Slashdot Mirror
Cold Spring Linked To Dramatic Sea Ice Loss
hrvatska writes "An article at Weather Underground reports that researchers have linked large snowstorms and cold spring weather across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice. It is thought that the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere, which shifts the position of the jet stream, allowing cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. Researchers expect that a warming Arctic ocean will drive more extreme weather in North America and Europe (abstract)."
Yep. Global warming is freezing our asses off...
and earlier times
if you believe in global warming then the current cold temperatures are a return to normalcy and nothing to be alarmed about. up until the early 1900's when we had "normal" weather and temperatures NYC was so bitter cold that the rivers would freeze enough that people were able to walk from brooklyn to queens
too warm people scream global warming
we get a cool March, which is the opposite of warming and the same people say its too cold
what exactly are normal temperatures supposed to be this time of year? at least for the northeast US?
we need one of the bitter winters from 1940 or earlier to teach people what normal temperatures are supposed to be like. Maybe a "normal" summer like 1815 when its like 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer
We're just going to have to shoot them all. It's the only way to be sure.
Solar storms? ;-)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
we are still in an ice age. Skiiers, snowboarders and global warming enthusiasts would prefer we remain in the ice age.
Why is it that with only 4 posts up (when I wrote this) I'm already pissed off? I guess I already know just how-many-stupid-things are about to be written here, and 'resigning to it in silent fury... Debating climate deniers is like getting a beer with a bunch of birthers (literally). Science has an amazing way of reinforcing crazy stupid by presenting contradicting, independently verifiable facts, sometimes it's too painful to watch.
But! But! Global warming is a scam!! Lord Monckton and the Murdoch press told me so!!!
That's a good try, but I'm pretty sure that at some point during his presidency, that George * Bush mentioned the existence of the sun. So any issues with solar output can and will be blamed on him.
That's how it works; it's so easy only a child can understand it.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Also, cosmic rays.
Earthquakes and volcanism use to be Acts of God (tm) as well, but today these too are understood to be fault of rich, white, heterosexual male citizens of the US.
Where I live, it's cold right now. That means that annual global average temperature must be colder than it was last year.
(Of course, this is silly "logic", but that's what most Americans in particular tend to be thinking)
I am officially gone from
When you are done with that genocide on strawmen, you could start educating yourself.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
2011: Britain's hot spring could be result of shrinking Arctic
Meteorologist Tim Woollings, of Reading University, said: "Climate models are starting to show some agreement that jet streams will shift slight closer to the poles in response to increases in greenhouse gases."
2012: Met Office: Arctic sea-ice loss linked to colder, drier UK winters
Slingo told the MPs that there is "increasing evidence in the last few months of that depletion of ice, in particular in the Bering and Kara seas, can plausibly impact on our winter weather and lead to colder winters over northern Europe". She added that more cold winters mean less water, and could exacerbate future droughts.
2013: Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss
Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice.
Love all the posters trying to support a theory that is hardly more factual than creationism.
Sorry, but a key to the scientific method is having a disprovable hypothesis. AGW supporters skip over this and jump into "faith" like any good acolyte.
If you want me to believe your 100 year model for climate, you need to get the next 5 right. Since predictions of the last 5 have been an utter FAIL, you have a lot of work to do.
Yeah, I get that melting ice could make things cold, but why wasn't this predicted? Instead of casting doubt on your assumptions or the predictive ability of the model, or the fact it's obvious it is incomplete, you attack a legitimate critique.
If you want to see stubborn faith, look in the mirror.
its understandable though, as a fairly rich, white heterosexual male, most of the shit is our fault. I know its a real bitch to blamed for shit but rich white people spent centuries blaming the same things on poor minorities, your just pissed because you can no longer convince all of us that its not our responsibility, its some niggers fault, specifically that one in the white house and his uppity wife too. Its ok as i white man i understand your frustration, they key to getting past it, however, is to come to the realization that things haven't really changed that much, its not that your opinion is largely irrelevant now, its that it was never really that relevant to begin with.
No. It's not. It could be the (long predicted) weakening of the Gulf stream, which leads to colder and longer winters in Europe.
Just wth does a terrorist group, the Weather Underground, have anything to do with the bloody weather????
In Mexico City the weather has gone crazy, one week there is cold (less than 10 c) and the next is damn hot (27+ c). All March has been like this, is fucking annoying.
Even on a larger scale, the past 10,000 years have been an amazing anomaly, with a relatively stable climate not seen anywhere else in the data (and it's probably no coincidence that mankind happened to emerge technologically during this rare stable-ish window).
