Slashdot Mirror
Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels
schwit1 writes Scientists have declared a new record has been set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice since records began. Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometers covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent. Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago. "Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area."
or getting ready for the next Titanium?
Let no one be distracted; it will be flooded here with nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening. :/. :-|.
As always, they "will just have to incorporate this new information into their models"
Bunch of climate terrorists
Instead of talking about the impending melting of the polar ice caps, we should now talk about polar ice cap change.
Weather is not climate! The science is settled!
Let no one be distracted; it will be flooded here with nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening. As always, they "will just have to incorporate this new information into their models" :/.
Bunch of climate terrorists :-|.
You could, you know, read the article, too:
As the area covered in sea ice expands scientists have said the ice on the continent of Antarctica which is not over the ocean continues to deplete.
CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns.
"The extent of sea ice is driven by the winds around Antarctica, and we believe that they're increasing in strength and part of that is around the depletion of ozone," he said.
So that's one theory. What, precisely, was your theory? No need to dumb it down for us, just give us the scientific "if this then that" hypothesis in regards your kneejerk reaction about climate change when the theory is that ozone depletion causes problems for antarctic ice.
Why bother posting articles like this? There is a consensus that global warming is happening and any new data that contradicts it is just a temporary anomaly.
Articles like this just give fuel to deniers.
This year is going to mark the endpoint on a whole lot of climate change denier graphs.
I read the internet for the articles.
One cannot help the motivation behind posting this.
Is the Earth melting? is this "killer ice"? or "massive ice sheets"?
File under "climate change" - lots of ice, run for the...err...I mean paddle for land!
I thought slashdot was new for nerds, stuff that mattered? please kindly shed some light on the relevance?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
I think one thing is clear. All these studies are way to focused and fine grained. They look at micro aspects of the climate and then try to apply the observations to a system that is many orders or magnitudes larger.
It's like examining 1" square sections of the Sistine Chapel paintings and then trying to predict the color in the next 1" square based on the color in the current square. Hit and miss, misleading successes and baffling failures because you don't understand the totality of the entire painting.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That has nothing to do with this. But it does demonstrate how fucking clueless your conventional wisdom is.
Everyone who makes a comment about how this "disproves" global warming is a drooling moron.
Doesn't everyone remember that heat rises and cold settles. Antarctica is colder and has more ice because it's at the bottom of the world.....
n/m
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free and it's completely covered in ice still, I would say they have a point. Back to the drawing board with the models at least. If there is one. Which I doubt.
From the TITLE of the fucking article:
Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels
From your drivel:
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free...
Form Al Gore's quote:
Al Gore Warns Polar Ice May Be Gone in Five Years
From your drivel:
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free...
Guess what? It's going to happen. Five years were the earliest bounds on the model.
Deniers in general are drooling morons.
IIRC, back in the 80s, we used to see satellite pics of Antarctica and the effects of ozone depletion
there was a *huge* evironmentalist movement to ban CFC's from aerosol cans...and of course the conservative/big biz backlash saying that "there is no ozone hole" or "it's a natural cycle" or [insert anti-science argument]....**just like the global warming debate**
well...the laws passed and the ozone layer recovered...
i can't help but think this might be a factor in the new ice...and a useful guide as to how to handle our current problems with idiot conservatives/big biz types who irrationally deny that pollution harms the environment
that's the final analysis of the situation **pollution is harmful & should be regulated**
Thank you Dave Raggett
Everyone who makes a comment about how this "disproves" global warming is a drooling moron.
This disproves global warming. I love to drool on smart people like you.
http://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Antarctica gaining SEA ice is neither new, nor contradictory to global warming.
Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming", and even received the Nobel Peace prize for his peddling (not surprising, Obama won it for merely speaking an opinion).
Yes, we need to change how we interact with the Earth and there are some real problems. Pollution is a real problem, long term energy without fossil fuels is a problem, and I could co on. A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Sorry to the warmists...the earth's temperature has not risen for the last 14-22 years, depending on which temperature series you look at.
And that despite the heavy manipulation and "adjustments" on the surface temperature records.
