Sea Ice Extent Sinks To Record Lows At Both Poles (sciencedaily.com) 211
According to NASA, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent. On the opposite side of the planet, Antartica ice hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites (since satellites began measuring sea ice in 1979) on March 3 at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Science Daily reports: Total polar sea ice covered 6.26 million square miles (16.21 million square kilometers), which is 790,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers) less than the average global minimum extent for 1981-2010 -- the equivalent of having lost a chunk of sea ice larger than Mexico. The ice floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas shrinks in a seasonal cycle from mid-March until mid-September. As the Arctic temperatures drop in the autumn and winter, the ice cover grows again until it reaches its yearly maximum extent, typically in March. The ring of sea ice around the Antarctic continent behaves in a similar manner, with the calendar flipped: it usually reaches its maximum in September and its minimum in February. This winter, a combination of warmer-than-average temperatures, winds unfavorable to ice expansion, and a series of storms halted sea ice growth in the Arctic. This year's maximum extent, reached on March 7 at 5.57 million square miles (14.42 million square kilometers), is 37,000 square miles (97,00 square kilometers) below the previous record low, which occurred in 2015, and 471,000 square miles (1.22 million square kilometers) smaller than the average maximum extent for 1981-2010.
Wait, what? (Score:2)
According to NASA
Didn't they already get told they weren't allowed to gather let alone publish this sort of data?
Someone is getting sacked. I'm assuming there is going to be some kind of equivalent of the gulag soon for the people who persist in producing unapproved data.
Re: (Score:2)
According to NASA
Didn't they already get told they weren't allowed to gather let alone publish this sort of data?
Someone is getting sacked. I'm assuming there is going to be some kind of equivalent of the gulag soon for the people who persist in producing unapproved data.
Seems to be a bit of a revolt going on. It's gonna get more interesting. Coming to my party? Popcorn and Tequila, I'll see if the little lady can whip up some of her tater salad.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Though Slashdot's comment quality has been on a steady decline, so I'm not surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand numb, but plenty of folks seem to have a lot of energy for denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the two main root drivers of emissions is population growth and increased standard of living. Really poor places don't have much emissions because they don't have cars and AC and 50" TVs. It's mostly sociology and not so much science. Against this near impossible to stop tide we try to act like "green" technology will save the day. Yes, not putting CFCs in refrigerators is probably a good idea. But it's doesn't really change that most of the world's 7.5 billion people will want one and even an A+++ rat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you're completely wrong. The Earth doesn't have a population limit. 8 billion is no closer than 1 billion. We can all live comfortable, luxurious lives. The problems we're facing have nothing to do with resource exhaustion (aside from petroleum), but inefficiency and pollution. We can absolutely produce goods without air pollution. We have sources of essentially limitless energy. We can absolutely use nuclear reactors to ship goods - no need for bunker oil. It's a question of economics and political engagement.
Cool. Get back to me when you've convinced the world to put a potential nuclear meltdown in every town and every cargo ship and drive EVs so they can use it for charging. Back in the real world, CO2 levels keep going up, up and away [wikipedia.org] as countries like China [folk.uio.no] go modern. After that comes India, Brazil and the rest of the developing world. Even if the population boom has subsided we'll still hit 10 billion people, that's another 33% growth.
The people who talk about reducing emissions are smoking crack, we're lik
Always Look on the Bright Side of Global Warming (Score:2)
We don't need to "stop" it (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, a thought just occurred to me.
If people can at least agree that climate change is happening (man-caused or otherwise), can we not also agree that some form of mitigation is necessary? It's not as if climate change is an unheard of thing on our planet. That's not even the issue.
Humans are unique in that we can modify an environment to suit us, but that doesn't make us any less dependant on the other species on this planet, and so it is *still* in our best interests to keep things on as much an even keel as possible.
Species evolve slowly over time. As conditions change, animals *will* evolve. But if conditions change too quickly, then there isn't enough time to adapt and species die. So we don't necessarily need to stop it... only slow it down as much as we can so that everything else can keep up and we don't risk getting ourselves taken out in the process.
