Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Antarctic Sea-Ice at 'Mind-Blowing' Low Alarms Experts (bbc.com) 200

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The sea-ice surrounding Antarctica is well below any previous recorded winter level, satellite data shows, a worrying new benchmark for a region that once seemed resistant to global warming. BBC: "It's so far outside anything we've seen, it's almost mind-blowing," says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center. An unstable Antarctica could have far-reaching consequences, polar experts warn. Antarctica's huge ice expanse regulates the planet's temperature, as the white surface reflects the Sun's energy back into the atmosphere and also cools the water beneath and near it.

Without its ice cooling the planet, Antarctica could transform from Earth's refrigerator to a radiator, experts say. The ice that floats on the Antarctic Ocean's surface now measures less than 17 million sq km - that is 1.5 million sq km of sea-ice less than the September average, and well below previous winter record lows. That's an area of missing ice about five times the size of the British Isles. Dr Meier is not optimistic that the sea-ice will recover to a significant degree.

Scientists are still trying to identify all the factors that led to this year's low sea-ice - but studying trends in Antarctica has historically been challenging. In a year when several global heat and ocean temperature records have broken, some scientists insist the low sea-ice is the measure to pay attention to. "We can see how much more vulnerable it is," says Dr Robbie Mallett, of the University of Manitoba, who is based on the Antarctic peninsula. Already braving isolation, extreme cold and powerful winds, this year's thin sea-ice has made his team's work even more difficult. "There is a risk that it breaks off and drifts out to sea with us on it," Dr Mallett says.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Antarctic Sea-Ice at 'Mind-Blowing' Low Alarms Experts More

Antarctic Sea-Ice at 'Mind-Blowing' Low Alarms Experts

Comments Filter:

  • Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:3, Informative)

    by nucrash ( 549705 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:08PM (#63861126)

    I have already seen deniers go in on how Antarctica was once iceless which is true, but decreasing ice levels never occurred so fast according to existing ice cores.

    Even those who have come to accept that climate change is man made, the position will be moved from "it's not man made" to "Well it's too late, what could we possibly do about it?"

    • Re:Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot.keirstead@org> on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:26PM (#63861182)

      The ice sheet in Antarctica melted dramatically between 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. It resulted in multiple meters of sea level rise, far beyond where we are yet. This event was obviously not human caused. And it was very, very recent.

      https://singularityhub.com/202... [singularityhub.com]

      Climate change is real, humans are certainly having an impact, but no one *really* knows how much.

      Should we be trying to slow climate change? Absolutely, we should be deploying every resource. However we should also not be burying heads in the sand and ignoring hard science just because it is inconvenient with respect to the narrative.

      • The ice sheet in Antarctica melted dramatically between 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. It resulted in multiple meters of sea level rise, far beyond where we are yet. This event was obviously not human caused. And it was very, very recent.

        The sea level rise that resulted from this had a major effect on the politics of Clovis Man. Republican chieftains were replaced with Democratic headmen, who directed that high technology, such as agriculture and the wheel, be abandoned in favor of a return to foraging. Unfortunately, the new chieftains cut spending on spearpoints so far that the Clovis were easily wiped out by the vast hordes of Olmec refugees they had let in without background checks. But Mother Gaia saw that this was good and re-chilled

      • Should we be trying to slow climate change?

        That is a fools errand. We do not know what, how, or why the climate is changing. We do know we are having an effect on the climate and that the effect appears to be quite negative.

        We should work on lowering our effects on the environment until we understand the situation more thoroughly. Climate will change with or without us. Trying to affect/effect that change can not be done with our current levels of understanding.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by necro81 ( 917438 )

          That is a fools errand. We do not know what, how, or why the climate is changing.

          "We" do know, even if you profess ignorance. You can find the answers to your questions here [www.ipcc.ch]. In brief:

          The "what" is by pulling your head out of the sand and looking out the window! Global temperatures are rising in significant ways, at a rate that is unprecedented for at least the past million years. Precipitation patterns are changing. Rare and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and worse. Glaciers a

          • "We" do know, even if you profess ignorance. You can find the answers to your questions here [www.ipcc.ch].

            I am glad that you read what I wrote. I am sad that you utterly failed to understand it. I am glad that you THINK that you know everything there is to know about geoengineering and that it is all just a simple matter of controlling humans to keep the climate from changing.

            Here is a quote from my message that I think you can understand:

            We should work on lowering our effects on the environment until we understand the situation more thoroughly.

            Does that not align with your paranoid world view? I am pretty sure it does. So why are you wasting energy bloviating about "knowing" things that you and "we" do not know.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by poptix ( 78287 )

              We should work on lowering our effects on the environment until we understand the situation more thoroughly.