The best data we have for the USA is the USCRN (US Climate reference Network), well sited (not by jet exhaust on the hot tarmac !) rural stations with tripple reducndant aspirated Pt sensors.
The result, since inception, no temperature rise in ten years.
Because the sun is in a low activity cycle, and the ocean decadal oscillations are heading into the cool phases, we are probably in for a cooling trend.
And humans do poorly in cooling climates, crops fail, and more die from cold than heat.
1.The land Ice is moving to the sea (due to warming, increasing sea level).
2. Fresh water run off and/or higher precip cause the sea to be slightly fresher, causing it to freeze at higher temperatures (still warming caused, and if from runoff still increasing sea level).
3. It is colder, causing more sea ice.
We know for a fact that on average it is not colder ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publication... ), so my money is on some combination of the first two.
More sea ice does increase albedo and thus reduce infrared absorption, which is a negative feedback, but is it enough to reverse the trend locally or globally? That is beyond my ability to predict.
Silence is a state of mime.
this sort of thing! It hurts the case for AGW so therefore it is morally wrong.
That has nothing to do with this. But it does demonstrate how fucking clueless your conventional wisdom is.
Everyone who makes a comment about how this "disproves" global warming is a drooling moron.
Thanks for that. I feel better now, but it still doesn't mean that we won't get a flurry (ha ha, snow!) of denier bullshit to follow. Sigh.
We'll all end up in bunk beds in the mountains and republicans will still swear up and down that global warming is not happening.
We can adjust our climate/weather models to match.
That puts us one step closer to having models that can predict what is going to happen.
How many more steps before we have models that work?
Well a clue is when they are able to predict this new stuff before it happens.
An article that shows a major surprise like this is not a sign of confidence.
But at least it's better that getting the sign wrong (Global cool versus warm.)
It's ironic you're talking about being clueless...
In the conditions aplicable to this article (make it 1 atm.) water ONLY freezes at 0 celsius. so there is no way "hot water freezes faster than cold". You're probably repeating something someone told you about the energy it takes to raise/lower the teperature of water being related to it's actual temperature, but that's a diferent thing.
Learn some thermodynamics before spewing shit like that...
They just call global warming skeptics "deniers and "morons," because it's so much easier than trying to explain why why there's been no warming for 19 years, in violation of all global warming models.
Global warming is no longer theory, it's a religion, as well a mechanism for the transnational left to transfer power and money from individuals to national and transnational governments.
Global warming no longer has anything to do with science; it's a faith-based doctrine.
I waited to post this to see if the usual "this means global warming is a lie" posts began, and indeed they have. So let me cut this off: Increased arctic sea ice is caused by global warming. This is a CONFIRMATION of warming, not a CONTRADICTION.
Short version:
1. Summer: Arctic land ice melts
2. Melt spreads over water
3. Winter: Old ice freezes. Newly melted ice freezes.
4. Repeat steps 1 - 3 forever
At step 3, there is more frozen ice on the surface than there was last year because more ice melted. A separate measure, the arctic ice "volume" decreases every year while the arctic ice "extent" which is the surface area of the ice increases.
Previous discussions on this:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
There are some pretty freak weather conditions caused by long term wind/water currents. The UK has pretty mild winters (usually doesn't drop below freezing), despite being higher north than the more inhabited areas of Canada which have brutal winters (regularly hits single digits)
"Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter." http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...
Is it bush's and AGW if it gets colder and the sea has more ice extent as well?
Just want to get my man bear pig rules right
Tsarkon reports
Second and more importantly, this is the Antartic, not the Artic. For those of you that are ignorant, the antartic consists of a huge land mass with ice sitting on it, and a little bit of ice surrounding it. The Artic on the other hand is just one solid mass of ice.
What that means is that more sea ice in the Artic is called by cold weather. More ice freezes, etc.
