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.
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
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.....
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.
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.
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.
Ignoring science in favour of conspiracy theories is ignorant.
Citing the errors of celebrities as evidence of the failings of science is... jibberish.
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
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 first Cap-and-Trade program in the US was under Ronald Reagan and came out of his administration.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 includeds GHWB's cap-and-trade proposal for sulfur pollution.
GWB included a cap-and-trade proposal in his "clear skys" bill.
While running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.
I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.
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.
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
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
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.
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 first Cap-and-Trade program in the US was under Ronald Reagan and came out of his administration.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 includeds GHWB's cap-and-trade proposal for sulfur pollution.
GWB included a cap-and-trade proposal in his "clear skys" bill.
While running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.
I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.
Cap and Trade is not the same thing as a Carbon Tax. They're two distinct approaches to the same problem. Under a Carbon Tax, a company could emit unlimited carbon as long as they paid the tax. Under Cap and Trade, their carbon emissions would be limited to their "cap". They could then buy rights to emit more carbon from other companies, reduce the amount that they're emitting sell their rights to emission, or offset their emissions in some way (planting trees, etc.).
Cap and Trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Carbon Tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
I think a Carbon Tax is the wrong approach because it does not explicitly limit emissions in any way; as long as its still profitable, emissions will occur. Cap and Trade, on the other hand, explicitly limits industry-wide emissions and requires individual companies to set a value on their limited emissions in the free market.
That said, UN Agenda 21, as mentioned by a previous poster, has nothing to do with which of these approaches is better.
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?
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.
"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.
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
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.
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~