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.
HAIL TRUMP! (Score:2, Informative)
Trump's going to fix that thin ice, and his supporters are ready to help.
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol... [theatlantic.com]
Comb-over The Caps! (Score:4, Funny)
He's going to comb-over the ice caps?
Re: (Score:2)
This is one occasion where I would waste mod points on an AC post, if I had them.
Re: (Score:2)
He's going to send a bunch of tankers to drain the ice run off, then refreeze them and use them as building material for the wall. He's just trying to figure out how to make Mexico pay for it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
*Heil
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm trying to give our friends on the alt-Right the benefit of the doubt. The nazi salutes kind of give it away, though.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's going to fix that thin ice...
And make those damned polar bears pay for it!
The arctic has been losing ice for four days now. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow, all the way back to 1979... (Score:5, Insightful)
I never understood why deniers keep bringing up conditions millions of years ago, as if they were relevant to us today. Yes, the planet was once a ball of lava - what's your point?
Nothing in the past affects any of the evidence of change we see today. All that's relevant are two things - that the climate is changing, rapidly and undeniably (and the sudden decrease in Arctic ice extent is just one of many indicators of this), and that those changes will require human societies to expend a lot of money and effort to adapt to (which much of the world cannot afford).
Re:Wow, all the way back to 1979... (Score:4, Insightful)
They have to respond, and in their view, the idiocy of the response is irrelevant. All that matters is that they raised an objection, no matter how utterly moronic it is.
Re: (Score:3)
we are talking a little warmer for a few days in the Antarctic at this point
In this case a few days is roughly two months. I agree we have to start adapting now, but this is because politicians failed to act 30yrs ago. We are now at the stage where the longer you work on adapting to the problem the less resources you have to fix the problem. For example, sea walls don't work if they are built on limestone, so you can save some money now by kissing Miami goodbye or start calling it Venice.
So yah, your professor did a great job of teaching you what to think and never got around to teaching you how to think. Sorry you didn't have me in college, I would have at least given you a fighting chance to think critically instead of regurgitating what your echo chamber of friends and you all think.
Feeling insecure? Need a hug?
Re:Wow, all the way back to 1979... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Seriously? Politicians should have acted 30 years ago? What exactly should they have done 30 years ago, that wouldn't automatically make them lose their next election?
And that's why America can't have nice things. Most of the politicians who passed gun control in Australia in the conservative states destroyed their careers in the process (whether you support it or not is not relevant to the subject under discussion). They did it anyway - because they believed it was the right thing to do. They believed it was the best way to serve their constituencies and if it meant never being re-elected then so be it.
They had to trust that their constituents would eventually come to agree with them and thus their replacements would not roll it back.
In America - that never happens. A politician would simply never be willing to destroy his career in politics in order to do what he believes is right. If it means not getting another term, it won't get done.
The moral cowardice of American politicians is not something we should be celebrating.
Re: (Score:2)
> A politician would simply never be willing to destroy his career in politics in order to do what he believes is right.
Remember Jimmy Carter?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay... so you've had one in the 20th century.
I'd argue that Lincoln would have done so if needed (not that he got the chance to) that's another in the 19th century.
Can you imagine if you could be sure of having at least 2 or 3 in every congress ?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
>Why would people vote in politicians who are likely to do things that are contrary to their own interests?
Ask that of the 47% who just voted in Donald Trump. The odds of him doing anything that benefits them are between zero and none. The odds of him using the presidency as his own personal piggy bank are about 100% - he has already begun and he isn't even inaugurated yet. People vote for all sorts of reasons - and regularly vote against their own interests. Hell haven't you noticed that the republican
Re:Wow, all the way back to 1979... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, let's see now:
The wildest projections for global temperatures predict a max of 5C global temperature increase
The strongest RCP 8.5 scenario [www.ipcc.ch] assumes continued and increasing (business-as-usual) emissions reaching 936ppm CO2 by 2100. This is likely to result in 3 to 5 degrees temperature increase by 2100 - but will certainly keep increasing well beyond that, even if we suddenly stopped all our emissions. So no, 5 is not the max. Also, that's an average, and thus specific areas can climb well beyond 5C (see Fig SPM 8 [a]).
never mind that these models have been wrong and every 10 years they have to turn them down to avoid losing all credibility
Citation needed. The first IPCC report [www.ipcc.ch] in 1990 predicted a temperature increase between 1 and 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures (see Figure 8), with a rise rate of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees per decade. Right now we're about 1.2 degrees [phys.org] above pre-industrial temperatures, and rising at 1.7 degrees per decade [noaa.gov].
the tropics aren't going to get much hotter due to the effects of evaporation, most of the rise will be seen at the poles and further latitudes
Again, citation needed, because Fig SPM 8 (a) [www.ipcc.ch] shows pretty clearly that tropical land temperatures can expect 4C to 7C average rises (again under RCP 8.5).