But more sea ice in the ANTARTIC is caused by global WARMING. hat is, the sea ice in the Antartic is caused by ice sitting on the land mass, sliding off into the water because it is just a tad too warm to stick to the land.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Is that we still don't have a clear understanding of how climate works and what is going on with climate change caused by humans. Weather is generally getting more extreme. When it's hot, it's crazy hot, and when it's cold, it's crazy cold. Overall sea level rise? Yeah, we can plan for that. Super cold hurricanes and droughts, not so much.
Quite recently a team from CIRES recovered imagery from the NIMBUS satellites, a series of spacecraft launched in the '60s. From the press release:
“By extending the satellite record back to the 1960s, we can understand more about the history and natural variability in things like sea ice extent in the Arctic, and the Antarctic,” said David Gallaher, technical services manager at NSIDC. The modern satellite record of sea ice goes back only to 1979.
In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average. “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said. What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said.
“And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record.
http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/nimbus.html
Clearly a case of HOT HAIL!
That's funny. I haven't heard rhetoric like that since the Doomsday Cult was just about to prove they were right!
Let me guess... because all the models that predicted the future so far were wrong up to this point, the absolutely have to be right from here on?
Does your Anthropomorphic Global Warming/Global Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Blame the Capitalists/White Guilt Cult have an official name yet? Or is it still in flux?
objecting to this downmod...
someone downmodded my comment and it is not supportable...i offered an informative take on the issue...maybe you disagree, maybe you think pollution is not harmful...but i'm not trolling, flamebaiting, or off-topic
i'm on topic and provided a link that is relevant...whoever downmodded me is a stinker
Thank you Dave Raggett
It's about Antarctic ice.
Way down in the congo land sitting in a coconut tree,
There was a monkey and a chimp--and Lordy how she loved him.
Everynight in the pale moonlight sitting in the coconut tree, These love words she always said to he...
"Herpa derpa herpa derpa herpa derpa derpa"
Said the monkey to the chimp.
"Herpa derpa herpa derpa herpa derpa derpa"
Said the chimpee to the monk.
All night long they chattered away.
All day long they were happy and gay,
Swinging and swaying in a honky, tonky way.
"Herpa derpa herpa derpa herpa derpa derpa"
Said the chimp, "I love but you."
Herpa derpa derpa in monkey talk means
"Chimp, I love you too."
Then the ol' baboon, one night in June,
Married them and very soon,
They sailed away on an herpa derpa honeymoon.
As my ice cream melted yesterday, I discovered that this process CREATES MORE ICE CREAM! After all, it extended a greater distance across the bowl than before, and this means MORE ICE CREAM, right, samzenpus?
The physical foundation is the same of course, but the circumstances are totally different. Hence the effect that Arctic sea ice is shrinking, while Antarctic sea ice is growing.
I did just consider telling you that you were an idiot.
So I'm doing that.
You are an idiot.
But Artic ice is receeding. Thus denying global warming?
So just to be clear. Ice melting = global warming. Ice forming = global warming.
Gosh, if only there were a way to search the available information and see if there’s an explanation of why this is happening!
What’s this? Google? It says that we have had exactly this same discussion before? In fact, the ice in that area has been growing for decades and we basically had this discussion in 2007?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm
Thanks Google!
Ice-shmice. I wonder whether any of those nice theories of man-induced global warming survived the ultimate test: predicting events ahead of time. Couldn't find any, but it may be just me not being thorough enough.
I wouldn't care about "52 explanations why theories and real life diverge". It's mere "here's what we predicted and look, it works exactly as we thought it would" what gives theory some weight. Otherwise it's just an "oomph" factor, which isn't really a science.
Global Warming is religion, not science. It is religion because:
1. Neither side can use a common set of facts to support their opinion.
2. Neither side can debate without resorting to name calling.
3. Neither side proffers a theory that can predict or explain the scientific observations.
My OPINION is that long term global warming is happening. I have no idea if that is a bad or a good thing. I have no data to suggest a a simple causation. I have no data but anecdotal evidence to suggest that changes to our actions will slow, stop or reverse global warming.
My OPINION is that we should move away from fossil fuels as fast a economically possible. We should do this for political security and future economic considerations.