That is why so clearly this anomaly is the result of AGW - Alien Generated Warming. They saw potential in us as a species so they elevated global temperatures for a time, in order for us to reach the point where we are technologically able to continue the warming trend they began - if we can figure out that we need to. That's the test required to enter the IPC (Intergalactic Planetary Coalition).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So what if the North Pole is ice free? Ice free poles have been the normal state for our planet for most of the time that primates have been around.
Last month the cold weather was because warm air from the south rose over the arctic cold air, thus forcing the colder arctic air down to the southern latitudes. So now it is because last summer there was less ice that froze over long before spring ever came. So how again did the ice covering all the arctic now has caused a colder spring? Did anyone tell these guys that the arctic is still frozen over as we speak? It's not open water. So why is the jet stream being affected? I'm just not clear on all this.
I do know one thing. It's still cold outside and the sow is still on the ground. How is this different from any other Canadian winter or spring for that matter? I'm just lucky enough to remember the weather before all this global warming came along. So how is it different again? How is getting snow in the winter anything unusual? How is snow on the ground in March different? How is maple sugar season changed?
How come that:
When the weather is hot, it's a prof of global warming.
When the weather is cold, it's a prof of global warming.
When the wind is strong, it's a prof of global warming.
When the wind is weak, it's a prof of global warming.
When it's dry, it's a prof of global warming.
When it's wet, it's a prof of global warming.
Mundus Vult Decipi
... but it's not unusually cold. This is what the weather is like in the UK. Spring is a fairly unpredictable time of year, in a part of the world where the weather is generally unpredictable.
A couple of years ago we had weeks of -25ÂC weather during the winter, but in the last two it barely got below freezing. This winter, of course, it's going to be back to really cold, or maybe it's going to be back to really warm, or maybe just kind of middling with lots of rain.
Weather Scientists: This is further proof of Global Climate Change.
Fundamentalist Christian: This is not the proof that you're look for...
Weather Scientists: This is not the proof that we're looking for...
Fundamentalist Christian: Move along....
Weather Scientists: You're right this is not enough proof, we'll need to keep on looking...
This is just the latest in a series of published work finding that weakening ocean and land temperature contrasts between high and mid northern latitudes is having a profound effect on the Jet Stream. Search for jet stream and arctic on Google Scholar and they'll pop up. They all show that the poles live and die by the circumpolar winds that 'lock' the cold air in those high latitudes (Antarctica included by the way!). If those circumpolar winds diminish, then the cold can effectively 'escape'. In the Northern Hemisphere, it results in the jet stream becoming extremely contorted, sets up 'blocking' and we get these long periods of abnormal weather (extra cold in late winter/early spring, extra heat in late summer/early fall?) The weather channel has a great rundown of the jet stream *today*. Illustrates it perfectly. http://www.weather.com/video/forecast-for-your-spring-35814 Lets just thank our lucky stars that Antarctica is a continent surrounded by ocean, and not an ocean surrounded by continents, like the Arctic. This fundamental difference means the southern circumpolar winds have a huge contrast to work from with the gigantic ice fields of the continent versus the far away lands of Southern America, Oceania, and Africa. Ironically, the ozone hole actually makes the Antarctic colder and the circumpolar winds stronger... so as it fixes itself as human CFC emissions dimish, those winds will start to weaken and warming will be able to creep in there as well. But at least that buys us time. Were the Arctic and Antarctic equal, global warming would have likely been much more immediate. Though who knows, maybe that would have spurred us to action before today (which is still never?) The world and science that attempts to explain it is wonderful and terrifying all at the same time. Lets hope we can get our acts together and change our course before we cause so much change to our atmosphere and oceans that we are unable to avoid the clear and present dangers now on tap.
So to, I would imagine, the millions of people in low lying coastal areas that will be forced to move as rising sea levels
The seas would actually have to rise significantly first.
To date the actual sea rise has been tiny, and pretty consistent - about six inches over 100 years. So the people living in low coastal areas will have a few hundred years to mull over things before thinking about moving.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The whole AGW crowd is going down the tubes. The idea was to get in quick with a few data points, get the treaties signed, and then it wouldn't matter.
Unfortunately for the AGW crowd, we can now Google 30 years of newspaper headlines that say things like:
"Why it's getting colder"
"Why we were wrong before, and why it's getting warmer"
"Why the weather is crazy and we'll see more frequent, more powerful hurricanes"
"Why we were wrong before, but even the occasional strong hurricane proves us right"
"Why it's getting colder"
Maybe I'm unclear on the word "prediction", but I don't think it counts if your theory can only predict the past.
