Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Ice Extent Tops 2012's, But Is 6th Lowest In History
We mentioned recently the rebound in Arctic ice levels compared to those found at the end of last summer; now that the 2013 minimum has been reached, Forbes' Alex Knapp points out that 2013's figures still show the 6th lowest ice extent in recorded history. "This pattern is expected to continue as average global temperatures continue to rise, leading to further Arctic Ice melts. The volume of sea ice – that is, how thick the Arctic ice is, has also been steadily declining over the same period. And although the charts above only go back to the 80s, the loss of sea ice began several decades prior to that. In 2011, a paper published in Nature estimating Arctic ice extent for the past 1450 years shows a sharp decline in Arctic ice beginning in the mid-20th century."
If you want to speculate in real estate, go north young man.
Gently reply
... that the trend of annual extent minima was supposed to be monotonic?
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Why not fit an ARIMA model to the daily data along with some sin functions (or whatever oscillating function would be good) instead of taking averages
Reliable monitoring with authoritative of sea ice extents began only with the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on the satellite Seasat launched June 28, 1978.
Very spotty records before that time are not considered reliable.
Looks like we may be safe from the impending ice age, at least for a while.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Wonder no more: it is a statistical effect called Regression toward the mean. Specifically: ... following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme.
Not that annual Arctic ice levels are entirely random. They are somewhat linked, hence this year's being among the lowest in observed history.
The idea that this year, following an extreme year, can be formally called regression toward the mean seems OK but it seem clearer to say something like a return to closer to the trend line. Anybody got a better description than that?
Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually unaware of the fact that diminishing Arctic sea ice cover will significantly alter climates across the world* through ice-albedo feedback?
*Note: This includes the place where your food is grown.
Temps didn't bottom out until 1976. We came within a gnat's whisker of runaway snowball conditions.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"The volume of sea ice – that is, how thick the Arctic ice is..."
Er, no, "how thick the ice is" is called "thickness". Volume is thickness times area (or more precisely, thickness integrated over area).
That said, two data points (last year's area and this year's area) do not a trend make. I can't believe how many people don't get that (or enjoy telling lies so much that they don't care that it contradicts reason).
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Toxic lights bulbs don't actually save as much power as they claim. The daylight saving time change actually resulted in more energy being consumed than saved. BUT that doesn't mean they were ineffective. They're having just the result desired, making people feel like they are doing something to solve the problems but having those same problems still around to force even greater changes.
The oil industry has a long reach. Why they are so hell bent in terraforming the planet to be unsuitable for human life one can only guess.
The bigger players are not in the "oil industry" but the "energy industry". They'll sell you solar power, just no one wants to pay for it yet. We all throw money at them for oil, what are they supposed to do, have super-human morals? Might as well turn control of Exxon And BP over to the Vatican or something.
No, it was much colder at the peak of the last glaciation. I doubt we were all that close then, but who knows?
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
It is if you live in Colorado or other places in the Northern Hemisphere being seriously affected by the slowing of the jet stream. Then you have lots of reasons to care, especially if you like to eat.
Slowing of the jet stream leading to more slowly moving weather fronts is a direct result of the fact that the Arctic is getting warmer and as a consequence, the temperature and pressure differential means that their is less of a "hill" that gives the Jet Stream its acceleration. If you are a farmer that means that the weather patterns you have taken for granted as "in place" for the past few thousand years are rapidly changing, with a significant increase in the probability of much more extreme weather (severe flooding and severe drought). Severe, extreme weather means lower crop yields, which are already being witnessed across many different kinds of crops.
In 2040, the last chunk of Arctic ice will be swiped up, stowed in a regular fridge, and auctioned off on Ebay.
Table-ized A.I.
Nothing resembling "the arctic" is ever mentioned in the Bible.
There was no misconduct found due to "ClimateGate". Read the scientific literature, not some interpretation by some talking head you happen to agree with. That's not learning, that's masturbation.
Come on guy. Knowledge is not bestowed upon you by a holy power, just because you attended to some classes and had the privilege of shaking hands with famous "scientists". Anyone who wants to know about scientific process already knows about scientific process.
Furthermore, while scientists (or at least those who are labelled so) may be trained to adhere to the scientific method, with your logic, they can't know what it really is, since the nature and meaning of scientific method is not the subject of science.
