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.
And THIS is why Trump is the next President of the United States of America!
So when it comes back, are we going to pat our species on the collective back about it?
I sure hope not.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Time to receive our daily /. climate propaganda recital.
35 degrees Fahrenheit (1.667 degrees Celsius)
This news is interesting... yet the U.S. administration keeps trying to blame itself for global warming. How about we consider countries outside the USA. Countries that are supplying cheap labor and cheap products while burning away without regulations many countries power systems are already bound to. When was the last time you saw any city/county/state in the US having to resort to an LED picture of the sun instead of an actual view of it? For that matter.. any country outside of China?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/16/article-2540955-1AB96BA200000578-505_964x643.jpg
Do these liars even bother anymore?
Somebody is exaggerating...
Even the mistake was rounded up: (9/5)*35 = 19.444
Trump's going to fix that thin ice, and his supporters are ready to help.
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
You are welcome on my lawn.
20 deg C ABOVE AVERAGE, not 20 deg C above ZERO
He's going to comb-over the ice caps?
As can be seen here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ the arctic has been losing ice for four days ( Nov 17-20 ) now. For the month of November this is an unprecedented event over the entire period of satellite observations collected from 1979 to the present.
By the way, a neat experiment which you can perform with this chart is to "turn off" all of the years, then turn on the first five years and note where they fall relative to the median and the 2nd standard deviation; then switch from the first five to the last five and make the same observation.
When we reconstitute the dinosaurs they' have a cozy climate waiting for them.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
20C above average in the Arctic for the month of October; not 20C globally. As a result of the reduction of differences in albedo. It's not that extraordinary.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The words you missed are "above average". The average temperature is supposed to be -20 deg C (-4 deg F). Current temps are around 0 deg C (32 deg F). Hence the temps are 20 degrees C (36 deg F) above average.
Yes, it's getting warmer. Yes, the arctic sea ice is melting. Why is this on Slashdot every f*cking season? This is not news that matters or news for nerds.
It's a shame it was necessary for you to point that out; alas, Trump supporters continue to demonstrate their proud illiteracy.
35 * (5/9) = 19.44
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.
Salute the idiot in chief who does deny that global warming and rising seas are an issue at all. America is under attack by an total freak. Frankenzilla is on the attack. Vlad Trumpula is sucking the life blood out of the world. Fight back while you can or the fool will kill us all with his secret weapon (total idiocy).
Forgive me if I fail to get worked up over something "unprecedented" over a timer period that is the geologic equivalent of a sneeze.
Do you seriously think that has never happened before in the history of the planet? Which has at times been warmer on average than it is even now of promises to be over the next 100 years or so?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Carry the 1
1) Deny that the planet is warming
2) Deny that warming is a problem
3) Deny that humans caused the warming
4) Accept that past human actions affected the climate, but deny that future actions will affect the climate (It's too late to do anything about it)
5) Grudgingly accept that we should replace expensive fossil fuels with cheaper renewable energy.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
4 days out of how many million years, what is the percentage?
way to go, dude.
35 degrees Fahrenheit is 2 degrees Celsius not 20.
I don't have the link handy but sea ice levels in Antarctica are record-breakingly high.
It used to be 0c, now it is -20c. What exactly is your problem? Did you never learn how to math?
Here's arctic and antarctic sea ice combined. : The combined graph is quite a bit more dramatic.
Wrong
Because, obviously. They're just using this as an excuse to get more gigabit-to-home installs.
Faggots.
You think that a) the difference between -20C and 0C is insignificant, and b) the difference is easily explained by surface reflectances? While albedo can explain increased solar absorption and melting of ice, I have trouble connecting that to an actual temperature increase, save the relatively minor buffering by surface temperatures. Care to explain?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your panic over a 4 day period that is the most ice loss since 1979... They had a couple of warm days. That is like taking the temperature in your room for a minute and freaking out that it is changing. Did you know the temperature in most rooms varies significantly over a 24h period? Well you might not if you only measured it for a couple of minutes and assumed that that would stay like that forever. You people are the literal epitome of chicken little. Google historical global temperature and look at the temperatures over the last 400,000 years and then give it a rest. All you are doing at this point is losing credibility.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I didn't say "insignificant". It's just not incredible when you consider the thermal mass of the ocean. If you think about it, that's why palm trees grow on the Isle of Scilly off the southern coast of Britain, even though it's at the same latitude as Newfoundland.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
science via cnn
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c...
