Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Darker Arctic Boosting Global Warming 378

The Grim Reefer sends this news from an Associated Press report: "The Arctic isn't nearly as bright and white as it used to be because of more ice melting in the ocean, and that's turning out to be a global problem, a new study says. With more dark, open water in the summer, less of the sun's heat is reflected back into space. So the entire Earth is absorbing more heat than expected, according to a study (abstract) published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That extra absorbed energy is so big that it measures about one-quarter of the entire heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide, said the study's lead author, Ian Eisenman, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. The Arctic grew 8 per cent darker between 1979 and 2011, Eisenman found, measuring how much sunlight is reflected back into space." The same decrease in ice contributes to the weather circumstances that led to extremely low temperatures across parts of the United States this winter.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Darker Arctic Boosting Global Warming

Comments Filter:
  • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @07:14PM (#46280769)

    The PLANET is getting warmer. The eastern half of the United States experienced a cold winter.

  • Re:Small problem (Score:4, Informative)

    by Stephan Schulz ( 948 ) <schulz@eprover.org> on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @07:24PM (#46280847) Homepage

    Small problem with that is this summer had 50% less ice melt in the arctic

    Says who? 50% less than what? 2012 was a record minimum year. 2013 has bounced back from that record low (in ice extend, not ice volume), but is still one of the years with the least sea ice extend science measurements began. And all the other similarly low extend years have been after 2005.

  • Old News (Score:4, Informative)

    by BlindRobin ( 768267 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @07:25PM (#46280853)

    To anyone that has been paying (not even very close) attention this is nothing new.

  • by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @07:43PM (#46281019)
    The sea ice extent is the surface area of ice that is floating in the sea. Unfortunately, there is more ice floating in the sea because it's calving off the land. The total volume or mass of ice in the Antarctic is decreasing [skepticalscience.com].
  • by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @09:21PM (#46281829) Journal

    Actually the warming has been stalled for about 17 years

  • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @09:46PM (#46281999) Journal
    What dataset are you using to show the planet is getting warmer? RSS, HADCRUT4/HADCRUT5, GISS, UAH) all show temperature stalled for at least 17 years (actually, a few show a slight negative trend - RSS and UAH show approximately -0.2 deg C per century cooling trend over the last 17 years).
  • Re:Not Prudent (Score:3, Informative)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @10:06PM (#46282123)

    Just because CO2 does not directly cause adverse changes the way Chernobyl or Bhopal did does not mean that CO2 is not pollution.

    The fact that the entire plant kingdom relies on CO2 rules it out as pollution for me. The Earth's whole ecosystem is devoted to processing CO2. It's probably the most benign thing we could possibly be emitting.

    You can use that standard it you want to but it's kinda useless in practice. Say it turns out that low levels of background radiation are good for us, does that mean radiation is no longer pollution? We use sound to talk, I guess I can open a night club next to your house because there's no such thing as noise pollution.

    A much better standard is pollution is anything that's harmful when emitted in excess or the wrong circumstance, CO2 emissions are harming the planet right now, thus they're pollution.

    A rapid increase in temperatures basically undermine all that investment we have made.

    As I said it's clear that will not happen. CO2 levels have risen heavily, temperatures is flat. It's clear that the levels of XO2 we are producing are not enough to cause a runaway effect.

    Forget about decades of research and thousands of peer reviewed papers. They apparently were just doing a grade 3 science fair experiment with glass jar, you've pointed that out and now none of us have to worry and can go back to seeing what happens if we drop nails in Coke.

    Many of our largest population and industrial centers are in areas directly threatened by rising sea water.

    NOTHING is threatened by sea level rise of around a foot over 100 years. That is LOTS of time to adapt and shift. We also can tell now the absurd predictions of 20 feet sea level rise are not going to happen either. Even the IPCC admits that now.

    There's also the worry that the changing climate will lead to larger storm surges which combined with the sea levels could cause a lot more damage. Though I'd agree that the other consequences from global warming are a lot more serious.

    We should do our best to mitigate that and slow down the increase in the greenhouse effect

    Why should we expend any effort to stop something that is not happening, when all that effort can go to fight real issues?

    That's the thing that tans my hide. People are expending so much effort to fight CO2 that real problems are utterly ignored. The planet is being fucked for sure but it's not by CO2, and all action taken against CO2 is to me the same as action against the planet.

    Because all the science indicates that it almost certainly IS happening. You are apparently not convinced, I don't know why, but the fact that you do not agree with the science does not jeopardize my belief in the science at all because nearly all the very smart and honest people who study the topic agree that it is happening and it's a serious problem.

  • Re:Not Prudent (Score:4, Informative)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @10:45PM (#46282345)

    I'm not sure why I am the idiot when you are the one with stupid ideas:

    Based on what do you claim that one foot of sea-level rise will not be harmful?

    Over 100 years? Come on, we can move anything needed over that timeframe. But someone would have to be insane to build something near enough to the ocean where a foot mattered much anyway.

    Your analysis of CO2 level change not affecting things because temperatures have leveled off is fit for a retard

    CO2 has risen (by a lot). Temperatures have not. Pretty clear what is happening and have a tantrum doesn't make you any less wrong.

    CO2 build-up could have adverse effects on more than just temperature.

    And that shows you have zero understanding of the levels of concentration we are talking about here.

    I guess at causes and effects

    And everything else.

    The sad part is, you don't have to guess. You could know. But your religion forbid knowing, just mind-addling hatred towards anyone who disagrees with your philosophy.

  • Re:Small problem (Score:4, Informative)

    by solanum ( 80810 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2014 @12:24AM (#46282859)

    Since they were stated out of context to suggest a meaning that wasn't in line with the actual fact stated.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2014 @12:33AM (#46282889) Journal

    The wait until the car drives off the cliff before thinking about putting on the brakes theorem .

    I think it's actually the "at least show me that there's a cliff, and where it is so I can decide if I should stop or turn" theory.

  • by haruchai ( 17472 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2014 @12:58AM (#46283007)

    About 60% of that rise has been in only the past 30 years.

    That history you're referring to had very few temp rises as quick as what we're seeing now although there were some.

    One of the most important factors, which is not currently in play and won't be for thousands of years is an orbital forcing or Milankovitch cycle.

Would you people stop playing these stupid games?!?!?!!!!