Global Sea Ice Hit Record Low in February, Scientists Say (theguardian.com) 30
Global sea ice fell to a record low in February, scientists have said, a symptom of an atmosphere fouled by planet-heating pollutants. From a report: The combined area of ice around the north and south poles hit a new daily minimum in early February and stayed below the previous record for the rest of the month, the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said on Thursday. "One of the consequences of a warmer world is melting sea ice," said the C3S deputy director, Samantha Burgess. "The record or near-record low sea ice cover at both poles has pushed global sea ice cover to an all-time minimum."
The agency found the area of sea ice hit its lowest monthly level for February in the Arctic, at 8% below average, and its fourth-lowest monthly level for February in the Antarctic, at 26% below average. Its satellite observations stretch back to the late 1970s and its historical observations to the middle of the 20th century. Scientists had already observed an extreme heat anomaly in the north pole at the start of February, which caused temperatures to soar more than 20C above average and cross the threshold for ice to melt. They described the latest broken record as "particularly worrying" because ice reflects sunlight and cools the planet. The agency found the area of sea ice hit its lowest monthly level for February in the Arctic, at 8% below average, and its fourth-lowest monthly level for February in the Antarctic, at 26% below average. Its satellite observations stretch back to the late 1970s and its historical observations to the middle of the 20th century.
The agency found the area of sea ice hit its lowest monthly level for February in the Arctic, at 8% below average, and its fourth-lowest monthly level for February in the Antarctic, at 26% below average. Its satellite observations stretch back to the late 1970s and its historical observations to the middle of the 20th century. Scientists had already observed an extreme heat anomaly in the north pole at the start of February, which caused temperatures to soar more than 20C above average and cross the threshold for ice to melt. They described the latest broken record as "particularly worrying" because ice reflects sunlight and cools the planet. The agency found the area of sea ice hit its lowest monthly level for February in the Arctic, at 8% below average, and its fourth-lowest monthly level for February in the Antarctic, at 26% below average. Its satellite observations stretch back to the late 1970s and its historical observations to the middle of the 20th century.
Fake news! (Score:2)
Right? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Tonight's news:
Nyah Nyah Nyah, I can't hear you.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. If I were not sitting in the same boat, I would just watch the show as the morons go under and pretend everything was fine until the very end.
Re: (Score:1)
Right? Right?
I'll know that you lot actually care when I hear about the big nuclear program that you are supporting.
Until then, I'll know it's just a political tool for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Naa, nuclear if for morons that cannot count. More your thing.
One data point does not a story make (Score:1)
from the graph it's very clear 2025, like the immediately preceding years, will be lower than the average (bad news yes). But it's also very unclear whether the current position of 2025 will stay below the immediately preceding years for all of 2025 (but I want to react now!).
Is this important news? Speculative yes, but far from anything we can be definitive about regarding worst year ever. I would rather focus on the yearly trend graph than react to a data point.
Re:One data point does not a story make (Score:4, Informative)
I would rather focus on the yearly trend graph than react to a data point.
Here you go, then. [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and it's very very clear that the trend is downwards. With downwards trends there will be regular record lows, and the presence of regular record lows implies a downwards trend (despite what the non-Bayesians seem to think).
I would rather focus on the yearly trend graph than react to a data point.
It is. And it's down.
Fuck Ice (Score:1)
For reals. Once it's gone, we can build houses there, and shit all over that new place. It'll be so good.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize the arctic ice covers water, a LOT of water, correct? I hope people like living on house boats.
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile, according to NOAA, the average sea level rise for the last 100 years, has only been 2mm per year without a change in rate. Not exactly alarming data.
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Without a change in rate? That graph is clearly accelerating.
Re: Fuck Ice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, according to NOAA, the average sea level rise for the last 100 years, has only been 2mm per year without a change in rate.
Thank you for the informative link. I noticed this:
"The rate of global sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015. "
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see once the stupid ice is gone. If there's land, I say let's move there and enjoy it all by destroying it like we did everything else. If it's water, then let's dump our turds in it. This is what we do.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Don't you know that thawing of the permafrost in the arctic is a potential tipping point in global warming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If people were serious about lowering the threat of global warming then they'd support nuclear fission because of its low CO2 emissions per unit of energy produced. The usual argument against nuclear fission is the dangers of a meltdown or whatever. This is ignoring the long history of nuclear power safety and ignoring the issues of lives lost to global warming if w
Re: Fuck Ice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The main arguments against nuclear revolve around cost, decommissioning costs, cost of insurance and speed of delivery.
Most of those costs we impose on ourselves with legislation, and therefore could be removed by legislation. If we just take into account labor, land, and materials for nuclear power then it costs no more than coal power. Because we treat nuclear power differently we see higher costs.
Unless carbon is priced to encourage transition then only the cheapest source will be used, which won't include nuclear.
The IPCC disagrees with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nuclear power sees costs on par with coal and natural gas, and that's with the increased costs imposed by rules on safety that no other energy source needs to meet
This calls for more energy from nuclear fission (Score:1)
What is the energy source with the lowest CO2 emissions? Nuclear fission.
https://ourworldindata.org/saf... [ourworldindata.org]
What is the safest source of energy? We see from the data that this is solar power but if we account for the estimated deaths from Chernobyl then nuclear fission comes out on top again. http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
We will need nuclear power to maintain our standard of living because we've been living in a world where something like 5% of our energy has come from nuclear fission. As sources of f
Re: (Score:2)
"Technology without energy is sculpture. Energy without technology is just fire."
What about a snatch block, say, which doubles your pulling power with just a ring? And do you consider plants "just fire" or are they consciously using technology to turn energy into food?
Re: This calls for more energy from nuclear fissio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Who do you trust to make the calculations on what energy source is the cheapest and lowest emitter of CO2? Do you trust the IPCC? I do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The IPCC says that the cheapest low CO2 emitting energy source is hydro, but we can't get cheap hydro just anywhere. What's next? Onshore wind power. Maybe we can put windmills most anywhere on land and expect to get cheap electricity but that's an intermittent source of energy. Then what? Geothermal? Maybe we can get reliable, low co
Any story that calls it a pollutant (Score:1)
Is missing the point. Calling CO2 a pollutant just engenders a mindless political pollution control response that is out of line with a reasonable assessment of the issue. CO2, oxygen, nitrogen, water, and sunlight are the core cycle of life on the planet.
At the very least, if you want me to take the point seriously, stop referring to CO2 as a pollutant.
Re: (Score:2)
Excess of anything is bad. That includes water, nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and sunlight.
At the very least, if you want me to take the point seriously, stop referring to CO2 as a pollutant.
If you don't already take it seriously, there is no hope for you because at this point ignorance is wilful. People can educate and explain, but no one can make you hold a position when you are emotionally invested in something counterfactual.
Is that enough time for records to be meaningful? (Score:2)
To me, this comes across as, "Well, there is less ocean ice than there was when you were born in the 70's. But since your life is insignificant on a geological timescale, it means dick."
This could just reflect the reduction in reflective emissions since the EPA was formed in the early 70's.
Or just be more BS from The Guardian. Who just lied to us abo
Re: Is that enough time for records to be meaningf (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if we want to measure the change in temps since the beginning of the industrial era, we should use an appropriate timeframe and records. "Last half of the 19th century" (coal was king and pea-soup fog) and "Since your parents were born", are not an appropriate frame of reference.