numbers. That they are numbers that people who understand the long proven physics of the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere are directly influenced by that atmosphere's composition of gaseous or aerosolized components is something that is extremely concerning.
What exactly is it that you want? This is real, and it is happening.
And many scientists are blowing smoke in my opinion. My investigations lead me to believe that the so call
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree with 100% of what you are saying; my point is that message is likely the one that needs to be pushed, focusing on resilience rather than doom. Doom makes people build bunkers; a message of focusing on resilience hits the problem from multiple angles.
Re: (Score:1)
It's also not entirely clear that it's that important.
Statistical significance isn't particularly meaningful, particularly with their cherry-picked dates.
Why did they have to compare it against several different and possibly conflicting numbers? They used averages across 2 different month ranges, to compare it to a single statistic. That's pretty disingenuous IMO, and at the very least, it's bad science.
It's like saying that the average foot size is shrinking, when you compare the size of NBA shoes on Augus
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What you're supposed to understand from the article is that IT'S REALLY BAD AND YOU SHOULD PANIC.
Fear allows them to control you, and despite a likely different, entirely oppositional outcome in 6 months (it's all melting! - no, wait, it's all freezing!), you need to fear for this cycle until they prepare the news articles for the next one.
Re:Fearmongering is not helpful (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long run, all this constant fearmongering does is
1) The constant barrage of doomsday proclamations causes people to tune out
Let's face it, people have been tuning out for the last 70-50-30 years, even though the science was already there. People tune out because the problem is too big for them to grasp, and they don't want to face that their lifestyle is not sustainable. It is a lot easier to feel good by just saying "No to nuclear!", instead of actually doing something for the environment.
The cognitive dissonance is too big for most people, so their brain just makes the problem go "poof". Too bad physical laws can't be bent that way.
2) Repeatedly using questionable science to make these doomsday preditions provides copious amounts of ammunition to the naysayers
Naysayers don't need that. The good thing is that they can switch from "there is no climate change, let's do nothing!" to "it's too late anyway, let's do nothing!". Honestly, as the end result is the same, the reason why they say it is unimportant.
3) In the end, thanks to #1 and #2 - nothing substantive gets done, and our descendants are left to deal with the consequences
Our descendants are already left to deal with the consequences. Don't blame it on "fearmongering", which is just reports of actual shit occuring before of us. Which brings us to the next best thing in this story: if you are under 50, you are the descendants that are left to deal with the consequences. Sure, your own descendants will get it even worse, but you can already thank your parents and grandparents (and yourself) for the rollercoster of events that are starting to happen.
The fact that, likely thanks to us, the earth is gradually warming
Not "likely". Science is pretty clear on that, and papers explaining and demonstrating why CO2 that we emit is the main factor are pretty simple to understand for anyone for just a bit of scientific background. And the main problem is not the warming itself (well, it is a problem), but the rate at which it occurs.
But this constant drumbeat of claiming that everything out of the ordinary is due to climate change will not change that...
Climate change is accelerating. First because we keep putting more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: 2022 was a record year for that, except that 2023 seems to be a good candidate so far for the new record year. Even though we apparently keep finding silver bullets all around the place (CO2 capture, nuclear silos [slashdot.org], solar and wind at record high...), go figure. And secondly, because as warming occurs, we are and will be reaching tipping points that will appear to us as if some stuffs "out of the ordinary" keep happening. We just don't understand yet that some of those stuffs are the new ordinary.
But this constant drumbeat of claiming that everything out of the ordinary is due to climate change will not change that... if anything, it's making the problem worse.
No. Stop trying to find excuses for your inaction. The only thing making the problem worse is that we keep emitting more CO2 than is sustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
The fearmongering *is* a real problem. It causes important news to be drowned in things of doubtful significance, and even of doubtful validity.
OTOH, if you don't let people know there's a problem before they need to act on it, that also causes problems. I suspect that given human nature there is no good answer People will believe what they want to believe, and tend to only accept evidence that validates their chosen beliefs.
Re:Fearmongering is not helpful (Score:4, Insightful)
The fearmongering *is* a real problem. It causes important news to be drowned in things of doubtful significance, and even of doubtful validity.
The issue arises when individuals begin labeling real, ongoing events as fearmongering [wikipedia.org]. For instance, when we observe Antarctica's ice reaching an unprecedented statistical low, a 5 sigma event, which is extremely improbable to occur without the influence of climate change, it is crucial to acknowledge this as an undeniable fact rather than an exaggeration.