              Does that not align with your paranoid world view? I am pretty sure it does. So why are you wasting energy bloviating about "knowing" things that you and "we" do not know.

              Unfortunately at this point it has practically become a religion. You're asking fanatics why they can't just be good and moral people without the threat of being sent to a lake of burning fire.

              Air quality and grid decentralization are all the reasons I need to get rid of coal and gas power plants.

    • Re:Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:34PM (#63861206)
      The best medicine is not to argue with liars. Don't give them the power of being the other side of the discussion. Exclude them completely and let their disconnection from reality weight their claims accordingly.

      • I just do what I always do when people of this intellectual level try to enter a discussion: "Yes, and mommy sure is proud of you. Now go and play while the adults are having their boring conversation".

        • I wouldn't even give them that much attention. By being condescending, you're acknowledging their participation. But they're not participating or even trying to: They're trying to sabotage the conversation. Their words have no content; all that's present is their malice, and it has no effect unless you engage.

          • Yes, sweety, that's nice, mommy is proud of you...

            But in all seriousness, you don't say that for their benefit, you say it for the benefit of the others that might be listening so they know that this position deserves nothing but patronizing and ridicule.

            • Ah, but the very first thing that listeners hear when you argue with a bad-faith position is that it's legitimate enough to engage with. They hear you implicitly saying, "This person's position is reasonable enough to argue with." After all, would you argue with a clearly mentally ill homeless person who comes up to you on the street and claims to be Napoleon? Of course not. But you'll argue with someone in a suit who says that thermometers are a left-wing conspiracy. Why?

              Of course I understand the

              • So letting the bullshit stand there uncontested is better? Because then the reaction is "well, that shut them up, so the argument has to be solid".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )

        "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Mark Twain

        • Great quote. Corollary, not as pithy as Twain's: "Don't argue with a liar unless the payoff is tangible and quick. They win the moment you engage with them. Spend that time instead arguing real disagreements, and those disagreements will converge on consensus."

      • The best medicine is not to argue with liars. Don't give them the power of being the other side of the discussion. Exclude them completely and let their disconnection from reality weight their claims accordingly.

        I believe the best medicine is to argue how the solutions to lower CO2 emissions also brings other benefits. If the opposition in your debate will not consider global warming a problem then perhaps you can get agreement on fuel and electricity costs, energy independence, air and water pollution, freshwater shortages, resource wars that the USA could get sucked into (which is related to energy independence, water supplies, and energy costs), or other problems that share solutions with lowering CO2.

        Getting m

        • To achieve any results whatsoever, you have to begin by separating real disagreement from malevolence. There's no arguing with someone who is only using words because they currently find it more convenient than bullets and death camps. The only response to that is to engage with others so lies don't gain traction, but directly engaging with a malicious mind only helps its agenda no matter who "wins" the debate to rational eyes. Don't try to neutralize a poison with your body.

          There is a "martyr impulse

    • Re:Get read for the deniers to shift positions (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:45PM (#63861254)

      The whole point of "it's not man made" is to be an excuse to do nothing. So if the house is on fire will they say "it's not my fault!" and go back to sleep while it burns?

      Some of this also is a wishful desire that someone will come up with a solution eventually such that there's no inconvenience in the meantime. But this magical solution is extremely unlikely, the most we will find are some stopgap measures which become increasingly futile as temperatures increase. The actual solution has been proposed decades ago - cut back on emitters of greenhouse gases, even if that means an economic decline. Instead I am seeing too often an attitude that death (by covid, floods, fires, etc) is preferable over giving up freedom to do stupid things (use a gas guzzling suv to take kids two blocks to school, refusing vaccines, refusing to evacuate).

      The worst part is that this has been made political. And politics causes illogical thinking. Which ultimately means, in summary, we're doomed.

      • I agree with your general sentiment but the idea that giving up SUVs or other topical things would fix the problem isn't accurate. Just look at emissions during COVID lockdowns when everyone sat inside, tourism died, plane travel plummeted, etc. Technically man-made emissions supposedly dipped by 19% or something like that but if you look at the graph at Mauna Loa the rate-of-rise stays the same.

        Massive degrowth with a goal of a human population of 1B by 2100 begins to scratch at what's necessary. Unfort

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jbengt ( 874751 )

          Technically man-made emissions supposedly dipped by 19% or something like that but if you look at the graph at Mauna Loa the rate-of-rise stays the same.

          Not exactly wrong, but not quite accurate. [caltech.edu]

          However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years. While the drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean did not absorb as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it has in recent years, probably due to the reduced pressure of carbon dioxide in the air at the ocean’s surface.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 )

      For Antarctica to be lacking in ice means there's no ice cores still existing to show how quickly prior melting events happened.