This of course presumes one a) understands evolution, b) understands that climate *will* change and c) gives a shit about things beside short-term financial gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Dalton Minimum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Solar variation between normal sunspot cycle and a "minimum" is only 1 Watt/square meter, on a total of more than 1300 Watts/square meter. It's not significant, and easily overwhelmed by the increase in CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
1 watt in 164 = meaningless
200 parts co2 per million = end of the world
Got it.
(164 watts per square meter is the average across the earth's surface, which is far more meaningful here than the absolute peak magnitude. Also, the solar cycle theory has a lot more to do with cloud formation than with watts.)
Re: (Score:2)
200 parts co2 per million = end of the world
We currently have 35% more CO2 than a century or so ago, and there's no sign yet of it slowing down. That's quite a bit.
164 watts per square meter is the average across the earth's surface, which is far more meaningful here than the absolute peak magnitude.
The 1 Watt difference is also the peak. So, where still talking about a delta of less than 0.1% in solar output.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What? You can't transport oil via the Internet!
Re:Drill Baby Drill!!! (Score:5, Funny)
What? You can't transport oil via the Internet!
It is a fine transport mechanism for bullshit however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:HUGE Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
It would also be a great place for all the world's refugees to go and start a new life. Global Warming could turn out to be that best thing to happen to humanity in a long time.
And what a prime opportunity with all the new refugees this will create!
Re: (Score:2)
New refugees? Like polar bears, Inuit, penguins?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we can just raise the temperature enough to melt the ice in Antarctica, it will become habitable year-round. It could then be opened up for real estate development. Apartment complexes, strip malls, industrial parks...the possibilities are mind-boggling.
I believe the parent post is a joke (and should be marked as funny). Some countries that have shore line could easily lose the land because the sea level will rise and that is not really a gain for them in most ways...
Re:Similar (Score:5, Informative)
My interest levels of sea ice have gotten to an all time record low as well.
Science is nerdy, climate records are science news. And the climate changing does in fact matter. I would say that such an article ticks all boxes of "news for nerds, stuff that matters".
If you don't like hearing about it, feel free to go to another website or simply not read and comment on the article.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that if I don't like your opinion I should go somewhere else.
Good stuff. Works both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that if I don't like your opinion I should go somewhere else.
Bro, do you even read?
I said, if you don't like this website (tag line: news for nerds, stuff that matters) when it has an article which (a) is of interest nerds and (b) matters, then perhaps you should consider visiting a different website, one more aligned with your interests perhaps.
I don't really care if you like my opinion. All things considered, I think I'd feel better if you disliked it.
Re: (Score:2)
The story is just another alarmist anecdote about climate change.
Your true colours show through at last.
Re: (Score:2)
In a shocking turn of events that no one could have foreseen you concluded what you wanted to conclude.
You seem rather colour blind. All you managed to process was black or white.
Hopefully now that you have "uncoverd the truth" you can find peace.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science especially doesn't involve data that have been "adjusted" to benefit certain political movements or to increase the likelihood of getting grant money.
You've never read any primary scientific literature or grant applications...
And science really doesn't involve extrapolating a couple hundred years' worth of "adjusted" data across thousands, millions, or even billions of years.
You've never read any books on evolution or geology....
There are too much politics involved.
You've never read anything about medical research...
We want to discuss real science, backed by hard facts, non-adjusted data, and untainted observation.
You've evidently never talked to any scientists of any kind either and may have never talked to any real human before. There is no such thing as "untainted observation." If you're observing it, you have your own spin on it. "Non-adjusted da
Re:Similar (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable.
No. "Soft sciences" refers to fields which arrogant scientists feel are less deserving due to subject matter, not reproducibility. Social sciences are described as soft science. [wikipedia.org]
Your opinion on social science as a "real" science is up to you, but reproducibility is an issue no matter how "hard" the science is. [nature.com]
I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.