Chicken little alive and well
Should it not have read 2 degrees Celsius instead of 20 degrees Celsius since 35 degrees Fahrenheit is 2 degrees Celsius.
But...but..haven't we been told (screamed at) that weather is not climate?
Seems from the applications we've witnessed from AGW cultists that this is a mutable rule based on agenda.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
That's awesome.
Albedo differences are nonexistent in the polar night. So that's definitely not it.
Here is temperature data for the past several decades. If you look at it, the first thing you notice is that temperature in the winter (night) is hugely variable, mainly affected by winds rather than sun, and a 30 degree swing is not entirely surprising, although it is larger than normal.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Do they never give up? Most people don't care about your 'catastrophic man-made global warming' alarmism - sorry - 'climate change'.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/21/watch-what-the-un-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-rebel-tv-reports-from-un-climate-summit-in-morocco/
So will the History Channel have to cancel this season's Ice Road Truckers. On a more serious note, what happens to the outlying settlements whose supplies, if the programme claims are correct, can only be delivered by the Winter Ice Roads?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pWTNcCi3ik
Hilarious.
I eyeballed all the graphs since 1958, I couldn't see anything that looked similar to what's happening in the 2016 graph there. Saying "although it is larger than normal" feels like an understatement.
Take a look at the graphs at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php since 1958. Nothing there looks anywhere close to what's happening this year. I'd call that extraordinary.
32F = 0C
35F = 1.667C
20C = 68F
Oops.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/noaa-adjustments-correlate-exactly-to-their-confirmation-bias/
I never understood why deniers
I am not the one denying anything. I am saying it is warming, but someday it will cool again, and that we'll be fine in the middle...
That is what climate data teaches us, and what *you* are denying.
I never understood why deniers keep bringing up conditions millions of years ago, as if they were relevant to us today.
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.
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 and in fact is beneficial to humanity overall because the Earth will be a more arable place.
The only thing climate related you should truly fear is a new ice age, and warming gets us farther out from that scenario.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe the planet misunderstood when people kept shouting to drain the swamps and watch it all burn?
Mohammed: Did you see Mohammed at the meeting today?
Mohammed: No, but his brother Mohammed showed up.
Mohammed: What did Mohammed talk about?
Mohammed: Mohammed introduced us to Mohammed who is also a mason!
Mohammed: A mason? No shit? How long has he been one?
Mohammed: About five years. He was referred to the local lodge by Mohammed.
Mohammed: Ah, yes, Mohammed. He has a shit ton of connections around town!
Mohammed: Yes, and our brothers, police be upon them, Mohammed and Mohammed from Egypt came, too.
Mohammed: I've been thinking of becoming a clown.
Mohammed: A clown, Mohammed, why?
Mohammed: So I can film myself being gay.
Mohammed: Oh, you.
Mohammed: So anyway, is Mohammed, Mohammed, and Mohammed coming to the next party?
Mohammed: Indeed. Mohammed was so funny last time.
Mohammed: Well it wouldn't be a party without Mohammed.
Mohammed: Yes, my friend. POLICE BE UPON THEM!
Perfect! More fresh water!
Can we get some for my plants? You know, the ones that eat up CO2? Or are we just going to tax everyone out of existence?
I don't get it, if all the ice has melted, why hasn't Florida been covered in water? I thought that melting ice leads to a rise in the ocean level and will cause mass flooding of coastal states? Especially flat states like Florida! Someone is lying to me. Humph!
Oh that's cute, now go sit at he little Kids table and let the Grown-ups talk at the big table. How about this, it's 240K instead of the expected 220K, you that are metricly impaired may convert to the Rankin temperature scale if desired.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Sunrise at Point Barrow Alaska will be January 22, 2017, I don't think albedo is a big factor right now. My suspicion is this is bad, real bad and we are going to really want some of that heat that's bleeding out through the Arctic over the next few decades.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
But how do you arrive at the "lowest feasible number" ? Why is 30 feasible? What if only 300 is feasible?