And if police officers were investigating police officers for a crime that had been committed without a civilian SIU, people would be crying corruption.
Om, nomnomnom...
2080 plus or minus 20 years, according to most climatologists.
2040 plus or minus 10 years, according to climatologists specialising in the Arctic.
2028 plus or minus 7-ish years (for under 1 million square kilometers of ice area at minimum), according to the trend.
There is some discussion on this here.
In particular, these two images from the same article are interesting: Temperature anomaly for the medieval warm period and temperature anomaly for the period 1999-2008. Both are anomalies relative to the same 1961-1990 average, so they should be directly comparable, though of course the medieval warm period is a reconstruction with significant uncertainties.
So to answer your question. yes, you could say that "Canada was still frozen while Greenland was basking in warmth". Though temperatures slightly elevated in some parts of Canada, most of it was cold. And none of them were anywhere near as hot as they are now.
We are gradually running out of professions which enjoy unquestioning blind respect from the public.
yeah well fear sells better than respect
Except that if you go and actually look at the data, you discover that the increased temperature and CO2 periods are correlated (with good reason too) with increased biodiversity, and massively increased plant life. We're actually at the moment, right on the lower limit of what plants are happy to deal with in terms of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
How much do you get paid for this shilling gig? I mean, really. I want in.
The value for the standard deviation of TWO POINTS is infinity. That is because you divide the values or RMS error by the number of points minus 2. In the case of two points, that comes to divide by zero, which is infinity.
You cannot make a point of uncertainty with two points alone.
Meanwhile, the value against the long-term trend fit is within 1 standard deviation, therefore the trend continuing is not excluded.
Your intended null hypothesis is "The trend has stopped". That is NOT proven.
I'll just leave this here.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
2016+/-3.
That means maybe 2013, maybe 2019. We haven't passed 2019.
And, again, the claim wasn't that the ice would be gone, it would be a summer extent. We'd get ice back.
Moreover, that's one guy.
Now what about other predictions that AGW would be falsified by 2012 being about the 1956 average? Your statement merely shows one man was wrong. Big deal. Doesn't disprove the general science which has there being no sea ice by maybe 2040. But deniers you DO listen to are wrong in damn near (95%+) all cases. Yet you don't decide that the case against AGW is wrong, do you.
Why?
Because you're a moron.
Lying to the public, falsifying data, covering up contradictory data, advocating campaigns in the press demonizing any who agree with you, creating code which perverts the output.
Of course there was no misconduct. That is all well within the bounds of acceptable conduct for a public body.
"a paper published in Nature ESTIMATING Arctic ice extent for the past 1450 years shows a sharp decline in Arctic ice beginning in the mid-20th century."
Estimating translates to "using models to GUESS the arctic ice sea extent in the past AND THEN proffering that as PROOF that 2013 was the 6th lowest"
Hide the decline... Hide the decline...
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
"leftist" check
"AGW" check
"wealth redistribution" check
*snicker*
The problem is that 'Climategate' was not just investigated by scientists, but also by outside authorities.
And all investigations independently concluded that no significant misbehaviour had occurred.
You're an idiot.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
And if police officers were investigating police officers for a crime that had been committed without a civilian SIU
I went to college at SIU. So WTF are you talking about? Southern Illinois University is the only SIU I've ever heard of, and googling your acronym brought up nothing but my alma matter. So what is your SIU? We're nerds, not cops.
Free Martian Whores!
I'm not sure where you got that graph, but it doesn't match the official statistics from the NSIDC. There is absolutely a statistically significant trend in Antarctic ice, both in minimums and maximums. In fact, the minimum trend is even more pronounced than the maximum trend. Now, had you argued that the ice melt in the Arctic far exceeds the gains in the Antarctic (by about 3 times) I'd agree with you but as-is you are very much overly minimizing the gains in the Antarctic. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/10/poles-apart-a-record-breaking-summer-and-winter/
ad hominid attacks
Ad hominem, is what you wanted to say. Then you proceed to call the people you disagree with (which is fine) various names. Yeah, you're a real big hitter for your team, AC.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
That actually would have been clever if the topic was evolution.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Those people are usually labeled as criminals.
