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."
Instead of talking about the impending melting of the polar ice caps, we should now talk about polar ice cap change.
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.
Agreed. The "spreading out" of thin ice might just be due to a lot of ice falling off the Antarctic and more precipitation -- if it were cooler, you'd have less.
This might a good "negative" feedback mechanism that reduces overall infrared absorption -- at least in Antarctica, but likely not enough to curb the trend.
But those who say " we need more research" before affecting someone's profits -- well, they will think this proves something.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
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.
Yes, hide the dissenting data! Don't look at it! We need to evangelize the narrative, people.
Is that how this science works?
sig: sauer
The arctic and the Antarctic are two completely different places.
Citation please!
Here, let me Google that for you
Also, from 2008 Davos:
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening.
Your double negatives threw me for a second there, but I think I see what's happening. You're concerned about their opponents. (I'm referring to the opponents of the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean that global warming isn't happening.) No doubt, you're familiar with the movement opposing those nutcases, and you with to make sure they don't get a foothold in the media, public perception, or in the legislature. There are a number of groups involved in that, and several of those are politically active. There is a bill in the legislature kowtowing to those groups, and a number of committees are organizing to keep them from making any progress. They aren't sufficiently organized at present, but with enough help they will be able to push forward enough to reach their goals. I think you'll be relieved to learn that I'm thoroughly opposed to the groups seeking to weaken the proponents of the bill making illegal the actions of committees organized to oppose the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean global warming isn't happening. At least...so far as it's consistent with the first Amendment.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
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.....
It's important to note that the Antarctic has been recovering ozone for 40 years since CFCs were banned. That means more protection from the sun. More ice, more rain, less UV, etc. It stands to reason that the Antarctic would grow ice as the natural greenhouse effect of having an ozone would take effect.
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
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.
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.
Science is never settled, you clod.
It is when it has become religion.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The problem here is that what's important isn't areas so much as volume. Please read and learn something.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Just another day in Paradise
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...
Let me count the ways you are wrong:
. Wrong pole
. He didn't say that
. Even if he did (which he didn't) it wouldn't mean shit
. Most climate scientists didn't agree with what he actually said (which isn't what you claimed)
. Again even if the statement he said would be falsified it changes nothing in the science and models
. You doubt something that is proven to exist which is frankly a very stupid thing to do
"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...
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.
This isn't dissenting data.
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.
So let me get this straight. Some grandstanding politician makes some dumb-ass statement about climate change and, by your logic, all climate change science is broken. Have I got that right? Or did you have a point that was supported by some kind of actual logic?
Ignoring science in favour of conspiracy theories is ignorant.
Citing the errors of celebrities as evidence of the failings of science is... jibberish.
And betting your life savings in Vegas may make you rich; that doesn't make it alarmist to say "Bet your life savings in Vegas and you'll likely end up broke". By your, faulty, logic you basically can't say anything may/may not happen without saying the opposite as well. Which means you should probably have said his "alarmist or not alarmist point, may have been a little, or lot, less, or more, convincing" because god forbid you actually imply something is more likely than something else if it isn't an absolute certainty.
Don't confuse an stress-puppy laden with guilt and need to self-flagellate over the many benefits energy use has brought mankind (which far, far outweigh any health problems caused).
It's one of the lowest in history but not the lowest. It's very close to tieing with last year.
Sea-ice volume appears (it's harder to measure reliably although it's more significant that area or extent) to be up on last year which in turn was up on the previous year. That might be a good sign for Arctic ice feedbacks or it might not - 2-3 years is far too short a time to separate signal from noise. Volume is still exceptionally low compared to the historical record.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
But the summary made it sound like it would be, and that's enough for deniers to latch onto.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
Why are you talking about the Arctic in an article about the Antarctic?
Furthermore why are you talking about Al Gore and models? Sure Gore is somewhat important in his role as an advocate, but Al Gore saying something wrong doesn't mean the models are wrong, it's means Al Gore is a politician who doesn't know the science. I'm not up to date on the models but I never got the impression that an ice free artic in this timeframe was the consensus of the scientists (sure, some thought it could happen, but that's not the same thing).
Btw, on that topic the Arctic ice is still shrinking.
I stole this Sig
No NO NO! Its: Record Ice melts are due to climate change. Record Ice accumulation is due to weather, which has nothing to do with Climate change.
