Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth NASA Space Science

Sea Ice In Arctic and Antarctic Is At Record Low Levels This Year (cnn.com) 313

dryriver quotes a report from CNN: For what appears to be the first time since scientists began keeping track, sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic are at record lows this time of year. "It looks like, since the beginning of October, that for the first time we are seeing both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice running at record low levels," said Walt Meier, a research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, who has tracked sea ice data going back to 1979. While it is too early to know if the recent, rapid decline in Antarctic sea ice is going to be a regular occurrence like in the Arctic, it "certainly puts the kibosh on everyone saying that Antarctica's ice is just going up and up," Meier said. The decline of sea ice has been a key indicator that climate change is happening, but its loss, especially in the Arctic, can mean major changes for your weather, too. The report notes that air temperatures in the Arctic have been exceeding 35 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius) above average, while "sea ice in the northern latitudes is at a lower level than ever observed for this time of the year." October and November is when the Arctic region typically gains ice. This year, air temperatures are staying much warmer and closer to the freezing mark of 32 degrees Fahrenheit. What's more is that water temperatures in the Arctic Ocean are several degrees above average, as a result of having less sea ice.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sea Ice In Arctic and Antarctic Is At Record Low Levels This Year

Comments Filter:
  • HAIL TRUMP! (Score:2, Informative)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

    Trump's going to fix that thin ice, and his supporters are ready to help.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/pol... [theatlantic.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:40PM (#53336487)

    As can be seen here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ [nsidc.org] the arctic has been losing ice for four days ( Nov 17-20 ) now. For the month of November this is an unprecedented event over the entire period of satellite observations collected from 1979 to the present.

    By the way, a neat experiment which you can perform with this chart is to "turn off" all of the years, then turn on the first five years and note where they fall relative to the median and the 2nd standard deviation; then switch from the first five to the last five and make the same observation.

    • by Layzej ( 1976930 )
      Here's arctic and antarctic sea ice combined. [wordpress.com] : The combined graph is quite a bit more dramatic.
  • When we reconstitute the dinosaurs they' have a cozy climate waiting for them.

  • Six months or so (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThatsNotPudding ( 1045640 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @11:26PM (#53336691)
    In about six months or so, we will never again hear such information from anyone even tangentially related to FedGov. This incoming admin will make the Harper suppression of science look like fucking Romper Room.
  • Salute the idiot in chief who does deny that global warming and rising seas are an issue at all. America is under attack by an total freak. Frankenzilla is on the attack. Vlad Trumpula is sucking the life blood out of the world. Fight back while you can or the fool will kill us all with his secret weapon (total idiocy).
    • Salute the idiot in chief who does deny that global warming and rising seas are an issue at all. America is under attack by an total freak. Frankenzilla is on the attack. Vlad Trumpula is sucking the life blood out of the world. Fight back while you can or the fool will kill us all with his secret weapon (total idiocy).

      Now now, you are getting hysterical. This too shall pass. In the 30's and mid 40's Germany fell upon some hard times. But today, it's a great place.

      • Along the way they had a world war... and they didn't have nukes.

        If the pattern repeats, do not be so sure it will have the same happy ending.

  • 1) Deny that the planet is warming
    2) Deny that warming is a problem
    3) Deny that humans caused the warming
    4) Accept that past human actions affected the climate, but deny that future actions will affect the climate (It's too late to do anything about it)
    5) Grudgingly accept that we should replace expensive fossil fuels with cheaper renewable energy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 )

      6) Get fed up and go back to being a "denier" just to spite those that keep shoving the almost-daily environmental doom and gloom reports down our throats, when we're just here for interesting tech news.

      • Imagine a Beowulf cluster of high-tech thermometers!

      • 6) Get fed up and go back to being a "denier" just to spite those that keep shoving the almost-daily environmental doom and gloom reports down our throats, when we're just here for interesting tech news.

        You do realize that statement merely shows that you are among the exceptionally easily manipulated. Unless you are self destructive as well, you never believed in the greenhouse effect.

        Good luck with that, Pepe'.

        • The greenhouse effect and AGW are true. However, there's nothing we will do to change the course. Global CO2 emissions will stop when the fossil fuels are all extracted from the ground, not a moment sooner. At best we can tinker a bit to slow it down, but that only means delaying that end point by a few years.
          • So you are at stage 4 then?

            • No, I don't believe it's "too late". I believe too few people are willing to make sacrifices now in order to improve a far away future to make a difference. That was true 30 years ago, it's still true today, and it will be true 30 years from now.
    • Renewable isn't cheaper for running trains/planes/automobiles/trucks yet. It may take a while, the batteries are expensive.

      • They do have electric trains, you know, and they don't use batteries.
        • We've had them for decades. Trains and trams are the easiest things to do electric and we moved away from coal and diesel on them decades ago exactly because it's cheaper to use electricity.

        • Well, yes, but the overhead power lines for them greatly increase the cost. I wouldn't be surprised if it more than doubled it over just the basic 2 rails spaced by wood on gravel.

    • by blindseer ( 891256 ) <`blindseer' `at' `earthlink.net'> on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @02:45AM (#53337289)

      5) Grudgingly accept that we should replace expensive fossil fuels with cheaper renewable energy.

      If renewable energy is cheaper then why would anyone continue to use fossil fuels? Either renewable energy is more expensive or there is some aspect of renewable energy that makes it undesirable. But then whatever undesirable aspect of renewable energy that makes it nonviable is really just a restatement of saying it is too expensive.

