Amount of Floating Antarctic Ice Plunges To Record Lows (time.com) 172
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Time: The amount of ice circling Antarctica is suddenly plunging from a record high to record lows, baffling scientists. Floating ice off the southern continent steadily increased from 1979 and hit a record high in 2014. But three years later, the annual average extent of Antarctic sea ice hit its lowest mark, wiping out three-and-a-half decades of gains -- and then some, a NASA study of satellite data shows. Serreze and other outside experts said they don't know if this is a natural blip that will go away or more long-term global warming that is finally catching up with the South Pole. Antarctica hasn't showed as much consistent warming as its northern Arctic cousin.
At the polar regions, ice levels grow during the winter and shrink in the summer. Around Antarctica, sea ice averaged 4.9 million square miles (12.8 million square kilometers) in 2014. By 2017, it was a record low of 4.1 million square miles (10.7 million square kilometers, according to the study in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antarctic sea ice increased slightly in 2018, but still was the second lowest since 1979. Even though ice is growing this time of year in Antarctica, levels in May and June this year were the lowest on record, eclipsing 2017, according to the ice data center.
At the polar regions, ice levels grow during the winter and shrink in the summer. Around Antarctica, sea ice averaged 4.9 million square miles (12.8 million square kilometers) in 2014. By 2017, it was a record low of 4.1 million square miles (10.7 million square kilometers, according to the study in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antarctic sea ice increased slightly in 2018, but still was the second lowest since 1979. Even though ice is growing this time of year in Antarctica, levels in May and June this year were the lowest on record, eclipsing 2017, according to the ice data center.
Something brewing underneath? (Score:1)
I am not an Arctic climate expert but it sounds like something beneath the surface dramatically warmed up.
Re:Something brewing underneath? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. The ocean.
don't be too afraid though, when the Trans-Atlantic current stalls, the water temperature will stagnate, (And Europe will freeze in the winter, and bake in the summer.)
Re: (Score:2)
What better time to start firing scientists! [washingtonpost.com]
But it's OK. It's not like Americans will need to know what to do about growing crops or changes in the food they eat or anything.
Who needs all those eggheads anyway, right? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The ocean.
don't be too afraid though, when the Trans-Atlantic current stalls, the water temperature will stagnate, (And Europe will freeze in the winter, and bake in the summer.)
Yeah - that is one weird possibility. Great Britain is about the latitude of Montana. Yet Ireland which is at the latitude of Newfoundland, grows cabbage palms. But the weather between the places is a tad different, especially in the winter.
If the gulf stream is disrupted by the Greenland icemelt, it will get a bit chiily for the Brits.
Re: (Score:3)
Ice loss on Antarctic continent mostly happens through glacier transport to the surrounding ocean. Increasing melt at the edges will speed up the glaciers.
Re:Something brewing underneath? (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to break it to you, but this is sea ice, not continental ice. Way to avoid reality, though that is your usual approach.
Re:Something brewing underneath? (Score:5, Interesting)
That does have ocean under it.
It's interesting because until 2014 it looked resistant to loss [nsidc.org]. It appears that this resistance is exhausted.
Re: (Score:2)
This is sea ice they're measuring. Formed between the cold air and warmer ocean and forming and melting on a yearly seasonal basis.
Htbity, It's not floating on bedrock dumbass (Score:2)
Floating ice off the southern continent steadily increased from 1979 and hit a record high in 2014.
Or a geography expert either it would seem (Score:2)
I am not an Arctic climate expert but it sounds like something beneath the surface dramatically warmed up.
The topic is the amount of ice circling Antarctica though...
Re: (Score:1)
Experts are smart enough to know that a single datapoint does not make a line.
They also are smart enough to know that the consequence of a warmer climate is a wetter one, which has a higher thermal capacity (for both hot AND cold) and thus results in stronger weather patterns in general, and not specifically "MOAR HOT!" or "MOAR COLD!" (exclusively.) It means "MOAR HOT *AND* MOAR COLD, **AND** MOAR CRAZY STORMS!"
But sure. Think whatever.
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure why you capped your spelling errors, but sure. Spell whatever.
And yes, I'm aware of how science works (or doesn't work, in some cases). I can't say that I know what to think...I half expected someone to say that the experts didn't say that back then, as I was going on memory.
Re:Experts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you are extremely ignorant of how statistical modelling works.
These people are often hesitant to attribute a specific event to being the result of climate change (rather than climate variability) until after they have collected enough data points to indicate trends and establish error bounds.
The argument of GP is that "they can't decide if it's hotter or colder! FRAUDS!", which is bullshit, and a nonsequitor.
