NASA: Arctic Sea Ice 2nd-Lowest On Record (earthsky.org) 206
An anonymous reader quotes a report from EarthSky: NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said on September 15, 2016 that summertime Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum on September 10. With fall approaching and temperatures in the Arctic dropping, it's unlikely more ice will melt, and so the 2016 Arctic sea ice minimum extent will likely be tied with 2007 for the second-lowest yearly minimum in the satellite record. Satellite data showed this year's minimum at 1.60 million square miles (4.14 million square km). NASA said in a statement: "Since satellites began monitoring sea ice in 1978, researchers have observed a steep decline in the average extent of Arctic sea ice for every month of the year [...] The sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas helps regulate the planet's temperature, influences the circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, and impacts Arctic communities and ecosystems. Arctic sea ice shrinks every year during the spring and summer until it reaches its minimum yearly extent. Sea ice regrows during the frigid fall and winter months, when the sun is below the horizon in the Arctic." The NASA/NSIDC statement explained why the melt of Arctic sea ice surprised scientists in 2016. For one thing, it changed pace several times: "The melt season began with a record low yearly maximum extent in March and a rapid ice loss through May. But in June and July, low atmospheric pressures and cloudy skies slowed down the melt. Then, after two large storms went across the Arctic basin in August, sea ice melt picked up speed through early September." NASA posted an animation on YouTube that "shows the evolution of the Arctic sea ice cover from its wintertime maximum extent, which was reached on Mar. 24, 2016, and was the lowest on record for the second year in a row, to its apparent yearly minimum, which occurred on Sept. 10, 2016, and is the second lowest in the satellite era."
But climate change is a myth!!! (Score:5, Funny)
The GOP, the oil industry, and The Donald ALL agree!
Stories from Nature Magazine suggesting permanent droughts in California http://www.nature.com/articles... [nature.com] are just fear mongering to distract you from your civic obligation to consume conspicuously and excessively!
Industry must continue to grow eternally, or the financial Apocalypse will happen!
remember, Jesus will come and fix everything, so its all good!
Re:But climate change is a myth!!! (Score:5, Funny)
This was the second lowest sea ice extent. So basically, what this mean is that the worst is past, and things are improving. Global warming could have been a major problem, so it is good to see that we dodged that bullet, the crisis is over, and we don't need to worry about it anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed! Now if only those damned scientists would just accept that this is fact, we can all get back to driving hummers and using incandescent lightbulb, like god intended!
Re: (Score:2)
This is irony, I intensely hope..... please let it be irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law is strong in global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately so many posts are meant as irony and sarcasm, which for the stupid among us, become a firm stance. Our sarcastic obviously flawed logic written using as many bad arguments as possible. Seems to have convinced some that it was indeed a good idea.
The big part of the problem is how we assume that everything has a political motive to it. My sense it started back in the 1960's with the Hippies. Who pushed the fringe of the left wing very far to the left, while some of their ideas were foolhardy,
Why so many words? (Score:2)
*Jedi-mindtrick-handwaving*
"This isn't the global warming you're looking for..."
Don't worry, it works on the feeble-minded.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen, global warming isn't happening, all right?
And even if it was happening, which it isn't, it certainly isn't man made, understand?
And even if global warming was occurring, which is false, and it were man made, which isn't true, there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) ignore China as being the major emitter and growing fast,
2) focus their efforts on America who is already below 15% and dropping fast,
3) claim that solar and wind will take care of everything, but then ignore the fact that Germany who is the most dependent on these, are now building out new coal plants and will miss their emissions limits over the next couple of years.
4) ignore that the ONL
Re: (Score:2)
The far right refuses to acknowledge there's a problem, and I think the far left is being a little more useful than that.
Re: (Score:2)
That is also why idiots like you that scream that it is up to individuals to make a diffe
Re:But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score:4, Interesting)
Reality doesn't give a fuck about you or anyone else. You are not being presented with an option where you get out of the consequences of conspicuous consumption. That is the point idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The second law of thermodynamics will not be wished away any time soon. Human activity requires energy. Used energy becomes heat. Human use of energy sources currently outstrips the rate that energy is sequestered in the earth's crust. Increased technology will perpetuate the need for more energy, and more energy sources.
As a species, we are confronted with a painful choice. Continue like there is no problem, destroy the biosphere, and die-- or cut back on technological and industrial advancement so that
Re: (Score:3)
The second law of thermodynamics will not be wished away any time soon. Human activity requires energy. Used energy becomes heat. Human use of energy sources currently outstrips the rate that energy is sequestered in the earth's crust.