I find it really bizarre that Slashdot, a website that usually has intelligent discussion, is filled with climate change naysayers.
Is this real life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
The 9 warmest years on record happened this century. The Earth is heating up, and rapidly.
Who the fuck are you people?
According to the most recent SST anomaly map found here, much of the Gulf Stream is anomalously warmer than expected.
It's too hot: global warming
It's too cold: global warming
Lots of hurricanes: global warming
Relatively few hurricanes: global warming
We need more funding: global warming
It *always* snows during March Madness. Without exception. One day of snow at the end of March isn't new.
Seriously,
weather = super hot = evidence of global warming
weather = freezing cold = evidence of global warming
weather = no snow = evidence of global warming
weather = record snow = evidence of global warming
Global Warming Skeptic exclaims "weather not correlating to global warming" = Global Warming Advocate "weather isn't an indicator of climate change" Weather hot, no snow, etc. And suddenly, Global Warming Advocates use weather as an indication of global warming. Which is it?
Global Warming Advocacy argues ALL changes in weather point to, and are explained by global warming. The only proof we can possibly have against global warming, would be a decade long period in which zero change in average temp, percipitation, ice, or what not occurred. (And frankly, I'd laugh my butt off if that actually happened and we went through 10 years with zero climate change - I'd also say there'd be proof that there is a God and that he has a warped sense of humor.)
But the reality is, that global warming advocates put forth a non-testable hypothesis that can explain everything. And has zero way of being countered per scientific method. And all of this is over a mere 1/2 to 1 1/2 degree variation in temperature. With questionable records at that. Furthermore, we know it was much warmer 150,000 years ago when much of the arctic ice was gone
Just some comments per Wikipedia
"NASA, found that the “rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years"
[Okay, a 120 years geologically speaking is a blink in the record.]
"In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever."
[Really, history records it as having disappeared completely a number of times. Do we mean smallest in modern history? Cause scientific evidence has shown the ice cap has had significant melts several times over the last 2.8 millions years (which is still a short time span geologically speaking)]
No gulfstream here in the pacific northwest. We had a dryer than usual winter and not cold at all.
So, accepting the scientific consensus not only because it is consensus, but because it actually makes sense now makes one a liberal/marxist. Well, well, if you want to be taken seriously, you should upgrade your arguments. That goes for tmosley as well, who has been spewing his water vapor bullcrap for years here, in spite of being pointed to actual data, papers and every kind of source which disprove his talking point - which is, in the end, that because of water CO2 doesn't matter - still keeps on repeating the old tired lies. Don't put yourself in the place of Galileo, your intellectual dishonesty is bad enough without it.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
...and less warming.
The Sahara desert was a green and lush place just a few thousand years ago: they still have the skeletons of HIPPOS and other beasts to prove it. How much water does a HIPPO need guys? Quite a bit. NASA says it was green "10,000" years ago but I always felt it was more like -- go ahead and laugh -- 4,000 years ago. Areas around Iraq had cities that were surrounded by water, Venice-style. Israel was brimming with BEARS and lions and wolves. Takes a lot of vegetation to support a BEAR. The middle east use to have plenty of forests and trees. The world is filled with examples of gigantism in previous ages. Basically, the world is dying a slow death -- and it all began before a single factory existed. The scientists that insisted that the world was climatically constant for hundreds of thousands of years have basically set everybody up for a big surprise when they begin to realize things are really changing. Now they want to shut down the economies of developed nations to hand manufacturing over to the biggest polluters on the earth.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/industries/182/index.html
You lie.
As a student of science history, I have seen the term "scientific consensus" many many times throughout history. Usually it is followed immediately by something like "and then blah blah happened."
>> your intellectual dishonesty is bad enough without it
Uh, what intellectual dishonesty? Do you dispute my characterization of how the scientific method should work?
You would be better off simply not replying when you have no comeback. By retorting with a zero-content post, you only confirmed that in this battle you are completely unarmed.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Would anyone who believes in AGW who owns waterfront property please give me a call?
I will happily take that soon-to-be-underwater (and therefore almost worthless) land off your hands for a reasonable price, and you can use the money to purchase soon-to-be-appreciating land on higher ground.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Al Gore.