Only after they're caught, before they're caught they're usually called sociopaths, psychopaths, or CEOs...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yeah, right.
So a long time before the IPCC. And they'd only just worked out (Callendar) that the saturated gas argument was not valid. And the computers they had at the time were just about able to say "Sensitivity is between 1.5 and something above 6.5 C per doubling CO2").
Oh, and New Scientist isn't a published journal.
Because the deserts will spread, current areas which provide massive amounts of food will stop being able to do so (unless you want to move all the farmers thousands of miles across the world), the seas will heat and become more acidic, which will kill off or severely affect massive amounts of flora and fauna which live in and off the sea, including the massive amounts of plant life which converts CO2 into oxygen, which in turn will make the world warmer. Then the vast areas of permafrost across the world will start to thaw, which will release their sequestered greenhouse gasses, which will make the world even warmer. Then the Antarctic will lose more of its cover, reducing the albedo of the planet, which will increase the warming effect even more. So yeah, "5 degrees" doesn't sound so much, but it won't stop there. That 5 degrees extra will cause lots of other processes to be massively altered which will tend to create more warming, and make the world a far less pleasant place to live. You think international politics is complicated now? Just wait for half the world to be destabilised by food supply difficulties and massive loss of local, environment-specific industry. Your view is massively short-sighted, almost as if you don't even care what's going to happen. You are either selfish or an idiot - pick one :)
Eirik "the Red" Thorvaldsson chose the 2nd version in the 10th century, for some reason.
No, the Viking who discovered 'Greenland' named it thus because it better enabled him to find willing settlers.
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
Too fucking easy.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Hahaa....oh man. "Arrogance." Yes, that's how science works. A->B unless the Arrogance Coefficient is too high, in which case Zeus steps in and prevents B from happening because he hates human pride. Do you even listen to yourself talk?
Quoting The Nation as a source? Really? For those too uninformed to know what I mean, The Nation is nothing but the spigot out of which the Current Truth of radical socialist talking points runs. Seriously, it is pure propaganda. It says a lot that The Nation supports those who are promoting the man-made climate change narrative.
Honestly I think I speak for a number of us here. We don't care anymore about Ds or Rs.... They can all go fuck themselves with a red hot poker...
What no blow? What is the world coming too? Back in the 80's me and Manuel Noriega were getting fucked up all the time...
"Recorded History" on arctic ice extent is pretty damn short. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) used to list something they called the '1979-2001' average and then showed that, based on that, the current ice extent was pathetically low. Lately, they have switched to showing the '1981-2010' average because the early years of satellite measurements have been found to be wildly inaccurate. Better quality data has only been available since 2002 and, based on that, 2013 is the 6th highest ice extent minimum on record.
It's below the long term average (by a million square km), and there are exactly two data points, so only a fool would consider that an upward trend. Also the years with lower ice extents are 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
You're just seeing what you want to see and ignoring everything else.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Look, it's fine to disagree with with Ms Klein. I also don't agree with every line she writes. I decided to post the link because the GGGP was talking about left-wing propaganda, and I think this article does a fair job of at least showing the right-wing has far from clean hands in this department.
But then this brave AC saw fit to use a big word (wrongly) and proceeded to do exactly what that word usually derides. Viz, "nutbar", "w00w00s", "freaks".
Also, I think it is rather telling that all of this remains anonymous. Grow a pair, will ya?
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
I don't care either. I am the author of the post you responded to and I have no party allegiance, but I do care about principles and about the truth and the truth is that The Nation reliably and absolutely predictably spouts whatever the current anti-capitalist, socialist line is currently in vogue. Nothing that it says about science or economics or politics or anything really can be considered objective. If hearing me point that out makes you butt-hurt, well then that's your problem.
'The Nation' is far left of any D who can get elected to national office. Those who can still believe it's BS are masters at cognitive dissonance.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Well ok... Can you provide me a few links and give me a clue what is wrong... I mean really I can google but what? I mean what you're saying is it's not just Climate change right?
Any D who can get elected is no where near left.
I am going to assume then that you are one of those assholes who are so absolutely arrogant you feel you can do whatever you like and fuck the consequences for everyone else? Those people are usually labeled as criminals.
Only after they're caught, before they're caught they're usually called sociopaths, psychopaths, or CEOs...