That's not the main source of increasing global temperatures. Particular means of generating energy release greenhouse gases [wikipedia.org], and with greater amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect [wikipedia.org] causes increased temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but at current atmospheric co2 levels, even switching to wholly green energy at this point will continue to see global temperature increases, because of the atmosphere's new thermal capacity, and inability to radiate heat away into space.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we should be looking at geoengineering, then...
Re: (Score:2)
Human activity requires energy. Used energy becomes heat.
Well, the solution is simple. Attach a device to every person to capture that heat to turn it back into energy to fund further activity thus generating more heat and so on and so on. Holy fuck, I think I just invented cold fusion!
Re: (Score:3)
Right now global warming isn't due to entropy from our energy being converted to heat. It is from increased amount of Carbon Dioxide and other gasses which are preventing the heat (mostly from the Sun) from getting reflected back into Space.
The fix is simple, but it will take effort from the population.
1. Use less CO2 for energy production. Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, Nuclear...
2. Increase the growth and spread of CO2 absorbing life such as trees.
Now this won't fix all our environmental problems, but we c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Petroleum is an excellent fuel for transportation and distilling into various fuels, PLUS an excellent source
Re: (Score:2)
It's conceivable that we could arrive in a situation where we generated enough heat to cause severe problems, but this isn't it. The problem is CO2 emissions, which trap more of the Sun's heat inside the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:1)
You haven't been paying attention. We don't have time, even if we just dumped money on fusion research.
The time window to turn this around has ended. Climate change is inevitable now. We had a chance to turn this around in the 70s, but blew it because climate change is a myth.
Spending money on fusion was a boondoggle, remember?
Do you think I LIKE that we are well and truly fucked, because of conspicuous consumption by idiots like you? Fuck you, no.
Enjoy the future mass extinction idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
"The time window to turn this around has ended. Climate change is inevitable now. "
Excellent! It must therefore be easy to give 100%-probability predictions about terrifying climate conditions in the not-too-far future! Come, let us have some.
Re: (Score:2)
This month will be the hottest september ever recorded.
Just wait and see. ;P
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the "terrifying" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have problems with contextualization?
Here, let me help you.
This september, Like the august before it, and the July before that, and the June before that..... ... ...
are all closely following the predictions of global temperature increase due to increased atmospheric CO2.
That the predictions favor the production of a practically uninhabitable planet in the next 2 centuries is pretty fucking scary.
That month after month after month has corroborated the predictions, makes the prediction pretty fucking s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that anybody actually still denies humankind has at least had an impact anymore,
Yeah instead they don't talk about it and set up shadow organizations to figure out new and convoluted ways to take data out of context to keep supplying fox and friends with sound bites to win the coal miner and oil rig worker vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, pretty much.
The best we can do now is damage control, the train has already derailed.
Re: (Score:1)
Its always amused me, RWNJ the denialist nuke fans have this amazing cognitive dissonance, where they claim climate scientists are corrupt, and make up climate change data, then believe the paid nuke industry shills who try to tell us nuke is safe., I would believe an independant academic any day over an industry employee.
Re:But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score:4, Interesting)
Its always amused me, RWNJ the denialist nuke fans have this amazing cognitive dissonance, where they claim climate scientists are corrupt, and make up climate change data, then believe the paid nuke industry shills who try to tell us nuke is safe., I would believe an independant academic any day over an industry employee.
No form of energy that can sustain our current daily energy needs is safe. Coal, oil, natural gas all come with a price. In fact, over a long period, all of these kill more people each year than nuclear. And that's based mostly on 1970s reactor technology (due to the hurdles in building new ones).
The argument that Nuclear is completely unsafe when looking at the plants in operation today is kind of like arguing that cars are horribly unsafe because the study only looked at vehicles in Cuba (i.e. mostly all from the 50's). Much like car design, Nuclear reactor design has advanced. For example, molten salt reactors can be designed to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown, even in the conditions that happened in Japan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"denialist nuke fans"? I think you'll have a hard time finding examples of that. AGW minimization is a reason FOR building more nukes.
You would believe a person who has no experience in the industry over someone who does? That speaks volumes. Where else would you apply that logic. Lets see, would you believe academics over doctors? academics over climate scientists? academics over bridge engineers? You don't think academics are agenda driven?