Your argument is that it is a scam because it allows for both variances to increase. This is only somewhat better, but still very wrong.
These experts have been saying that the allowable temperature variance will increase as atmospheric CO2 and water vapor levels increase, because these are greenhouse gasses that store thermal energy, and allow more energetic climate events.
When the incidence rates of what were previously "Freak, and highly anomalous" weather events climbs to the point where they are the "new normal", you have no choice but to state that the climate has changed.
That is what they are doing.
In this instance, they do not have enough data to determine if the ice level reduction is the result of continual progression of climate change induced weather volatility, (eg, increasing magnitude of the trend for change in climate) or if it is just inside the "new normal". that is why they stress that they do not know if it is due to climate change or not.
The key difference between "ANYTHING GOES! FRAUD!" and "No, this is something very specific..." is in the details. These people are meticulous about their details. Ignorance of the details does not make the latter into the former.
Just sayin.
Re:Experts? (Score:5, Informative)
No model exists that can be back-tested successfully.
The CIMP5 models all hindcast the global mean surface temperature to within 5% [realclimate.org].
What criteria are you using for "can be back-tested successfully"?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that if you have a complex model (i.e. lots of assumptions) you can tune it until it (over)fits the data. When you has lots of possible models the same problem applies.
This is why lots of people will show you stock picking models that back-test will that lose you money.
How complex is CIMP5? How many variants were tried before one that worked that well was found?
If its too tunable, testing it on just 40 years of data means accuracy is the result of over-fitting rather than good modelling.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why lots of people will show you stock picking models that back-test will that lose you money.
True. The climate sensitivity is not known to plus or minus 50%. It could that a lot of warming is coming and the earth responds slowly, or it could be that less warming is coming and the earth responds quickly.
... even though significant uncertainty remains about how fast you wi
But, it's not as bad as economic models. There are basic constraints such as conservation of energy. If you have an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, the earth will be warming. So you won't lose money in the metaphor
Re:Experts? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Experts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, we were told that the record levels of ice was because of Global Warming
Right. One mechanism is increased melt of freshwater land ice, lowering freezing point of surrounding waters. It's a complex system. Approaching it with an attitude of 'hurr..durr...it's warmer, we should only see less ice' isn't very smart.
Re:Experts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we were told that the record levels of ice was because of Global Warming
Right. One mechanism is increased melt of freshwater land ice, lowering freezing point of surrounding waters. It's a complex system. Approaching it with an attitude of 'hurr..durr...it's warmer, we should only see less ice' isn't very smart.
Correct... so let's explain it....
1. Warming allows for more precipitation due to greater amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere.
2. Larger precipitation events continue, more snow on the Antarctic continent. (bear in mind however that Antarctica is a desert so it's still not enough to rebuild things like glaciers)
3. Glaciers are retreating... but precipitation is going up. More runoff into the ocean.
4. Sea water surrounding the continent has it's salinity decrease, allowing ice to form at higher temperatures. Sea water freezes at 28.4F, fresh water freezes at 32F
5. There is an initial increase in floating pack ice.
6. When the temperature rises above the freezing point of the surrounding ice pack- it begins to melt.
7. Poof! The ice pack begins disappearing.
8. The ice pack disappearing doesn't really raise sea levels... the ice was already floating in the ocean- a change to liquid form does not change the displacement significantly.
9. There is still increased runoff from the Antarctic continent.
10. Melting ice from the continent will raise sea levels. It has zero displacement while on land. When it enters the ocean it raises sea levels.
Sea level has risen 5-8 inches since 1900. The current rate of sea level rise is 3.4mm a year.
Now bear in mind that we may be entering a Maunder-like solar minimum. If we are it has already started. The last one coincided with the "little ice age" period of 1645 to 1715. Even if the predictions are wrong- the general trend is lower solar output. Solar cycle 24 has been weak... and solar cycle 25 is late to arrive. Sun spots of the reverse polarity have been recorded... but not in significant numbers.
So if we are experiencing this kind of ice loss going into a solar minimum.... we're about to experience "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride". Translation- everything is going to change regarding climate.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think these people are going to idly stand by and watch all that beachfront property value flush away?
Rich people? They're either going to build levees, or collect insurance (and FEMA) money and then move to a different beach.
Re: (Score:2)
Oceanfront property owners are trying to get those who live on higher ground to subsidize their sea walls. "Managed retreat" is met with well-financed opposition.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, the Ben Shapiro solution. Just sell your home (to the mer-people who are eager to buy up underwater property) and move inland!
Those brain pills must be working for him.
