Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal (bloomberg.com) 134
Ice covering the Arctic Ocean reached the second-lowest level recorded for this time of year after July temperatures spiked in areas around the North Pole. From a report: The rate of ice loss in the region is a crucial indicator for the world's climate and a closely-watched metric by bordering nations jostling for resources and trade routes. This month's melt is tracking close to the record set in July 2012, the Colorado-based National Snow & Ice Data Center said in a statement. This year's heatwave in the Arctic Circle has led to record temperatures in areas of Alaska, Canada and Greenland, extending long-term trends of more ice disappearing. Ice flows are melting faster than average rates observed over the last three decades, losing an additional 20,000 square kilometers (12,427 miles) of cover per day -- an area about the size of Wales.
Ice begins melting in the Arctic as spring approaches in the northern hemisphere, and then it usually starts building again toward the end of September as the days grow shorter and cooler. The U.K.'s Met Office said that the chance of a record low by September "is higher than it has been in the previous few years." This summer, several dramatic images showing the pace and extent of Arctic ice melt have been seen around the world underlining the harsh reality of global warming and the struggle governments face in trying to slow it down. Globally, June was the hottest year on record, according to the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service.
Ice begins melting in the Arctic as spring approaches in the northern hemisphere, and then it usually starts building again toward the end of September as the days grow shorter and cooler. The U.K.'s Met Office said that the chance of a record low by September "is higher than it has been in the previous few years." This summer, several dramatic images showing the pace and extent of Arctic ice melt have been seen around the world underlining the harsh reality of global warming and the struggle governments face in trying to slow it down. Globally, June was the hottest year on record, according to the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service.
It's simple. (Score:5, Informative)
That's how the [Exxon-funded] logic's supposed to go, right??
Re: (Score:1)
At least until the denialist greed comes DIRECTLY into the light... 40 years after the fact. #EARTH'S GREATEST TRAITORS, HANG THEM HIGH! [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just when you think the shills couldn't get more desperate they are now claiming it's a moral imperative to destroy the planet.
You forgot a few ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: You forgot a few ... (Score:1)
Except that this is the first time it has warmed so much in so short a time, and we know the reason and the dire consequences.
Which so far are developing exactly as the scientific scenarios from the 70s predicted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Earth is warming... but if it isn't, it's not because our model is broken; that'd be impossible
Observing the warming trend does not require a model. It just requires thermometers. Here's a graph:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
And if you want to argue that there's a global conspiracy to fudge thermometer data, please explain the Arctic ice loss.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's fashionable to be sarcastic, cynical, and condescending with those who don't share your point of view (especially here on /.), but I think it's really important to put it aside. You're not going to win over any converts with that approach. Same with calling them names. Instead of waiting for political leaders to agree on something, why not come up with an action plan that individuals and communities can adopt? And telling them vote for so-and-so or don't vote for so-and-so is not the answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is gibberish. Science doesn't do anything, it's a process.
People mock climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, and 9-11 truthers. Why? Because they're laughably wrong, it's frustrating to have policy influenced by the laughably wrong, and mockery makes life bearable for sane human beings watching lunatics and sociopaths shape policy.
Doing perfect science is impossible. Humans are messy and imperfect. If you think imperfectly executed scientific investigation is a sign of
mean & std dev? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It behooves one to remember that decades worth of past predictions based on weather events like this have almost invariably been wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
The AC that replied to you is having a field day with this topic.
Lol, yeah... "denialist"... I'm a climate constant denialist :-)
It behooves one to remember that decades worth of past predictions based on weather events like this have almost invariably been wrong.
"Ecology... Nature is only model we have that has survived climate change with STUN..." @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1ohVqpE [bit.ly]
Hmm ... (Score:3, Funny)
Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal
Someone must have re-written it in rust [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Way to go there bigot calling people 'faggots' ...
