Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Ten-Year Mission To Study All the Ways the Arctic Is Doomed

Posted by samzenpus on from the how-bad-is-it? dept.

Lasrick writes: NASA is kicking off the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment, a decade-long effort to figure out just how bad things in northern US and Canada really are. The large-scale study will combine on-the-ground field studies as well as data from remote sensors—such as satellites and two season of 'intensive airborne surveys'—to improve how scientists analyze and model the effects of climate change on the region.

125 comments

  1. Bender says by Revek · · Score: 2

    DOOMED!!!!!

    1. Re:Bender says by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Wait... They've discovered Cacodemons in the Arctic...

      http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Cat...

    2. Re:Bender says by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DOOMED!!!!!

      More like self destruction. After complaining that they are underfunded, NASA is crazy to be sticking their nose into a politically sensitive issue like this. They are likely to have their funding cut a lot more. The effect of climate change on forests is important, but "on-the-ground field studies" are not part of NASA's mission. They are a space agency, not the forest service.

    3. Re:Bender says by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The effect of climate change on forests is important, but "on-the-ground field studies" are not part of NASA's mission. They are a space agency, not the forest service.

      Uh, yeah ... because NASA's study of planet Earth was removed quietly from its mission statement during the Bush administration.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Bender says by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      This is why I admire James Hansen, a public servant with the balls to speak truth to power, we need more people like him in government institutions.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Bender says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was "slipped in" in 2002.

      Policy makers put it in. Policy makers took it out. You understand how that works?

    6. Re:Bender says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After complaining that they are underfunded, NASA is crazy to be sticking their nose into a politically sensitive issue like this. They are likely to have their funding cut a lot more. The effect of climate change on forests is important, but "on-the-ground field studies" are not part of NASA's mission. They are a space agency, not the forest service.

      I'm glad to see NASA exert leadership instead of cowering in shadows. Being radically underfunded, effective PR often seems like NASA's only lifeline. The science value comes from taking advantage of current conditions to better study exactly how rapidly changing climates modify planetary ecosystems. Collecting and analyzing massive amounts of data might help future generations discern how to more precisely condition other bodies to become more inhabitable. And look -- we must first understand the present massive planetary system changes which threaten our ability to last long enough to ever actually establish an extraterrestrial colony anyway. Given our glacial pace of progress, I say "bravo!"

    7. Re:Bender says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gov. institutions is NOT the issue.
      The issue is that CONgress are gutting these folks for speaking up.

    8. Re:Bender says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Uh, yeah ... because NASA's study of planet Earth was removed quietly from its mission statement during the Bush administration. [nytimes.com]

      What a bunch of CRAP! Proof: Obama made one of NASA's missions to be outreach to Islam/Muslims.

    9. Re:Bender says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Groundwork is useful to calibrate and confirm satellite work. An example from ice: the radar reflectivity is measured by satellite, but some hardy scientists were sent to drill holes and measure the thickness as "ground truth". It's just good science.

    10. Re:Bender says by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      NASA isn't crazy, it's just afraid to do things like, going into space. It's dangerous out there, and cold too.

    11. Re:Bender says by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      It looks like it got back in: from their 2014 Strategic Plan (sorry for the PDF):

      Page 6

      "Our Mission: Drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of Earth."

  2. Slashdot is doomed as welll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it has gone to the trolls.

    1. Re:Slashdot is doomed as welll by Revek · · Score: 1

      Thus it has always been such that if you can't think of anything smart or funny, you troll.

    2. Re:Slashdot is doomed as welll by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Or you can copy and paste something from the article. Since no one reads the article, it will make you sound smart and knowledgable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Ten years? More like ten days. by paiute · · Score: 1

    Congress will cut the funding specifically for this effort as soon as they can.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Ten years? More like ten days. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Who really gives a fuck? One of two large possibilities; either it'll happen or it won't. If it doesn't happen it's no big deal and if it does happen it's no big deal. I'll be dead by then and fuck all for the rest of humanity. A bunch of shitheaded meatbags dying means nothing to me.

    2. Re:Ten years? More like ten days. by Fragnet · · Score: 0

      So they should. The real goal of the project is to generate FUD, especially Fear, in order to procure even more tax payers cash from Congress.

  4. The Arctic is NOT doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    There is no unusual ice cover variation, everything proceeds according to the multidecadal cycle, and we're entering a new phase where northern ice cover is going to expand over the years.
    The arctic ice doom and gloom prediction have all been busted. The rest is pure religious belief helped by opportunistic money-grabbing politicians, always in search of new ways to tax people.

    1. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Oh please. The scientists have already voted that it is happening. Now, we're just studying how fast it is going to happen and what further effects this destruction of the entire area of the Earth above the Arctic Circle is going to have. We need to measure what the damage that the Republicans have done.

    2. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the "/sarc" at the end of your humorous response.

    3. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then if it's a temporary warming, we should use the opportunity to build the rail to Russia and other things that are easier in the warmer clime, and when the cold comes back, it's not a big deal. The trains run year-round in cold places, but it's harder to build in the cold than the warm. Digging down to the permafrost when it's melting is harder, but when it's growing back, it's easier, less drilling into the frozen ground, which is some of the hardest drilling on the planet.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by bill.mcnew · · Score: -1

      Dream on. If even half of what they predicted was to come true, such as there being no polar ice caps by the year 1998, we would already have a train running into Russia. Oh and when the government scientists predicted there would be no snow past the year 2000, remember that?