      If you want to make an argument on how we need to be concerned about global warming then please make an argument that is not so easily refuted by the "deniers". Also helpful in making the case against denial is bringing practical solutions to the table. If the argument is that global warming could kill us all while also making the argument that nuclear fission energy will kill us

    • See, that's the beauty of denialism. No matter what stage you're at, you don't need to do jack.

      First, it's "there is no climate change".
      When that is no longer possible to deny, it's usually "ok, there is, but the climate has always changed".
      When you point out that the speed is a problem, aside of "yeah, it was hotter before, but then this planet didn't have to support human life", the next stage is "Ok, but it's not man-made, so what can we do?"
      And when it's finally no longer deniable that it's anthropogeni

  • Luckily there is no effect on sea levels due to the melting of sea ice. Hopefully we can get a handle on this before it translates into too much melting of Antarctic continental ice. There is some isolation between the sea temperatures which are causing the sea ice melt from the air temperatures which cause continental ice melt. But it's still worrying. Certainly it's sobering and time to get serious.

    As these worsening symptoms occur, it makes me remember as a youth having debates about global warming

    • I feel like it was time to get serious 30 years ago. We basically are going to wait around until there is a catastrophe that 99% of people agree was part of our reality. Then we can start disgusting it rationally. And it has to be serious, knee deep water in Venice isn't serious by these standards. It needs to be neck deep water at Buckingham Palace before we'll admit that maybe it's time to do something.

      • I feel like it was time to get serious 30 years ago. We basically are going to wait around until there is a catastrophe that 99% of people agree was part of our reality. Then we can start disgusting it rationally. And it has to be serious, knee deep water in Venice isn't serious by these standards. It needs to be neck deep water at Buckingham Palace before we'll admit that maybe it's time to do something.

        People like comforting lies. And big industry, with the help of the world governments and generations of data on how to best manipulate people, are providing those comforting lies at just the right rate of speed to keep any real change from happening and to keep the largest segments of society, the people that will ultimately pay the worst price for climate change, from rising up and tearing down those bastards before it's too late. As satire, "Don't Look Up" may have some negative strikes, but looking at i

      • The sad fact is, none of us is going to give up the ability to drive down to Walmart or Disneyland. We burn the gas, but it's those corporations that are destroying the climate!

        • No problem for me. Back in the 1980's, I ordered plans for building an amphibious car from the back of a magazine. Going to come in pretty handy in a few years.

    • Good thing it's cooler over there on that land ice right beside the sea ice. If that land ice were melting, that could be a problem.

      • Good thing it's cooler over there on that land ice right beside the sea ice. If that land ice were melting, that could be a problem.

        I recall a few years ago there was a big panic over how there was a big increase in Antarctic sea ice and concern that the underside of the Antarctic continental ice sheet was melting. This, it was said, looked like the start of a massive melt-and-slide of a big chunk of the southern ice cap from land into the oceans, which (if it occurred) WOULD rapidly raise ocean levels and

  • Throw it on the stack of outliers. Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:21PM (#63861172)

    Precious few folks are on the fence anymore on anything climate-related. The camps are entrenched. I don't even know that anybody's even trying to refute contrary positions with any real enthusiasm... the stories have become background noise. That's the shame in all of this. The basic breakdown in the willingness of people to be convinced of a position they didn't already hold comes at a terrible cost.

    I am opinionated, and more than one person considers me an egotistical jackass. But... I am very open to being wrong, and I'll freely admit it when it happens. And it happens a lot. But... you'd better to be able to tell me how you know what you purport to know. I consider it a redeeming quality among my collection of questionable ones. I also won't claim to know with certainty when I do not. That puts me at a disadvantage in some arguments... lots of people have far greater belief in their own correctness about major, complicated matters, than I have on the simplest of things. I don't understand that kind of certainty. It's just bizarre to me.

    So here we have a story that, although the summary doesn't specifically call out climate change, will trigger a lot of pronouncements of "fact" that point in opposite directions, and they'll all talk right past each other. Nobody will listen, nobody will give ground or concede points, and no progress will be made. It's a wonderful grandstanding opportunity, but that's all that it brings.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      People reach a point in denialism where new evidence they're wrong feels like proof they're right.

    • Don't assume the point of the story is to convince people that climate change is real (even though the comments section will be stuck there for another 20 years). The story here is that something unexpected happened - unexpected to people who model climate change. That means the models were missing something, and need to change, and that planning and decisions with huge consequences may change.

      • For sure. That's the author's likely intent, and why the words were carefully chosen. And I would like to think there's a collection of people who read it for that. But I'm betting that's not where the conversation around it will come from.

      • Exactly; the magnitude was unpredicted and quite different than anything before, potentially indicating a tipping point. 2023 seems to have had several potential tipping point events, which may indicate a dramatic shift in rate-of-change.