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
Which university did Al Gore get his climatology degree from again?
Oh, you mean he's just a spokesperson? Like Bill Cosby was for JELL-O? Why would you give a shit what he said?
Of course if you have the reference for the prediction he was just repeating that might be from a slightly more believable source than Mr "I have a nobel peace prize, and an Oscar!". Though chances are pretty good that actual source says something like "X% chance" making it less of a slam dunk.
Also north != south, but that doesn't invalidate the claim, you could be going off topic on purpose.
Al Gore isn't just a "celebrity", he is also a powerful politician, author, lobbyists, and influential policy advocate. If he makes wrong statements about the policies he advocates, yes, it matters.
What record accumulation? You missed the important bit:
"two dimensional area,"
It's still loosing MASS.
Please fucking learn.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Likewise, every time AGW is brought up some fuckwit will bring up Al Gore as though it proves something... besides that person's tribalism and ignorance, I mean.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Ignoring science in favour of conspiracy theories is ignorant.
No, science should not be ignored but that does not mean that conspiracies do not exist. They do.
Citing the errors of celebrities as evidence of the failings of science is... jibberish (sic).
Al Gore is not just a celebrity. Sadly, many people are influenced by his gibberish. 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. What is there to fear from an open discussion and equal treatment of all available evidence, unless a predetermined outcome is the goal?
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Forget single digits, in Canada the temperature gets into negative numbers. We use the metric system.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
There is a distinction between the two, of course, but it is without difference to the topic of this thread. Both ice-caps were supposed to shrink (with dire consequences for the rest of the world, of course).
One expedition set out to measure the loss of the ice, found itself stuck in it — not that it changed the leading professor's opinion about the global warming...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
How many times did your boss tell his customers it would be ready next week after you told him it would take a month. I've seen that too many times. This is just another example of the top wig tailoring the information for his needs.
Not saying that's what happened but I'd be surprised that the scientists would put the end of ice in the north pole so close.
BTW, how did we start talking about the north pole when this article is about the south pole? or am I confused as usual?
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
The actual scientists may be formulating their claims conservatively indeed. And the morphing does occur.
But it is not the critics, but rather the politicians and journalists — peddling the global warming panic — who are doing the morphing. "The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff," — are the actual words of Al Gore from 2007 — "It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now."
Yeah, he said "could be" — about as evasive as Geico's "could save you 15% or more"... But it increased — a lot — instead of shrinking so he was not even in ball-park. And thus, any scientific models used by to make that dire prediction are invalid and any policies based on those models ought to be abolished at once — regardless of how many solyndras have been financed already following those policies.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The Antarctic has land. The Arctic does not. Hence different processes occur.
I'm done fighting, arguing and whatnot. I offer to you what I offered everyone so far: I move inland, you move to the coast. If you're right, you get a wonderful piece of seaside real estate. If I am right, I get to shoot you if you try to escape drowning.
Deal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"North Polar ice cap" is not "Antarctic sea ice". Wrong side of the planet. Note here that the one that is increasing is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
It is proof of increased temperature if you understand the scientific principles involved. The sea ice extent is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily and further out in the winter. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
No, but one is a mix of land and sea ice, and one is entirely sea ice. Note here that the one that is increasing is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
It stands to reason...
...that the Earth is flat.
"It stands to reason", "it just makes sense", "it's common sense"... these are not just not arguments, they are anti-arguments: anyone using them is saying loudly and clearly "I have nothing to contribute to this discussion but here's some noise to dilute the signal."
Any time you find yourself offering an opinion based only on your imagination, please don't. Get some data, learn some modelling, do some statistics before you speak.
Philosophers attempted to understand the world for thousands of years based on what "just makes sense" and failed completely and utterly. After three hundred years of scientists showing us a better way--and showing that what "stands to reason" has absolutely nothing at all to do with the way the world actually is--there is really very little excuse for continuing to promulgate this erroneous and basically useless way of knowing.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
What mystical crap?
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through.
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated.
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle.
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those fact to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is.
How about you actual look at the science?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, you do not need a control to draw conclusions.
What control do we use for the conclusion we have about gravity?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
1. False. AGW has a set of tests and facts. Deniers refuse to accept them. These are tested and testable facts.
2. True about most thing, but frustrating when one side has fcts and the other side totlea argument in NU-UH! However this is irrelevant it happens in many field byu people who aren't the actual scienctist. No bearing on science.