My 2 cents.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
this directly contradicts the academic literature...for you to make this claim you need to link to some kind of evidence
also, the fact that you say "To assume is wasn't a natural cycle is ridiculous" shows you are misrepresenting your opposition...
pollution harms the environment...you cannot contradict that fact
Thank you Dave Raggett
I saw this bit last week- It may explain part of this:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/996
What's the deal with posting as ACs, deniers? There's an awful lot of posters with those two attributes every time /. posts an article touching on climate change.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Its an increasing trend.
2014 more than 2013, which was more ice than 2010, higher than 2011. 2012 was the lowest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/03/has-arctic-sea-ice-made-the-end-of-melt-season-turn-prematurely-this-year/
The extent this year is bumping right against the 2 sigma mark, meaning we are increasing ice towards historical norms.
Which makes sense , the planet is getting cooler.
The earth's temperature has not risen for the last 14-22 years, depending on which temperature series you look at...
And that is despite the heavy manipulation and "adjustments" on the surface temperature records. (and adjustments to cool the past data to create a warming trend !)
The best data we have for the USA is the USCRN (US Climate reference Network), well sited (not by jet exhaust on the hot tarmac !) rural stations with tripple reducndant aspirated Pt sensors.
The result, since inception, shows no temperature rise in ten years.
Because the sun is in a low activity cycle, and the ocean decadal oscillations are heading into the cool phases, we are probably in for a cooling trend.
And humans do poorly in cooling climates, crops fail, and more die from cold than heat.
Bitch, please.
If you're going to lawyer on technicalities, at least know what the fuck is being discussed.
Nobody wants to talk about the real reason krill is vanishing and krill-eating penguins and other animals are starving...it is because of commercial fishing for krill. The whole ecosystem is being destroyed and everyone wants to blame climate or ice when it is just plain old greed. It should be illegal to harvest krill.
You know, salt water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh.
If I were melting a sh*t-ton of fresh water into a pool of salt water that had a temperature < the freezing point of fresh water, I might expect that fresh water would freeze when it hit that cold salt water. Given that the density of fresh water < the density of salt water, I might even expect that the freezing would occur at the surface.
This isn't rocket science, nor is it especially confusing. The ice in one place is turning into ice in another place. The critical feature is, given these curiously sudden changes being observed, what sort of factor when increased would melt that ice in the first place? I know I'm voting for The Great Liberal Conspiracy, but maybe someone here has other ideas...
I would not say its a lie. Just maybe a bit of bad science.
Maybe if climate scientists could predict this phenomenon before it happened instead of trying to explain why global warming is still valid after it happened they would be a lot more credible. At this rate literally anything could happen and it would confirm global warming. Melting ice? Global warming. Increased ice? Global warming. No rain this year? Global Warming. Increased rain this year? Global warming.
"...because all the models that predicted the future so far were wrong up to this point..."
No, that haven't been wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Instead of talking about the impending melting of the polar ice caps, we should now talk about polar ice cap change."
Why shift away from talking about the ice caps melting? Or did you read the article?
"As the area covered in sea ice expands scientists have said the ice on the continent of Antarctica which is not over the ocean continues to deplete.
CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns."
It's called the 'Mpemba effect '. You might want to look it up.
It doesn't apply here, but it's a real thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, not enough degrees of freedom to support global warming hysterics specious hypotheses.
The Antarctic has land. The Arctic does not. Hence different processes occur.
If Mexico was buried under 30 feet of snow, people would still be argue about climate change.
If Greenland was 80 degrees in winter, people would still argue about climate change.
Reading the article and comments, it is clear that nobody understands exactly what is happening here. Instead theories are thrown around like gospel on a Sunday morning. There is no consensus. There is hardly any method. Climatology has been so poliicized and glamorized I don't trust anything I read anymore.
Speaking of gospel I'm going to share a prayer...
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
That's like saying 'the guy has plenty of blood in him, look at the size of the puddle around him'
Yes, wrong. Here, let me graph that for you. I see you didn't get the memo.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
WRONG. There is data that shows significant increases in CO2, (relative to the tiny amount present in the base-line), but no associated rise in Global Average Temps, for at least 17 years since the last anomaly. That's not weather, my friend, that's climate. And that's just fine. No correlation, no causation.