    5. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by deviated_prevert · · Score: 2
      What a miss informed bunch of absolute bullshit. Have you ever seen tundra or what permafrost really is? Obviously many here have no freaking clue as to the nature of the north.

      What replaces permafrost is bog and that bog is impossible to put a rail line over period. Millions of square hectares of bog is what we will see as the permafrost melts. A rise in sea levels and near the arctic ocean a decrease in land mass. The delta of the Mackenzie River will be swamped so will the deltas of many Russian rivers that flow into the low artic. The amount of slow seepage to the ocean from the melting permafrost is incredible. As the glacier cover over Greenland calves to the sea the effect will increase.

      You think the last problem with flooding in New York and New Joisy was bad, just wait you ain't seen nothing yet. But that is ok you can just move up to Canada and take advantage of the new land created eh! What a bunch of freaking morons.

      By documenting what is happening from space and what happens in the upper atmosphere and working in combination with data that is land based at least Nasa is helping to accurately document what is happening and the rate at which we can expect the coast lines to change in the near future! Perhaps all you idiots in the states should do is just elect another moron like Jeb or better still Ronald Frump, you can bet either one will put Nasa in its place and make America great again by teaching everyone to stick their head into the Canadian oil sands and kiss their ass goodbye. DRILL BABY DRILL, frac the shit out of the planet who cares if New York sinks.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    6. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by SteveAstro · · Score: 1

      In the 1820s, Stephenson built the world's very first passenger railroad across a bog. If it wasn't impossible in 1820, its not impossible now...

    7. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      When was the last time you were in Alaska? Care to take a guess what the AK in my name stands for? Oh, and you know they have a rail now through boggy and mountainous areas, right? And apparently there are no trains in New Orleans either, surrounded by bog and all that.

      The delta of the Mackenzie River will be swamped so will the deltas of many Russian rivers that flow into the low artic.

      How is that relevant to building railroads, or Alaska? Sounds like you are upset with Canadians and take it out on anyone who mentions Alaska too. Tundra isn't hard to build over. In WWII, the US military built roads over tundra without issue when the US was being invaded by Japan. The Glenn Highway (Alaska Highway 1) was built in its present location during WWII, as the Japanese bombed and occupied US territory in Alaska. Roads through tundra aren't hard. Railways take more digging, though. But same basic principles apply. Been done many times before. The reason Canada doesn't do it is because they are too cheap to build usable roads. Just drive on the rivers after the freeze. Expensive doesn't mean "hard".

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    8. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by deviated_prevert · · Score: 2
      Yes and sections of the CPR go over muskeg in Northern Ontario. But we are taking about a completely different logistical challenge when it comes to permafrost that can become lakes over vast distances. There are vast stretches of frozen mush that run for hundreds of miles in both North America and Northern Siberia. What will happen as this thaws out is not well understood. As small sections of it melt what happens now is the dead plant material sinks and presto you have a lake. So what happens when huge areas of it thaw is that huge lakes will suddenly form where there once was vegetation living on top of mushy ice.

      I have worked the oil fields up north and can tell you that come May you are shut down for the summer and the shut down times are getting longer and longer and the ice road season is getting shorter. The interior of British Columbia has lost the pine forest because of climate change and that change is moving further and further north every year. This year the wild fire season showed what we are in for. But unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are morons that ignore what is really happening to the environment until something actually happens to them.

      People who do not have a freaking clue are making statements about what is going on. The climate change that is happening is undeniable and if it accelerates because of methane coming out of the tundra then the results are going to be changes that will effect the worlds food supply. Drought in the American south west and the winter food production in California and elsewhere is already causing drastic increases in food costs.

      The answer that Ronald Frump and others are putting forward is more of the same bullshit that caused these problems in the first place. Unless we get our act together there is going to be food shortages and unrest in the next 10 years. We cannot afford not to act the other choice is very disturbing and will lead to social chaos that we will not be able to cope with regardless of who has the guns!

      People who think that climate change is suddenly going to open up the north are absolute fools and need to be ostracized and exposed for the Charlestons they really are! Especially the ones that think that a new North West passage is going to lead to financial gain and an increase in world trade. As we lose the oceans fisheries and people begin to starve then come back and talk to me. Our greed and stupidity has caused these things, more greed and stupidity will not fix them but most definitely eventually will lead to lower population levels!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    9. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I don't remember scientists making either of those predictions. Perhaps you could back your assertion up with references to peer reviewed papers.

    10. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      ... exposed for the Charlestons they really are!

      I got a laugh out of that. Are they some kind of dancers? I think the word you're looking for is "charlatans".

    11. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. It as Al Gore, and he's no scientist.

    12. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      Then perhaps you could cite some references where Al Gore actually said that.

    13. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by deviated_prevert · · Score: 0

      When was the last time you were in Alaska? Care to take a guess what the AK in my name stands for? Oh, and you know they have a rail now through boggy and mountainous areas, right? And apparently there are no trains in New Orleans either, surrounded by bog and all that.

      The delta of the Mackenzie River will be swamped so will the deltas of many Russian rivers that flow into the low artic.