Those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change are the ones drowning in denial. They hold on to their beliefs without concrete evidence and dismiss genuine news as "fearmongering" in an attempt to discredit scientific facts. It is essential to challenge this narrative and stand up against their efforts to undermine the validity of science.
Re: (Score:2)
Our descendants are already left to deal with the consequences.
What the fuck dude? We are the descendants dealing the consequences RIGHT NOW. The only way your way of thinking makes sense is when communicating to the 'last generation'.
Just as we are powerless to do anything about it, so will our children be powerless too. The only thing that can fight an organization is another organization. It is possible for an individual to kill off an organization; however, it is not possible for that individual to fill the vacuum that will be left behind. The average is going to l
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Guy... all other things being equal, none of that has any bearing on whether this is good science.
It isn't - it's a cherry picked data. They're comparing ice levels on a very specific day to monthly averages in July over 2 very specific and not-overlapping timeframes. It's devoid of anything relevant, like associated temperature or precipitation averages - you know, things which would help us understand the issue, instead of being emotionally reactive.
It's all garbage and intended to evoke an emotional, not
What Fearmongering? (Score:2)
In the long run, all this constant fearmongering does is
1) The constant barrage of doomsday proclamations causes people to tune out
I'm not sure what part of this you are considering "fearmongering." It seems to be a simple recitation of facts. If there's fearmongering, it's on your part, because they're not in the article.
2) Repeatedly using questionable science
I'm not sure what part of this article you are considering "questionable science" It seems to be a simple recitation of facts. If there's questionable science, it's from the slashdot comments, not the article.
to make these doomsday preditions
I'm not sure what part of this you're calling "doomsday predictions." It seems to be a simple recitation of
Re: (Score:3)
TRUMP: "We have a corrupt, compromised president who is dragging us into WW3 on behalf of a nation that paid his family millions and millions of dollars in obvious bribes."
Says the ruSSian oil puppet.
Naw, he and his corrupt progeny are like Corleones with no experience [yahoo.com].
Re:Meanwhile, in Wonderland... (Score:5, Informative)
TRUMP: "We have a corrupt, compromised president who is dragging us into WW3 on behalf of a nation that paid his family millions and millions of dollars in obvious bribes."
Pro Tip: Every accusation Trump (and often Republicans) makes is a projection of things he's done or would like to do.
Examples: Claims Biden/Democrats are trying to steal the 2020 election while literally trying to steal it himself. Claims Biden/Democrats weaponized (are weaponizing) the Government/DOJ/FBI while the Republicans in the House are literally weaponizing the government (with a committee ironically named "Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.") and Trump actually just boasted how he'll personally appoint a special counsel to investigate Biden/Democrats ("the most corrupt President ever" -- w/o looking in the mirror) if he's re-elected. The list of examples is almost literally endless. /rant
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
lol what? How is this moderated this highly?
This isn't insightful, it's literally an ad hominem misdirection. The "Examples" have nothing to do with the "Pro Tip" and are simply dissuading you from the very real fact that, yes, Biden is corrupt AF and the entire USG (mil-industrial complex) has been jingoistically pushing for war with Russia in Ukraine since at least 2014. (And it isn't just the Biden admin, it's been a consistent theme since Clinton in the 90s.)
Re: (Score:1)
The "Examples" have nothing to do with the "Pro Tip" ...
Sure they do. Every time Trump accuses someone of doing something bad, it's almost always something he's done or would like to do himself. This isn't even a new idea from me, many, many people have asserted this. If you can't see it, you're probably part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So just to be clear - are you denying that this is actually happening?
Who gives a fuck what Trump thinks or says. The guy isn't in power and has zero sway on anything. Mentioning him is just a fallacious distraction.
Re: (Score:1)
Found the ruSSian simp. You should move there. No really....gtfo.
Re:wish they would just stick to facts. (Score:5, Insightful)
6.4 standard deviations is.. quite a lot. By random chance, this would be a once in 13 billion years event, i.e. it should never happen. I'm not sure that there is a way to overstate how unprecedented this is. Just looking at the graph [twitter.com] tells you this is a very abrupt departure from what has been the norm even considering ongoing climate change over the last several decades. It's like a switch has flipped.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like a switch has flipped.