    • Re:Throw it on the stack of outliers. Doesn't matt (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @07:54PM (#63861818) Journal

      There are many who don't participate in batshit denialism, but also don't fully comprehend the urgency and gravity of the situation. They will say things like:

      "We have plenty of time to figure this out."
      "New technology will save us. People always find a way."
      "America/The West always finds a way. Everyone else might be fucked, but we'll be safe."

      Basically every politician (excluding deniers) falls somewhere in this range. They will say it's a problem, they will say gee, wouldn't it be great for us to cut emissions ("Bla bla bla", to quote Greta Thunberg) and yet when it comes time to actually do these things, they're right back to subsidizing fossil fuels. They'll kick the habit, sure, but... tomorrow. Next week. Next administration. Next generation. Intellectually, they know there is a problem, but they are totally unable to address it. Very much like any drug addict.

      In addition to all the politicians, much of the general population falls in this middle ground of acceptance and helplessness. You have deniers making up maybe a third of the population, Thunberg protestor-types making up 1%, and most everyone else falling into the middle mindset I described.

      The parallel of this mentality to drug addiction - I say this as a recovering addict - is stark, and grim. People only wake up from their helplessness after a long experience of suffering, and some extreme traumatic event. If they wake up at all. It's going to get way worse before it gets better.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jzanu ( 668651 )
        This is the most insightful thing I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. Thank you for writing it out and posting it here. I hope the currently helpless but not ambivalent segment will gain enough power to make the larger group that is simply ambivalent safe, whether that requires defeating the denialists or simply working around them to ensure that humanity and its technological civilization actually survives without regressing to barbarism.

    • Precious few folks are on the fence anymore on anything climate-related. The camps are entrenched. I don't even know that anybody's even trying to refute contrary positions with any real enthusiasm... the stories have become background noise.

      That is because the people who have motivation to do things that destroy the environment are not swayed by words. They also do not care what anyone else thinks. Their greed also blinds them to the future.

      Either government(s) steps up or we destroy the planet. The problem with government(s) stepping up is that the motivation for doing things that destroy the planet brings lots of benefits... and those benefits can be shared with those who are in charge of deciding things. Sure, there are laws against such "s

  • We need a 'disaster tax' (Score:3)

    by oumuamua ( 6173784 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:32PM (#63861194)
    Think of all the money readily flowing into disaster relief and rebuilding like the Maui Fire, hurricane rebuilding and other climate disaster sites around the world.
    This is going against 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' we hate to spend for that ounce of prevention but no problem finding money for a disaster.
    The thing to do is tax this disaster spending at1% to go to a green-energy climate fund.

    • The right answer is, "Don't rebuild in situ. Migrate." But that's also the most emotionally unfulfilling and coldly calculated way of looking at it, and some people will suffer. Still right, though. If you wouldn't eat in a restaurant called "Chez Listeria", you probably shouldn't rebuild a house in "Hurricane Alley".

    • Yes, it's part of the greater ongoing tragedy that we are not even talking about managed retreat in Hawaii.

      Rebuild! Rebuild! But they'd better fucking rebuild homes as boats.

  • Definitions are tricky.

    Recorded by satellite? Sure.

    Recorded on old Chinese maps? Well, now, that's different.

    Since we're in an interglacial period, when do we expect all of the glaciers to have melted?

    That always happens before they start to build up again.

    When I was a kid they were expecting ice accretion to begin about Y. 3100 based on climate models and ice cores, with melting by 2500 AD.

    Nothing so far seems too far off from that except the politicians who want to tax eating, moving, and breathing.

  • I have become an avid viewer of Decouple Media and in this podcast the hosts bring in guests that point out how we need hydro and nuclear fission for reliable energy, and how onshore wind and geothermal make low cost and low CO2 options for intermittent energy. https://www.decouplemedia.org/... [decouplemedia.org]

    People might not think geothermal is an intermittent energy source but if run too long at a time it can "freeze" the hot rocks deep in the Earth and ruin future output of the plant. It's a relatively reliable energy

  • When it gets hotter ice melts, it's pretty simple physics. When you add water to a vessel the levels get higher.
    Low lying areas are more productive than higher areas so this is where virtually everyones lives. Raise the water levels, move or drown.

    Currently the world is just pretending to fight climate change. If you're not using nuclear you're not serious and we need to get much better at building it.
    The world need lots of energy and fossil fuels are just sooooo easy, a bit like OxyContin. Just another bli

  • with all the ice supposedly melting, isn't the water level supposed to be higher?

  • So we need to start a new project that covers the land with shiny white sheets, and enormously large machines that can generate much ice/snow..

Slashdot Top Deals

Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close