Describes America's current CEO to a tee.
And the last one.
And the one before that.
And the one....
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
* Absurd questions demand surreal answers, and the surreal answer to every question is "a fish".
So it has come to this.
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
And that would be ... the economic system where they ignore the long term environmental consequences of your actions in order to maximize short term gains?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So you declare without proof that everyone who disagrees with the AGW narrative is paid by evil corporations? *yawn* So dissent from your side of a political disagreement can automatically be dismissed with no further thought?
No, in this particular case, it can be dismissed exactly because of all the thought, not to mention calculation and observation, that has already gone into it. There's this thing called science, and I'm aware it's very popular to dismiss, belittle or ridicule it, but bad PR is not refutation.
How convenient, especially since that talking point was invented by the dried-gourd rattling witch doctor, give-me-a-virgin-to-sacrifice hucksters who cooked up the AGW scam in the first place.
You've got a nice view of scientists. Call your doctor a dried-gourd rattling witch doctor next time you're ill.
The absolute asshole arrogance to think that anything man does will have a long-term effect on climate is unbelievable
Because your unfounded disbelief make for such a better argument than science, doesn't it?
Just another manufactured crisis to grab grant money and headlines
Have you actually looked at where the money is in this debate? Are those poor, poor oil giants so strapped for cash that they can't counter the manufactured PR campaign by publicly funded scientists?
- and the beauty is, if anyone disagrees, just claim they are not "educated" enough to understand....
That's certainly what it looks like. That, or they're simply bought by the people with the real money.
The task also appears partially hindered by the better safe than sorry attitude (among the scientists?) that we should skip the science and go straight to the cure.
I must point out that this is pretty standard risk mitigation, particularly given that reducing CO2 emissions will take many years. (The more the better, for economic reasons.) You're not supposed to wait for 100% confirmation of an impending disaster before taking steps to prevent it -- ask any insurance company. Had we started seriously trying to cut emissions 20-30 years ago, we'd be in a much better position now. Likewise, starting now is much better than waiting another ten years. And reducing fossil fuel usage is something we need to do anyway, both because of pollution and because we're running out of them. Again, starting on those problems early is a good idea.
The enviromental movement has been a good force, but to much of a good thing here would result in economic disruption backed only by good intentions ... I just hope that society and planet survives the cure. It would be tragic if folks pushing their agenda to save the planet end up killing it.
Those are some pretty big assumptions given the state of economics as a science, and the lack of consensus therein. What makes you think the economy is that much more fragile than the climate?
Visit the
That says more about you then anything else.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"The Sahara used to be a lush and fertile plain." When was this and why would it be bad for it to be that way again?
Toxic lights bulbs don't actually save as much power as they claim. The daylight saving time change actually resulted in more energy being consumed than saved. BUT that doesn't mean they were ineffective. They're having just the result desired, making people feel like they are doing something to solve the problems but having those same problems still around to force even greater changes.
DST was never about saving energy. It was about aligning workers to shifts for production in a manner that made sense for war time.
Yes, there are people that claim it would save energy - not burning candles at night when you could just get up a little earlier kind of thing; but it was really about making the most of the daytime for war efforts when enacted (WWII). It made sense for the manufacturing economies of that era, but now we run 24/7, so it really doesn't make sense any more.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
And that would be ... the economic system where they ignore the long term environmental consequences of your actions in order to maximize short term gains?
That would be the economic system whereby all economic activity is controlled by the government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I bet this gig comes with hookers^W ...er... "comfort women", too.
Money, candy, blow, *and* hookers? Dammit, now I really want in.
wait.. what type of drugs/candy comes in bars that weigh killo's.... Cocaine and Hereon!!! The CIA runs both!!
YEAH ME TOO I'll sign up for the mobile infantry TODAY! The only good person is a controlled and always watched person!!!
(Want to know more?)
You've never seen, heard, nor met a socialist.
This would be funnier if it weren't completely retarded. Let me draw you a map.
I've explained enough times to want to make this short, but most of the ground up here is some variant on permanently frozen. At some point, all of that is likely to melt, and subside. We Alaskans know a lot about what that looks like, because if you build in the wrong way in the wrong place, you'll be filling out your cross-stitch with "Home Sweet Bog". Houses built on permafrost are built on stilts.