      How is that relevant to building railroads, or Alaska? Sounds like you are upset with Canadians and take it out on anyone who mentions Alaska too. Tundra isn't hard to build over. In WWII, the US military built roads over tundra without issue when the US was being invaded by Japan. The Glenn Highway (Alaska Highway 1) was built in its present location during WWII, as the Japanese bombed and occupied US territory in Alaska. Roads through tundra aren't hard. Railways take more digging, though. But same basic principles apply. Been done many times before. The reason Canada doesn't do it is because they are too cheap to build usable roads. Just drive on the rivers after the freeze. Expensive doesn't mean "hard".

      I got it the only place in the real world that is north of 60 is Alaska. Only morons think of the world only in terms of how climate change effects the USA. Alaska is different topographically from most of northern Canada and Siberia and certainly is not going to benefit from climate change or the opening of the north west passage. The truth is that the majority of Alaskan population is close to the sea and most people do not live in Alaska where the climate is cold and do not live on tundra or on permafrost. Lose of the pacific fishery is about to occur because of changes to ocean surface temps all the way up to the pan handle. A huge bubble of warm water is sitting off the West Coast of North America. What this will do in a very short few years along with over fishing makes the loss of the grand banks over the hundreds of years of over fishing look like a passive action. The pacific fishery is no where near as large as was the Atlantic and even though it took hundreds of years to destroy it it will only take a few more to do the same on the West Coast

      The American attitude toward the environment we all share is almost as bad as the Canadian attitudes and will only change when the disasters that climate change and our shared environmental stupidity bring become too difficult to dismiss.

      The El Nino cycle causing drought in the West is going to go on for another 3 years and then there will be a radical switch to La Nina but without the essential cold currents that meant major up-welling of plankton on the west coast! When this happens the hurricanes on the east coast of the US will ramp up again and this time New York and New Joisy might not be so lucky. Even New Orleans might get it again, who knows if Jeb gets elected then there might even be disaster money for Texas and Florida if it gets the hit this time around. It is a roll of the dice but for certain there will be major storm damage the likes of which we have never seen in the next 10 years.

      The dismissal of climate change and the American attitudes toward the environment are as bad and ignorant as the Scopes monkey trials and reflect the unfortunate overall ignorance and stupidity of the wealthy in the US. They could care less about the future and this shows because they dismiss the science the same way the American religious nuts dismissed Darwin! Yes we are in for a rude awakening and huge economic and social changes and the rich will be in the same boat as the poor this time around because starvation is starvation, you can't eat gold or paper. The rich might survive a little longer than the poor when things get really bad but then again they will have no one to feed them so they will eventually die off as well. They will just suffer longer, which I guess is only fitting.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    14. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      You act as if we shouldn't want to send all major US population centers who are displaced by climate change to live in the new Canadian bog. Personally, sending New York, Atlantic City, most of Florida and LA up there would be by far a net positive.

    15. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      What a maroon.

      NASA is much more interested in protecting its investment in near-sea-level infrastructure in Florida than in what might happen to Seward's Folly. No one else is doing these studies, not with the reliability NASA needs.

      Florida was chosen as its primary launch site because there is a lot of empty ocean downrange. So how much will be the cost of the Cape Canaveral sea wall, and will it be more cost effective to put that money in a space plane that can launch safely from Area 51 and forget about the vertical launch engines? NASA has to do some of its planning decades out, and whether the sea will rise 20 inches or 20 feet by 2060 has a significant impact on its plans.

      Any benefit to Alaskans and their hopes for a railroad bridge over the Bering Strait is secondary.

      --
      Will
    16. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was actually a quote from Dr. David Viner who is a senior research scientist at the Climate Research Unit at the U. Of East Anglia (in 2000). He claimed that snow would become a very rare and exciting event.
      Of course, that was before most of the northern hemisphere has had record snow fall in the past few years... but now that's a sign of CAGW too.

    17. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is ALSO after his claim that snow would be so rare (in the UK) that when it occurs it would cause chaos that snow happened, less than we've had before, and *it caused chaos*.

      Note, he's not talking about YOUR children that sprang from the rotted cloaca of women in the audience, but in the sense of "our descendents" who ALL will be children of (children of, of children of...) people alive today. We don't get new humans appearing ex nihilo.

      So it appears on his claims on things that have occurred, he's spot on. On claims that have not occurred, it is too soon to say it's wrong.

    18. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Seriously, digging in melted permafrost is like digging in wet paper mache; that's why they drive big stuff in on ice roads; try going to the beach and digging below the water table.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by RJBeery · · Score: 2

      See this is part of the movement. When it comes to nuanced hard data, Environmentalists cite Science...but when it comes to INTERPRETATION of that data they have no problem using every hyperbolic, apocalyptic prediction in every news article they can get their hands on. If these "predictions" don't come to pass it isn't a problem because they can just ask for "peer-reviewed papers" making these predictions. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Global Freezing predictions of the 70's? Anyway, failed climate predictions from prominent news and political sources abound if you care to look. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

    20. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      At 63 years old I well remember the stories that came out about the potential for an ice age in the 1970s. I read them with interest at the time. But I'm also aware that a relatively recent review of the published literature from 1965 to 1979 found that papers about warming from CO2 outnumbered the papers about cooling by around 7 to 1. The "Global Freezing predictions" were never part of the mainstream of climate science.

