Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Arctic Ice Loss Driven By Natural Swings, Not Just Mankind, Says Study (reuters.com) 279

Alister Doyle, reporting for Reuters: Natural swings in the Arctic climate have caused up to half the precipitous losses of sea ice around the North Pole in recent decades, with the rest driven by man-made global warming, scientists said on Monday. The study indicates that an ice-free Arctic Ocean, often feared to be just years away, in one of the starkest signs of man-made global warming, could be delayed if nature swings back to a cooler mode. Natural variations in the Arctic climate "may be responsible for about 30-50 percent of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979," the U.S.-based team of scientists wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change. Sea ice has shrunk steadily and hit a record low in September 2012 -- late summer in the Arctic -- in satellite records dating back to 1979. The ice is now around the smallest for mid-March, rivaling winter lows set in 2016 and 2015. The study, separating man-made from natural influences in the Arctic atmospheric circulation, said that a decades-long natural warming of the Arctic climate might be tied to shifts as far away as the tropical Pacific Ocean.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arctic Ice Loss Driven By Natural Swings, Not Just Mankind, Says Study

Comments Filter:
  • Why does it take 37 years to show nature is responsible? Something doesn't smell right.
    • Nature is responsible for 30-50%. That still leaves 50-70% responsibility to mankind.

    • by Dr_Terminus ( 1222504 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @03:55PM (#54039351)

      Just a bad summary... this article is better: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]

      "Anthropogenic forcing is still dominant -- it's still the key player," said first author Qinghua Ding, a climate scientist at the University of California Santa Barbara who holds an affiliate position at the UW, where he began the work as a research scientist in the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. "But we found that natural variability has helped to accelerate this melting, especially over the past 20 years." ...

      "In the long term, say 50 to 100 years, the natural internal variability will be overwhelmed by increasing greenhouse gases," Ding said. "But to predict what will happen in the next few decades, we need to understand both parts."

      • Direct link to paper (Score:5, Informative)

        by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @05:00PM (#54039847) Homepage

        Ding Q, J. M. Wallace, D. S. Battisti, E. J. Steig, A. J. E. Gallant, H. J. Ki, L Geng: Tropical forcing of the recent rapid Arctic warming in northeastern Canada and Greenland [ucsb.edu], [PDF] Nature, 509, 209-212, (2014)

    • by Muros ( 1167213 )

      Why does it take 37 years to show nature is responsible?

      Something doesn't smell right.

      What do you mean, "nature is responsible"? The article basically says that, despite global warming, weather is still variable.

  • Scary stuff (Score:2, Insightful)

    by reginaldo ( 1412879 )
    I have some future oceanfront property in Kansas if anyone is looking. One question I have is: At what point does global warming become so evident that there is no more argument as to whether it is occurring, and the argument becomes what do we do about it? I'm pretty sure we should already be there, but we aren't.
    • propose a solution that doesn't bounce us into the dark ages please.

      • by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

        How about a partial solution (increased efficiency) that would be relatively painless while there are still low-hanging SUV's to be picked, and might buy us some time to figure out how to really solve the problem without bouncing us into the dark ages? Nobody's saying to simply stop using fossil fuels right now - but certainly we can use less of them - and pollute the environment less while doing it. But of course, folks like you will raise red herrings about the dark ages as an excuse to do nothing. So

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          certainly we can use less of them

          I can't tell you how many liberals I know use Amazon Delivery for something they forgot at the store ... because they are too lazy and can't wait till the next time they drive by.

          Rich Liberals who love to tell us the world is burning/melting because of AGW, but still fly around the world on private jets to private islands and gated communities, who arrive in three car SUV entourages.