Good question. Let's do some math.
From a year by year temperature graph http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... we see random temperation variation is somewhere about 0.3C. Temperature rise is on the order of 0.15 degrees per decade. Averaging reduces the noise by the square root of the number of points (Poisson statistics*). So, the temperature rise (signal) is larger then the noise (year to year variations) when 0.015*N> 0.3/SQRT(N). Thus, N^(3/2) = 0.3/0.015, and we calculate N = 7.3 years.
So, in 7.3 years the signal (temperature rise) is roughly equal to the statistical noise (year to year variation). Science typically likes to not draw conclusions until you get at least 3 standard deviations, so that would be about 20 years.
---
*footnote: correctly, Poisson statistics are dependent on the number of independent points. Year to year temperatures, however, are not completely independent-- they show some amount of correlation ("autocorrelation"). So the number of points should actually be reduced by the aurocorrelation coefficient. That will bump the number of points N up slightly. So, actually, 30 years is probably a pretty good number to guess.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Of course, one of the main reasons WHY there had been high levels of ice in the antarctic is BECAUSE of the reduced ice in the arctic.
This is almost certainly not true. They are literally poles apart, and while, figuratively, it's a small world it's actually a pretty damn big planet.
Despite being "poles apart", it turns out that there is some amount of anticorrelation between the Arctic and Antarctic temperature variations (the "polar see-saw"-- sometimes called the "bipolar see-saw"). So, while they are "poles apart", they are still in the same system.
It is true, though, that the salinity of water in the circum-Antarctic ocean really doesn't much depend on Arctic melting. It is significantly impacted by Antarctic melting, though, with the odd result that melting glacial ice actually can increase the seasonal ice. Which is exactly what you point out further in your post:
In fact, it can take hundreds to thousands of years for water from the poles to reach the equator, and much of the water that does 'reach' the equator tends to be turned back towards the pole from which it came, due to equatorial up-welling and circulatory currents. Note: the above is a bit of a generalisation and a vast simplification to make the point. Feel free to investigate the matter further, I'm just trying to demonstrate the error inherent in parent's post.
The ice-melt makes the oceans fresher and fresher water freeze more easily than salty water.
This is true however, and is likely to be part of the reason why the area of antarctic sea ice has been quite high. Antarctica is a land mass, covered in ice. Some of that ice has been observed melting, and some actually sliding into the ocean. It is this 'land ice' becoming 'sea ice' either directly, ice shelves sliding into the ocean, or indirectly, melting and refreezing, that accounts for the observations.
...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
32 + 1.8 * c = f
32 + 1.8 * 0 = 32
or
32 + 9/5 * c = f
32 + 9/5 * 0 = 32
32 + 1.8 * 35 = f
32 + 63 = f
95 = f
oh my bad]
35 f ...
so
(35 - 32)/1.8 = 1.666666666666666666.....666666666666
again: satellite records only go back to 1979.
bt that doesn't mean this is the first time since 1979 and that this ever occurred before then.
in fact, that's the point: everything we know about the arctic says that this has never happened before .
simply put: during arctic winter, which is now, the ice does NOT melt. .
its bad enough that it does not replenish fully each year, but thus far the winters had still been cold enough, below freezing, that ice not only didn't melt, but reformed somewhat.
i'll say it again:
-its dark. theres no sunlight
-when the temps should be well below freezing, its actually warm enough for the ice to be melting.
the arctic cycle is well studied and well known.
and it's now for the first time showing a major break in that cycle.
in fact, the most shocking part, is that ice DID start to reform, shown in the charts.
it started to follow the normal winter phase of the cycle, and then stopped.
its not like the summer melting started and then didn't stop (which would also be alarming, but if then started to freeze, it would simply be a change in the duration of the summer melting season, but the cycle as a whole still continued with each phase in tact, albeit of different lengths than before).
this is wholly different.
it started to refreeze as normal in winter.
and then it stopped and began melting again.
that means the entire cycle is breaking down.
and if that happens, the ocean currents that are driven by it also will break down, which then wreaks havoc on the weather patterns as we know it.
that means monsoons in the arizona desert, and no snowpack in the sierras.