      How many of those WUWT "failed predictions" have you dug into to check the validity of the claims? Or do you just uncritically accept them as most over there do?

    21. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by RJBeery · · Score: 1

      By "over there" do you mean in America or people with my views on the subject? Because it seems presumptuous to think I deny climate change just because I recognize there have been so many awful, failed predictions. I don't reject the science of climate change but I definitely reject the politics of it, and all of the doomsday scenarios come with a political agenda attached to them!

      BTW, I checked in to exactly ONE WUWT claim, arbitrarily picking the last one. Feel free to Google the quote below. Seems pretty unlikely that they would poison such a grand list with a couple of easily falsifiable claims, doesn't it? That's exactly what an Environmentalist would latch on to in order to discredit the rest of them.

      "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

    22. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Frozen mud is harder than solid rock. So driving a pile through permafrost to rest on the ice layer below is easier, faster, and cheaper than any other known construction method. The problem is when the permafrost is receding, then the pile will be driven down by gravity a little more every summer, until it's too low to work. But if the permafrost level is rising, then the bottom of the pile will be anchored by ice forever. That was the construction nuance I was pointing out for the idiot who said there's no difference whether it was warming or cooling. I wasn't commenting on whether it was, whether I want it to be, but that if it were actually cooling now, we should be building all we can.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    23. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      I went and read that list of 107 "failed predictions". Most of them are from the 2000s so it's way to early to call them failed. Let's see what conditions look like in the 2030's to 2050's to before we judge them. A number of them are from non-scientists who I will generously say misinterpreted what scientists have said. Even the ones that you could say failed contain words like "may" so I interpret them more as a worst case scenario.

    24. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by RJBeery · · Score: 1

      "Most" are from the 2000s only because those are the easiest to find and falsify (i.e. in the internet age)! You specifically asked for a failed prediction from Al Gore, of which there are many, and easy to find! Makes me believe that perhaps you are choosing not to see a certain perspective. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

    25. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      "Over there" refers to the WUWT website.

      I read through all 107 of the listed prediction failures and as I said in my other reply to you most of them are way too recent to call them failures yet. The one you quote could be called a legitimate failure. I tried to Google the quote to find the original source for information but it's so old there was nothing online. I would like to find out who the scientists are that said that and the context in which they said it.

    26. Re: The Arctic is NOT doomed by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Since the predictions from the 2000s are mostly talking about conditions in the 2030 to 2050 time range it's way too premature to call them failed.

    27. Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed by dywolf · · Score: 2

      multi decade cycle my ass: http://haveland.com/share/arct...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  5. Word by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Change != DOOM!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Word by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      I agree that change itself is neutral, and that species extinction is a natural process just like the creation of new species. The earth has a history of change in its ecosystems. However, as we currently spend our time on this planet, and our lives depend on the hospitability of those ecosystems towards humans, our view isn't neutral. Science and the general thinking process is and should be neutral yes. But the motivation for which we do science has to be biased. This isn't a secluded cave where we study its completely independent ecosystem, here its about our lives.

    2. Re:Word by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      In that case we just have to adapt. It still doesn't have to be doom. But, with so much corruption permeating the system, it will probably be pretty doom-like. And there are plenty of people who wouldn't mind seeing 6 billion or more people die off, as long as it doesn't drive up the cost of cheap labor.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re: Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh "the creation of new species?" Saw this yourself, didya? The creation of new species is every bit as real as global warming that was a post of pretty much wiped out all life on Earth 20 years ago.

    4. Re:Word by uassholes · · Score: 1

      To say that "the Earth has a history of change in its ecosystems" is an enormous understatement. Before the current ice ice, people could have built houses from trees up there instead of blocks of ice. When the interglacial ends, everything will go back to frozen. THAT'S "Doomed".

  6. what if they find "good things"? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    y'know?

    1. Re:what if they find "good things"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The population of caribou is increasing! It's a population boom, it's catastrophic!

    2. Re:what if they find "good things"? by techno-vampire · · Score: 0

      They'll do their very best to cover up any good things they find. After all, they're not being paid to find out what's going to happen, they're being paid to find out what bad things will happen, and anything that isn't bad needs to be covered up.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:what if they find "good things"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if they don't?

      What if they find the "good thing" is that they can set up shallow sea races and the bad thing that they have to abandon 80% of the urban population to move further south into the mainland USA?

      Good news, everybody! You have won a lottery ticket! However, you have to sign up for organ donation, and harvesting is compulsory and immediate.

  7. Good luck by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Collecting data is the most fundamental part of science. I hope they get lots of good data.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good. But looking for data to reinforce your preconceived narrative is not helpful.

    2. Re:Good luck by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Collecting data is the most fundamental part of science. I hope they get lots of good data.

      Yes, but it also needs to be the right data. Studying symptoms of a problem may not help you solve it.

    3. Re:Good luck by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      If you have a 3-dimension region that is so full of information that that information cannot be encoded on a 2-d boundary of that region, then you have a black hole.

      And don't "adjust" it - or if they do, at least publish the un-adjusted data and the rationale for the adjustments.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:Good luck by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      *Especially* when you have already decided what the outcome is. That is the best way to collection data.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you mean let it be garbage in, because quality control and verification is "ajdustment".

      Hey, tell me, if you think UHI is the majority effect, how do you tell unless you *ajdust* for the UHI effect, then look at the remaining trend?

