Antarctic Temperatures Rise 10C Above Average in Near Record Heatwave 161
Ground temperatures across great swathes of the ice sheets of Antarctica have soared an average of 10C above normal over the past month, in what has been described as a near record heatwave. From a report: While temperatures remain below zero on the polar land mass, which is shrouded in darkness at this time of year, the depths of southern hemisphere winter, temperatures have reportedly reached 28C above expectations on some days. The globe has experienced 12 months of record warmth, with temperatures consistently exceeding the 1.5C rise above preindustrial levels that has been touted as the limit to avoiding the worst of climate breakdown.
Michael Dukes, the director of forecasting at MetDesk, said that while individual daily high temperatures were surprising, far more significant was the average rise over the month. Climate scientists' models have long predicted that the most significant effects of anthropogenic climate change would be on polar regions, "and this is a great example of that," he said. "Usually you can't just look at one month for a climate trend but it is right in line with what models predict," Dukes added. "In Antarctica generally that kind of warming in the winter and continuing in to summer months can lead to collapsing of the ice sheets."
Michael Dukes, the director of forecasting at MetDesk, said that while individual daily high temperatures were surprising, far more significant was the average rise over the month. Climate scientists' models have long predicted that the most significant effects of anthropogenic climate change would be on polar regions, "and this is a great example of that," he said. "Usually you can't just look at one month for a climate trend but it is right in line with what models predict," Dukes added. "In Antarctica generally that kind of warming in the winter and continuing in to summer months can lead to collapsing of the ice sheets."
Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2, Insightful)
Its not a right vs left thing (Score:2)
At least not outside of the USA. Most right wingers I know including myself like to go by facts, not ideology or wishful thinking on moonbeams and rainbows. And there is a simple physical law that dictates that if you release more CO2 you trap more heat. The rest follows from that.
Re: Its not a right vs left thing (Score:2)
Exactly this. We may differ in our solutions to certain issues, but most often we agree on the facts: facts are facts for a good reason.
It is just that in some countries much more than in others, people, heck, even some president, make up their own facts then somehow sell them for alternative facts and don't even seem to know the distinction between opinions and facts.
Also, in the recent years, it's become quite fashionable here to change any random topic into a political issue as fast as possible. So thank
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think so but your fellow 'right wingers' produce politicians that throw snowballs in the Senate and deny it's happening.
Or state gov'ts that literally ban the words 'climate change' from their official documents.
Fox News and it's ilk are pretty clear they don't believe the actual 'facts'
Re: Its not a right vs left thing (Score:2)
Re: Its not a right vs left thing (Score:2)
Right, the extra heat will only go to certain places because ... reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
"Let's start with asking the question - why isn't the temperature everywhere in the world the average global temperature?"
Seriously?
Firstly , go find out what average means, secondly , did you do any physics at school?
"it becomes clear that you can add heat to the average without adding heat everywhere."
Riiiiight. Unfortunately reality disagrees with you.
Time to set up water mining claims (Score:2)
The future is in building supertankers to move freshwater glacier runoff from the poles to the deserts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they tracked down the deniers after WW2 they'd have shot half the german population. It might help your argument to distinguish between belief and action.
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
These are the fscks
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of truth in your comment, but don't forget a lot of these cretins aren't so much stupid as willfully ignorant. They know what's happening, they just figure the same scientists they claim are part of some kind of global conspiracy will find a way to save them from the consequences of their selfishness. I don't think it would be a bad thing if somebody nailed Billy Bob who likes to "roll coal" to a fence and left him to bake in the sun for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
humans are part of nature, so global warming isnt unnatural by definition.
This is quibbling -- arguing from specific senses of a word in a way that doesn't apply to the sense of the word being used. Arguing in this way, *nothing* that can exist is unnatural -- which is true in a very restricted sense of the word "natural". Artificial flavors are "natural" for example.
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are tribal animals. If you look at how people actually argue, it very frequently ends as labeling someone as a "good guy" or a "bad guy" -- i.e., one of "us" or not. If someone doesn't like an argument for pollution regulation, he might call the idea "socialist" -- meaning it's an idea that belongs to an alien group. Another person might respond to a suggestion to further empower police in some way as "fascist". The actual merits of an idea don't matter to people, once it has been identified as a
Re: (Score:2)
Climate and t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree that on some level they -- and in fact all of us -- could be doing better.
But I think insofar as we engage with them we need to understand how difficult it would be for us in their position on this -- and how hard it probably is for us on other things we'd rather take for granted. I don't think it helps to characterize them as stupid or maliciously ignorant, because there's really no point in engaging with anyone on that basis except just to hear yourself talk.