Re: Experts? (Score:2)
Government will bail them out. As my radical uncle Ivan once said to me, "Kid, nobody believes in socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's 'Socialism for me, capitalism for you!'"
Of course, the difference with the rich is they have the clout to get bailed out. They're "too big to fail", so they socialize the risk and privatize the rewards.
Re: (Score:2)
Approaching it with an attitude of 'hurr..durr...it's warmer, we should only see less ice' isn't very smart.
Maybe it's not very smart, but if you're not really managing to follow the logic then:
More sea ice => (blah blah higher percipitation) => global warming
Less sea ice => (blah blah increased ice melt) => global warming
It starts to look like:
Anything => (blah blah conspiracy theory) => global warming
When it seems like any fact can be made to fit the pattern, that's when people start believing whatever they want. Good things happening? God is rewarding us. Bad things happening? God is punishin
Re: (Score:2)
I pine for the simple days when all we had to worry about was nuclear annihilation.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, weren't the experts explaining that the high levels of ice was probably due to GW?
I don't recall that. Do you have a link to them explaining that?
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about the Antarctic.
Southern Ocean as Insulation? (Score:1)
I don't remember what is now called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean [wikipedia.org]Southern Ocean being declared a separate ocean when I was in school. Recently, though, I'd read more about its closed current insulating Antarctica against warmer Atlantic/Pacific/Indian Ocean waters. In my understanding, that meant that Antarctic warming is largely due to atmospheric conditions, rather than oceanic conditions. Could it be that the Southern Ocean ice was from atmospheric effects melting Antarctica and now th
We're past the tipping point, IMHO (Score:5, Interesting)
Time for decisive action was in the eighties, when I was growing up. Now we're screwed. The only remaining question is, are we screwed really bad or are we going to die out, along with large portions of the biosphere we're killing just now. If we make a hard turn now, modern civilization might have a chance, but my optimism is fading. Fast.
Re:We're past the tipping point - No Problem! (Score:1)
There will be lots of new beach front property in Russia and Canada.
Re: (Score:3)
Speak for yourself. As far as I'm concerned the question is will I get to live out my life in anything like comfort. I wasn't stupid and/or irresponsible to have kids in this environment (it was obvious that we were over our carrying capacity as we are behaving, every one of you who had children while this was obviously true is a willful part of the problem) and I don't believe in souls or gods, so there's really nothing else for me to worry about.
I think it's a damn shame that no species is likely to ever
Re: (Score:2)
People with kids ought to be out fighting climate change by literally any means necessary. Anything less is child abuse, and a failure of responsibility. You have a job, do it
There's hardly any difference between your own kids and somebody else's, so why would one be worth saving, and the other one not ?
Re: (Score:3)
There's hardly any difference between your own kids and somebody else's, so why would one be worth saving, and the other one not ?
There's a huge difference. You made your own kids, you didn't make someone else's. There may not be any difference to the universe, but there's a difference to you. A lot of people make mistakes of this kind, for example talking about bullshit like "universal rights". There is no such thing, which is why rights have to be defended. But if we defend them, there is such a difference. If you don't think there's any difference, swap some kids around and see how the parents react.
I never invested myself in this
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge difference. You made your own kids, you didn't make someone else's
So if you had adopted kids you wouldn't care about them ?
Re: (Score:2)
So if you had adopted kids you wouldn't care about them ?
I haven't adopted kids, because I don't want any. I don't care more about children than about other people. I care about people in a generalized, logical way (we have to act like we care about one another whether we feel it or not, or else life is shitty) and also in a personal, specific way (I want to protect and care for people who I depend upon, or who make me feel good in one way or another) so I'm not immune to the suffering of others or any such. I just don't subscribe to the idea that children are wo
Re: (Score:2)
This might be the single most solopsistic and pathetic post I have seen on this website. The entire post chain is a cluster%^$# of selfish modern materialism and abject ignorance.
Says the person sticking up for making more people when the world is going to shit? Nice one.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a damn shame that no species is likely to ever get off this planet once we're gone, since we've used up the majority of easily available ores, but it won't affect me. ... much easier to mine and reuse :D
The ore is gone, but now the refined metal is here
Except for stuff we "burn" the planet is not losing anything (well, dying out specimem of course).
Re: (Score:2)
The ore is gone, but now the refined metal is here ... much easier to mine and reuse :D
The ferrous material will go to rust by the time the next species comes up. The aluminum will probably corrode by then, too. Copper, definitely. Without ready sources of iron and copper ore, they'll have a hard time getting to electrolytics...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it will corrode.
But at the points where it was used. Which simply makes it new ore.
Every old city would be a *high concentration* mine for all those materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it will corrode.