it means a thawing of Siberia, but a freezing of Europe.
it means the gulf of Mexico becomes the worlds largest stagnant brackish sea.
it means the oceans themselves become stagnant, no more mixing of ocean layers, increases and decreases in oxygenation, throwing sea life into chaos.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I think you made some false assumptions in your numbers there. I don't know what you calculated but I'm quite certain it's not what you think it is.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Can we stop talking about this retarded way to measure temperatures please? We get it, Americans are special. Do you really need to keep fucking the world over with your 17th century imperial system?
thik of the cycle breakdown this way:
youre cruising in your car doing 80 on the freeway.
now, there's a big difference between losing power and coasting to a stop on the side of the road,
and the wheels locking up throwing the car into an uncontrollable skid that flips the car and rolls it over a few times.
this unexpected break in the cycle after it had already began re-freezing represents the latter, not the former.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The slashdot post, and the CNN article, are just wrong. The original data shows a +2.2 degrees Celsius *delta*, and everything after that is just bad, sloppy math.
The slashdot post, and the CNN article, are just wrong. The original data shows a 2.2 degrees Celsius *delta*, and everything after that is just bad, sloppy math.
An albedo near one versus an albedo near zero is a giant difference. If the sun is dropping say 200 W/m^2 in the arctic. An albedo of 0.9 means only 20 W/m^2 is absorbed and 180 reflected into space. if there are large regions of open ocean. The albedo is like 0.2 or 0.1. so in those areas, youre looking at a flux around 160 to 180 W/m^2 being absorbed.
The other thing to consider, the ocean has a much higher latant heat capacity, and convective overturn will transport that heat back up to the ocean surface once the fall winter months come around and either the surface layer cools or winds createva well mixed layer. Either way, the open water will be able to release msssive amounts of latant heat, keeping temperatures near freezing, as opposed to ice, which only transfers heat by conduction (effectively), and preventing the ocean heat content to be released back into the atmosphere.
I imagine the longer periods of open ocean will correlate with the most extreme temperature differences. But I'm conjecturing and need to check into that.
Hope this helps
Shhhh! You're interrupting the alarmist narrative designed to induce and maintain FUD! We can't have that! It'll endanger the recipients of billions of dollars of government money!
No, this is not unprecedented. December 18th to December 22nd, 1980 for one example. February 5th to February 11th 1982 for another, or February 4th to Febrary 11th, 1988 It's got nothing to do with temperature and everything to do with winds. Strong winds bunch the ice up, reducing the surface area covered. Current temperature in Iqaluit is -13C. The ice isn't melting there. Current temperature in Nanisivik is -21C. It ain't melting there either. Grise Fiord, -19C. Fort Conger, -21C.
agreed. This is qualitatively different than the last 58 years of data so far. We will see if there isn't a sudden drop off to even things out, but it looks unlikely.
Yeah....no, you're just wrong:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Isnt that the group which changes data all the time? That cant acknowledge they're actually taking photographs of the effects of an active volcano on the western shelf. /., learn science and learn how to pick out scams because these 'scientists' are shift. Is this site another site paid for by George Soros?!
And they have to report about the Artic because they predicted it would not be there in 2007!! If you think this article is saying 'watch out', after watching this crap for 20+ years, what you're actually seeing is proof they have not a clue whats going on as long as we're scared and paying their random. Everyone cant wait for the Artic to melt, then NASA GISS would be right about 1 thing in 30+ years of Man made global warming. Until it melts, they're grasping at straws and blowing hot air.
But it was over the summer. You're neglecting the thermal mass of the ocean.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Does anyone have a prediction of "bad stuff" made in an IPCC report that has actually happened? ... The old reports are now old enough that there predictions should be apparent by now. I have reviewed the reports, and the cases I looked at (sea level rise, crop failures, fishing) were all falsified by what happened in reality.
You state that predictions are "falsified by what happened in reality", but you failed to show evidence for that.
I am actually quite interested. Can you point to a specific published prediction from the IPCC-- one with a date that is not still in the future-- and show me data saying that the actual result was different from the prediction by more than the published error bars?
Nice links, by the way-- very informative.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Nobody caught me on this? Always check the sources, people.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?