So more ice means global warming and less ice means global warming... lol!! I love it when liberals try to use science to get what they want. However it's a little troubling when otherwise well educated logical human beings buy into it...
It's about controlling you at the most intimate levels folks.. nothing more. Hitler was a big government, environmentalist, veggie eating, religion hating, gun control freak too. it's all long hair and free sex til they start locking you up for not smiling while they screw you....
Riiiiight. "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." -- taken directly from your link. Did I need to bold the word "creating" or did you pick up on that?
Arctic sea ice is rebounding too. So Antarctic sea ice is at record levels, and Arctic sea ice has moved well away from it's record low, FYI.
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Aaa... Am I the ONLY one that doesn't understand this article? Is it a negative or a positive number? Extent can't be used by itself, ie "the "increase" is size to the extent of which has never been seen before."
So is this article saying that the arctic sea ice has increased, or decreased?
Fuck.. is it THAT difficult to learn English?
mobydisk says it well in his comment above - but unless you're talking about VOLUME of ice, the argument is all but meaningless for you deniers. and oh, the volume is shrinking.
Everyone is not getting it....
It is not global warming, CO2, solar output, it is planar sinking!!!
You see, the earth orbits the sun on an eliptical path. (Yes, everyone is exclaiming we know that.) Okay, but there is also an elevation to that. And clearly, the earth's elevation has sunk, and this results in the northern hemisphere receiving a greater share of the sun's output and the southern hemisphere less. All of our favorite snowflakes have decided it is just getting to warm in the Arctic and have begun a global migration south toward the Anarctic.
Downward Frost Migration
Many of us in Norway were promised global warming and now you f-ers are talking this crap about recovery!!!!!
What do we have to do to get you jerks to mess up some more ozone!!! I'm really not liking how this is turning out!
Does your Anthropomorphic Global Warming/Global Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Blame the Capitalists/White Guilt Cult have an official name yet?
It's short for "Fuck Yo Mama Up The Ass".
You like it? We dedicated it to YOUR mom. And her ass.
Citing the errors of celebrities, powerful politicians, authors, lobbyists, or influential policy advocates as evidence of the failings of science is... also jibberish.
Ignoring science is being ignorant. Pretty much by definition.
As for Gore being wrong, I'm not so sure about that:
I'm sure you can find one instance where he spoke off the cuff and oversimplified, but whatever.
Do you deny the opening of the arctic passage?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-shipping-coal-arctic-idUSBRE98Q0K720130927
Are you supporting this conspiracy theory of a "global warming hoax?" If you know something, speak up, it could be one of the greatest upsets in the history of science.
ahem...all **matter** AFFECTS its environment...
**some** matter is harmful to systems and the life those systems support
"too much of a good thing is bad for you"...that's a helpful maxim for you to undestand the fallacy of your logic
"pollution" by the very definition of the word is an AFFECT that has crossed the barrier to become "harmful"
if it's not harmful to the environment, it's not pollution...
this really ends the debate...people can verify the definition of pollution...you cannot escape the fact that human processes produce matter harmful to the environment...after that fact the rest follows logically right up to the EPA's mission
Thank you Dave Raggett
Sorry, but El Nino isn't cooperating.
Actually, given the likely solar activity we're going to see for the next twenty years, I fully expect a cooling trend of some type.
The right policy prescription is pretty simple - ton of research should go into cheap, clean energy sources like LFTR. Displacing coal power with clean energy is a win regardless of climate issues.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
And citing a very specific effect in very specific conditions instead of nature, without context impliying that it's the general effect isn't a technicality. Right...
Bunch of climate terrorists
That word...I do not think it means what you think it means.
when I say "this ends the debate"...I'm referring to the debate about "global warming " or "climate change" and whether it exists
the *only* logical question is "how much pollution is too harmful?"
defining "too harmful" is certainly up for debate...that's a productive direction...we get together and use science to see what levels of pollution from our modern society are managable
now, specifically "carbon"...a person can acknowledge that carbon pollution contributes to global warming and not support a policy like "cap and trade"...and we can have a debate and draw a final conclusion on this issue.
we can know scientificially whether too much carbon emissions harms the environment...it's testable with science...and the results are in my friend...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Back to global cooling?
