Slashdot Mirror
Sea Ice In Arctic and Antarctic Is At Record Low Levels This Year (cnn.com)
dryriver quotes a report from CNN: For what appears to be the first time since scientists began keeping track, sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic are at record lows this time of year. "It looks like, since the beginning of October, that for the first time we are seeing both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice running at record low levels," said Walt Meier, a research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, who has tracked sea ice data going back to 1979. While it is too early to know if the recent, rapid decline in Antarctic sea ice is going to be a regular occurrence like in the Arctic, it "certainly puts the kibosh on everyone saying that Antarctica's ice is just going up and up," Meier said. The decline of sea ice has been a key indicator that climate change is happening, but its loss, especially in the Arctic, can mean major changes for your weather, too. The report notes that air temperatures in the Arctic have been exceeding 35 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius) above average, while "sea ice in the northern latitudes is at a lower level than ever observed for this time of the year." October and November is when the Arctic region typically gains ice. This year, air temperatures are staying much warmer and closer to the freezing mark of 32 degrees Fahrenheit. What's more is that water temperatures in the Arctic Ocean are several degrees above average, as a result of having less sea ice.
If that's what you took away from TFS or TFA, your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are both seriously deficient. And that situation, sadly having spread to epidemic proportions, is why Trump is the next President of the United States of America.
is there a link to the new calibration model?
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
*Heil
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Wouldn't record low levels by definition be the first time we've seen them?
In about six months or so, we will never again hear such information from anyone even tangentially related to FedGov. This incoming admin will make the Harper suppression of science look like fucking Romper Room.
6) Get fed up and go back to being a "denier" just to spite those that keep shoving the almost-daily environmental doom and gloom reports down our throats, when we're just here for interesting tech news.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
" And that situation, sadly having spread to epidemic proportions, is why Trump is the next President of the United States of America."
I would like to share your assessment, but I believe that you are mistaken. The American Public did not recently "Dumb Down"; they just got mean. It's a cyclical thing, whether it's "Manifest Destiny" or "American Exceptionalism" or Secession or the KKK or "The Silent Majority" or "The Moral Majority", there is just this streak of Mean that certain belligerent Americans; usually White, Male and Lower to Lower Middle-Class, likes to indulge in now and again.
There is a certain massive Inferiority Complex associated with it, as well as a certain blindness. The followers of Trump will just refuse to accept the fact that Trump is _The_ One Percent that they hate, born with a Silver Spoon up his ass, the better to dish it out. Just because he at times talks like them, while talking down to them, (Did anybody else notice Trump's rising inflections in speeches towards the end of the Campaign? Damn, the Dude had heard once or twice of the Kennedies...), does not mean that Trump is anything other than that portrayed for the last three decades- a Liar, (Third marriage after many affairs.), a Cheat, (Taxes), a Swindler, (University), Inept, (Bankruptcies), a Racist, (RE Lawsuits dating back to his Father), a Crook, (Illegal Employees, including Wife #3), and has really bad hair. And bad breath. His capacity for Breath Mints is astonishing; he must have built up quite a Tolerance.
But to get back to the matter at hand; if due to the lack of Sea Ice to run it, the California Current collapses, and it has been iffy lately, say goodbye to Prevailing Westerlies and California Agriculture; say hello to Hurricanes clawing up the Pacific Coast. Collapse of the Labrador Current means that Europe freezes quicker and longer every Winter, because the Gulf Stream Counterflow collapses with it. Which means more Hurricanes on the US East Coast as well, and the Gulf of Mexico turns into a stagnant Saltwater pond.
Of course, some regions benefit. Arizona finally gets the Water that it needs, and without much warning beforehand. Eastern Siberian Permafrost thaws, due to the failure of the Kurile/Oyashio Currents, although some thought should be given to Russia controlling the new Breadbasket of the World. Some places get wetter, some drier, some warmer, some much colder, all due to the fact that Sea Ice ties up an enormous amount of Energy for long periods of time, that that isn't present in Land Ice, by the time that it melts and makes its way to Sea.
Well, it could be worse...
Trump could get "Re-Elected"...
I never understood why deniers keep bringing up conditions millions of years ago, as if they were relevant to us today. Yes, the planet was once a ball of lava - what's your point?
Nothing in the past affects any of the evidence of change we see today. All that's relevant are two things - that the climate is changing, rapidly and undeniably (and the sudden decrease in Arctic ice extent is just one of many indicators of this), and that those changes will require human societies to expend a lot of money and effort to adapt to (which much of the world cannot afford).
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
WTF is a pseudoskeptic and how do they differ from psychochickenlittles?
A skeptic is someone who is willing to change his or her mind once they get more information and their concerns are addressed. The pseudoskeptic is really a denier who is trying to look reasonable. They will bring up their objections (eg. "Ha! They haven't taken the sun's fluctuations into account"), and when presented with the studies that do actually explore the links between solar variation and the climate they will NEVER acknowledge that their concern has been addressed; they simply jump to the next bullet-point (eg. "the scientists are just in it for the grant money") and keep doing so until they loop back around again ("Ha! They haven't taken the sun's fluctuations into account").
They don't treat the anti-AGW claims with the same skepticism. Never once will they ever look for evidence that scientists have changed their results just to get grant money; they will just assume that this is true.
They have to respond, and in their view, the idiocy of the response is irrelevant. All that matters is that they raised an objection, no matter how utterly moronic it is.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
5) Grudgingly accept that we should replace expensive fossil fuels with cheaper renewable energy.