Your blind dismissal of anyone who actually works with and fully u
Re: (Score:3)
anti-nuke hysteria, fanned by the cold war and the Chernobyl disaster, and promoted in the press by pro-oil interests, resulted in the US putting a moratorium on the construction of additional nuclear power stations, and the increased buildout of coal and petroleum fired power plants.
How is acknowledging that the NIMBY movement that was so easily motivated by these factors were instrumental in the reaching of that policy decision, in any way credibility deflating?
To this very day, this group is STILL vocal
Re: (Score:2)
my only beef with fission is the waste. (fusion I believe will remain a pipe dream, but the research should continue)
we can't even pass an annual budget, which makes me very skeptical of trusting those folks with planning out and financing a multidecade (ne: century) plan for dealing with nuclear waste. hell, they aren't even really dealing with the waste we already have.
and its a really big downside.
and given the advancements in other fields, particularly renewables, I don't see the pros outweighing the co
safe, cost effective nuclear power == pipe dream (Score:2)
But to get your investment in plant infrastructure back you half to run them for that length of time. And that's ignoring the subsidized costs of plant safety, plant security, and storing the waste for thousands of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no, it's not. Not even close, as nuclear power simply is not cost effective compared to other renewable power sources, which have none of the safety issues and don't take a decade to build.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. This is the same USG that is happy to tell both the citizen and the consumer to go fuck themselves if it means some corporation can get a buck. Or have you paid no attention to coal ash spills, oil train fires, pipe
Re: (Score:2)
France is the world's largest user of nuclear power, they've been running on it for the last 50 years to provide upto 80% of their domestic power needs. Unsurprisingly they're also at the forefront of reactor design.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Global cooling was proposed by all of 3 climate scientists, who were on the fringe.
It was amplified by the mainstream media who engineered a controversy for ratings.
For a more factual accounting of the science of the 70s, here is a nice informative link
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
as the denier myth about cooling once again rears its head.
Re: (Score:2)
And today you have unprecedented dieback of essential coral heads and reefs [theguardian.com], whales washing up on shore in record numbers [bbc.com], seals and walrus having significant difficulties with their habitats [livescience.com], massive reductions in polar ice, the near complete disappearance of the glacier at glacier national park [washingtonpost.com], severe population reductions of oceanic tuna [theguardian.com], and a whole host of other things.
More fear mongering my good sir?
Re: (Score:2)
why do you fools keep quoting actors when trying to mock science?
also, the damage of acid rain is pretty clear and indisputable: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
and that's just on statues, not counting the increased PH of lakes and streams and the effect of that on the species present.
Re:But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, fuck ass. PROPOSE YOUR SOLUTION.
AGW is not some immediate problem that needs to be solved tomorrow. It will unfold over decades, and the solution will also take decades. Here is what we need to do:
1. Slow population growth, especially in Africa. Make sure everyone that wants contraception has it. Promote female literacy (literate women have fewer and healthier babies than illiterate women). Promote clean water, vaccines and peacekeeping. Families have fewer children when they are more confident they will survive.
2. Invest in alternative energy technology.
3. Invest in energy storage technology.
4. Stop building new coal power plants.
5. Stop shutting down working nuclear plants. It may or may not be economical to build new news, but to shut down working plants is absolutely idiotic. Fortunately, only Germans are dumb enough to do this.
6. Continue to research possible global engineering solutions, like oceanic iron fertilization, sulfate aerosols, etc. It would be foolish to deploy these now, but we need to better understand the consequences so we can make informed decisions in the future.
7. Use market pricing and "smart meters" to shift demand to fit intermittent supplies of alternative energy.
8. Invest in fusion research, and thorium reactors.
9. Figure out how to do carbon sequestration economically.
10. Shift to a transportation infrastructure that is not based on oil.
11. Conservation: LED bulbs, variable speed DC motors, solid state magnetic cooling for refrigerators and ACs.
12. Stop doing stupid crap that wastes resources for mainly political reasons: Ethanol subsidies in America, wood pellet subsidies in Britain, etc.
We are already making significant progress on most of these. None of them require us to live like the Amish.
Re:But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score:4, Insightful)
We can't do 10. We don't know how.
Re: (Score:3)
We can't do 10. We don't know how.
In Norway, 25% of all new cars sold are electric. Imagine how many people will buy them once they actually make sense. By current trends, that is only 5 to 10 years out.
Re: But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score:5, Interesting)
A few quick points to ponder:
1) Norway is a tiny country.
2) Car ownership is a luxury few Norwegians can afford.
3) 25% of a small number of new cars purchased in a small country is meaningless.