FTFA: "As the area covered in sea ice expands scientists have said the ice on the continent of Antarctica which is not over the ocean continues to deplete." Next time, RTFA.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Actually in terms of volume both are shrinking.
As usual, geekoid comes outta the woodwork with awesome, informative posts like these. Let me go ahead and respond with an equally awesome response:
Yes, they have.
A more accurate, but much less attention grabbing headline would have been "0.15% annual increase in Antarctic Sea continues for 35th year". Given the strong trend, most years would be expected to be "record years".
I agree with your basic premise but most AGW advocates ignore and will not address contrary evidence, preferring instead to ridicule and cast aspersions, as you do.
Increasing seasonal sea ice in Antarctica is not "contra-evidence", it's a prediction that most models have been making for over 20yrs now, the mechanism that causes the counter intuitive result is well understood. So called "skeptics" are flogging a dead horse in their attempts to cite it as some sort of "smoking gun" that climate scientists are attempting to hide. The often intentionally misleading claim is ranked at #10 on skeptical sciences list of most popular climate myths.
As for Al Gore, any internet idiot can play "gottcha science" by taking words out of context and deliberately misinterpreting them. However the scientists who were lead authors of the IPCC reports that Gore's documentary was based on gave it a good review for it's representation of the report. Of course there were minor errors, and yes, the scientists pointed them out. The reason Gore shared the Nobel prize with the IPCC is that he put the IPCC's monumental lit-review effort squarely at the center of public policy debate.
Useful idiots? - As someone who has followed climate science with interest since the late 70's, Gore's documentary was an excellent (but imperfect) explanation of the science and it's real world consequences. It's a shame so many slashdotters mindlessly join in when the Gore bashing starts, he's the only well educated geek that has come close to sitting in the whitehouse for a very long time. History will admire his charitable public education efforts, even if most american's currently do not.
Disclaimer: I've been well known on slashdot for commenting on climate related stories for around 15yrs now, I'm not and have never been an "AGW advocate", I'm a science advocate.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Remember, the science is settled.......move the fuck on.
This isn't the ice cap. Also look at a diagram showing the average extent and the current extent.
This is a clear case of arguing about apples while using oranges as an example.
You are using Fox news as a thing to cite!
What's your next source - Uri Gellar?
Bullshit. He had both power and wealth before he took that line and has less power and not much more wealth now.
Google "Mpemba effect"
You may be correct, but you are not serving your position well. Whether or not your "facts" are or are not in fact facts, the strident use of an emotionally loaded, provocative term like "denier" is in fact Name- calling. It is ad hominum. It is unhelpful. It is annoying. It damages the persuasiveness of your position.
BTW actual citations from the literature are more credible than "Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes."
I'm guessing most people will feel pretty stupid, and should, for falling prey to the word choice in the headline...
I'd like to remind folks the derivative of a volume is a surface (area).
Now for the only article I could quickly find not blatantly directed at fourth graders...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio
As many others have said, a record "area" for sea ice means nothing when we are concerned about its volume (quantity).
Don't either bother arguing about it, it's a waste of breath.
krill overlords.
There's more sea ice, because there is more movement of the land ice. Antarctica is actually a *continent* (you arctic-centric fools!), covered in a land-bound ice cap.
That land-bound ice cap is thinning, getting undercut by water streams, and being pushed off into the sea where it creates silly headlines, before it melts.
We will adapt.
We should adapt because anything else is bad both for us and for the planet.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
water is necessary for human life
yet, humans can **poison** themselves by drinking too much water: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wo...
water = necessary for life
too much water = deadly poison
Thank you Dave Raggett
According to the "HAB Theory", the point where the earth tips over due to weight imbalance at the poles should be reached any day now...
Anybody seen Al Gore?
... signifying nothing.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"