The past is massively important to what we are currently seeing.
But solely for the purpose of identifying past forcings, so that we can evaluate them in the context of today's increases (obviously there is no direct effect). Past changes can (and did) have entirely different causes to current changes. Every natural and cyclical cause that we've identified from the paleontological record has been evaluated in the context of modern warming, and found to be insufficient to cause the observed changes.
If this global warming is due to increased solar flux/frequency shift
It definitely isn't (surely you knew that much?) See IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 8 [www.ipcc.ch], particularly section 8.5.
a myriad of other factors not directly or indirectly caused by man
I welcome any suggestions that climatologists may not have considered. But considering you seem to believe they didn't even check solar flux, I'm not hopeful you'll think of anything new.
that argument can be made easily looking at the global temperatures over the past 500k years; hint: palm trees used to grow on Antarctica)
Again I say: so? Why do you think that current climate changes must have the same cause as past changes? Is it not conceivable to you that we could be seeing an entirely different proximate cause? I remind you once again that we've accounted for all known natural forcings, and found them insufficient to cause current observations.
BTW, palm trees grew on Antarctica 52 million years ago [bbc.com] (not 500k), and atmospheric CO2 was at least 600ppm. That doesn't bode well for the scope of changes we're likely to see.
all the resources we pour into fighting global warming are 100% wasted
Even if we assume (against all evidence) that current warming is unrelated to human activity, transitioning our energy infrastructure to renewable and/or carbon-neutral sources is hardly wasted. Simply getting off coal will save hundreds of billions in health costs every year, in the US alone. Removing oil-burni
Re: (Score:3)
I personally don't rule out nuclear as a solution (heck, anything is better than coal). There are undeniably cases where nuclear is the best option. However, it's an not the cheapest and has some significant risk (low chance of failure, but expensive consequences), so there may well be better options in other cases. Any serious energy policy has to consider all the options on their merits - including renewables.
All a carbon tax will do is make people poorer and government bigger
Carbon taxes are not intended to reduce demand, they're intended to raise prices of carbon-intens
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another Slashdotter unsure if scientists have heard of the Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not summer in the Arctic.
It is summer in the Antarctic.
These are not the same place- they are literally on opposite ends of the earth.
Re:Cycles (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not the one denying anything.
Other than reality
I am saying it is warming, but someday it will cool again, and that we'll be fine in the middle...
a) you don't know that it will
b) you don't know the timescale
c) you don't know that we will
Because the Earth arrived at where it was in 1979 after:
* Being hotter than it is currently
* Having more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have currently.
Again, not during human history.
Life as we know it is evolved for current conditions.
We've proceeded at over 330,000 times the rate of past heating/cooling events, leaving evolution no time to adapt.
The whole reason we were supposed to be scared of global warming was runaway warming. But even with this recent heat spike we are not seeing runaway warming. Over 100 years we may see 2C or so of warming, but that is not runaway warming
Actually we are. that's rather the point.
Your argument here is still trying to present it as "normal warming" but it's not. it's anything but.
its not just the magnitude of warming, but the speed of it. the magnitude was exceeded only in the distant, hundreds of millions of years ago, which is alarming enough.
but the speed of the warming is unprecedented.
the earth has never seen its like.
and in fact is beneficial to humanity overall because the Earth will be a more arable place
a) you reveal your ignorance of agriculture. suffice to say, land isn't arable simply because of air temperatures.
b) there is much evidence to the contrary. many common crop plants, in the face of higher temperatures or higher CO2 amounts, lose their agricultural usefulness. among the problems:
-become toxic
-don't grow
-become more easily infested by pests
The only thing climate related you should truly fear is a new ice age, and warming gets us farther out from that scenario.
Slap yourself until the stupid falls out.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me if I fail to get worked up over something "unprecedented" over a timer period that is the geologic equivalent of a sneeze.
Do you seriously think that has never happened before in the history of the planet? Which has at times been warmer on average than it is even now of promises to be over the next 100 years or so?