4) The vast majority of those electric cars are being bought by Norwegians that derive their income from the oil industry.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the M3 will do the same again. It will replace competitors, such as the BMW 3 series, that costs as much or more, they get under 30 MPH, and the M3 will be quicker, cheaper to own, has a decent range, and use of a massive super charger network, e
Re: (Score:2)
Go look it up, I'm not your secretary. I already found you one easy answer using 10 seconds on the internet.
I don't subscribe to the "I think this with no evidence, you prove me wrong" line of thinking.
Re:But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score:4, Insightful)
We know how to replace most of it with electric vehicles, and the more intractible problems (Notably trucks) can be mitigated with tighter emission standards and hybridized designs.
Thats the thing, we dont need to completely convert to zero carbon emissions, we just need to get it to a point where we have brought us a century or two to find a *complete* solution.
Re:But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, we don't. The most expensive cars are simply good for "in this region." The less expensive cars are only good for "around town." The batteries run down far too quickly, and take too long to recharge. No electric car today can perform as well as a 1989 Yugo. In 1989, some friends of mine drove a 1989 Yugo in the 1 Lap of America rally, 9000 miles in 10 days of circumnavigating the USA. No electric car could do that today. Then there's the trucks, locomotives, ships, boats, and airplanes. We absolutely do need to leave the oil in the ground, because the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to take 100,000 years to be scrubbed clean as it is. We're just adding to it every day.
And there's not a lot of hope in sight. People currently working the battery problem are not having a lot of success. See:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo... [ieee.org]
This scientists are currently coming up with just one answer on batteries, it is Lithium, and Lithium is inadequate. And we can't simply say that Lithium batteries are expensive and we'll just spend what it takes because that hammers the poor, driving those that are in poverty deeper into it and casting those that are just making it now into poverty. Poverty is more deadly than smoking, as it will take up to 10 years off your life. Smoking is only "good" for 7. Converting to batteries now would be a cruel, elitist thing to do.
We're either going to have to solve the battery problem, or solve some way to operate our vehicles on grid electricity done with nukes and geo. Wind and solar are too intermittent - the wind stops blowing at night and your iron lung becomes your coffin.... Not many iron lungs left, but there's the emergency room operation that goes dark, the backup generators fail to start, and the patient dies for lack of electricity in the ER. Dunno how to get grid electricity even to cars, let alone airplanes and boats in rivers and ships at sea.
Right now, we're really screwed. Will the brave scientists find the magic battery and save us like they did when they invented nuclear weapons and ended WW2? Stay tuned.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Screwed? Well, if AGW turned out to be wrong, it wouldn't be the first consensus science conclusion that turned out to be wrong on account of some subtle but wide cockup and corruption of the scientific process. Good science works, bad science doesn't. And it takes several decades to figure out if something went wrong. And if anyone wants to deny this point, please present your crystal ball.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Maximum Pessimism. The ability to travel long distances with an EV is practically here. Fast Charge DC and 200+ mile affordable (average price) EVs coming this year and the next and only increasing and growing cheaper afterwards. Please have a look and plugshare or Tesla's supercharger map. How well do you think gas cars would work without gas stations?
As for "Lithium is inadequate", do some research before stating something so false. Lithium-air, for instance, has a higher theoretical gravimetri
Re: (Score:2)
I do hope they get it worked out, but I was speaking of the present. According to the Wikipedia entry for Li-Air batteries, they still need significantly more development to be suitable for automotive uses. That may or may not ever happen. I hope it does. I would _love_ to have an electric car that will do everything my Subaru WRX will do now, including not breaking me up when I have to pay for it. Replacing the batteries rapidly would be a suitable substitute for having several-minute charging, so t
Re: (Score:2)
In 1989, some friends of mine drove a 1989 Yugo in the 1 Lap of America rally, 9000 miles in 10 days of circumnavigating the USA.
No they didn't
https://www.onelapofamerica.co... [onelapofamerica.com]
Maybe your year is wrong but I didn't see a yugo in 88 or 90 either. Anyway, your post and the article are classic goal-post moving. When we had 70mi/charge electric cars we need 200 mi/charge. Now we need 500 mi/charge even so Americans drive an average of 30mi/day. And next year when the 500mi/charge car comes out you won't be satisfied without your 9000mi in 10 day car.
Nevermind that since 1990, Li batteries have doubled in power density and dropped in price
Re: (Score:2)
OK, it was 87 - I thought that happened during my 2nd 1-lap, but it was my first. We were car 10, my buddy was in car 65 in a Yugo. We won, BTW. Anyway, I just misremembered the year.