Oft-quoted Princeton scientist and climate-change advocate Michael Oppenheimer speaks of a 65% margin of error in their temperature predictions.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/
If you are ignorant of something, that is not our responsibility to correct. Your use of the word "our" implies that you are part of a group. I believe based on your statement that is the Global Warming group. So your group makes a claim of Global Warming. So yes it is your responsibly defend your claims and explain your methodology used to come to your conclusions. I never made a claim I have nothing to expain, you made a claim so you do.
Yep, I am better off by simply not replying to bullshit. Go peddle your crap to the wattsuphiscrap echochamber.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Yet another zero content post. I guess you're not used to being challenged. Kind of pathetic really.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
I was wondering how long has it been since Slashdot became a den of reactionaries?
The Gulf stream model was not very much revised. As far as I remember models about Global Warming (at least 20 years back), it was always stated that Global Warming will cause the Gulfstream to weaken or to change course, which in turn means Europe (especially West and North Europe) becoming colder in winter and getting on par with regions on the same geographical latitude in North America and North Asia.
Oh, no, they aren't.
I guess you need to do more checking as to what the globe is doing, rather than assuming that what one person does (that you cherry picked) is what everyone else does too.
Whereas nowadays, you don't need a specially constructed rig to navidate. just a prow enough to break some ice.
And take only a few days to do it.
the one thing that has been a true fact all around is that the Earth IS getting warmer. Yeah, they might have predicted half a degree and got a full degree, which is a 50% error, but that doesn't change the fact that it's STILL WARMER. :P.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The system most certainly is self regulating. So is my living room. If I light my sofa on fire, my air conditioning will kick in. I don't think it'll do much to prevent my house from burning to the ground though.
Here in NW Europe, we're being told we're kept warm in the winter by the "warm waters of the Gulf Stream". Unfortunately, we don't literally bathe in those waters. Heat is transported by SW winds that blow across them, picking up moisture which is then rained out over us and releasing latent heat.
This unseasonably weather is nothing to do with the Gulf stream weakening, it's simply the winds are blowing in the opposite direction (from the cold, dry land). Why they are prolonged is to do with the jet stream position's much further to the south. The mid-latitude jet's a product of the atmosphere's thermal gradient (and some orographically introduced wobbles) and its odd, prolonged position could quite conceivably be to do with Arctic sea ice loss.
Here's some content:
Sometimes you actually should listen to the people who dedicated their lives to science. These people spend years learning their field, they are rigorously tested in their field, and most of them graduated as doctors in their field. So forgive me for actually listening to what they have to say as opposed to some schmuck on Slashdot who thinks they know better because they read the weather report last week.
You're making a joke out of the entire scientific method, and fuck you for doing it.
So now Weather Underground is the publisher for Hansen, Jones, Trendberth and Mann Junk Porn since they can't publish it anywhere else.
The Vostok data has many examples of increases in atmospheric temperature by proxy of over 1 degree C/ka, and temperature swings as wide at 12.5C in under 10,000 years. Given what we know about the variability of climate cycles, short term temperature trends and so on, it is absurd to try and claim that the sort of swing being reported now is anything out of the ordinary - certainly not unprecedented. The motility of CO2 in ices being what it is, the data is not sufficient. The transition is not a smooth progression. For a swing of 12.5C to occur in 9,000 years - or worse, 8.5C in 4,500 years, such incidents must be presumed to have occurred. By saying "large-scale climactic changes over tens or hundreds of thousands of years" you are yourself throwing out a red herring: a mean increase in temperature of 8C always occurs in this data in under 10,000 years - and yet you had to put 100,000 years in there as if that was a potential thing when it hasn't been seen in a million years - i.e. since the rise of Man. There is no incidence in the data the GP referred to of such an increase taking longer than 10,000 years. The climate does not ever gradually progress either to or from the glacial condition that could not sustain our 7 billion humans - the transition is always swift. Apparently it was also very near, as the global mean temperature was swiftly descending to the transition temperature until just recently. Maybe we've dodged a bullet. A Gaist might say that maybe Nature was trying to train us to dodge this bullet, cycling the thermostat to try and encourage evolution of a species that could do more than the dinosaurs by turning the thermostat up and down over and over for a million years to encourage evolution of a species that could gain control of the thermostat.