Okay, you're forgiven. Given the nature of the greenhouse effect, which can go both positive or negative, we can get spikes. especially in the negative direction. Sulfur Dioxide from volcanos can cause a temporary lowering of global or regional temperatures. in 1815, after the Volcano Tamora erupted in indonesia and New England and Europe were particularly hard hit, causing the infamous "Year without a summer." Krakatau and more recently Pinatubo and El Chichon volcanos did the same thing.
The gases that
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me if I fail to get worked up over something "unprecedented" over a timer period that is the geologic equivalent of a sneeze.
Do you seriously think that has never happened before in the history of the planet? Which has at times been warmer on average than it is even now of promises to be over the next 100 years or so?
I'm curious why climate was defined as something which happens over 30 years. Why not 3 or 300 or 3000? I would actually like to know what the basis was for defining it that way, and an explanation for why that basis makes sense. So I'm not interested in someone just quoting or restating that definition, but an actual walk through how they arrived at that number as the correct, objective, meaningfully useful time period.
Too often in this or that field you hear of some issue that's just a consequence of how
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple mathematics. Anything less than that and the climate effects are drowned out by weather events (the signal to noise ratio is too low). You can go UP from there as far as you want, the patterns remain the same - but it's useful to use the lowest feasible number because it allows us to actually study climate effects in human timescales. If we COULD study it on 3 year basis, we would.
Re: (Score:2)
But how do you arrive at the "lowest feasible number" ? Why is 30 feasible? What if only 300 is feasible?
Re: (Score:2)
I already told you - it's climate for any point where the 10-million year graph and your graph looks the same (just on a different scale).
The point where it deviates is where you've gone too small and weather data has overwhelmed the climate signal.
That point is around 20 to 25 years. So put it at 30 to give a little buffer and make it easy to remember.
We know 300 and 30 are both climate because they look exactly the same. But the 3 year graph looks VERY different from the 30 year graph - even from the las
Calculation: Signal to noise (Score:3)
But how do you arrive at the "lowest feasible number" ? Why is 30 feasible? What if only 300 is feasible?
Good question. Let's do some math.
From a year by year temperature graph http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... [nasa.gov] we see random temperation variation is somewhere about 0.3C. Temperature rise is on the order of 0.15 degrees per decade. Averaging reduces the noise by the square root of the number of points (Poisson statistics*). So, the temperature rise (signal) is larger then the noise (year to year variations) when 0.015*N> 0.3/SQRT(N). Thus, N^(3/2) = 0.3/0.015, and we calculate N = 7.3 years.
So, in 7.3 yea
Re: (Score:2)
Great! (Score:2)
When we reconstitute the dinosaurs they' have a cozy climate waiting for them.
Six months or so (Score:4, Insightful)
Trumpenstein (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in northern Alberta
Who's the idiot again?
Stages of global warming grief (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of high-tech thermometers!
Re: (Score:2)
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'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are at stage 4 then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For him to be able to invoke a sense of humor on your post, your post needed to contain something humorous.
P.S. "Herp derp i hate being told global warming is happening" is not actually a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, I can understand how nothing would seem funny when you've got a stick up your ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Conversely, everything seems funny when you have your head up your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, everything seems funny when you have your head up your ass.
That's only if you eaten a clown recently. END CANNABILISM NOW!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, everything seems funny when you have your head up your ass.
I think you win the thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable isn't cheaper for running trains/planes/automobiles/trucks yet. It may take a while, the batteries are expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Stages of global warming grief (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Stages of global warming grief (Score:4, Interesting)
>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.
Going to be one of these stories (Score:2)
science via cnn
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c... [uiuc.edu]
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c... [uiuc.edu]
Chicken little alive and well
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the point
There should be a healthy amount of skepticism about any of these claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean apart from the obvious reasoning that anyone who is actually thinking should be able to come up with ?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"Since the beginning of October.." (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it would have happened regardless of whether humans had even come to exist
Unlikely, though. The volume of arctic sea ice in september (the seasonal lowest point) is only a quarter of what it was a few decades ago, and much more fragile, and that's a direct consequence of human caused global climate change. If there were 4 times as much ice, it would not react that dramatically to a few months of warmer weather.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Ummm 35F = 20C? I don't think so! (Score:2)
32F = 0C
35F = 1.667C
20C = 68F
Oops.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So global warming is a farce after all (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's what you took away from TFS or TFA, your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are both seriously deficient. And that situation, sadly having spread to epidemic proportions, is why Trump is the next President of the United States of America.