The world has been ending my entire fucking life and I have had zero control and input. This particular ending just doesn't fucking matter to me. Carpet bomb the planet with nukes. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen. It just doesn't matter.
The people who have the ability to influence what is going to happen are only concerned with their own lives... and they are willing to risk it all to come out on top... of a barren desert world. But they will have what they wanted despite losing everything to
Re: (Score:2)
For those staring at the graph in confusion, since it is missing axis and series labels [google.com]:
I'm think that maybe the X axis is month, like left is Jan and right is Dec. I think that each line is a series of measurements for that year. The red one is this year so far. It appears that 2023 started down more than 2 standard deviations, which looks like the lowest it has ever been in the leftmost month. Then it dropped another 4 standard deviations, which would still be a record even if it didn't already start
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there's any way that we could tip one of them into a catastrophic eigenvalue sign reversal. Nor that there are any signs in Earth's geological past about just how violently and abruptly the climactic system is capable of changing its state.
No, we should continue allowing corporations to continue poisoning the air with zero consequences. Don
Re: (Score:3)
> By random chance, this would be a once in 13 billion years event, i.e. it should never happen.
Never. Right. Nice way to lose your credibility.
You seem to be misunderstanding the calculation. The first three words "by random chance" are important.
The calculation is saying "this measured value is not the result of random chance". In engineering vocabulary, that is to say, it is signal, not noise.
Re:Sample Size (Score:5, Insightful)
45 years is approximately 0.00000001184210526 of 3.8 billion years.
Why are so many people compelled to find excuses to dismiss this stuff? We don't care about dinosaurs getting heat stroke. What matters to *us* is whether *we* are going to be able to work and play outdoors when it's 105f.
Re:Sample Size (Score:4, Informative)
>Why are so many people compelled to find excuses to dismiss this stuff?
Because they want simple easy answers to life's questions, ones that do not involve any personal responsibility, sacrifice or even effort. When complex things requiring those things come up, they prefer denial or a scapegoat so they don't have to do anything.
And as long as they are fine in the short term, that's about as far ahead as they care to think anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that no one is in charge is the most terrifying thought we can have. The reason conspiracy theories are so popular is that we would prefer to believe that an evil person is driving us towards a cliff than to think that no one is driving the car.
The idea that the sun, a power that we have absolutely no control over, might fuck us is more than most people can bear. So they seek easy answers, denial, and scapegoats.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that the sun, a power that we have absolutely no control over, might fuck us is more than most people can bear.
It would be, except there's zero evidence for that.
(and plenty of hard facts about much simpler explanations, eg. CO2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like to think that my writing is clear enough that I don't need an illustration, but thank you, I guess. You did hit the trifecta.
Nope, not clear [Re:Sample Size] (Score:2)
I like to think that my writing is clear enough that I don't need an illustration
You may "like to think that", but you are apparently wrong.
Your first paragraph was clear and insightful.
Your second paragraph, about the sun, makes me scratch my head and think "what the heck is he going on about?" It's not clear.
Re: (Score:2)
The acceptance of scientific knowledge requires two steps. First, we do research and publish papers. Then, we wait for the people who learned before those papers were published to die off.
The idea we are currently waiting to die off is the idea that the sun is essentially static. I use the qualifier "essentially" because no one believes that the sun is literally static, instead they believe that the variation that it experiences is unimportant.
The research - thousands of papers, peer reviewed and publish
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, now it's clear.
user Joce640k's comment was correct. We measure solar output these days, and it is uncorrelated to climate on a human scale. Short term (solar cycle) variations in solar activity have a small variation in measured temperature, but that is extremely small-- barely detectable. Long term variations-- hundreds of millions of years-- have climate effects, but that is negligible on a scale of human history.
Your statement is missing the crucial word not: "The research - thousands of papers, peer
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, you found a bunch of people who are too old to learn anything new, and you linked to them. How original.
Don't worry. You will die too, and you won't be able to hold back science forever.
Nope, not the sun [Re:Nope, not clear] (Score:2)
Oh look, you found a bunch of people who are too old to learn anything new, and you linked to them. How original. Don't worry. You will die too, and you won't be able to hold back science forever.
The idea that solar variation causes climate change isn't "new", it isn't even close to new. It is well over a century old. And for a hundred years, many many scientists have looked very hard to try to find evidence to support that hypothesis, and failed.