3. False, again.
here:
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth. Testable? Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those fact to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is: the impact of AGW on the climate.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Somehow a quite conservatively formulated claim (subjunctive mode, "some models, 75% chance, 5-7 years, during some month of the summer") magically morphed into the strong claim "Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free".
And two years ago the summer arctic ice cover dropped to the lowest level ever recorded, only 1/3 of the average cover from 1981-2010, which is a divergence of more than three standard deviations, with all of the ice coverages since 2010 being far below that long term average.
It is pitiful how the existence of random variation superimposed over a very strong long term trend seems to succor the fantasies of denialists.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Sheesh! Sea ice has essentially zero effect on sea level whether it forms or melts. It's the land based ice like the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that have an effect on sea level. If you're not paying enough attention to the science to understand even that simple concept why should I think anything else you have to say is worth listening to.
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.
Bringing up Al Gore does prove something. That there exists powerful people who have exaggerated the impact of climate change in order to accumulate further power and wealth. Of course, this doesn't change any scientific facts, but its an important consideration when evaluating any proposed policy changes.
as opposed to the hundreds of Republicans in congress who make wrong statements daily?
Statements like "God created the Earth, and as such global warming is impossible", "CO2 is a natural, harmless gas", "Coal ash is harmless", "CFCs have no effect on ozone", "Nicotine doesn't cause cancer", etc, etc etc etc?? Seriously, the list is endless. I dont have to post em all. And these are the same individuals on the science committee btw.
Al Gore is an activist with little real power unless he decides to run for office again.
He's also not that influential anymore, as basiaclly everyone has alrady taken a side in regrards to him (hint: only one side is backed by actual science!)
However all those Congress critters are actually current serving politicians. I'd be far more worried about them if you're going to play the "what he says matters" card.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Ooooh! It's the biggest conspiracy in human history! By the sheer scale of it, I wager it must have been perpetrated by the Illuminati, the Masons, the Elders of Zion and the New World Order all at once, because each of these organizations hate the fossil fuel industry as they're handsomely funded by the scary-powerful alternative energy lobby. Luckily, it has now been exposed by a handful of diligent bloggers, with no connection to any polluting industry at all. Because everyone knows blog posts have more weight than peer-reviewed scientific papers. </sarcasm>
Seriously, knock it off with regurgitating debunked climate myths. Yours is #9 on the list. Also related.
There is a distinction between the two, of course, but it is without difference to the topic of this thread. Both ice-caps were supposed to shrink (with dire consequences for the rest of the world, of course).
One expedition set out to measure the loss of the ice, found itself stuck in it — not that it changed the leading professor's opinion about the global warming...
The Antarctic sea ice extent was not and is not projected to shrink in the near term. It was expected to expand as a result of the influx of fresh water from increasing land ice melt. As the planet continues to warm it will reach a point where the ice extent will start shrinking again (as the 0C starts pushing further south), but that isn't projected to happen until later this century.
~X~
Thats the whole reason I came to this thread. To watch the "Anthropogenic Climate Change" crowd vs the "Global Warming is a Myth" crowd flame war. *munches popcorn* I stopped trying to reason with either side ages ago, now I just come to learn new and more interesting ways of insulting people.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
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
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.
Regrettably, there has been little to no efforts made from the scientific community to distance itself from Gore's extreme proclamations and warnings.
Sigh, the scientific community almost unanimously came out of the lab to praise the documentary because they felt it was a "bloody accurate" representation of their work.
Yes, I know scientists don't appreciate having to come out of their research labs where they are doing actual real work to do stuff like that, but it's important. It's all the more important the more impact you believe your research has to society as a whole.
Agree, now if you do some fact checking you will find the vast majority of climate scientists have already come out of their labs to loudly defend Gore's work, I'm not sure what your reading/viewing habits are, but you obviously missed the last 10yrs of debate, so the question is now - what will you tell your kids? - Can you set a good example by demonstrating a true skeptic changes his mind when confronted with inconvenient facts, or will misplaced pride take you down the creationist road?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Climate models are exercises in curve fitting. They're programmed to fit the data. They are adjusted to fit actual reality, not predict it in advance. This is the pea under the thimble.
You couldn't be more wrong.
FAQ on Climate Models
FAQ on Climate Models: Part 2