But at the points where it was used. Which simply makes it new ore.
It will be at least 500 million years before the crust is replenished [livescience.com]. Every time this has to happen the odds of something evolving, developing civilization, and getting off this mudball decreases (because the available time is reduced.)
Re: (Score:2)
I love child free neckbeards that bemoan humans breeding because that might mean we have trouble saving humans.
That's factually not what I said at all. Like, you're not even close. Not even the same motherfucking sport. I don't care about saving humans, or humanity. From what I can tell, it's not that fucking great anyway, except for being great at fucking things up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only remaining question is, are we screwed really bad or are we going to die out
Neither. We're talking about a rise in ocean of 20cm after a century. The science behind the greenhouse effect is well established. Most of the negative effects you hear about are highly hypothetical.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the same opinion. I think we're still missing portions of our understanding with the ecosystems and there are probably a number of positive feedback systems that will help push us over the +3C mark easily. I honestly believe we'll have to build a sun shade in space but the problem will be whether we'll have pushed far enough ahead with the tech to make it doable. We'll need huge scale mining and manufacturing on the moon in order to make it possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Time for decisive action was in the eighties, when I was growing up. Now we're screwed. The only remaining question is, are we screwed really bad or are we going to die out, along with large portions of the biosphere we're killing just now. If we make a hard turn now, modern civilization might have a chance, but my optimism is fading. Fast.
We had decisive action; we effectively banned nuclear power.
STFU deniers: the *global* sea ice volume decline (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Glacier retreat is also of interest. And undeniable. Just recently there were stories about bodies from the past being exposed as the ice/snow melted off of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Is additional frozen precipitation greater than the ice/water runoff? Runoff is very much influenced by temps (as is precip type).
Landmass (Score:2)
Antarctica hasn't showed as much consistent warming as its northern Arctic cousin.
There is a one absolutely huge glaring difference between the north and south poles... the south isn't completely covered with water... land is showing through the water.... enough land to be called a continent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The amount of ice circling Antarctica is suddenly plunging from a record high to record lows
RECORD high to RECORD Low. Yes, it was at a RECORD high.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A record high that occoured as a slow increase over many years, followed by a rapid plunge does not mean what you are trying to imply it does.
Meanwhile at the other end of the planet; https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Interesting that you an several other long time deniers suddenly changed to the same sig, and always push the same bullshit talking point, sock puppet.
Re: In before the superfluous denialist Ken Dolls (Score:3)
Something tells me you don't have an answer, much less understand the implications.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of ice circling Antarctica is suddenly plunging from a record high to record lows
I see remedial reading is required for you, if you cannot figure out what is the record high, from the above sentence. HINT: the first 6 words of the above sentence - the first sentence in TFS - explicitly states what the record was that was high, and now low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's your answer:
But three years later, the annual average extent of Antarctic sea ice hit its lowest mark
Re: (Score:2)
But three years later, the annual average extent of Antarctic sea ice hit its lowest mark
That's actually the worst case. If it had been just mass and not extent, it might not have meant much. But extent is a big deal because seawater has much lower albedo than ice. Water is notably an efficient absorber of ultraviolet, with most UV from sunlight absorbed in the first foot (and most of the remainder absorbed in the next.) Ice or snow reflects up to 80% of UV, depending on how clean it is. Reductions in sea ice extent translate directly into increased heating of ocean water, with the increase spe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A record high of FLOATING ICE to a record low.
If you defrost your fridge, you'll first notice a record high in ice debris in your fridge and then a record low. Did you fridge get cold again in the process or did it get warm?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that ice melts at temperatures above 0C, yes?
The idea that a rise in temperatures first cause ice to break off and then melt as it floats to warmer climates is really so unfathomable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I was convinced before and
Re: (Score:2)
Modeling is still the weakest part of climate change theory, and it's because weather is the sum of so many different natural cycles that it hard to isolate the effect of manmade greenhouse emissions.
A prudent approach would be to stop emitting net manmade carbon, and at the same time do what we can to sequester the megatonnage we have most recently released. If we can accomplish this, we can go back to assuming that significant weather changes result from natural cycles.
Re: (Score:1)
Just wait until the Mueeeeeeeller Report comes out! That'll prove everything! We gullible Libtards can't stop eating shit from the MSM! They tell us it tastes wonderful so we just keep on doing it!
Re: (Score:2)
The story is about 'FLOATING' ice you, obviously mentally deficient individual. So glaciers tipping into the sea and water freezing. Salt water does not freeze well but if it rains, the salinity at the surface drops (not to forget fresh water is lighter than more salty water) and the water more readily freezes and of course glaciers as it gets warmer, they flow more readily.