What the links I gave showed some of the evidence that is isn't true.
Re: (Score:2)
I like to think that my writing is clear enough that I don't need an illustration, but thank you, I guess. You did hit the trifecta.
The first paragraph was clear but irrelevant. It explains Trumpism but not sea ice levels.
The part I quoted, the bit about the sun, seemed like something a believer in climate conspiracies would post. It couldn't go unchallenged.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they want simple easy answers to life's questions, ones that do not involve any personal responsibility, sacrifice or even effort.
If every individual reduced their personal carbon footprint, it would make a very sizeable dent in the overall issue; however, putting recapture devices on cargo ships would make a MUCH larger dent and cost each individual a LOT less if the costs were spread equally; however, the costs are not spread equally so low-cost shipping will continue to spew more shit than every individual on the planet is capable of.
And that is just ONE industry. Fuck off on that personal responsibility shit saving the world. Yes,
Re: (Score:1)
45 years is approximately 0.00000001184210526 of 3.8 billion years.
Why are so many people compelled to find excuses to dismiss this stuff? We don't care about dinosaurs getting heat stroke. What matters to *us* is whether *we* are going to be able to work and play outdoors when it's 105f.
yes, that's what I thought too. It doesn't really matter to us how it was in the past. What we should care about the most, is our lives right now, and how it will be in the future, because that's what actually matters right now.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Because looking around a bit we notice, that EVERY SINGLE thing that was presented to us as an immediate problem has either been blown out of proportion, been completely fabricated to begin with or the proposed solutions either did not work or made things worse.
As some of the other respondents to your posts are clearly showing, the immediate knee-jerk explanation people come up with is that the people pointing this out are either stupid, lazy and selfish or plain evil.
If you want to be an adult, then for ju
Re: (Score:3)
Because looking around a bit we notice, that EVERY SINGLE thing that was presented to us as an immediate problem has either been blown out of proportion, been completely fabricated to begin with or the proposed solutions either did not work or made things worse.
Ah. The Big Lie again, eh?
There's no pollution problem; there's no issue with plastic; the seas are as full of fish as they ever were; the bees are happy as Larry; Europe and North America are not cooking. Everything's just fucking dandy. And science is all a fraud, of course.
Why do you bother lying about stuff that we all know? Do you think we're just going to be magically persuaded by your bald assertions in the face of simple observable reality?
Averaging [Re:Sample Size] (Score:2)
We suck at predicting tomorrow's weather but we know exactly what higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere will do to this incredibly complex global system that is intertwined with every living species?
Within the error bars, correct. Long-term averages are easier to predict than short-term variations.
You can't predict the temperature in Schenectady, NY on August 13, 2024. But you can, within error bars, predict the average temperature in August in Schenectady, NY.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why are so many people compelled to find excuses to dismiss this stuff? We don't care about dinosaurs getting heat stroke. What matters to *us* is whether *we* are going to be able to work and play outdoors when it's 105f.
Backwards. Why are so many people determined to make a doomsday out of a minor weather condition. Global warming has been debunked for over a decade now, and people are still running around screaming like chicken little.
Yes, antarctic lost some ice. Volcanos and wind pattern changes w
Re: (Score:1)
It's a million to one!
Based on 45 years' data.
Despite the old Chinese maps.
These clowns are not credible. It would be a shame if there was some truth in there because everybody will ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is not valid. Sorry, but it isn't. You don't understand what they mean, and why, e.g., one of the folks quoted in the summary said that that's the wrong way to think about it. That what if means is that "something radical has changed in the past two years, but especially this year".
He's NOT agreeing with you. OTOH, he is agreeing that "It's a million to one!" is the wrong way to think about it. (And those old Chinese maps are of low enough precision that they could be made to fit most pos
Re: (Score:2)
And you're a sample size of one for "old and stupid".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have a decent idea of the history of the earth and what scientists know should concern you greatly. It is normal for the Earth to be much hotter than it is today and for the Earth to have no polar ice caps. https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov] We have accelerated the post-ice age warming greatly and are causing the Earth to warm more rapidly than most species can adapt. We are heading for a situation where no humans (and little else) live between the 45th parallels. The continental US could be largely uninhabitable before its 500th birthday.
First three points are accurate, but the last two diverge into pure speculation. There are no credible predictions that "The continental US could be largely uninhabitable" by 2276.