There aren't many persuadable
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty hard to reason with someone that literally thinks they are going to Heaven (they never think they are going to Hell...) and that this is just temporary so who cares anyway. Focus on GOD!!!! All else is nothing!!!
You can't really reason with that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually quite easy, you just have to argue on terms they understand. Try plugging this prompt into ChatGPT: "generate an argument that would convince an evangelical christian he has a duty to protect the environment."
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree, but excellent point. This is the kind of thing that deserves a full discussion over a few beers, rather than a few paragraphs on-line.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be nice. A lot of slashdot commenters getting their asses thrown in prison too.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, you'll get three square meals a day and maybe prison will teach you some useful skills like breaking rocks or making license plates.
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't help but wonder whether some time in the future, when the effects of anthropogenic climate change are really making things difficult, a group will arise to track down deniers like Israel tracked down Nazis who escaped and went into hiding after WWII.
And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which 'The Times' did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak--'child hero' was the phrase generally used--had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.
Nineteen Eighty-Four By George Orwell
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, we import more then we export, so if the coastline went away it would have devastating effects on our ability to get stuff made outside of the country.
Of course, we'll spend gobs of money adapting to the rising water level, so really, there is basically zero chance that coastline is going away.
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2)
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:4, Interesting)
And the polar vortex is supposed to keep the warm air out of antarctica. It's probably weakening much like the northern one. There have been more times than average in recent years that the northern US has had an unstable polar vortex drop cold air southward. In other words, extreme cold periods in the winter is a sign of global warming.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Interglacial [Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt] (Score:2)
We are exiting an ice age as our civilization learns to record temperatures.
We already exited an ice age.
The most recent glaciation ended eight thousand years ago. https://image1.slideserve.com/... [slideserve.com] The current warming is not due to exiting an ice age.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2)
Let me search the internet for "proxy temperature distant past" for you.
First hit: https://interactive.carbonbrie... [carbonbrief.org]
Any other questions trivially solved by using an Internet search engine? Disclaimer: information requires an open mind. You have to spend time asking questions if you want to learn.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong answer. We have records going back a lot farther - they're called tree rings, ice cores, etc.
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2)
We're literally in an ice age.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:5, Interesting)
The maximum water carrying capacity of the air can almost double with a small shift like that. It won't make the ice cap melt, but you'll lose more ice through direct sublimation into the air.
Re: (Score:3)
At least one study [wiley.com] estimates about 10-15% of annual snowfall is removed by sublimation. If you triple the water capacity of the air, that goes to 30-45% even if some of that becomes more snow.
But after snow sublimates, this creates more blue ice areas on the ice sheet. These areas absorb way more heat from the sunlight than pure white snow. The melting and refreezing of this ice is what causes most of the big ice calving that causes the large ice losses.
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:4, Funny)
It's like proclaiming "record cold" during a summer day that is 78F instead of 98F. Yes, it's colder...but is 78F really "cold"?
My mother would still yell at me to put on a sweater, because she was cold.
Re: Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Normal" in this context simply means what we're accustomed to. We can surely adapt to change, but if the rate of change is too high, we won't like it.
Insofar as the rate of change is being driven by our choices, it's perfectly rational to ask whether we are making the best choices.
Re:Cue the right wing butt hurt (Score:5, Interesting)
My brother, a physicist like myself, quit grad school because he had a prof who was tasked with developing a device to measure velocity of projectiles without touching them... So, my brother, a shooter, went to the gun store and bought a skyscreen (a device that has been around for decades which measures bullet velocities without touching them) he was offended that the prof had gotten $180K (in 1983!!!) to develop this device which could be purchased for $100 at most gun stores! So, based on that ONE experience, my very right wing brother now thinks that ALL people writing grants for the government are lying and overblowing things.
He is a smart guy. Honest, but in this case, he had one ignorant prof, who some morons in government, also ignorant of what exists, approved that grant, so now he believes, honestly, that that is 100% the way this always works.
Re: (Score:2)
So, my brother, a shooter, went to the gun store and bought a skyscreen (a device that has been around for decades which measures bullet velocities without touching them)
AKA ballistic chronograph.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
An excellent example. As somebody that has applied for grants, I can confirm that is not how it generally works. Yes, there is a lot of case-the-hype and other stupidity in grants. But ignoring prior art is not a common thing, at least from what I have seen. And grants are necessary to get some types work done.
And, sorry, but he is obviously not a smart guy. Intelligence and knowing how to use it are two different things. If you do not routinely fact-check and only apply your intelligence when you like to,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he got halfway there: He understands his limits. What he failed at is to see how limited his view was as a result and that he hence cannot form an informed opinion on many things. Knowing one's limits is only half of what you need to do in order to actually understand things. The other half is respecting those limits. The reality is that most people already fail at the first part and then many of the rest fail at the second part.