      You claiming that people burn coal, even though it costs more than renewable energy, implies that people burn coal just to be dicks about the environment and the quality of the air. Is that what you think? That people burn coal just to be dicks to everyone else? What is there to gain by burning coal for the coal burners if it costs them more money and they have to breathe the same dirty air as everyone else?

      We don't burn coal because we are dicks. We burn coal because the benefits outweigh the costs. You can talk about "externalities" all you like but once people know about an "externality" it gets internalized. A true external cost is something we don't know about, and we know about global warming. A better example of an external cost is the "cost" of having electricity so cheap and abundant, which brings us affordable food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. This "cost" is of course negative, therefore it is a benefit.

      Have you considered the "externalities" of wind or solar? People complain about how much mining is done for coal but rarely do I see how much mining must be done for collecting the wind and sun. To replace coal with wind worldwide would require 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. Current world production of steel and concrete is 1.5 billion tons. Wind requires over 500 tons of steel and 1000 tons of concrete per installed MW, about ten times that of nuclear, coal, or natural gas.

      I can keep going with the numbers if you like, such as how much land must be cleared for wind and solar power. There is a cost to that, even if we somehow figure out how to dual use this land like using rooftops, roadways, and croplands. Windmills and solar panels are inherently incompatible with trees, as are the power lines run to carry the electricity from them.

      Wind and solar power advocates aren't "tree huggers" like most people would claim, they are "tree haters". Either these people would rather we cut down trees for windmills and solar panels or they have not considered the "external" costs of collecting wind and sun.

      If you really cared about the trees, and you want cheap electricity, then you'd be advocating for nuclear power. Nuclear power is as cheap as coal, lower carbon footprint than either wind or sun power, safer than any energy source we know about, and so abundant that the byproducts from the rare earth metal mining we do now for making windmills and batteries would be more than enough to meet current energy needs.

      You want renewable energy? Why do you hate trees so much?

      • I love this table - and show it to everyone I can - go Nuclear !

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      • by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:09AM (#53337771)

        >If renewable energy is cheaper then why would anyone continue to use fossil fuels? Either renewable energy is more expensive or there is some aspect of renewable energy that makes it undesirable. But then whatever undesirable aspect of renewable energy that makes it nonviable is really just a restatement of saying it is too expensive.

        Or, most people don't actually CHOOSE what gets used to produce power - governments and corporations decide for millions. ?And they don't have to do it to be dicks - they do it to make money. Those who already spent a lot of money building infrastructure aren't keen on seeing their revenues goes to another product (even though it's cheaper for consumers), so they lobby like hell to keep governments from investing in those newer, better, technologies.

        Where people DO get to choose as consumers - they overwhelmingly choose renewables. Home solar is exploding as consumers choose to invest in renewables THEMSELVES rather than pay for fossil fuels. It's SO MUCH cheaper that even without economies of scale individuals can do the solar for themselves cheaper than large scale production can do it for everybody !

        Here in South Africa the latest research suggests coal power costs R1.20 per Mw/H (that's without factoring in cost-overruns, construction delays, interest on loans during construction delays, any externalities - in other words it's an absolute best case scenario price)... solar comes in at about 62c per mw/h - half the price - and that's ACTUAL cost since construction is so much simpler that overruns are extremely rare to non-existent. And while bringing a coal plant online is 5 to 7 years in the BEST case scenario and more than 10 in the typical - a solar plant of equivalent capacity is online in two.

  • science via cnn

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c... [uiuc.edu]

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c... [uiuc.edu]

    Chicken little alive and well

    • The enormous deviations right at the end of the plots you linked should trigger a healthy bit of skepticism. And indeed, reading on their main page it says:

      Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures (and derived Arctic and Antarctic sea ice products) has been providing spurious data since beginning of April. Working on resolving problem or replacing this data source.

      • That was the point

        There should be a healthy amount of skepticism about any of these claims.

        • Skepticism is good. Just denying evidence you don't like is dumb. If you have good reasons to believe the other sensor data is bad too, go ahead and show us.
          • You mean apart from the obvious reasoning that anyone who is actually thinking should be able to come up with ?

            • by dave420 ( 699308 )

              You really don't understand how measurements work, do you? It's perfectly possible to make incorrect measurements correct by figuring out how they are incorrect and correct the data to bring it into line. If you have 1,000 measurements with a thermometer you know has been precisely 1 degree off, do you throw out all your measurements or adjust them? Also you were the one confused between the difference between sea ice and land ice, so I think it's safe to ignore your bleating, as you demonstrated this is

            • I have no idea what things you find obvious. Just show why you think the data is wrong.
  • But...but..haven't we been told (screamed at) that weather is not climate?

    Seems from the applications we've witnessed from AGW cultists that this is a mutable rule based on agenda.

    Strat

    • Why the "but...but...but" ? Obviously, this is a weather event. However, the likelihood of such weather events is made much more likely by climate change.
      • Because the weather events are only noticeable to the media when they support the narrative. Not saying that climate change is strictly a narrative, the greenhouse effect is obviously a thing, but the alarmism is pushed hard nonetheless. My point being, when there are weather events that don't support the conclusion, they're somehow not newsworthy.

        When the science was settled that we would have ever-worsening tornadoes and hurricanes, the likes of which the world has never seen, then went on (at least in th

        • Sure. I agree it's best to avoid the popular media and listen to what actual scientists ("the AGW cultists") have to say.
  • by ememisya ( 1548255 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @03:11AM (#53337345) Homepage
    That's awesome.
  • 32F = 0C
    35F = 1.667C

    20C = 68F

    Oops.

"So why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here." -- Biff in "Back to the Future"

Working...