Faster than "normal" (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope when the Blue Ocean event eventually comes, the mobs of people will remember "skeptical" fuckwad shills like you that sold us all down the river and drag you out of your home.... to give you what's coming.
Re: (Score:2)
One day he'll be right I suppose.
In the meantime there have been guys yelling about the end of the world for thousands of years and somehow it hasn't arrived yet.
Re: (Score:2)
You know who will be actually dragged out of their homes and given what they didn't have coming?
Scientists and science journalists, for failing to tell it how it is.
Their protests that they DID tell it how it is will fall of deaf ears, just as their predictions did originally.
Re:Faster than "normal" (Score:4, Informative)
Looking at long term ice volume is a better indicator than monthly swings in extent.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpres... [uw.edu]
September average has gone from 17 to 5 [1000 km^3] in 4 decades.
Dirty snow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Arctic ice is younger than 5 years, so the dirt doesn't really accumulate. It's floating on water, so when it melts, the dirt washes away, and when it refreezes and snow falls on it, the first year ice is all clean again.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like when your mama takes a shower after we bukake her, eh?
Yes, but colder.
Re: (Score:3)
The modern world is based on 20th century weather.
And seemingly thought it would last forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Normal compared to what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to the last 100 years? 1000 years?
There is robust evidence for the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979. It has been established that the region is at its warmest for at least 4,000 years [wikipedia.org] and the Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5 days per decade (from 1979 to 2013),
Is it temporary or not? Will it reverse itself in he next 1000 years?
That depends largely on what we do next.
abrupt destabilization (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is it temporary or not? Will it reverse itself in he next 1000 years?
That depends largely on what we do next.
Ah, yes. The climate has never changed without human influence!
No but it can make whole region nigh unhabitable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you feeding the trolls? Or should I blame the Slashdot editors who keep casting pearls of climate-change truth before AC swine? It does NOT matter if they are sincerely stupid, proudly ignorant, or paid to fake it, you are NEVER going to modify one of their opinions.
In the highly truncated view that I see, where most of the AC garbage is reduced to an easily ignored line, yours is the first comment modded insightful, and it appears just about in the middle of the discussion. Also, as measured by the
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the rather accurate modelling can tell me when the next El Nino will be. I can use that to make money.
Thanks in advance.
Re: (Score:1)
El Nino is a rapidly fluctuating event related to the global arctic wind pattern disruption into the jet stream and related ocean current/warmth changes. It can only be accurately predicted as the cycle begins to manifest every third year or so depending, though that frequency may change as the jetstream/currents are further altered in terms of global recent historical patterns.
(You're welcome, denialist moron.)
Re: (Score:1)
As an addendum, the c02 increases are not fluctuating. They're very steadily gaining, as is the global average increase in temperature that is driven by these changes to our atmosphere as a result of massive anthropomorphic sources dumping there endlessly, which have begun to set off a chain-reaction warming as permafrost and frozen arctic sea methane is released massively. It's the tipping point to runaway warming.
(Still welcome, denialist moron)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the tipping point to runaway warming.
OMG, just like last time!
Re: (Score:2)
It can only be accurately predicted as the cycle begins to manifest every third year or so depending
So you will it know when it happens. Gotta love that science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Doctor Roy Spencer. The meteorologist who understands about as much climate science as he does evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, NASA only hires stupid people, right?
And what about the other people at NASA that contradict him ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not surprising you'd a climate change revitalise denialist, you're clearly very stupid. Your logic is roughly:
1. OP thinks the guy is an idiot
2. Guy worked at NASA
3. Therefore OP thinks NASA only hires idiots
4. NASA sometimes hates smart people
5. Therefore that guy isn't wrong
I also like how you pick a single former NASA scientist (a creationist too!) who says things that agree with your political viewpoint, rather than the hoards of current and former ones who have a handle on reality.