Also, while the Arctic is warming at a significantly greater pace than the rest of the world (1.6 degrees C up from last century, compared with .8 degrees C globally), the winters are still going to be cold as fuck (<-40) for a long time to come.
Plus, there's <1% of the land up in Alaska that's actually owned privately. The rest is owned either by the Feds, the State, or the Natives.
This is really just the tip of the iceberg. Your suggestion, and its underlying premise, are so wrong-headed that it's turning my stomach. Perhaps you can go be a real estate agent in Shishmaref, or one of the other villages that we're having to relocate due to climate change. Hopefully at that point you might understand exactly what it is that is offensive about your comment.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
specifically, regression to the mean. And expected and predicted event. It's a single event among many they clearly show the earth is warming form increased infra-red trapping from CO2.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What, you mean like record high antarctic ice extents that are yearly over-looked? Or how temperature in the arctic have been running below average for 2 years now?
There are plenty of facts that are over-looked by both sides truth be told. and yes, I would hardly call this year a recovery or a two year trend the sign of things to come, but I think everyone should keep an open mind and keep an eye on the data over the next couple of years. A cooling arctic is hardly consistent with the theory of catastrophic global warming, and if indeed it turns out skeptics are right, it might be best to not say things you regret later. IE: don't call someone a fool who might end up being correct. The conclusion might be premature, but if they are correct, well what does that make you?
In other words, this debate could use a lot more decorum on both sides.
How so?
I think it says more about how far right the USA has slid. Even our furthest left politicians would have trouble being elected outside some pretty extreme foreign governments.
Oh, going straight for the "they're making us into communists!" scare? How about this: "finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" is a long way from "all economic activity is controlled by the government".
(Or maybe the US government already made us into communists with their "reducing cloroflorocarbons + ozone" scare. Remember that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion )
The conclusion might be premature, but if they are correct, well what does that make you?
A sceptic? I don't care what you're trying to prove two data points don't make a trend.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
" 1) Long term measurement data is unavailable, and only a few proxies (ice cores) for parts of this this have been found."
also trees, which give us very accurate data, btw.
"To predict longer terms, more of the planet's weather has to be modeled. "
More model is nice, but there is more to it. You aren't even looking at the primary data we know:
CO2 is invisible to visible light, and opaque to infrared light.
So when visible light strikes a surface, it creates infra-red. Since more CO2 equals more material to trap infra-red light, the prediction is teps go up.
All this 'discussions' is either based in ignorance, or cherry picking small piece of data while disregarding the bigger picture.
It's not like we don't know why increased CO2 cause the temp to rise.
So take you opinion and put it where it belongs: 1970. Find out what facts we actually know before droning on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just last night on a radio show called Q&A the first question put to Dr David Suzuki was about climate, was from somebody that was insisting that the climate is not changing and that the trend was flat for the last decade.
The people I'm writing about are out there and making a lot of noise.
If you agree that a two-year timespan is totally meaningless to something as variable as climate, then it's disingenuous to turn around and try to give it credence.
You don't know what science is, do you?
It was vetted by a lot of experts in the fields, not some group that also worked with the climate gate people..which, as t turns out., was a made up media event.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail - hence the accusation of "new religion".
And you just conveniently ignore that he qualified it by starting out " At this rate, ... ".
There is absolutely a statistically significant trend in Antarctic ice, both in minimums and maximums.
I don't think that sentence says what you meant to say. The NSICD link doesn't say anything about Antarctic sea ice minimums and as I understand it the Antarctic sea ice minimum is essentially zero every year so there probably isn't a trend there.
You're insane. There have been no weather patterns "in place for the past few thousand years" anywhere on the planet, at least not anywhere where agriculture is taking place. Frankly, people like you are at about the same level of scientific literacy as young earth creationists.
Calm down, nobody thinks you're a hominid.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
How can you say that? Look at Obama; requiring people to purchase any of a number of health care plans offered by several large for-profit corporations, instead of just accepting whatever their employer selected for them (if any) as God intended? Radical socialism, even Stalin never came up with a similar plan.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Is it that you don't consider the dust bowl a serious event, or that you consider it just a random fluke?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Sure just put your mark on this blank piece of paper my friend!