          The only authentic liberal I know of is Ed Begley, who lives like he preaches. I don't agree with him on much, but at least he

          • Delivery is a red herring though, having items delivered is likely a more efficient use of fuel than using a car to get items for single household. A delivery driver can server a 1 or 2 dozen families a day for approximately 6-7 hours of driving. If at a low estimate 12 families instead drove themselves to the shop (or possibly several shops) with an average round trip of an hour that's already more fuel burned and 12 times as much traffic capacity taken up. I don't have a car though so delivery is often a

            • Delivery is a red herring though, having items delivered is likely a more efficient use of fuel than using a car to get items for single household.

              Where I live, population density is 14/sq mi. It's more efficient in my case to drive into town once a month or so in a larger vehicle, load up on everything I need for the month, come back, and not burn any fuel after that (I work remotely). If I missed something, I do without it until the next time I go out (barring actual emergencies, e.g. a suddenly dead well pump or a solar inverter that goes on the fritz, though I do keep spares on-hand for both).

              In GP's assertion, a 1 lb. item burns an impressive amo

        • Why would even Koch want to do nothing, come to think of it...

          The Kochs are lizard people. Their hatchlings will thrive in a post climate change environment.

      • I mean, there are plenty of bits of progress that don't take us back to the dark ages being proposed.

        For example, lets invest heavily in solar, wind and nuclear power.

        Even those are opposed by the coal/oil drilling nut jobs.

        • I mean, there are plenty of bits of progress that don't take us back to the dark ages being proposed.

          For example, lets invest heavily in solar, wind and nuclear power.

          Even those are opposed by the coal/oil drilling nut jobs.

          Q: What did South Australia have before candles?

          A: Electricity.

          Have a look at the South Australian experiment in renewable energy: http://search.abc.net.au/s/sea... [abc.net.au]

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by narf0708 ( 2751563 )

        propose a solution that doesn't bounce us into the dark ages please.

        Nuclear energy. It's clean, it's safe, and it would be cheap if it weren't for paranoid over-regulation. Yes, some safety regulation is needed, but the nuclear industry has far more than it needs, which only restricts its much needed development.

        • I really want to agree, but even today we see countless examples in the US and abroad of the existing regulations getting ignored, "special allowances" being granted, corners getting cut, etc.

          Lets see some real accountability among those making the choices, and I'd be all for it - I mean if a plant suffers a meltdown or other environmentally contaminating disaster that should have been avoidable, let's see the entire board and executive staff be immediately put to death - after all they're the ones with th

      • >propose a solution that doesn't bounce us into the dark ages please.
        Okay.

        Phase in a massive carbon tax on fossil fuels, proceeds to be immediately distributed among the population. No net effect on the finances of the average consumer, but anyone using more efficient of non-fossil energy sources anywhere in the supply chain would immediately enjoy a price advantage over their carbon-powered competition. Let market forces sort out the best low-carbon solution(s) from there.

      • How about the same solution we'll use when fossil fuels run out, but we'll just get a head start ?

    • what do we do about it?

      Move to higher ground.

    • Re:Scary stuff (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Computershack ( 1143409 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @04:01PM (#54039383)

      One question I have is: At what point does global warming become so evident that there is no more argument as to whether it is occurring, and the argument becomes what do we do about it? I'm pretty sure we should already be there, but we aren't.

      Harldy anyone disputes the fact there is global warming. The dispute is over how much of it we're causing and whether or not its actually abnormal given that in the history of the planet it has been far warmer many many times over the millennia. Then there's what we should do about it and given how almost every other month something new is being found out about our climate and what affects it I hardly think we're in a position to be deliberately messing about with it. Sure reduce/eliminate what we put in the air etc but when you start doing things like schemes to reflect the sun, artificially forcing rain etc then we may find we're doing more harm than good.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Harldy anyone disputes the fact there is global warming. The dispute is over how much of it we're causing and whether or not its actually abnormal given that in the history of the planet it has been far warmer many many times over the millennia. Then there's what we should do about it and given how almost every other month something new is being found out about our climate and what affects it I hardly think we're in a position to be deliberately messing about with it. Sure reduce/eliminate what we put in th

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Koby77 ( 992785 )
          That XKCD comic WOULD be very scary, if it was accurate. But it is not. The hockey stick runaway temperatures since 1900 never happened.

          http://notrickszone.com/2017/0... [notrickszone.com]
        • In fairness, that chart only covers the last 20,000 years, barely an eye-blink in the 4.5-billion year history of the world. It has indeed been far warmer many times in the past - just never in the history of the human species.