      Raw data produces a higher clmate trend than the "ajdusted" data you whinge about.

      And if the adjusted data is "making" a warming trend that isn't there, why are you considering the tundra melting? Surely it can't melt if it's not WARMING, right?

  8. Not doomed. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

    It will be just fine, warmer but just fine. Honestly all you people have zero clue as to reality. the temperature on the earth can increase 500 degrees and the planet will be perfectly ok. Look at Venus, the planet it's self is still in it's orbit, and doing great. No chance of deorbiting and crashing into the sun, no chance of being flung into deep space. as a planet it is doing well.

    Earth will do just fine and probably better after all the pesky people have been boiled off.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Not doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      If nothing else it'll kill all the faggots and republicans.

    2. Re:Not doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      too bad it wont do anything about the bigotry.

    3. Re:Not doomed. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      I don't completely agree with George Carlin's take on this but I still find it entertaining.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. Hyperbolic headline by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    The headline on the story is rather hyperbolic. There certainly will be massive changes in the Arctic in the future as the sea ice, land ice and permafrost continue to melt and sea level continues to rise. Ecosystems will collapse and it will take tens of thousands of years to replace them. It will certainly be costly as human activities are disrupted But the Arctic will still be there just very different than it is now.

  10. More disgusting Republcian corporate welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    We already know this is happening. The scientists have already voted that it is. You just know the corporation that makes the GPS units is run by Republicans that will profit from this. That is all they care about. Profit.

  11. Buying land in Doom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much warmer does it get, before it becomes interesting to buy land there?

    1. Re:Buying land in Doom by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The better question is how long does it take for the changes to settle down enough to make it interesting to buy land there?

  12. Buying land in Doom by daniel.cardenas · · Score: 1

    How much warmer does it need to get, before it becomes interesting to buy land there?

  13. Doomed Is The Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JPL-NASA SMAP, soil moisture active passive, a major player in ABoVE suffered a fatal failure of the low-watt power supple to the synthetic aperture radar (L-Band, the active sensor) amplifier. Result, no radar. The other instrument (passive) is a microwave radiometer (L-Band) it is still operational.

    Problem is the retrieval algorithm depends on brightness temperature reading form BOTH (L-Band) sensors. Previous retrieval algorithms for soil moisture estimations used C-Band, and the current ones use X-Band.

    Even if it continues in orbit for 2.5 years the mission is essentially DEAD, i.e. DOOMED.

    ABoVE just became beLLow.

  14. Geologist's Core Samples by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would expect we already have core samples from the tundra and sea bottoms which cover the last 250,000 years.

    That means we have over two complete cycles of the 110,000 year natural glaciation periods.

    Given core samples we already have, I want to know whether the core samples show we have even warmer centuries coming, or not?

    1. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      The answer varies for different values of "centuries coming".

    2. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is a graph of the data from the Vostok core samples. The (numbers on the bottom are in thousands of years). Based on those core samples, what do you think? How would you say CO2 relates to temperature?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There's not much info there but notice that every 125,000 years, which points to orbital changes driving warming, the dust goes up, then the temperature goes up fast, perhaps driven by methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, and then the methane turns into CO2 and the temps drop as CO2 isn't the strongest greenhouse gas.
      There are many ways to interpret that chart and without more info...
      The real question is what happens when something else such as burning large amounts of fossil fuels drives CO2 levels up and it looks like we're doing the experiment

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There's not much info there but notice that every 125,000 years, which points to orbital changes driving warming, the dust goes up, then the temperature goes up fast, perhaps driven by methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, and then the methane turns into CO2 and the temps drop as CO2 isn't the strongest greenhouse gas.

      That's an interesting hypothesis. The dust does seem to have a vague lead on the temperature rise. To check out methane specifically, you can look at this graph (note that the time line is reversed).

      The real question is what happens when something else such as burning large amounts of fossil fuels drives CO2 levels up and it looks like we're doing the experiment

      Yes, too bad we don't have multiple earths to test on.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The methane does seem to lead the temperature peaks. What drives the methane would then be the question. The dust could be a proxy for rainfall and rain (actually erosion) drives one of the major sequesters of CO2. There is a lot of limestone.
      The closest to another Earth we have is Venus, which if nothing else shows how much CO2 an Earth type planet can produce if there are no processes to sequester the CO2. On Earth I believe it is pretty equal between geological and biological processes sequestering carbon with the tectonic plate system ultimately removing it from the surface as well as driving volcanism which replenishes the carbon.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by dryeo · · Score: 1

      And of course I still managed to read the chart backwards. Bedtime.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      rotfl. Still, the dust might be worth thinking about.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The Vostok core is an ice core, not a core of the tundra or sea floor as the GP asked about.

      As far as CO2 and temperature it's simplistic to believe that CO2 always lags temperature. Increased CO2 may be a feedback to warming temperatures coming out of a glaciation but it's impossible to account for the temperatures that are reached without accounting for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are pretty straightforward.

    9. Re:Geologist's Core Samples by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As far as CO2 and temperature it's simplistic to believe that CO2 always lags temperature.

      Of course. It's pretty clear that increasing CO2 will have at least some increase in temperature.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  15. Pre conceptual Science by xtronics · · Score: 1

    Headline screams bad science.

    http://www.gocomics.com/nonseq...