Explains a lot though. And it is really what determined the future of the
Re: (Score:2)
I get that. some decades ago I was arguing the point with a rabid capitalist somewhere, and I pointed out that ecology/technology to reduce pollution was a huge growth area that was being sincerely neglected... I suggested that if anyone with any vision and cash to hand could really make a killing.
Man did that make him angry!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. Does not make your statements any less true. And obviously, when the truth cannot be hidden or denied anymore, these people will look for somebody else to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll stop polluting when all the rich people (who are clearly BETTER then me, according to USA mindset) stop polluting. I'm quite sure I have a significantly smaller carbon foot print then the people telling me I need to become vegan, stop driving, shower less and wear my clothes until they turn to rags.
The leaders need to lead by example and conform to their dogma before they can expect me to do the same.
Yes, I believe in global warming but no, I don't really give two shits anymore about it since I could k
We're doomed (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Some will live, some will die.
It is just unfortunate that we have not learned to manage ourselves better so that we don't negatively affect the whole planet, but apparently, we are not able to... or rather, as in that old documentary, "Idiocracy" the ones that do learn, don't have the numbers to sway the vote from those who don't learn.
Re:We're doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience the problem with denialists isn't that they aren't *smart*. It's that they accept pro-fossil-fuel propaganda uncritically. And yes, many people who are on the other side have accepted pro-environment propaganda uncritically too. If you have two opposing sides where most people have accepted arguments uncritically, nonetheless one of them is bound to be more right.
The reason people are vulnerable to conspiracy theories is that they think of themselves as smart, and they believe that bein
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience the problem with denialists isn't that they aren't *smart*. It's that they accept pro-fossil-fuel propaganda uncritically.
This is the fact that the slashdotters are not good at acknowledging.
The fossil fuel industry is literally a trillion dollar industry. Even a tiny change in oil usage represents a billion dollars of lost money. They are working hard to stop people from reducing their fossil fuel usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This thing is a bit larger than that. Also remember that 3 of 4 Human-like species have died out already. We are the last one standing. There no reason to believe we will survive this.
Re:We're doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, there are a few people, perhaps with a touch of ADHD, who just can't get out of bed in the morning unless they have a worst case scenario to tackle. These are the only people who talk about climate change as an extinction level event for humanity. If you go on the website of a mainstream environmental organization like The Nature Conservancy [nature.org] , you won't see human extinction as a reason we need to address climate change. Nonetheless denialists like to latch onto the tiny fringe of people who are talking about human extinction to argue that *everyone* who thinks we should do something about climate change is an alarmist.
But really the strongest arguments for taking action on climate change are basically conservative ones: to preserve ways of life, to keep national borders secure, to pay for an ounce of prevention to avoid having to pay for a pound of cure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We're doomed (Score:2)
Re: We're doomed (Score:3)
The amount of immigrants over your southern border has dropped, actually. Last month, only 57.000. The last time it was below that was in sept 2020.
And no, climate change doesn't dictate how many cross the border. Climate change does, however, put lots more pressure on the borders of rich countries. The instability in northern Africa, where governments for over 10 years cannot keep up with subsidizing food and where folks from their south come knocking, is largely due to climate change.
More to come, both mi
Re: (Score:2)
So our southern border is wide open due to clime change?
Did climate change start in January 2021?
What I'm saying is that if you don't like the rate of economic migration we have *now*, you really won't like it in a couple of decades when billions of people are displaced.
The refugee problem is multi-factorial. Syria generates so many refugees because it has a corrupt, unpopular, authoritarian government. But at its root the crisis was ignited by drought and crop failure which drove young men into the cities where, unemployed, they got radicalized, which in turn destabilized the government. If the sa
Re: (Score:2)
> we need to agree on is what is causing the climate change. We haven't reached that point, as a society or even as a collection of scientists.
We already agree. The people claiming otherwise are ignorant or are lying because they're profiting from the current situation.
There is no rational, legitimate disagreement with the scientific consensus. The questions are now about the details and severity, not what the cause is or whether it's serious.
Re: (Score:2)
When the consensus is driven by a vocal majority and dismisses the knowledgeable contrary voices, you know it's not a genuine scientific movement but a social one.
