Slashdot Mirror
Recent Warming of Antarctica "Unusual But Not Unprecedented"
First time accepted submitter tomhath writes with a link to the abstract (full article paywalled) in Nature of an "Ice core study that concludes that climate change and associated melting of ice in Antarctica is more the norm than the exception, including rapid warming cycles as we appear to be in today. Study concludes: 'Although warming of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented) in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia. The connection shown here between past temperature and ice-shelf stability suggests that warming for several centuries rendered ice shelves on the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula vulnerable to collapse.'"
Mass extinctions are also unusual (but not unprecedented). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid causing them!
Climate on a penninsula is vulnerable to changes in ocean currents. I would say nothing to see here unless global climates can be correlated with the local climate.
Anything up to and including the entire planet being a blob of molten matter would be "not unprecedented".
Just because the world was really hot during the Jurassic does not mean that humans would enjoy living in that state again.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Say what you want, but I've been having a hard time gauging Slashdot GroupThink on the subject of Climate change. It's ether:
A) Climate Deniers are Stupid
B) Climate Deniers are Justified
or
C) You're just a shill
It really seems to come down to which group has the most Mod Points or which group has the most dedication to the thread. Each side just views the other as Trolls so it goes nowhere.
I wasn't going to respond since I have mod points and figured I'd mod up a good response instead. Too bad it's all been cheerleading for believers and deniers. Anyhow, this result isn't evidence for or against climate change. It's another data point. The fact that people think it is evidence for one side or the other shows most people still don't understand climate change. I know statistics and thermodynamics are hard as are non-linear systems. Blah, blah, blah.
Here's the deal. Global warming refers to *average* temperature increase. In order for the average temperature to increase we should expect a higher frequency of warmer events or events driven by increasing warmth. We're not in a pot on a stove over a fire that constantly increases in temperature (actually don't pick at that analogy too much because at a microscopic level it is somewhat similar). As global average temperature increases we should see more warm days but not necessarily the hottest days ever recorded. So, in this case, if we see more frequent unusual events like this one or not, then we might have some evidence one way or the other, but by itself it tells us nothing.