    1. Re:Pre conceptual Science by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Here's an interesting study:

      researchers plan to give subsistence hunters camera equipped GPS units, and have them “mark and photograph environmental disturbances influencing their access to subsistence resources for one calendar year.”

      I'm really interested in seeing what kinds of things subsistence hunters find.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Pre conceptual Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So NASA is doing its own Alaskan reality TV shows? Should we look forward to "NASA's Alaska: The Last Frontier", and "NASA's Life Below Zero"?

      I hope their careful about the "subsistence hunters" they actually recruit for this. We don't need more "Alaskan Bush People" BS.

    3. Re:Pre conceptual Science by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      researchers plan to give subsistence hunters camera equipped GPS units, and have them âoemark and photograph environmental disturbances influencing their access to subsistence resources for one calendar year.â

      I'm really interested in seeing what kinds of things subsistence hunters find.

      Can you say "selfie"? Sure you can....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  16. wasted money by skoony · · Score: 0

    what do we need a study for? will will be water skiing year round there any day now. right?

  17. Wildlife is already dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just look at this. From nat. geo.
    https://instagram.com/p/7TUcCqoVb-/

    Fucking sad.

    1. Re:Wildlife is already dying by deviated_prevert · · Score: 2

      Just look at this. From nat. geo. Polar bear deaths

      Fucking sad.

      Fixed the link for ya. And well quoted point well taken but the implications of what is happening to the arctic are much further reaching than just the sudden extinction of the top predators!

      And that is the whole issue in a nut shell. What is even more concerning is as the sea ice changes so does the ecosystem that supports the arctic cod that requires sea ice habitat. This in turn supports the summer populations of sea birds, seals and the food web of the arctic. So it gets much worse than that in a hurry. The entire food web of the arctic is now in chaos and we will see increased extinctions, the polar bears will be the first because they are at the top of the food web. Then the seals and finally the sea bird populations will crash.

      The whales that live off krill will die off as the krill population crashes due to changes in currents. In some places there will be minor increases in local populations of specific species but by and large the large animals will all die off.

      Our ocean fishery is doomed because of rapid climate change and within the next 20 years it will become obvious that what we have done to the environment of planet earth is going to starve us off as well. There is no stopping the coming extinction cycles. The only realistic solution is for us to evolve as a species and that evolution must be artificial. We need to genetically modify ourselves to survive. A body that can survive in low gravity is the answer, essentially a space cadet or grey alien like body with very light bone structure and a high resistance to extreme g forces seems the most sensible modifications. Perhaps this guy is right! I guess that is why my favourite movie of all time is a doomsday one. I consider myself lucky to be of the last generation that could have prevented the global extinctions and instead chose to go out with our collective heads in the oil sands of time believing that paving the planet would lead to a bright future! We have ignored the obvious warnings and we are doomed because of our greed and stupidity. The human race is not worth saving because it did not learn to rise above greed and the ensuing acts of war that tribalism creates. Our chance to become a single species is past and we instead are again falling into a narrow minded self serving tribal economic chaos which we call capitalism. We have lost the only chance we had to rise above greed and strife. Mother nature is about to cull the herd and it will be brutal because we are incapable of thinking beyond ourselves as individuals regardless of skull and bones and secret hand shakes and all the other bullshit that we delude ourselves with the human race is going to evolve and that evolution is not something which we have control over!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  18. And the outcome will be? by no-body · · Score: 1

    It's a mess, irreversible and responsible for it is and can be made accountible for it: <void>
    Consequences will be endured by future generations.

    Since we are all going to heaven anyway, no problem, just fuck everybody else who comes after, they can't get us.

    What needs to be done should be crystal clear, but with the holy trinity of the T-family, this is going to be very difficult.

    TPP:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    TTIP
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    TISA:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:And the outcome will be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Jim, he's dead..."

  19. *cough* Probe the Anartic for Oil *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and then stick a flag in it. Thanks NASA!

  20. Russia's problem by PPH · · Score: 2

    They own the rights to the Arctic. Let them deal with it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Russia's problem by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      They own the rights to the Arctic. Let them deal with it.

      No, they don't. At least not all by themselves.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  21. the canadian scientists cannot help by crispytwo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...

    And even if they could help, they could not talk about it

    https://news.vice.com/article/...

    we're doomed

  22. Craters in Russian Arctic from methane gas by billstewart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WaPo article on craters in Siberia - apparently they're from methane gas evaporation, which is spectacularly bad news, because methane has more greenhouse effect than CO2. There's a lot of methane stored in frozen arctic tundra, and if warming temperatures make more of it escape, that's going to warm things up faster and make more of it escape.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Craters in Russian Arctic from methane gas by Troed · · Score: 1

      Why did that not happen 8000 years ago when the arctic was a lot warmer (3 to 9 degrees Celsius) than today?

      http://sibran.ru/en/journals/i...

      --
      it's in my head
    2. Re:Craters in Russian Arctic from methane gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, if it were true, it be a question to answer?

    3. Re:Craters in Russian Arctic from methane gas by Troed · · Score: 1

      Alright, I guess it would be easier to just reply to the GP with "no, there's no risk of methane run-away based on historical data".

      --
      it's in my head
    4. Re: Craters in Russian Arctic from methane gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait. Maine winters are freaking cold.

