Sea Ice Around Antarctica Reaches a Record Low (nytimes.com) 33
Sea ice around Antarctica has reached a record low in four decades of observations, a new analysis of satellite images shows. From a report: As of Tuesday, ice covered 750,000 square miles around the Antarctic coast, below the previous record low of 815,000 square miles in early March 2017, according to the analysis by the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "It's really unprecedented," said Marilyn N. Raphael, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies Antarctic sea ice. Warmer ocean temperatures may have played a role, she said, "but there are other factors that we will be working on finding out in the next months." Antarctic sea ice extent is highly variable from year to year, but overall has increased very slightly, on average, since the late 1970s, when satellite observations began. By contrast, sea ice extent in the Arctic, which is warming about three times as fast as other regions, has decreased by more than 10 percent a decade over the same period.
The two regions are very different. The Arctic Ocean covers high latitudes, including the North Pole itself, and is hemmed in by land masses. In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica covers the pole. The Southern Ocean, which surrounds the continent, begins at much lower latitudes and is open to the north. While rapid warming in the Arctic is largely responsible for the shrinking of sea ice there, the effect of climate change on Antarctic sea ice is far less clear. Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, a climate scientist at the University of Washington, said that many scientists expect that global warming will eventually lead to declines in Antarctic sea ice. But right now, he said, "it's really hard to connect the two, especially in terms of single events like this one." Instead, a complex group of factors is at play when it come to Antarctic sea ice. Large-scale atmospheric patterns, often occurring far from the continent, as well as local ocean currents and winds can all increase or reduce sea-ice coverage.
The two regions are very different. The Arctic Ocean covers high latitudes, including the North Pole itself, and is hemmed in by land masses. In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica covers the pole. The Southern Ocean, which surrounds the continent, begins at much lower latitudes and is open to the north. While rapid warming in the Arctic is largely responsible for the shrinking of sea ice there, the effect of climate change on Antarctic sea ice is far less clear. Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, a climate scientist at the University of Washington, said that many scientists expect that global warming will eventually lead to declines in Antarctic sea ice. But right now, he said, "it's really hard to connect the two, especially in terms of single events like this one." Instead, a complex group of factors is at play when it come to Antarctic sea ice. Large-scale atmospheric patterns, often occurring far from the continent, as well as local ocean currents and winds can all increase or reduce sea-ice coverage.
Just a little more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trees don't grow if half the year is winter/dark.
And how would the seeds got there anyway?
A random woodpicker flies down there and shits them out? And 1000 years alter it is full with forrest?
Re: (Score:2)
That forest didn't grow from bare rock within a human-relevant time period. Not only will it take millennia for an ecosystem to build up enough soil, the plants in that temperate rainforest took millions of years to evolve for that particular environment and don't exist in present time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just a little more (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming / climate change isn't a problem. Its the road to a better future. Imagine, a whole continent freed from 2 miles of ice!
Oooh yea! That will give the 40% of the world population that will have to be relocated a place to go. It shouldn’t take very long or cost very much to rebuild 40% of the world’s infrastructure either. If one thing is for certain, people get along really well so there are no foreseeable problems here. I can’t believe this wasn’t the sane plan from the start.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and 60% of the population lives on the other 99% of the land so your observation is meaningless. Meanwhile sea level had been pretty stable for thousands of years, up until about 50 years ago. The current rapid rise didn't happen all by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
They used to argue that climate change wasn't happening. Then of course it became apparent it was, so they switched to arguing that the climate might be changing but it always has, and it is no big deal because we'll just deal with it like we always have.
You have pointed out the flaw in his "logic" but he won't be changing his mind.
Ask him where he thinks 160 million Bangladeshis who live less than 10 metres abov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the hotter areas in this world may become so hot and humid during some sunny day peak temperature
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may have noticed that some of the richest cities along the equator are already in a state where inhabitants rarely spend time in not air-conditioned rooms - and that is usually just for convenience, not because they would die without air condition.
In the past people still managed to live in those locations without air-conditioning, and even today some do. Climatic changes may render it not viable to live there without air-conditioning at all.
Re: (Score:2)
40% of the worlds population lives on 1% of its land. Antartica is like 10% of its land.
Do you think that 1% was chosen at random? Or is it maybe some of the best land...
Re: (Score:1)
40% of the worlds population lives on 1% of its land. Antartica is like 10% of its land. That change will happen over time, and not all the low lying areas will need to be rebuilt, and they wont need to be rebuilt overnight. ...
The low lying areas will be underwater
Re: (Score:3)
When Antarctica had forests, it was close to the equator.
You know: Godwanaland and continental drift and such.
Re: (Score:2)
When Antarctica had forests, it was close to the equator. You know: Godwanaland and continental drift and such.
I would have said that too, but looking at the article [earthsky.org], no, 90 million years ago Antarctica was still on the pole.
Gondwanaland was three hundred million years ago, not ninety.
Here's a visualization, by 90 million years ago you can see most of the continents we know, although not yet completely in their present places: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Antarctica is the part smeared across the bottom (due to the distortion of the map projection).
Re: (Score:2)
90 million years ago, Antarctica was not at the pole. But in the middle of equator versus pole, hence I mentioned Godwana land.
It is impossible to grow forests at a place where it is dark 3 month, and semi dark 9 more month.
Your video does not include "poles", that is all in the middle of the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong on all counts. The south pole was on Antarctica 90 million years ago, Godwanaland had been gone for hundreds of millions of years by that time, and if you understand map projections, you see that video showed Antarctica, and it was at the pole 90 million years ago.
The article [earthsky.org]-- remember the article? It's what we're discussing?-- had an image [earthsky.org] showing the position of the pole. But there are others available online.
"Record" (Score:2)
How is this a "record"? It used to be much lower 100 million years ago therefore we shouldn't worry.
Re: (Score:2)
The idiots crawl out of their parents' basements (Score:2)
Come on guys. Don't disappoint! Tell us your favorite conspiracy theories!
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry. This won't affect the US at all, since in the US global warming doesn't exist.