Re:So global warming is a farce after all (Score:5, Insightful)
" And that situation, sadly having spread to epidemic proportions, is why Trump is the next President of the United States of America."
I would like to share your assessment, but I believe that you are mistaken. The American Public did not recently "Dumb Down"; they just got mean. It's a cyclical thing, whether it's "Manifest Destiny" or "American Exceptionalism" or Secession or the KKK or "The Silent Majority" or "The Moral Majority", there is just this streak of Mean that certain belligerent Americans; usually White, Male and Lower to Lower Middle-Class, likes to indulge in now and again.
There is a certain massive Inferiority Complex associated with it, as well as a certain blindness. The followers of Trump will just refuse to accept the fact that Trump is _The_ One Percent that they hate, born with a Silver Spoon up his ass, the better to dish it out. Just because he at times talks like them, while talking down to them, (Did anybody else notice Trump's rising inflections in speeches towards the end of the Campaign? Damn, the Dude had heard once or twice of the Kennedies...), does not mean that Trump is anything other than that portrayed for the last three decades- a Liar, (Third marriage after many affairs.), a Cheat, (Taxes), a Swindler, (University), Inept, (Bankruptcies), a Racist, (RE Lawsuits dating back to his Father), a Crook, (Illegal Employees, including Wife #3), and has really bad hair. And bad breath. His capacity for Breath Mints is astonishing; he must have built up quite a Tolerance.
But to get back to the matter at hand; if due to the lack of Sea Ice to run it, the California Current collapses, and it has been iffy lately, say goodbye to Prevailing Westerlies and California Agriculture; say hello to Hurricanes clawing up the Pacific Coast. Collapse of the Labrador Current means that Europe freezes quicker and longer every Winter, because the Gulf Stream Counterflow collapses with it. Which means more Hurricanes on the US East Coast as well, and the Gulf of Mexico turns into a stagnant Saltwater pond.
Of course, some regions benefit. Arizona finally gets the Water that it needs, and without much warning beforehand. Eastern Siberian Permafrost thaws, due to the failure of the Kurile/Oyashio Currents, although some thought should be given to Russia controlling the new Breadbasket of the World. Some places get wetter, some drier, some warmer, some much colder, all due to the fact that Sea Ice ties up an enormous amount of Energy for long periods of time, that that isn't present in Land Ice, by the time that it melts and makes its way to Sea.
Well, it could be worse...
Trump could get "Re-Elected"...
Re: (Score:2)
Meh.
The real situation is what it is, and that seems to be plenty to discuss; I don't see the point in fantasizing catastrophe scenarios that have very little real science behind them.
For a look at what the best actual expectations are for the impact of warming and loss of sea ice, the WG-II report is still the best review: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... [www.ipcc.ch]
(that's rather long, but the 32 page summary is here: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images... [ipcc-wg2.gov] )
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's it. People voted for Trump because he's less corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. Why bother with corruption when you turn the system into a cleptocracy anyway?
Re:So global warming is a farce after all (Score:4, Interesting)
What's corrupt about openly pitching to foreign diplomats to pitch down $20k a night to stay in the hotel that the president owns in DC? "No no, certainly no bribery going on here..."
If you don't like the situation where a president can own a network of hundreds of companies scattered around the world directly doing business with foreign governments and be directly under his family's control, call your rep [house.gov] and ask them to support H.R. 6340 [house.gov], which extends current federal conflict of interest law to the offices of the president and vice president, requiring that their assets be kept in a blind trust or potential conflicts of interest disclosed to the Office of Government Ethics when they make a decision that could affect their assets' worth. Hardly revolutionary, as that's what Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, etc all did. The bill has teeth, too - “(f) A violation of subsection (a) shall constitute a high crime and misdemeanor for the purposes of Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution."
It's something that anybody who's nervous about the current situation and lives in the US can do to make themselves feel better.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't record low levels by definition be the first time we've seen them?
Re:The Priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Informative)
Wouldn't record low levels by definition be the first time we've seen them?
You have that wrong. There have been times when the Arctic sea ice had reach record lows before (obviously not as low as now), and there have been times when the Antarctic sea ice had reached record lows. But for the first time, both of these events have happened at the same time. That is what the original sentence says.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
20 deg C ABOVE AVERAGE, not 20 deg C above ZERO
Re:20 Degrees C?! Lol (Score:4, Informative)
20C above average in the Arctic for the month of October; not 20C globally. As a result of the reduction of differences in albedo. It's not that extraordinary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say "insignificant". It's just not incredible when you consider the thermal mass of the ocean. If you think about it, that's why palm trees grow on the Isle of Scilly off the southern coast of Britain, even though it's at the same latitude as Newfoundland.
