Slashdot Mirror
NASA: Arctic Sea Ice 2nd-Lowest On Record (earthsky.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from EarthSky: NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said on September 15, 2016 that summertime Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum on September 10. With fall approaching and temperatures in the Arctic dropping, it's unlikely more ice will melt, and so the 2016 Arctic sea ice minimum extent will likely be tied with 2007 for the second-lowest yearly minimum in the satellite record. Satellite data showed this year's minimum at 1.60 million square miles (4.14 million square km). NASA said in a statement: "Since satellites began monitoring sea ice in 1978, researchers have observed a steep decline in the average extent of Arctic sea ice for every month of the year [...] The sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas helps regulate the planet's temperature, influences the circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, and impacts Arctic communities and ecosystems. Arctic sea ice shrinks every year during the spring and summer until it reaches its minimum yearly extent. Sea ice regrows during the frigid fall and winter months, when the sun is below the horizon in the Arctic." The NASA/NSIDC statement explained why the melt of Arctic sea ice surprised scientists in 2016. For one thing, it changed pace several times: "The melt season began with a record low yearly maximum extent in March and a rapid ice loss through May. But in June and July, low atmospheric pressures and cloudy skies slowed down the melt. Then, after two large storms went across the Arctic basin in August, sea ice melt picked up speed through early September." NASA posted an animation on YouTube that "shows the evolution of the Arctic sea ice cover from its wintertime maximum extent, which was reached on Mar. 24, 2016, and was the lowest on record for the second year in a row, to its apparent yearly minimum, which occurred on Sept. 10, 2016, and is the second lowest in the satellite era."
That it is up from the lowest and bouncing back.
Gee that was fun. Can anyone play ?
We can't do 10. We don't know how.
We know how to replace most of it with electric vehicles, and the more intractible problems (Notably trucks) can be mitigated with tighter emission standards and hybridized designs.
Thats the thing, we dont need to completely convert to zero carbon emissions, we just need to get it to a point where we have brought us a century or two to find a *complete* solution.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Actually, we don't. The most expensive cars are simply good for "in this region." The less expensive cars are only good for "around town." The batteries run down far too quickly, and take too long to recharge. No electric car today can perform as well as a 1989 Yugo. In 1989, some friends of mine drove a 1989 Yugo in the 1 Lap of America rally, 9000 miles in 10 days of circumnavigating the USA. No electric car could do that today. Then there's the trucks, locomotives, ships, boats, and airplanes. We absolutely do need to leave the oil in the ground, because the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to take 100,000 years to be scrubbed clean as it is. We're just adding to it every day.
And there's not a lot of hope in sight. People currently working the battery problem are not having a lot of success. See:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...
This scientists are currently coming up with just one answer on batteries, it is Lithium, and Lithium is inadequate. And we can't simply say that Lithium batteries are expensive and we'll just spend what it takes because that hammers the poor, driving those that are in poverty deeper into it and casting those that are just making it now into poverty. Poverty is more deadly than smoking, as it will take up to 10 years off your life. Smoking is only "good" for 7. Converting to batteries now would be a cruel, elitist thing to do.
We're either going to have to solve the battery problem, or solve some way to operate our vehicles on grid electricity done with nukes and geo. Wind and solar are too intermittent - the wind stops blowing at night and your iron lung becomes your coffin.... Not many iron lungs left, but there's the emergency room operation that goes dark, the backup generators fail to start, and the patient dies for lack of electricity in the ER. Dunno how to get grid electricity even to cars, let alone airplanes and boats in rivers and ships at sea.
Right now, we're really screwed. Will the brave scientists find the magic battery and save us like they did when they invented nuclear weapons and ended WW2? Stay tuned.
"denialist nuke fans"? I think you'll have a hard time finding examples of that. AGW minimization is a reason FOR building more nukes.
You would believe a person who has no experience in the industry over someone who does? That speaks volumes. Where else would you apply that logic. Lets see, would you believe academics over doctors? academics over climate scientists? academics over bridge engineers? You don't think academics are agenda driven?
Your blind dismissal of anyone who actually works with and fully understands the technology is simply your decision to remain ignorant and live within your entrenched belief system. What makes it worse is you don't even have to listen to industry employees because there is plenty of credible information available. But you choose to ONLY listen to the fear mongers.
Part of the reason for the record sea ice is that the melting of the ice sheet puts more fresh water in the ocean around Antarctica making it easier for the sea to freeze
That is a theory proposed by the SKS kids but it lacks any substance to explain the phenomena. The simple truth is no one knows why or what caused the increase but it certainly runs counter to AGW theory and has caused many to try and explain it away with simple parlor tricks.
Now thats cleared up, continue on with your bed-wetting propaganda. 'Hide the Decline' lives and we need something to keep the cult members busy while we strip their rights in the global forum!
Climate change has always been inevitable. I wish we'd stop conflating climate change with AGW Climate Change. Nobody denies the climate changes. I'm not sure that anybody actually still denies humankind has at least had an impact anymore, either, just the extent and what's the likelihood of actually being able to stop or slow it. We can't have a meaningful conversation about it when either "side" falls back to name-calling and yelling.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Screwed? Well, if AGW turned out to be wrong, it wouldn't be the first consensus science conclusion that turned out to be wrong on account of some subtle but wide cockup and corruption of the scientific process. Good science works, bad science doesn't. And it takes several decades to figure out if something went wrong. And if anyone wants to deny this point, please present your crystal ball.
Sadly, it is the far left that is more of the problem. THey acknowledge that Climate Change is real, but then:
1) ignore China as being the major emitter and growing fast,
2) focus their efforts on America who is already below 15% and dropping fast,
3) claim that solar and wind will take care of everything, but then ignore the fact that Germany who is the most dependent on these, are now building out new coal plants and will miss their emissions limits over the next couple of years.
4) ignore that the ONLY nations that have managed to drop their electricity CO2 emissions to near zero, are based on hydro, geo-thermal AND NUKES.
5) claim that nukes are dangerous, while ignoring the fact that new reactors are being designed such that laws of physics would have to fail for these to fail.
IOW, the far left bears as much, or more, responsibility for this situation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.