Re: (Score:2)
So tell me - how is his data bad? I posted about the man's data, and how it compares to models. The answer back was effectively "he's a poopy head, we don't like him, he's stupid!" Challenge the data. The satellite and radiosonde data is pretty clear and unequivocal; temperature trends are a LOT lower than the models predicted. So why should we believe models, when they don't match the data?
Argue the data or facts. Arguing about a person's beliefs or positions they hold just tells people you've alre
Re:#Uneducated republican blathering again. (Score:4, Insightful)
So tell me - how is his data bad?
Nice red herring, but it won't distract me from your execrable logic about NASA and etc.
The answer back was effectively
If by "poopyhead" you mean known denier of science. The guy's a creationist for fuck's sake. You're not one of those too are you? That would be hilarious! He's also stated his bias: he is against global warming for evangelical reasons. So we all know he's not arguing in good faith.
Here's the bit where you go pseudo-logical and say that it doesn't matter who he is, only his arguments matter. The real world doesn't work like that and you don't win an argument simply by making it so obvious to counter arguments that any attempt to engage with you is an utter waste of breath.
The other reason it's not a win is it's quicker to make up shitty arguments than it is to convincingly debunk them so if it were the case that an unchallenged argument amounted to a win, then anyone could win any argument simply by spamming bullshit, akin to what you're doing.
Funny thing is, his data is so crap it's incredibly easy to debunk. Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
he ended on a minor statistical anomaly a.k.a. the pause. If you take the data after where his graph ends and plot it on his graph you'll see that actually the temperature is right in the middle of the range of models.
Check.
Fucking.
Mate.
Except you won't believe me because you're a denialist and you'll find some way ro rationalise away the actual data. But seriously dude, "the pause" stopped being a thing like 5 years ago. Get some new material.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep I knew you'd rationalise away the evidence. The pause had long since been debunked and yet you keep using a dataset that ends at the beautifully cherry picked point. Why? Because your ego is now invested in there not being global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the pause was real - and still is there, in the satellite and radiosonde dataset.
No it wasn't, you're making shit up. And the pause wasn't in the ocean dataset either, another one you've ignored because it disagrees with your political viewpoint.
So tell me, are you disputing the absorption spectrum of CO2 or are you denying the physics that follows from that? I'd like to know which bit of reality at the most fundamental level that you disagree with...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the pause was real [woodfortrees.org]. That's 13 years of data, pretty much flat or trending slightly down. Sorry to burst your bubble - but the pause existed, and it was only after several years - and revisions - to other data sets (which also showed the pause) that it was erased, down the memory hole. But it's hard to edit NASA's data - and that proves the pause existed.
Now, if you want to talk about CO2, sure - it can change absorption/retention of heat. So can pretty much any gas (including water vapor). However
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the pause was real. That's 13 years of data, pretty much flat or trending slightly down.
Nice cherry pick. When you are actually honest and don't cherry pick, it looks like a random statistical fluctuation in an upwards trend. In fact it climbs very steeply after then levels off to a more normal climb.
The pause is something made up by denialists because they'd rather clip axes than admit the truth [woodfortrees.org].
The only reason you denialists cherry pick pick the 2002 to 2014 segment is that (at the time) it was curr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So - because the pause was real
It wasn't real.
it is now a cherry pick?
If you cherry pick fragments of a noise time series you an make any slope you like. That doesn't make the fragments meaningful.
So tell me: which model actually predicted the pause?
What pause? Oh you mean the one that doesn't actually exist?
Which model has the temperature dropping down to 2002 levels?
No one claims the model predicts irrelevant short term fluctuations.
Other than that - you're being a classic denialist - you're denying actu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Running away from an argument while trying to shame someone is not a refutation. It's not even a challenge.
It's an admission of weakness on your part, dear liberal AC.
Re: (Score:1)
Then explain why, since we tracked Sea Ice, there seems to be a record every 7-8 years, then another decline that brings us down to a new normal (usually around the previous record) with a longstanding downward trend that is far faster than earth climate would typically dictate?
Arctic Death Spiral [youtube.com]