I think you might benefit from studying the scientific history of climate change, and that might give you a different picture of what "consensus" means in a scientific context. It doesn't mean a final determination of truth, it's just a general agreement on where the burden of proof currently lies. You're allowed to disagree, but if you want to change the consensus you have to undermine it step by step, a process that takes years. Anthropogenic climate change is a perfect example that this is possible, be
Morbid curiosity (Score:3)
I don't want to see people hurt, but I simultaneously want to see a Hollywood-style climate apocalypse - a nice rapid melt that dumps all of Antarctica's ice in the ocean within my lifetime.
Human psychology is weird.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to see people hurt,
Well of course you don't!
but I simultaneously want to see a Hollywood-style climate apocalypse - a nice rapid melt that dumps all of Antarctica's ice in the ocean within my lifetime.
Oops, never mind. I guess you might after all, given that there are already vast amounts of disaster porn in book and movie form to satisfy this sort of weird fetish. The only missing element there would be ... actual consequences?
Human psychology is weird.
More boring than weird. It's called the banality of evil for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Storms are where you will get your Hollywood style fix. Bigger, better, faster, more! And everyone, other than the victims, is fascinated by such. The hurricane folk have wondered if a Category 6 is needed.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/06... [npr.org]
Otherwise, what you will get, if you have 20 years or so will be:
* Regional migrations due to heat stress. Several 10s of millions of people moving out of certain areas.
* Drought/Flood Combo crisis all over the place, Vermont is the perfect example.
Vermont Flood (where
Re: (Score:2)
If we indeed run into a food crisis, it will drive prices of food up quite a bit. We may have to stop exporting food (ahh shucks). Other countries may have to actually provide food for themselves.
I'm pretty sure if your country can't feed itself, it's overpopulated. Lot of overpopulated countries out there.
Ironically, USA isn't one of them. We produce an abundance of food that we export.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding population, water is the key.
And the planet is overpopulated, the metric I use to gauge how far is based on this:
More than two billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water.
https://www.cfr.org/background... [cfr.org]
The US may not be overpopulated but the public recreational sites are all over crowded and the rich have bought up all of the formerly "reasonable lake side properties." It can be tough to find privacy camping.
Nice (Score:2)
Alternative theory (Score:2, Interesting)
Being imaginative on purpose here, alright? What if the global warming is not actually caused by us warming the planet? What id there's something going on underneath the Antarctic surface warming the planet from the inside, and we're just misinterpreting the results? For all we know, there could be another Yellowstone ready to pop under all that ice. ;-)
Re:Alternative theory (Score:4, Interesting)
That would be fascinating, because it would mean physics and chemistry and a whole pile of corroborating data are all very, very wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for calling me names. If you haven't noticed, I made it clear that my theory was a thought experiment and mostly for fun. Perhaps you could more effort into understanding the intent next time, alright?
Re: Alternative theory (Score:2)
Ah, the Tim Pool approach. "If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, it's a joke."
No points. This is not funny; this is an extinction level event. Grow up.
Re: Alternative theory (Score:2)
I give up.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like the Ancient city-ship of Atlantis using its last ounces of remaining ZPM power to get out of dormancy, melt through the ice and rise to the surface of Antarctica, for the 5th race (Humans) to use go explore the galaxy?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the plot of a great film I'd like to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a whole series: Stargate Atlantis ;)
normal (Score:2)
How many years long is the record for "normal"? And how frequent is it to be above (or below) "normal"?
Back to the Eocene (Score:2)
Maybe we'll end up back in the Eocene with Antarctic forests that have to develop to survive in extreme swings of sunlight.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you see anything happen besides token efforts? Because I do not. Too many people still think this is a minor issue or non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The general population doesn't make these choices. Our economic leaders (not even the politicians) are the ones making all the decisions. As far as I can see, none of our elected leaders are truly onboard with treating this as an actual crisis. These clowns are still flying around in airplanes to climate summits that serve beef...
So you are correct. We're making token efforts and that's about it. Why? Because rich folk won't allow us to make other choices. Eat the rich!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's insufficient, actually. Natural carbon sequestration processes are too slow, we need to both stop burning hydrocarbons AND start artificial carbon sequestration projects.
But even that might be a bad thing - ecosystems react poorly to rapid change, and if we could return CO2 levels to those of the pre-industrial era faster than we raised them, that could cause more extinctions.
It's a big problem, requiring big solutions, and none of the solutions can actually fix the issue the way we'd like to see it
Re: (Score:2)
That's how to keep it from getting more worse. To actually prevent global heating we need to remove substantial CO2 from the atmosphere, preferably in a way that's approximately permanent.
Biochar is one removal approach that should work, but I'm not sure how permanent it is, and I don't think it's possible to do it in the required quantities. Reactions would crushed rock should also work, but it would take a mountain range's worth of rock, it's slow!, and crushing the rock is an energy intensive process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that's a contradiction?
Re: (Score:2)