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)."
Fundamentally, a stable climate is an illusion of the "short now". We think there's such a thing as "normal" temps because we just don't live very long, compared to a planet.
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).
The simple truth about all this Climate Change debate? You don't have an informed opinion either way until you've really looked at the Vostok ice core data. Study the raw data for the past several 100k years yourself - you're intuition is no guide at all for how the climate normally behaves over time.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They've been predicting this for as long as I can remember, and I'm quite old.
North-West Europe is warmer than it ought to be. The reason is warm water currents coming up from the Equator. It's called the Gulf Stream.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Europe#Gulf_Stream
If anything disrupts the Gulf Stream, eg. extra ice melt at the North Pole, then Europe's climate will become what it ought to be for its latitude, ie. much colder..
Science. It works.
No sig today...
Science has an amazing way of reinforcing crazy stupid by presenting contradicting, independently verifiable facts
I suppose you mean seemingly contradictory, when viewed on a superficial level without real understanding of the matter?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Junk science says "hey, no problem, our model can explain that too".
You mean like the way the AGW people suddenly realized that adding energy to the atmosphere meant more extreme weather, both hotter and colder, after we had some extra-cold winters? I can't say it's not reasonable, but I would have found it much more impressive if any of them had suggested this before it happened, rather than patching their theory to explain something that otherwise didn't fit.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
They actually did. The last five years were within their margins of error.
Of course, large-scale climactic changes over tens or hundreds of thousands of years are a red herring when evaluating the impact of hundred-year rapid timescale changes on human societies that need much longer to adapt without horrific violence and misery. We live in very different places/cities from where we did 10,000 or 100,000 years ago --- but pretty much in the same cities we had 100 years ago. Expecting the populations of entire nations and continents to just up-and-move over a few decades because habitable ranges have shifted (collapsing food and water supplies in once-fertile regions) doesn't play out so well in current geopolitics. As soon as you're ready to welcome a billion refugee immigrants, dislocated by famine, war, and poverty, into your own country, we can get complacent about compressing multi-thousand-year climactic cycles into human-scale time intervals.
Indeed. "Climate change" is an effective propaganda technique for enabling observation bias. Have any weird weather? It's climate change and all due to the evil humans and their fossil fuel based industrial societies.
As you might have guessed from my sarcasm, I don't buy at all that the phrase, "climate change" is somehow more accurate than anthropogenic global warming. Climate would change even if nothing particular was going on, just due to orbital dynamics of Earth around the Sun, volcanoes, and the subtle effects of continental drift.
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?
This couldn't be more incorrect. Actual science is a method of observation and has no business in speculation. Either your scientific model describes the behavior of the natural world or you need to change your model to more accurately describe it. It's an ongoing process.
Creation "science" describes the behavior of the natural world (at least at the shallow level I can be bothered to look at it). For any set of data, there are an unbounded set of hypotheses that describe that set of data. Merely being consistent with existing measurements is necessary, but not at all sufficient to be science, not storytelling.
Science is about falsifiable predictions. Why is general relativity so certain? Because it predicted all sorts of crazy stuff, such as gravitation lensing, that wasn't known at the time it was published. Why is the Standard Model of particle physics still the standard, despite being so awkward and unloved? Because it keeps making accurate predictions, and more elegant theories don't.
You can create a million different models to explain anything, but that's not very interesting, nor is such a model chosen at random likely to still be correct once more is known. But a model that accurately predicted new data? That's interesting.
There are a million climate models now (well, a lot anyhow) - are any of them interesting? A model that made a specific, falsifiable prediction that none/few of the others did, and turned out to be right, that would be interesting indeed.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What exactly are the margins of error.
Why are you asking us? If you are ignorant of something, that is not our responsibility to correct. You are criticising the margins of error whilst simultaneously claiming to not know what they are. Hardly convincing.