          We know we're flirting with disaster precisely because there's lots of evidence that the planetary climate is bistable, and has transitioned many times between the current ice age state to a much warmer tropical/desert state. A transition that usually wreaks utter havoc on the globa

      • by Altrag ( 195300 )

        Even that dispute is stupid. Say that someone discovered that global warming was 100% natural and humans were completely innocent. That doesn't change the fact that mass extinctions and suffering will be the result. We should still consider trying to do something about it (though in that case it would necessarily be something more extreme than "switch to renewable energy.")

        For a similar example, if we saw a texas-sized meteor hurtling toward earth.. by your logic we should just watch as it kills us all b

        • the dispute is about how many rich people would have to be very slightly less rich in order to start reversing the effects

          Ahh, our old friend, class warfare. Where else can you see a comfortably wealthy person tightening a noose around his own neck at the urging of one rich person, thinking it is somehow going to strangle a different rich person, who is nowhere to be found, and most certainly doesn't have a noose around his neck?

    • by skids ( 119237 )

      At what point does global warming become so evident...the argument becomes what do we do about it?

      Answer: At no point will some people who are $10K short of buying that in-ground pool for their summer home not seek to elude paying towards communal goals.

    • Doing something about it requires economic adjustments and likely some sacrifices, at least for some people in the short term.

      Because a lot of people have their incomes, wealth, and material comfort tied to the current carbon-intensive economy, most doing something about it takes a back seat to current economic wants. That's true for very rich oil barons who don't want to see any laws or regulations interfere with oil production and regular folks who want run their ACs all summer with low power bills.

      Sad t

      • Re:Scary stuff (Score:5, Informative)

        by demonlapin ( 527802 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @04:30PM (#54039609) Homepage Journal
        FWIW, air conditioning in hot climates is substantially less energy-intensive than heating in cold ones.
        • by sims 2 ( 994794 )

          Is that because of the higher efficiency of heat pump systems vs burning fuel directly? If so can you push ground source heat pumps far enough to do the same?

        • That depends on the temperature differential and the technology used.

          Or in the case of a heatpump (all ACs, but not all heaters) just the temperature differential.

        • Um, no, not really.

          It's a *lot* more efficient to heat something by one degree than to cool it by one degree same amount. Heating is typically pushing 100% efficiency, unless you do something stupid like turning heat into electricity someplace else, and then turn that electricity back into heat where you want it. Even then though it's usually substantially more efficient than cooling systems, which typically use that inefficient electricity to drive a similarly inefficient heat pump.

          • It's a *lot* more efficient to heat something by one degree than to cool it by one degree same amount.

            No. Weirdly enough, it's pretty much the same.

            Heating is typically pushing 100% efficiency...

            Sure. But for the same amount of energy you can pump several times as much heat in or out.

            That might sound like it's breaking the laws of thermodynamics, but because the efficiency of a heat engine can't exceed the ratio of the temperatures it's working with, there's no 'free' energy.

      • I think the bigger issue is that some people can sacrifice basically their entire standard of living and it still won't guarantee a particular outcome. And this isn't even on the backs of the "wealthy fossil fuel barons" - this is just the average everyday person.

        So it boils down to "absolutely everyone must do something" and the backlash of "who are you to tell me what I should do."

        So then you get into "since everyone isn't doing it, I'm not going to sacrifice..." and nothing happens. Basically you have t

    • by mspring ( 126862 )
      I'm asking myself whether the deniers will then still be known. And whether they should / can be held accountable?
    • One question I have is: At what point does global warming become so evident that there is no more argument as to whether it is occurring, and the argument becomes what do we do about it? I'm pretty sure we should already be there, but we aren't.