    5. Re:Craters in Russian Arctic from methane gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would only be the case if there was proof that there was similar methane deposits there at the time.

      And remember, the bacteria that breaks down cellulose that is the major part of a plant weren't available for all of the planet's history. Their lack is why we have coal deposits from the Cambrian.

      And it isn't proof that there's no risk from THIS scenaro because it's not the same time period or biological system.

    6. Re:Craters in Russian Arctic from methane gas by Troed · · Score: 1

      They were most there at the time - we're talking _this_ interglacial. A few thousand years ago. Not million.

      --
      it's in my head
  23. Maybe they should study why people don't care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know I probably should give a shit, but I really don't for the same reason I smoked cigarettes when I was younger. This "existential crisis" touches on an evolved emphasis on short term risk, and de-emphasis on long term risk. Also a blind spot in the scope of our evolutionary pressure points: "genetic lineage/tribe" = care about the long term(after my death). Everyone else? Tragedy of the commons.

    Why? I think because of competition for mates/prisoner's dilemma. We care about people who we are related to, and we care about our strategic alliances in order to strengthen our ability to wage war against divided opponents. The loss of people who our outside our strategic alliances has always been our gain. It's just tribalism and the "linear classifier" used to distinguish between "us" and "them" is very, very, very, effective by necessity.

    Some clever and ruthless people(who are ambitious) exploit this fact to elevate their own status(competition for mates makes this the so-called "highest purpose") but at the end of the day you can't motivate people to change their short term economic priorities for the sake of long term "rising tide raises all ships" goals because the people who fall for this sort of rhetoric are generally known as "suckers" to be taken advantage of. Appealing to these lofty ideals will always repel people because they have almost all fallen for this ruse enough times to be wary of it as a common tactic exploited by charlatans.

    How do you unify an alliance to assist with democratically engineering the incentives to make these studies relevant to people who can change things for the better? It is a question of managing massive complexity and the current tools of today seem to have a blind-spot for economic externalities in general, not just global warming. Stoking these fires is almost universally believed to be the transparent efforts of "big government" bad people, and the very opinion that people have of "big government bad people" is shaped by these policies impacts on individuals ability to exploit economic externalities for their own personal advantages.

    People who are skeptical of the motivations of those who would rally them to a common purpose, and rightfully suspect their trust would be misplaced when labor-crushing/bunker-fuel-oil burning free trade agreements are being drafted by the same power structures that claim to be concerned about their interests.

    Driving down the price of commodities and energy so they can be more cost-effectively exploited by India/China to displace American/1st-World employees seems like a suckers proposition bet if I've ever seen one.

    1. Re:Maybe they should study why people don't care? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's because people are really bad at caring (wrong word but the right one is escaping me at the moment) for the consequences in the future. You see it when a person needs to lose weight or stop smoking in order to prevent bad health in the future, being unable to put money aside for a rainy day, or even in those tests that they give kids where they can have one candy now but two if they wait 20 minutes. We seem to be programmed to want the immediate satisfaction of a smoke, buying something, or a candy despite something better for us in the future.

      So with climate change we feel we are being asked to make sacrifices, and sometimes there are, for benefits that might not even be in our lifetime or may not even happen to our area of the planet. Why should I drive less so that the ice in the Arctic doesn't melt in 35 years and flood some island half way around the world? If someone has a hard time stopping to buy their lunches in order to save for a new TV then it's going to be really hard for them to be motivated to drive less. (Not that I'm saying that's how you have to save the environment but that is how a lot of people think you have to.)

    2. Re:Maybe they should study why people don't care? by wyHunter · · Score: 0

      People don't care because for every crisis they are told to a) give governments more power, and b) pay higher taxes. This feels like all of it.

  24. More Like Confirmtion Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    When you go looking for something to be fucked up, you'll find something fucked up, even it's it not really fucked up.

    So much for the "Science".

  25. Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hansen is the scientist's version of Black Lives Matter.

    He was chased out of NASA because of his stupid activism. He has all this influence, yet all he does is chain himself to shit.

    Moron.

    1. Re:Hack by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence that James Hansen was chased out of NASA. I believe he retired on his own terms. After all he is 74 years old (72 when he retired I think). As director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies he had a lot of administrative duties that he was probably getting tired of.

    2. Re:Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ” I will say that I do not particularly like this model as a suitable introduction to the greenhouse effect. It is useful in many regards, but it fails to capture the physics of the greenhouse effect on account of making a good algebra lesson, and opens itself up to criticism on a number of grounds; that said, if you are going to criticize it, you need to do it right, but also be able to distinguish between understood physics and simple educational tools.”
      http://skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html

      “For A – 0.3 and So = 1367 watts per square meter, this yields Te ~ 255 K. The mean surface temperature is Ts ~ 288K. The excess, Ts – Te, is the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds, which cause the mean radiating level to be above the surface.”
      Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

  26. Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Dr. Guy McPherson is correct, then Gen X's will see the end of the human race.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOq2A_SGTYA

  27. History Repeated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As one might suspect from the sordid ties of the past with the KKK and like groups, we find any actual hatred of gay people these days are found in Democrats as evidenced by your post.

  28. Yes, Arctic Is OK, NASA Is DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The JPL-NASA Soil Moisture Active Passive was failed by a $ 9.99 low-wat power supply to the high amp radar.

