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.
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?
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
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.
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.