      My question is: At what point does global warming no longer become the impetus for switching to renewable energy. Even if burning fossil fuels didn't cause any harm to the environment (which of course it does, but that's not the point right now) they are a very temporary solution. There's only so much oil and coal in the ground, and we're going to run out at some point. Switching to renewable energy sources is simply the pragmatic option. The longer we wait, the more of an emergency it becomes when it

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @03:48PM (#54039319)

    The natural swings are evident with the seasons, periodic shifts based on geo-solar geometry, probably sun cycles and everything else in the universe - *BUT the base/background temperature before those variations *IS* increasing *AS* we have measured C02 and greenhouse insulating gases, methane etc, reaching historic (in paleological terms, during all of human civilization and a long time before that, millions of years) proportions of our atmosphere. We know we've caused some acidifying of the oceans, which with warming dissolves further frozen/captured methane and such gasses at the bottom of the ocean and brings that into our atmosphere in a positive feedback loop which we can never control...

    What of this one study exonerates BILLIONS of tailpipes in the world and TRILLIONS of tons of coal burned ongoing? None of it.

    But watch them try to run with this deliberate, intentional misunderstanding of what actually was confirmed by this study. Watch and see.

  • And why haven't they been sent to the Ministry of Truth for reeducation yet?

  • percentages (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OlRickDawson ( 648236 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @03:55PM (#54039355)
    Finally a study that shows percentages.The politicals have have claimed that climate change is either 100% man-made or 100% natural, depending upon which side of the argument they were on. Reasonable people knew that it had to be a bit of both, but there never seemed to be any studies that showed what the percentages of each it was.
    • Re: percentages (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      People don't understand distributions. It has to either be all or nothing. If humans contribute 40% to global warming and nature contributes 60%, the majority of people will fall into "well nature is doing it too" BS, deflecting the significance of their own contribution.

      I'm all for honest reporting but I don't trust trust the average US citizen for reading, interpreting, and reacting to study results--nor do I trust media outlets with agendas that could care less about the environment. I can see the Fox he

    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      First I call bullshit on your black and white description of politicians. You may remember it like that (and other people too) but what I remember is strong anti-AGW advocates admitting that _some_ contributions could be due to human activities. The AGW (scientific) group will almost always at least indirectly point out that some effects could be natural.

      And then I will call bullshit one the later part too. It isn't reasonable to assume, without backing evidence, that an issue _is_ a grey area. Without supp

    • Re:percentages (Score:4, Interesting)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @05:23PM (#54040017)

      Finally a study that shows percentages.The politicals have have claimed that climate change is either 100% man-made or 100% natural, depending upon which side of the argument they were on. Reasonable people knew that it had to be a bit of both, but there never seemed to be any studies that showed what the percentages of each it was.

      Globally almost 100% man-made is accurate because natural climate variations simply aren't that fast enough to be a big contributor.

      However, local climates are more variable, particularly the Arctic, so percentages come into play. From the article it sounds like previous research simply didn't have enough data to make useful percentage estimates.

  • is somebody paying for this under the table or what?
    Aren't there $ billions on the table and under even more....

    It started with industrialization and now, all of a sudden, a high % is nature.
    Gimme a major break here!

  • "Arctic Ice Loss driven by mankind, not just natural swings, says study with a better headline" Of course natural has always played a part; the existence of an ice age should pretty much wrap up that argument. Leading the headline with "caused by natural swings" seems duplicitous.
  • The graph of historical temperatures in the arctic is really helpful [ocean.dmi.dk]. Traditionally there are massive temperature swings in the arctic, during the arctic night (which of course lasts all winter). In the summer, it begins to stabilize. The temperature swings are caused by wind, as massive fronts move across the region (or out of the region, as with the polar vortex).

    Incidentally, winter temperatures in the arctic are not directly from the greenhouse effect, because there is no sun and you need sun for the

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...