Now let's talk about these "global climate" temperatures. These are always given as air temperatures. This is a tricky thing. You see, the air is not the Earth's primary climate - not by a long stretch. Of the small fraction of the Earth's biosphere that is on the land surface, in the sea and in the air, the oceans outweigh the land and the air more than 50x - the biomass is by far in the oceans above the land and air. Far above those below the surface of Earth both under air and sea contains far more bacterial anaerobic biological mass than all the rest thriving on geothermal energy - but let's not think about that. The oceans outweigh the atmosphere by 280x and share a broad surface with it with a ready energy transference through phase transition (more about this later). If the air temperature instantly increased by as much as 28C then over time (other things remaining the same) the oceans would absorb this energy and increase in temperature only 0.1C - causing little difference in the ocean's biosphere other than slightly increased bioactivity toward the poles. Obviously this isn't going to happen, but that's how the thermodynamics work. In reality the air can't get hot enough fast enough for the oceans to not absorb the change. Naturally at 0.3% the mass of the oceans and with ready energy transference the temperature of the air is just not that significant in the wider scheme of things.
About that energy transference: of course you know the physics of phases of matter. Solid, liquid, gas forms of the same matter vary quite reliably according to mass and energy input right up until the phase transition. At the phase transition boundary however, the energy equation changes. It takes far less energy to move water from 0.01C to 99.99C (at standard bar) than it does to change its phase from liquid to gas. Of course the same goes for the transition from ice to liquid - and that explains how steady our climate has been for 10,000 years. We have been melting the glaciers which once covered our continents. The glaciers transitioning from solid to liquid have absorbed the bulk of the energy transference related to our orbital change. They have been our air conditioner, keeping our climate stable. There is more tha
Brilliant!
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Of all the contentious topics on Slashdot—from Jesus to Linux to taxes to instruction sets to gender in geek culture—the thing that brings out the most belligerent illogic and gibbering crazypants ranting is *climate science*?
Really? Since when is "Nuh uh cause the sun did it" insightful?
Concepts equally barren of insight:
- "There is a Cadre of Well-Funded Climatologist Illuminati Trying to Burn Down Capitalism!"
- "Climate Models Never Saw This Coming!"
- "There Never Were Any Climate Models!"
- "It Has Been Hotter in the Past and Look Everything Didn't Die!"
- "Humans Didn't Even Cause Any of Those Millenia-Spanning Climate Cycles, So We Must Not Be Causing This One That's Happening Orders of Magnitude Faster!"
- "Not Just the Sun Did It, but Volcanos, Too!"
- "Like Most Other Humans, I Am Excellent at Internalizing Small Cumulative Changes and Multidecade Statistical Patterns, and That is Why I'm Certain Last Year's Very Cold Winter Debunks the Work of an Entire Scientific Discipline!"
- "If a Few Billion People Find Themselves Living in a Desert, They Can Just Move to Not-Desert!"
Yeah sure climater over million of year gopes from way colder than it is now to way hotter. But who cares ? We are seeing a rate which is very high and will change us toward more chaotic climate with more extrem. By the time sea ice is gone, it might be the same situation as 2.8 million years ago, but for us human dependent on tech and stable climate to plane our infrstructure, it will suck and blow.
The problem with climate change is theres a debate happening and theres research happening, and they are not happening in the same place.
Within the scientific community, there isnt really a debate about it anymore. We actually know climate change is happening, and its largely driven by human CO2 output. That much isn't controversial [i]amongst scientists[/i].
But there IS a debate amongst the political class who appear to have developed a raging case of the Dunning Kruger effect, and latched onto a tiny minority of scientific outsiders and cranks, and become bedazzled by the graphs and arguments from "experts" who are actually no such thing. (Seriously, when your local newspaper starts quoting a high school graduate journalist with a pretend lord title [monckton,, he's not actually a real lord, or a scientist or mathematician] you know the newspaper has no idea how to identify an expert in the field).
In my view the problem is that the public simply dont know how to identify actual experts on the topic. The newspapers are bombarding people with false expertise and as a result a very sizeable minority of lay people believe that there is still an open question about the topic, and thats proven itself very harmful to the politics of actually acting on the problem.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
the climate change discussion has devolved to the levels where certain monied interests want it to be...
kspacey join amnesty international www.amnesty.org
how many posters - on both 'sides' of this so-called 'debate', who are lending vociferous insights about The Scientific Method and climate 'science', and denigrating the intelligence of certain folks, interestingly many coming from Anonymous Cowards - actually have PhDs in organic chemistry, atmospheric chemistry or physics, or even physical geography... apart from I Kan Read's link (and i admit I may have missed something), I don't recall seeing one piece of 'support' from a peer-reviewed science journal... whereas the original article derives rom a source which cites folks with such degrees, most of the comments echo 'arguments' heard from one form of propaganda or another (take your pick)... which clearly demonstrates propaganda works
kspacey join amnesty international www.amnesty.org