Because obviously scientific findings don't change society by themselves. At a bare minimum, you must publish your results or the scientific findings may as well have never been made. With even non
Re: (Score:2)
Extremism in my view is violence, not demanding a reduction in pollution.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Translation: I'm a delicate snowflake, only report things that make me feel good.
Re:Similar (Score:5, Insightful)
Kiribati is going underwater. Does anyone else care? *sigh*
Many places will. As well, while a lot of folk are enjoying the warmer winters, and give not one tiny fuck about what is happening in other places, there are little issues that can crop up that might affect them.
Sea level rise is just one issue.
Local climate change is another. If the gulf stream is disrupted by Greenland glacier melt, the British Isles will actually get colder.
Some places will become more lush, and some places will become desert. The Sahara was once a nice place. If a natural climate shift can do that, it will be interesting to see what happens when we release all that sequestered carbon.
But especially in America, people don't give a shit about anything that isn't happening to them personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everywhere from California to Indiana will desertify. California may well lose its agricultural sector over the next 50 years.
Do you have any projections for that? I've always been loathe to make predictions for a specific area, although if Nebraska gets a little drier, it will become desert .
Re: (Score:2)
I think they've done a good job at that by diverting water from the croplands to some fish somewhere.
BTW, most of CA already is a desert.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they've done a good job at that by diverting water from the croplands to some fish somewhere.
This actually worries me more than AGW. And AGW worries me a lot. The situation needs addressed. But we aren't a country that can address much any more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
BTW, most of CA already is a desert.
Exactly. Its a situation where the weather is pretty good, lots of sunshine, OK soil, but not much water. They've wrecked their local sources and when you get soil subsidance like this, http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~... [columbia.edu] https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land... [usgs.gov] you've probably made the water t
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I am so tired of this alarmist crap.
People with a hardon for stats are more bothered about someone refuting the data than the actual effects.
They'd rather argue with me about the relevence of my post then actually doing something about it...
But especially in America, people don't give a shit about anything that isn't happening to them personally.
So so true.
Re: (Score:3)
My interest levels of sea ice have gotten to an all time record low as well.
Translation: I'm the most important thing on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
I contend that your ability to translate English is rather limited.
Of course as you were only trying to help I should thank you, Mr PoopJuggler for that insight.
Re: (Score:2)
Kiribati is going underwater. Does anyone else care? *sigh*
I could rob you and beat you to pulp. Would anyone else care? The answer is that wise people would care, because they'll know if I get away with that I'll be getting away with a lot more.
Same with climate change. Yes, Kiribati may disappear. But the Kiribatians aren't the only people who will pay; in fact most people in the world will end up paying. The way this works is that we all get some up front economic benefit from unregulated carbon emissions and we all pay for the consequences later, but the tric
Re: (Score:3)
This is a misrepresentation of the solution, the kind of thing that demonstrates the nihilism at the core of your argument. We need to start reducing CO2 emissions, with an eye on the next twenty or thirty years. Yes, we're going to cross some red lines, but we can still mitigate the worst of it, and no, it's not going to kill billions of people.
But if the lives of large numbers of people are of such great concern to you, why are you so willing to abandon all the people that are and will be affected by unco
Re: (Score:3)
No progeny then?
This has happened before. Humanity excelled. (Score:3, Informative)
The thing we need to remember is that this has happened before, during the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" [wikipedia.org]. This global rise in temperatures happened between 950 AD and 1250 AD, which is kind of a problem because it means that the trendy explanation of post-Industrial Revolution human pollution being the cause of this rise in temperatures can't be used. So it tends to be downplayed today because, well, you can't really justify lucrative (for governments; awful for everybody else) carbon taxes when it's sol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing we need to remember is that this has happened before, during the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" [wikipedia.org]. This global rise in temperatures happened between 950 AD and 1250 AD
From that wikipedia page (with some emphasis from me):
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://co2science.org/data/mwp... [co2science.org]
http://www.climatedepot.com/20... [climatedepot.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Global temperatures were overall cooler during this period.
https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions.
