Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low Extent
mdsolar writes "Arctic sea ice has hit a record low extent for the period of satellite observation. Further, this record has been set in August when the minimum annual sea ice extent (and the prior record) has always come in September. Further still, the ice is still retreating as rapidly as it was in June and July when normally the decrease of sea ice extent slows in August. It is thus possible the the final minimum sea ice extend for 2012 will be seen in October rather than September as has always occurred in the past. More than one monitoring effort agree on the existence of a new record."
It's good for business, and that's all that matters. For one thing it gives Japan easier access to oil shipped from the North Sea. Carnival Cruise Lines can do more Arctic tours, and have Polar Bear steaks. They can club baby seals and have tailor made coats made right on board. This is not a disaster, it's an opportunity. Make the best of it.. while it lasts.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Translation: I don't like BlueStrat's perfectly calm, rational point, so I'm going to argue against it with emotion, wave my hands around, and come up with some meaningless term that sneers at his point without SOUNDING too sneery. oh, I know -- "meme." Yeah, that'll work.
So, I have a question for you. Do you consider yourself scientifically minded and skeptical? Do you think it's the OTHER guys who post on emotion, looking for anything that confirms their pre-existing notions? Because -- surprise! -- that's exactly what you just did. Kind of humbling, isn't it? BlueStrat made a perfectly scientific point -- this observation, in and of itself, doesn't mean much, because our data set is so small. We've only been making these observations since (I think) 1978 -- an eyeblink in geologic time.
If you actually have something meaningful to say, and you want to show all of us you're actually NOT an idiot, well -- what's stopping you?
lllll Alaska Jack
Translation: I have found a meme that I can continually repeat to rationalize away any disturbing finding. Now come on kiddies, let's BURN MORE OIL!!!!
Nice strawman you built there. I never said anything about burning oil or touched on energy at all in my post.
I'm all for alternative energy sources where they make economic and practical sense.
One data point on a scale covering millenia doesn't prove anything. It only tells us that, *right now*, there seems to be less arctic ice than there has been over the last decade or four.
We know that global climate has changed radically over the ages, from much warmer than now to much colder than now.
We simply don't have data spanning enough time to know whether this is natural or not.
Why don't you be honest and abandon all pretense that you're basing your opinions on science and the scientific method.
Whenever someone mentions unusually cold temperatures in a single winter or even a decade or two, well, that's just weather. Why isn't the reverse true?
What you advocate isn't science, it's evangelism.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It is funny that you assume I am a denier. I do not deny the conclusion but the method that came to that conclusion. There is plenty of other data that support the presence of global warming. What I am saying is that this "record" is not relevant as the period of observation is too short.
Had the article been about sediment cores and plotting information based on those my statements may be quite different. The observation period for sediment cores is hundreds or thousands of years. That is far different than the 30 years of satellite data.
Are we so jaded that anyone who questions scientific methodology is called a denier?
What, is Sunday "idiots-upmodding-mindless-drivel they-agree-with day?"
(1) You put this in quotes:
"this is probably just nature at work, and we haven't directly observed nature scientifically for a long enough period to know if this is a temporary condition".
Except... it's not a quote. BlueStrat didn't say "this is probably just nature at work." Those are YOUR words. They are not the words MightyMartian was commenting on. If you want to paraphrase/make up words and start debating them with yourself, be my guest. But don't drag me into it.
(2) There is nothing rational about saying we just do nothing about a bad situation because we haven't observed in the past how those situations play out.
Of course there is. Doing nothing IS sometimes the most rational response. History is replete with instances where everyone would have been much better off if authorities had simply done nothing. I can think of a dozen instances just off the top of my head. Does that mean THIS is one of those cases? I don't know -- and neither do you. We only know about those things in hindsight. But history makes it sand-poundingly obvious that, yes, sometimes doing nothing is much better than a badly misguided attempt to address a problem affecting a complex system we don't understand very well, on the theory that, well, we must do SOMETHING!!
(3) and accusing someone of being "emotional" when they post a sarcastic comment etc etc etc
So pointing out an obvious fact (i.e., that MightyMartian's reaction was emotional and not rational) is an "accusation"?
Cunning? Oh for Pete's sake. Grow up.
lllll Alaska Jack