So once it drops below 0 degrees C fresh water will freeze salty takes more and the more salty the colder it needs to be, so add fresh
Re: (Score:3)
You're already too late. It is easy to see why if you compare the timescales of the processes of climate change to something like nuclear. The jump in the CO2 output that has already happened and will continue for a while is like the fission reaction that takes place in the nucleus.
Fission is very short compared to the subsequent processes, and when it is over, the world a few meters and a microsecond away does not yet know it is doomed, but it fate is basically sealed. Once the reaction is over, what is le
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change will slow growth. Climate change will kill people, directly and indirectly. And it will cause further extinctions. And it will cost orders of magnitude more than preventing it would've. But I've seen no evidence that it'll do any of those things to a sufficient degree to destroy humanity. Global population will actually continue to rise a bit further.
Re:In before the superfluous denialist Ken Dolls (Score:5, Informative)
I specifically changed my behavior 40 years ago due to the reported oncoming global cooling that the scientific community was warning about
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It is quite pointless to refute the uneducated and unwashed masses on /. about the climate change facts. They aren't interested in those, just in trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite pointless to refute the uneducated and unwashed masses on /. about the climate change facts. They aren't interested in those, just in trolling.
If I respond to the trolls, it is never to change their minds. It is to drop off some facts and links that might change someone else who is just becoming interested.
Re: (Score:1)
How can an inbred US dumbfuck tell what is "intelligent"?
Re: (Score:2)
How can an inbred US dumbfuck tell what is "intelligent"?
Wow, you start off with an interesting post a bit ago, now drop to the level of the trolls you just told another person to ignore.
Whaddup wit dat, fam?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that what you dumbfuck incels do? How brave.
Re: In before the superfluous denialist Ken Dolls (Score:2)
Global cooling was a real thing, as aerosol driven cooling outpaced CO2 driven warming from 1940 to about 1980. The availability of computers in the 1960s enabled scientists to model this process, and those models by the 1970s predicted the reversal of this trend before that reversal actually happened.
It constantly amazes me that finalists see changing a position based on new information as somehow dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
It constantly amazes me that finalists see changing a position based on new information as somehow dishonest.
What amazes me these days is how frozen the position is, and to the detriment of the field and science in general, all new information that doesn't support the position is dismissed, suppressed, and anyone trying to discuss it labelled a "denier" and ostracized from the community.
Imagine what would have happened if the global cooling position had been solidified with the same social dynamics and monetary incentives that affect global warming position today.
Re: (Score:2)
What amazes me these days is how frozen the position is, and to the detriment of the field and science in general, all new information that doesn't support the position is dismissed, suppressed, and anyone trying to discuss it labelled a "denier" and ostracized from the community.
The label "denier" is used for people who dismiss and suppress current evidence. There's plenty of room for scientific discussion, provided that you bring a solid argument supported with facts.
Re: (Score:2)
What amazes me these days is how frozen the position is, and to the detriment of the field and science in general, all new information that doesn't support the position is dismissed, suppressed, and anyone trying to discuss it labelled a "denier" and ostracized from the community.
The label "denier" is used for people who dismiss and suppress current evidence. There's plenty of room for scientific discussion, provided that you bring a solid argument supported with facts.
You're wrong, it's not used like that. At all. I believe the meme has gone from 97% consensus, (appeal to authority) to 99% consensus which seems to be what everyone is claiming now, and if you question that anthropological activity is not the primary driver of all climate change, or that Manhattan will be under 20 feet of water in the next 50 years, you get the "denier" label. Even suggesting that there are positive effects from warming, or that mitigation strategies would be less risky than drastic chang
Re: (Score:2)
It's only "frozen' if you haven't been following. I've been following this story since the 1980s, because my wife is a geophysicist.
What "deniers" deny is not scientific Truth -- there is no such thing. What they deny is burden of proof, which is everything.
Re: (Score:1)
WTF are you talking about?
I am talking about the science, with which you're obviously unfamiliar, retard.
Re: (Score:2)
We actually could counter the warming of the atmosphere by blowing dirt up in the air again. We will pay with dead fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, the Democrats really have perfected their version of the hyperbolic Faux News nutjob, I'm impressed at the ferocity of this specimen. #JustModerateThings
Re: (Score:2)
OH NO! LIBTARDS HAVE MADE DECLARATIONS!
And do we see them showing any concern about the carbon outgassing of all those cement milkshakes? Noooo.
Re: (Score:2)
You can always get ice if you work for it. (Vacuum distillation is a thing)
The scotch? That's the big one. (Note, crop failures will be rampant due to radically unpredictable weather patterns)