~Hans von Storch, May 2007
why wouldn't you cite Ljungqvist's 2010 30-proxy reconstruction, which was more widely supported? Ljungqvist's chart [lwhancock.com] Is it because it shows both the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Roman warm period were just as warm or warmer than today?
Re: (Score:2)
why wouldn't you cite Ljungqvist's 2010 30-proxy reconstruction, which was more widely supported? Ljungqvist's chart [lwhancock.com] Is it because it shows both the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Roman warm period were just as warm or warmer than today?
Perhaps because he's already read the rebuttalls? And that Ljungqvist himself doesn't agree with how his results are being interpreted?
But try not to let that upset you because the Medieval Warm Period poses a thorny conundrum for den....er "skeptics"
If it did happen as they claim, that implies that climate sensitivity is on the high end of the scale
https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
An accurate summary of the GOP's position.
Re: Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)
This is quite possibly the stupidest response to climate related issues I've ever seen. It's very very true that the change cannot be reversed or prevented altogether, but that still doesn't mean there aren't plenty of things we can - and should - do to mitigate the effects. We can't fix everything, but if we opt to do nothing and continue business as usual with the fossil fuels for example, we can make things a lot worse,
It's psychologically appealing to lift one's hands into the air and declare that it's all fucked already and we can do nothing but sit and wait for extinction, but it's also simultaneously the intellectual equivalent of 'well, my liver's already damaged from all this drinking, so might just as well keep drinking because who cares at this point?'
Call me an idealist if you wish but even though I may never end up having kids, I still care about the continued survival of the species past the point of my own death.
Re: (Score:3)
if we opt to do nothing and continue business as usual with the fossil fuels for example, we can make things a lot worse
And things will get worse - We'll help. It remains to be seen how much we'll contribute and how warm we'll eventually get, but global warming will continue. I'm not an expert, but that's something I believe based on what I've read. Along with minimizing the problem as much as possible, we'd best plan for the consequences.
Re: Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the new response. I like to call it the "Eat, Drink And Be Merry For Tomorrow We Shall Die" response, wherein the pseudo-skeptics finally concede that we're fucking up global climate, but just shrug their shoulders and go "Oh well", or pretend that they care about poor people because "OMG, if we move from oil, just imagine all those poor brown-skinned people that will be harmed!" as if they ever actually cared about vulnerable populations.
What it all really lays bare is the pure greed and nihilism of the fossil fuel lobby, oh, and the complete idiocy of morons on the Internet who follow them.
Re: Oh well (Score:5, Interesting)
They go something like this
There's nothing going on that would negatively affect our society
There might be something going on that would negatively affect our society, but nobody knows for certain. So, we shouldn't do anything different.
There's probably something going on that would negatively affect our society, but it would cost too much to do anything about it.
Our society is definitely in trouble, but it's too late for us to do anything about it. Everybody pray..
Of course, there are also societies described that didn't collapse, but they had a different response at some stage before the last on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are always winners and losers. What amuses me is how you pretend you like birds, when what you really like is not having to do fuck all, and passing the buck to the next generation. And how many species do you imagine will get driven to extinction by spiraling climate change over the next century.
Re: (Score:2)
What it all really lays bare is the pure greed and nihilism of the capitalist system, oh, and the complete idiocy of morons on the Internet who follow them.
Fixed that for you.
And no, this is not a call for communism, it's just an observation that (unchecked, free-market) capitalism seems almost inherently designed to cause this type of greed and nihilism (not to mention an ever-increasing wealth gap).
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's greed. I think it's wishful thinking.
And it absolutely would be great if there were no downsides to burning all the fossil fuels we can lay our hands on. Most people on this site are too young to remember the smog we had in the 1960s and 1970s; they're imprinted on a time when gas was cheap, air was clean, and anthropogenic climate change was (as far as the general public was concerned) undreamt of. Who wouldn't want that to be true?
Re: (Score:2)
From yes prime minister
Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Bernard Woolley: What's that?
Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about
Re: (Score:2)
It's not all that new. Career Exxon oil slick & new Sec of State Rex Tillerson adopted this attitude years ago, that global warming is happening but we can only geoegineer or adapt
Re:In before global warming whiners... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think "fox news" and "science" belong in the same sentence, let alone the same URL.
Re:In before global warming whiners... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study [sciencemag.org]
Re:Sea ice extent in Medieval Warm Period? (Score:5, Informative)
The medieval warm period did not affect sea ice at all. It also did not affect the global temperature at all. It was a localized effect in such a small area that the global average didn't even move.
Nope, nothing like this has ever happened before.
Re:Sea ice extent in Medieval Warm Period? (Score:5, Informative)
The medieval warm period did not affect sea ice at all.
Probably.
It also did not affect the global temperature at all.
On your weird definition of global?
It was a localized effect in such a small area that the global average didn't even move.
No it wasn't. We just have no data about the _global_ temperature at that time, but we have reports from many places of the world, notable China and Japan that it was warmer than normal there, too. So: very likely it was at least on the northern hemisphere a global phenomenon.
So: the lack of written evidence, because we have none from Inka, Australians, Africans, does not mean it did not happen there.
And: if you talk about a/the medieval warm period, it would be cool to add which one you mean. There where three AFAICT.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need for written history to know the climate in the past. So that is irrelevant. Also something local to the northern hemisphere isn't global per definition.
Why not do some basic research before writing things like this? Wikipedia is an okay start.
Re: (Score:2)
The northern hemisphere os half of the globe
We don't know much about the south during those times because the christians destroyed to much of the written history, or areas like Australia/Newsealand had no written language at those times, which makes gathering of data a bit difficult.
Wikipedia is unfortunately about ten years of research information outdated, so I suggest you take your own advice and read a bit about the topic?
And, frankly, the idea that large scale phenomena like a warming of a whole contin
Re: (Score:2)
but we have reports from many places of the world, notable China and Japan that it was warmer than normal there, too.
If you dig a bit deeper into these reports you'll find that the warming effects around the world around the medieval warm period were not quite aligned, so it was more a case of heat shifting back and forth than extra global heat, like we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is wrong.
The conclusion is as I said before. It was at least on the northern hemisphere a global happening.
And I really doubt that you can measure happenings of such short life span with tree rings. Trees usually don't survive long enough in quantity to be assigned to a period that is just 10 - 30 years long.
Regarding China and Japan, we have written evidence in chronicles that it was unusually warm. (Albeit only discovered during the last ten years).
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, nothing like this has ever happened before.
Well, strictly speaking, there was a sharp spike in temperatures some 10 million years after the dinosaurs wen't extinct, if I remember correctly, but what is unprecedented, is that it is changing so fast - about 10 times as fast as that spike, and that should be cause for deep concern. We simply don't know that the world's ecosystems will be able to adapt fast enough. Human lifespan is too short for us to really see how fast the changes are - but it does actually come to something when these changes are so
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. when I said "nothign like this" I was including the speed in that assessment.
Re:Fake news, see the MASIE data for yourself (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, because when dealing with a complex topic, rather than listening to professionals and peer-reviewed research, I like to play amateur scientist and get all my info from blogs.
FYI, you can make your own [nsidc.org] comparison graphs here. On the about page it has links to all of the datasets, which you can download: Sea Ice Index, Near-Real-time DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Daily Polar Gridded Sea Ice Concentrations, and the NASA-produced Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave Data.
As for MASIE [nsidc.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fake news, see the MASIE data for yourself (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Funded by governments who use the results of these paid studies to do ... nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mark Serreze is a well-known person in the climate debate community. But the link above is to HIS OWN data which directly contradicts his statements in the NYT article. I'm not attacking him personally, but I have substantive conflict with the way he conveyed the veracity and conclusions about his own data.