Re:20 Degrees C?! Lol (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is temperature data for the past several decades [ocean.dmi.dk]. If you look at it, the first thing you notice is that temperature in the winter (night) is hugely variable, mainly affected by winds rather than sun, and a 30 degree swing is not entirely surprising, although it is larger than normal.
Re: (Score:3)
Somebody is exaggerating... Even the mistake was rounded up: (9/5)*35 = 19.444
First, your conversion factor is upside down. 5/9, not 9/5.
Second, you have it backwards-- the number from the original source was 20 Celsius, and converted into Fahrenheit for the popular article. 20*9/5 = 36F, which was rounded DOWN to 35. (Correctly, since the original number was not written to two figure precision).
Re: (Score:2)
(9/5)*35=?
Oh, and usually when things like that happen, it's 35.4 (correctly rounded to 35) and 19.6666666 (correctly rounded to 20), or some other number that makes them right, and the idiot AC commenter a complete idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's populated by pseudoskeptics desperate to cling to their delusions.
Re:20C huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fake skeptics don't actually disbelieve, they just pretend to for political or financial gain, or amusement.
Re:20C huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
A skeptic is one who only believes that which has evidence. One who refuses to believe DESPITE overwhelming evidence - and in fact believes the counter-argument with NO evidence is not a skeptic. If this person claims to be one - then that would make him a pseudoskeptic since he is pretending to be a skeptic but does not actually meet the requirements.
Actual skeptics accept global warming as the theory that best fits the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
You know exactly what you are.
Re:20C huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF is a pseudoskeptic and how do they differ from psychochickenlittles?
A skeptic is someone who is willing to change his or her mind once they get more information and their concerns are addressed. The pseudoskeptic is really a denier who is trying to look reasonable. They will bring up their objections (eg. "Ha! They haven't taken the sun's fluctuations into account"), and when presented with the studies that do actually explore the links between solar variation and the climate they will NEVER acknowledge that their concern has been addressed; they simply jump to the next bullet-point (eg. "the scientists are just in it for the grant money") and keep doing so until they loop back around again ("Ha! They haven't taken the sun's fluctuations into account").
They don't treat the anti-AGW claims with the same skepticism. Never once will they ever look for evidence that scientists have changed their results just to get grant money; they will just assume that this is true.
Re:20C huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
A skeptic is someone who wants to see proof before he believes something, and he's looking for alternative explanations for a phenomenon, trying to see if those alternatives have better explanations for the events.
A pseudoskeptic doesn't want to believe something, so he desperately looks for alternative explanations and readily believes them, even if they're completely harebrained, as long as they offer a different idea. Because "A is what the establishment/the media/the politicans/the eggheads/insert_boogeyman_here tell me, so B has to be correct".
Re: (Score:2)
How about we consider countries outside the USA.
When examined, they are making US/Europe widgets for US/Europe companies exported to US/Europe consumers. That the pollution is outsourced doesn't make it not-US/Europe pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
How about we consider countries outside the USA.
When examined, they are making US/Europe widgets for US/Europe companies exported to US/Europe consumers. That the pollution is outsourced doesn't make it not-US/Europe pollution.
This. Very much this.
And also we should consider individual nation's pollution cumulatively, not per annum -- because the aggregate is what's having these effects. US and Western Europe have been doing it for much longer than India/China/Brazil and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what you would be saying ~8,000-10,000 years ago, when the arctic and antarctic ice levels were so high that entire new island chains were created.
Re: (Score:2)
Warming water also raises sea levels. Water is most dense at 4C. Raising the temperature causes it to expand and hence sea level rise. Much of the deep ocean is at 4C due to the higher density and this cold water is formed at the poles. According to the IPCC, thermal expansion accounts for about a quarter of observed sea level rise between 1961 and 2003 [www.ipcc.ch]. Between 1993-2003 thermal expansion accounted for around half of the sea level rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, one of the main reasons WHY there had been high levels of ice in the antarctic is BECAUSE of the reduced ice in the arctic. The ice-melt makes the oceans fresher and fresher water freeze more easily than salty water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not anymore they aren't.