And no, electrics can't do that, they''re not ever going to be doing that in ordinary lithium batteries. Those things need about a 10X reduction in price and a 2X - 3X gain in performance so they aren't so big and heavy and the cars don't have to be shaped like an airplane in order to cut the wind.
As for how much driv
Re: But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score:2)
No, it is an easily-proven statement regarding the infrastructure needed for electric cars to replace gasoline-fueled cars.
A 1989 POS Yugo can go several hundred miles before needing a refill, it can be refilled in about ten minutes, and refuling stations are ubiquitous.
A 2016 electric vehicle can not do that, nor can a hybrid, without resorting to running almost exclusively on fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Locomotives run on diesel, so more CO2. Could they run on electricity? Maybe. We have 100's of thousands of miles of freight rail, and converting them all to grid electricity may or may not be possible. Ever notice that tunnels have only inches of clearance? Where do you put the extra wiring? And of course we still can't make the grid electricity with just solar and wind because if the wind stops blowing at night, we're screwed. Maybe solvable in the long run by a global high voltage DC power gri
Re: (Score:2)
None of them require us to live like the Amish.
Indeed - even if you compare the amount of energy used in America per inhabitant with the same for Europe, you can see a significant difference, and I don't think most Americans would feel life was uncortably primitive if they wen't to stay here. To think that only something like 150 years ago, Americans were incredibly tough pioneers, who survived on next to nothing and still managed to build up a great nation; things have gone downhill somewhat, it appears.
It is perfectly possible to live good, comfortabl
Re: (Score:2)
no one is suggesting we live like the amish
Re: (Score:2)
"AGW is not some immediate problem that needs to be solved tomorrow. It will unfold over decades, and the solution will also take decades."
The consequences will unfold over decades, but the problem is certainly immediate and it should have been "solved"/mitigated 15 years ago. I agree nearly 100% with your proposals as to how to address it. Anyone who thinks to world will revert to Amish style living tomorrow is just naive. The biggest problem we have is ignorance mostly due to the intentional spread of m
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question, Why Africa? India and China both have higher populations than all of Africa as well as centralized governments and (I'm guessing) a higher overall per capita consumption rate which makes them lower hanging fruit. Not to mention the US where the per capita resource consumption more than makes up the difference in population. Population growth rates may be falling in all 3 countries but population is still rising.
I think the real solution is to transition away from an economic model that rel
Problem is western exceptionalists, not population (Score:2)
Smarmy western elitism + eugenics, charming. Problem: your self-centered ass uses the same amount [nytimes.com] of resources as 32 of those Africans that you wish would stop breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Why "especially in Africa"? Please explain.
Because fertility rates are far higher in Africa, and that is the only place where families often have more children than they want because contraceptives are unavailable or unaffordable. Africa also has the lowest literacy rates, the lowest vaccination rates, and the worst public sanitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as the "lalala, if I can't hear you, you haven't said it, and it won't happen" position.
Re: (Score:2)
Once fossil fuels run out this century we'll know.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and when the planet enters an iceage from increased cloud cover, I am sure all that technology will enable continued use of intensive agriculture, which needs sunlight we won't be getting because of the clouds.
Nature will decimate the human population most brutally.
But it will all be OK, because none of that will actually happen, so drill baby drill!
Re: (Score:2)
Relax. Basically all we do is to release the carbon that has already at some point in the past been in the atmosphere, so we know that the planet and life on this planet will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but why should I give a shit about human life?
Re: (Score:2)
This.
I used to worry about global warming and fight the windmills (the figurative ones, the literal ones would actually be a good idea)... no more. What for? First, I'm old enough that the real catastrophes won't happen in my lifetime. I have no kids, so there is nobody I would care about that has to carry the burden of it. I live far enough inland in a country where it's trivial and politically obviously acceptable to simply shoot whoever wants to escape certain doom.
So why bother? Honestly, give me a reas
Re: (Score:2)
In the hopes that caring might give you back your soul?
Re: (Score:2)
I used to be a good guy, until I learned that Karma isn't a bitch, but believing in it makes you the one for the world.
Re: But climate change is a myth!!! (Score:2)
You know what Ice records show? That the climate has had hotter peaks and cooler lows than we have experienced in recorded history, and the climate rebounded. The idiots are the folks that cherry-pick facts from the historical record, ignoring those that contradict the intended outcome of their 'scientific research' as summarized on their grant requests.