His own data, which he points out should not be used "when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important". https://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_faq [nsidc.org]
Because a tool do a certain thing is usually a terrible tool do do something else. Unless you try to prove a point that is only in your head. And MASIE is a tool to tell were the edges of sea ice are more precisely than other such surveys, and the area calculated is just a side product. https://nsidc.org/data/masie/about_masie [nsidc.org]
Re:Fake news, see the MASIE data for yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
"several thousand people whom rely on the climate change scam, for their paycheck, are ramping up the BS so they can remain on the gravy train...."
It really blows my mind that people believe engineers and scientists from the best scientific organizations in the world, including NASA and NOAA are ALL in on a worldwide scam, while the companies that actually have skin in the game (oil, nat gas, coal, etc) are innocent victims. If you know any engineers (I'm an M.E.), you know they're often quite anal about technicalities and correctness. To even consider that a group, much less several groups across the globe would sacrifice their integrity for grants, or whatever, is absolutely ludicrous.
But then again, we elected Trump as president so it seems the majority of people aren't capable of rational thought.
Re: (Score:2)
To even consider that a group.....would sacrifice their integrity for grants, or whatever, is absolutely ludicrous.
OK, that's just naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an engineer, I would love to believe that.
But as a person with eyes and ears, I know that is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Climatologists are not mechanical engineers, they are PhD's. I agree, engineers are very careful about the details. However, PhD's don't have life-risk to consider. I fact, there is overt manipulation of the data upon which most (if not all) of the climate "conclusions" are based.
Oh yeah, like the engineers at Volkswagen that cared about the details of their vehicles emission.
Engineers are in the first row when it's about cooking the data to fit the specifications. Dishonesty is everywhere the same, as long as it involves a gain. Most people don't care about being right or wrong, they just care more about themselves than about the facts. It's putting feelings over reality. Which might explain why you elected Trump.
Re:Fake news, see the MASIE data for yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Ice extent is the easiest variable to measure but can be misleading as there's no difference in a patch that 15% covered or 100% covered.
Ice area and volume are also very important but more difficult to determine but Arctic sea ice volume has declined dramatically in the satellite record and is 30%-50% lower than 2006-2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Unless Greenland melts in which case the sea level rise is about 23 feet. Do ya feel lucky?
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up feet with meters.
The latest estimates were if the whole ice cap on greenland melts or slides in to the ocean a 15m - 17m, 45feet to 51feet sea level increase.
Re: (Score:3)
A quick Google search disagrees.
If the Greenland ice sheet melted, sea level would rise 6-7meters. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html [nsidc.org]
Much as I hate "citation needed" tags, I would like to know where you got 15m-17m from.
Re:20,000 years ago (Score:5, Informative)
But that stopped around 1900, and the global temperature average has begun to swing sharply, at a rate that ought to be alarming, because as the graph shows, it is quite literally without precedent, in terms of the speed of the change, and shows no signs of stopping unless we take action to affect it:
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
(slow) cooling trend from about 7000BCE onward. ...
Where do you have this myth from? Hu? The last "ice age" barely ended around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. And you want to tell us just ~3,000 later it already started to cool again? Rofl
Re: (Score:2)
The last couple of glaciation cycles ended rather abruptly, yes.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss... [geocraft.com]
https://grist.files.wordpress.... [wordpress.com]
If you have better data to support your view, let's have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The parent talked about _cooling_ not heating.
Yes, the heating up went relatively quick, but right now we are heating up the atmosphere 100-1000 times quicker.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure where your 8 C came from. It took about 11,000 years for the temp to rise 4 C. By contrast, we're up 1 C in just 100 years, and that's the issue. Nobody's saying the climate doesn't change naturally, just that this extremely rapid change is caused by humans.
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
"It's just a flimsy excuse by the lib-left for bigger government."
No, it's just reality. How about, instead of denying reality you come up with a solution that doesn't require government to grow. I'll be all for it.
Experts know more than laymen (Score:2)
Are you really so shit at what you do that you think everyone else is just as good at what you do? No? Then have you thought that other professionals may be better at what they do than others who have never attempted to do their jobs?
Re:FACT: Global Warming is bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He is awesome, ain't he.....