If renewable energy is cheaper then why would anyone continue to use fossil fuels? Either renewable energy is more expensive or there is some aspect of renewable energy that makes it undesirable. But then whatever undesirable aspect of renewable energy that makes it nonviable is really just a restatement of saying it is too expensive.
You claiming that people burn coal, even though it costs more than renewable energy, implies that people burn coal just to be dicks about the environment and the quality of the air. Is that what you think? That people burn coal just to be dicks to everyone else? What is there to gain by burning coal for the coal burners if it costs them more money and they have to breathe the same dirty air as everyone else?
We don't burn coal because we are dicks. We burn coal because the benefits outweigh the costs. You can talk about "externalities" all you like but once people know about an "externality" it gets internalized. A true external cost is something we don't know about, and we know about global warming. A better example of an external cost is the "cost" of having electricity so cheap and abundant, which brings us affordable food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. This "cost" is of course negative, therefore it is a benefit.
Have you considered the "externalities" of wind or solar? People complain about how much mining is done for coal but rarely do I see how much mining must be done for collecting the wind and sun. To replace coal with wind worldwide would require 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. Current world production of steel and concrete is 1.5 billion tons. Wind requires over 500 tons of steel and 1000 tons of concrete per installed MW, about ten times that of nuclear, coal, or natural gas.
I can keep going with the numbers if you like, such as how much land must be cleared for wind and solar power. There is a cost to that, even if we somehow figure out how to dual use this land like using rooftops, roadways, and croplands. Windmills and solar panels are inherently incompatible with trees, as are the power lines run to carry the electricity from them.
Wind and solar power advocates aren't "tree huggers" like most people would claim, they are "tree haters". Either these people would rather we cut down trees for windmills and solar panels or they have not considered the "external" costs of collecting wind and sun.
If you really cared about the trees, and you want cheap electricity, then you'd be advocating for nuclear power. Nuclear power is as cheap as coal, lower carbon footprint than either wind or sun power, safer than any energy source we know about, and so abundant that the byproducts from the rare earth metal mining we do now for making windmills and batteries would be more than enough to meet current energy needs.
You want renewable energy? Why do you hate trees so much?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
A skeptic is someone who wants to see proof before he believes something, and he's looking for alternative explanations for a phenomenon, trying to see if those alternatives have better explanations for the events.
A pseudoskeptic doesn't want to believe something, so he desperately looks for alternative explanations and readily believes them, even if they're completely harebrained, as long as they offer a different idea. Because "A is what the establishment/the media/the politicans/the eggheads/insert_boogeyman_here tell me, so B has to be correct".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A skeptic is one who only believes that which has evidence. One who refuses to believe DESPITE overwhelming evidence - and in fact believes the counter-argument with NO evidence is not a skeptic. If this person claims to be one - then that would make him a pseudoskeptic since he is pretending to be a skeptic but does not actually meet the requirements.
Actual skeptics accept global warming as the theory that best fits the evidence.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>Seriously? Politicians should have acted 30 years ago? What exactly should they have done 30 years ago, that wouldn't automatically make them lose their next election?
And that's why America can't have nice things. Most of the politicians who passed gun control in Australia in the conservative states destroyed their careers in the process (whether you support it or not is not relevant to the subject under discussion). They did it anyway - because they believed it was the right thing to do. They believed it was the best way to serve their constituencies and if it meant never being re-elected then so be it.
They had to trust that their constituents would eventually come to agree with them and thus their replacements would not roll it back.
In America - that never happens. A politician would simply never be willing to destroy his career in politics in order to do what he believes is right. If it means not getting another term, it won't get done.
The moral cowardice of American politicians is not something we should be celebrating.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
American politics is like a family of 5 where the kids vote to have candy and the parents vote to eat healthy every day. Then when they are all having diabetis, they blame the people selling them the candy.
What politics should do is look at to what is best for all and that should result in having healthy food and some sweets now and then.
To me the definition of politics is to find a compromise to benefit the people.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I am not the one denying anything.
Other than reality
I am saying it is warming, but someday it will cool again, and that we'll be fine in the middle...
a) you don't know that it will
b) you don't know the timescale
c) you don't know that we will
Because the Earth arrived at where it was in 1979 after:
* Being hotter than it is currently
* Having more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have currently.
Again, not during human history.
Life as we know it is evolved for current conditions.
We've proceeded at over 330,000 times the rate of past heating/cooling events, leaving evolution no time to adapt.
The whole reason we were supposed to be scared of global warming was runaway warming. But even with this recent heat spike we are not seeing runaway warming. Over 100 years we may see 2C or so of warming, but that is not runaway warming
Actually we are. that's rather the point.
Your argument here is still trying to present it as "normal warming" but it's not. it's anything but.
its not just the magnitude of warming, but the speed of it. the magnitude was exceeded only in the distant, hundreds of millions of years ago, which is alarming enough.
but the speed of the warming is unprecedented.
the earth has never seen its like.
and in fact is beneficial to humanity overall because the Earth will be a more arable place
a) you reveal your ignorance of agriculture. suffice to say, land isn't arable simply because of air temperatures.
b) there is much evidence to the contrary. many common crop plants, in the face of higher temperatures or higher CO2 amounts, lose their agricultural usefulness. among the problems:
-become toxic
-don't grow
-become more easily infested by pests
The only thing climate related you should truly fear is a new ice age, and warming gets us farther out from that scenario.
Slap yourself until the stupid falls out.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.