So what you are saying is (Score:2, Insightful)
That it is up from the lowest and bouncing back.
Gee that was fun. Can anyone play ?
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as you spent many discussions under the impression sea ice and land ice were the same thing, I think it's safe to assume you don't know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Dave off your meds again ?
Re: (Score:2)
The southern ice cap is a sheet of ice 2 miles thick on top of a land mass we know as Antarctica. It is land ice. It is comprised of fresh water. The majority of it is fairly stable; it doesn't retreat/expand the way the northern one does in a yearly cycle and itsn exposed to the same large fluctuations in dynamics. When it melts it dilutes the water in the surrounding ocean, making it fresh (lower salinity), which increases its freezing temperature, which increases (to a degree) the amount of sea ice that
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is the arctic ice doesn't matter at all ?
consequences (Score:1)
"In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences." - Robert Green Ingersoll
Ice, ice baby (Score:5, Funny)
When I'm president we're going to have massive ice, all right? Strong, powerful ice that grabs you by the shoulders and pushes you down on your stomach and shows you what real ice is all about. Barack Obama let the ice get all thin and runny, which is really really sad. I'm going to make sure the ice is thick and hard and respected everywhere, all right? Respected everywhere. And it will be white, American ice, not muddy ice.
Re: (Score:3)
*Eyes start to spiral* We can TRUMP climate change folks, we just need negotions, also LOOK OVER THERE, ITS HILARY DOING A THING
Re: (Score:2)
When I'm president we're going to have massive ice, all right? Strong, powerful ice that grabs you by the shoulders and pushes you down on your stomach and shows you what real ice is all about. Barack Obama let the ice get all thin and runny, which is really really sad. I'm going to make sure the ice is thick and hard and respected everywhere, all right? Respected everywhere. And it will be white, American ice, not muddy ice.
And Canada is going to pay for it.
Ocean Warming (Score:1, Informative)
For anyone interested in how this is being driven by increased ocean warming, here is an in-depth report which is worth a read!
https://www.iucn.org/news/global-warning-ocean-warming
2nd (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, for Pete's sake.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Despite this trend, sea ice as a whole is decreasing on a global scale.
Re:But There's Record High Ice in the South (Score:5, Informative)
For every arctic, there's an antarctic.
It was just two years ago that there was record ice in the antarctic area.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an... [cbsnews.com]
That certainly justifies spending hundreds of billions of dollars on bird-frying solar reflectors, or bird chopping windmills for a guestimated 0.2 degree reduction in the planet's temperature
There was record sea ice in the Antarctic a couple of years ago but the Antarctic Ice Sheet (that's the land based ice) continues to lose ice. Part of the reason for the record sea ice is that the melting of the ice sheet puts more fresh water in the ocean around Antarctica making it easier for the sea to freeze.
Re: (Score:2)
"bird-frying solar reflectors, or bird chopping windmills" This is how you lose all credibility.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be incapable of understanding your parent post, which explaining why increasing Antarctic sea ice is a very bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OR the reader is intelligent and considers more than one possibility...
Re: (Score:2)
Hating? - banter is lost on you.
"douch" said the anonymous coward...oh the pain.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to read the entire paper, not just cherry pick the thing that supports your agenda.
"If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."
If things stay as they are currently it reverses the trend.
Re: (Score:2)
What's happening with the areas mentioned is obviously that they're losing ice, and the quotation is clear about that. The "if" and "I think" are speculations about the future - meaning that it might or might not stop happening in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to your mendacity and cherry picking? Warmer temperatures means more moisture in the air, which makes for more precipitation, which makes for more rain and...snow. You and every other denialist who looks at snow and says it's dispositive of climate change is actually pointing to one of it's effects.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one paper that climate science deniers like to cite but evidence from the GRACE satellites contradicts it showing a net loss from the whole Antarctic ice sheet. Here's a story [princeton.edu] about the GRACE research that covers 2003-2014.
Re: (Score:2)
lacks any substance?
no one knows?
runs counter to global warming theory?
dude its basic freaking chemistry and it was predicted by global warming theory!!
Re: (Score:2)
If you hate science, why are you even on this website?
Re: (Score:2)
you cant honestly be that stupid.
seriously.
you just cant.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... [nsidc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is complicated, data is noisy, and nothing is monotonic. Arctic sea ice is in decline, just not in a nice ordered progression. 2007 was an outlier, like 1998 for global temperatures.
You also misused "begs the question".