    And now the $1 billion mission is dead no matter how JPL and NASA Propaganda Offices try to spin out of the failure.

    NASA program managers in DC will just sweep this under the rug: "Perhaps the student will learn the polarity of the On/Off switch next time. Ha ha"

    With hundreds of billions of dollars to waste NASA is in no hurry to change. And why need they from their point of view!

    Ha ha

  29. ...Protesting yet another incendiary title. by Ryyuajnin · · Score: 1

    Slashdot's inflammatory titles are a strategy to encourage impulsive and thoughtless behavior. I am against this, and in protest, I refuse to read or respond to these articles in any other way. This is my official boycott, expect to see this elsewhere until you get the message.

  30. gee. We wonder what they'll find.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a determination to find the evils that will cause a problem, and without ANY open mindedness to finding the truth I think that the results can and probably already have been written.

    Aliens will be the final straw to destroy it.

  31. 500mb by lazy+genes · · Score: -1

    The upper atmosphere over the arctic is on fire. All the cold air that collects during the winter will be displaced by warm ocean air. The cold air ( polar vortex) will get pushed to lower latitudes and spin over North America. If the arctic stays ice free it will be the start of another ice age. This type of system could result in massive snow falls, miles deep. It has happened before.

  32. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the science was settled.

  33. To Boldly Go Where NOAA Has Gone Before... by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    What about rides to the space station?
    Climate changelings rejoice!
    Why has the President re-tasked the nation?
    Climate changelings rejoice!
    The military thinks climate is bigger than war?
    Climate changelings rejoice!
    The Pope is on board as never before?
    Climate changelings rejoice!
    Celebrity endorsement roll in hard and fast?
    Climate changelings rejoice!
    While concern about climate always polls dead last?
    Climate changelings rejoice!
    Solar and wind failures win subsidy and extension?
    Climate changelings rejoice!
    But nuclear power must go without mention.
    Climate changelings rejoice!

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  34. It is not scientific to define the result before by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

    The project should be aimed at understanding the Arctic and how it changes. It should not only look for possible problems, but also how the Arctic will adapt and cope with it. By setting the vulnerabilities as a topic this research is defined to be one-sided.

  35. No Agenda Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  36. Doomed Is Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Checking out the researchers and projects chosen for the NASA ABoVE mission has failure written all over. Basically the researcher have no qualifying education, experience or training to do what ABoVE is suppose to do. So, did the program managers for ABoVE doll out the payola to buddies rather than actually trying to do a valid science project?!

    Wont be surprised to see ABoVE stricken from the FY17 Federal Budget.

    Also, most of ABoVE is in Canada. Did anybody ask Canada about trespassing on Canada's territory? (Maybe Canada does not want US migrants, like the US does not want Mexican migrants!) And why should NASA be throwing USA taxpayer money to Canada? Does Canada need a low interest loan from NASA? What about the IMF like Greece! And why just Alaska and Canada? What about Siberia? Does it seem odd that a one-meter^2 sample site in Canada and a non-existant satellite-sensor (50 km ground resolution) that only covers 1/19*10^12 m^2 of the northern hemisphere is going to solve any science problem except how to squander a few million/chump-researcher of USA taxpayer dollars?!

  37. Science my *SS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better cut it to 5 years if the arctic is doomed. Kind of pointless exercise, really.

  38. yo mama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your mamas so fat that when she goes to the Arctic the water melts quicker because of gravitational sheer.

  39. NASA needs to focus on space, let NOAA do its job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not trying to troll, but NASA spends way to much on Environmental Science because its an easy win (funding wise). The NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION needs to focus on SPACE AND AERONAUTICS...not environmental studies. ....now just waiting to get flamed for people thinking I don't want studies on the environment, I do, just not by NASA...because its not their job.

  40. More WASTED money by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    To try to prove man made global warming, which isn't possible. The earth warms & cools, the problem for these anti-people morons is they don't think LONG TERM. There was glacier melting back before the "industrial age", but since they've only been keeping records for around 100 years, they soon forget the EARTH is millions of years old. Oh that's right, as long as they can fudge the numbers to match their agenda, who cares. "July 2015 was the warmest every recorded". Yeah, something like 0.01 degrees different. What a joke! But, with the uneducated drones, being indoctrinated in schools today, no wonder their is such a mass hissy fit over it.

    1. Re:More WASTED money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, the planet is billions of years old, not millions.

      Earth has changed, and continues to change. It will be here in this orbit for a long time (it will take billions of years for the Sun to expand enough to destroy it, and that's not certain). The question is how fast the change is, and what the effects will be of unusually rapid changes. By LONG TERM, do you mean decades or tens of millions of years? Large climate changes over decades can be very disruptive and expensive. Changes over tens of millions of years are pretty much of no concern to humanity, since we'll doubtless be able to deal with any such change in a million years (assuming advanced civilization lasts that long).

      We have formal records only for a fairly short time (longer than a century, though), but there are ways to measure climate in prehistoric times. (You don't seem very good with the numbers.)

      July 2015 might not be the warmest on record, since there's a margin of error, true. It is, however, one of the warmest on record without doubt, and the 21st Century is marked by large numbers of record and near-record planetary temperatures, and consistently very high temperatures. The planet is noticeably warmer now.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  41. I know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how to save NASA some money: stick to real science; don't dabble in fascist politics.