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."
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Alaska had a real summer comparable to the lower 48 of the United States. Nice cabin there if the summers warm up to near 20 Celsius for months on end!
Yes, but the warmer temps up there mean more mosquitos... which are already the size of vultures.
A bit further south, in Canada, the mosquitoes take down cows. My gods, they've spread further south than I imagined.
For all our sakes, let's pray they don't descend on truly South America.
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'?
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
Eirik "the Red" Thorvaldsson chose the 2nd version in the 10th century, for some reason.
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...
You have to remember for the libertarians (the Heartland Institute's branch anyway) it's not really about the science it's about defending their ideology from an existential challenge. They believe that government is always bad and capitalism always good. The very idea of capitalism causing a massive global problem that can only be resolved by government intervention is unthinkable and thus must be false. The facts be damned, because they know the "The Truth of Capitalist Libertarianism" they know that AGW can not true.
Also, the Heartland Institute is funded by the true believers, so they will fight this to the last breath because both their identities and their jobs depend on it.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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)
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'
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.
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".
When the "greenhouse gas" you are trying to reduce the emissions of is CO2 than no there is no distance at all between "finding ways to reduce greenhose gas emissions" and "all economic activity is controlled by the government" because ALL economic activity generates CO2 (all human activity generates CO2).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.