Slashdot Mirror
Prepare For Even More Volatile Weather in 2017 (engadget.com)
An anonymous shares a report on Engadget: Ice isn't just great for keeping your drinks cool at parties, it also helps keep our planet cool by reflecting some of the sun's heat away. But thanks to our steadfast refusal to address climate change, there's going to be a lot less ice in the Arctic next year. Scientists are observing record high temperatures in the Arctic circle that's likely to lead to record low levels of ice coverage in 2017. Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years. Normally, by November, the global temperature has dropped sufficiently that ice can form again in the Arctic ready for the following summer. This year, however, climate scientists saw a spike to -7 celsius (19f) -- 15 degrees celsius (27f) warmer than usual. While the readings have fluctuated since November 11, they're expected to rocket up again in the next few days.
"Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years."
Yes, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on Slashdot these days and if you dare to point out that bullshit is bullshit you can be blacklisted as an "anti-science" nazi for failing to show proper piety to the religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change".
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Trump won - get over it. He's going to give us the best weather ever.
Haven't been any hurricanes in 10 years? I'm guessing you live in Iowa; hence you didn't see any hurricanes. You are aware that the strongest hurricanes ever observed in the Pacific have been forming regularly? Just because the US hasn't seen a catastrophe doesn't mean "there haven't been any hurricanes for 10 years." This has nothing to do with "politically correct shit." It has to do with science. Don't take my word for it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Anyone with a cursory understanding of climate over the geologic ages knows that ice at both poles is rare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Humans as a species do not have any serious ability to harm the planet. We can easily make it completely unsuitable for human life, however.
I'm not worried anymore. Trump said he'll be tough on volatile weather. I know it will be the most serene weather we've ever had.
And if it doesn't cooperate, he'll build the biggest wall you've ever seen on the east border of California. That will kill two birds with one stone. (Not that trump has only one stone...He definitely has two and they're the biggest and best stones you've ever seen).
Are you positive that those trees fell down due to "wind"? Correlation does not equal causation you know. Maybe those trees were just tired. Or, maybe they got drunk and passed out. Quit blaming everything on this "wind" hocus-pocus.
The fear-mongering that we're going to successfully wipe ourselves out by not immediately embracing solar or wind energy, or electric cars, or whatever the faux solution-du-jour is ..... That's as much B.S. as this sensationalist garbage that our oceans will begin boiling if the polar ice melts.
If we succeed in destroying ourselves as a species on Earth, it will probably be with a nuclear war. But even that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's, and nations have taken steps to back-pedal from it since then.
Stupid ass hyperbole (seas boiling) is not helping.
Increases in CO2 are real, impacts to global temperature due to CO2 are real, impacts to life (human or otherwise, positive and negative) due to rising temperatures and ocean levels are real.
Hollywood-esque hyperbole just confuses the issue and makes it trivial to lump all information into the same cesspool of misinformation.
"Ice isn't just great for keeping your drinks cool at parties..."
Was this written for 3rd-graders?
Thanks for the credible scientific lead in. I mean, I had NO IDEA that ice was good for anything beyond keeping my drinks cold at parties. And now it turns out it's got something or other to do with the planet? Well I'll be damned. Can't we just go to the mini-mart and buy a few more bags?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Have you ever seen the sun? It is far enough away to essentially be considered a point light source. There is no significant difference in the amount of insolation between the hemispheres, except for the fact that the earth is closer during the southern hemisphere's summer, causing the summers there to be sunnier and the winters darker than in the northern hemisphere. Overall, southern hemisphere insolation is higher.
"Boiling seas" is needless hyperbole. The truth is startling enough. This is one year and it's not clear that this dramatic excursion from the trend isn't just an anomaly. Anyone interested in polar ice should follow Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog
It's only 35F degrees higher than normal in some parts of the Artic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...
Seriously, Engadget for science news?
BlameBillCosby.com
If we succeed in destroying ourselves as a species on Earth, it will probably be with a nuclear war. But even that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's, and nations have taken steps to back-pedal from it since then.
Well, climate change and nuclear war are not necessarily independent. With Himalaya glaciers shrinking, water supply for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and even China will become a lot less stable. There are 3 billion people in these countries, and 3 of the 4 states already have nuclear weapons. If they start to seriously compete for limited water resources, things may easily become very ugly. There is a reason why China is in Tibet, and why India and Pakistan are fighting a slow war over what currently is an extremely inhospitable ice desert.
And what do you think will happen to the stability of the region if a few tens of millions of (mostly Muslim) Bangladeshis will be forced to flee into India because sea level rise is going to flood significant parts of the Bengal delta, one of the most fertile and most densely populated areas of the planet?
Stephan
Story 1
This article says nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. Just that as there is a observable and measurable correlation between oceans warming and hurricanes growing more frequent and severe.
Story 2
This article mostly talks about the fact that hurricanes may become more intense and that a category 6 will eventually have to be created if that happens because hurricanes with windspeed ranging from 257.5 kph to 407 kph are being lumped together into category 5. It goes on to speculate that dumping the category system might be a better idea than creating a category 6. Towards the end it even says: This oscillation means the Atlantic is expected to cool in the future, obscuring links among hurricane activity and global warming. Perhaps counterintuitively, recent computer modeling studies predict fewer tropical cyclones if the ocean heats up further as a result of global warming. But they also predict intensification of the ones that do form, albeit with limited confidence. Frequency drops by 6 to 34 percent this century, according to 2010 review article in Nature Geoscience, whereas intensity rises 2 to 11 percent. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) , i.e. fewer hurricanes but the ones we'll get will be more severe. Nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.
Story 3
The independent isn't really a scientific source but all this piece says is that somebody found evidence that warmer oceans seem to be linked to an increase in hurricane frequency and that in a warm year hurricanes are twice as likely as in a cold year. The real news here is that somebody found a way to extract data about hurricanes from old measurements made before the satellite age. They say nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.
Story 4
Still nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. It does talk about more hurricanes but the frequency is nothing like you claim: ”If this trend continues, it is realistic to expect a ten-fold increase in hurricanes like Katrina. That amounts to once every two years,”
Story 5
And yet again nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. This guy talks about improvements in computer modelling since 2005 and seems to be making the case that global hurricane frequency will not increase but that the severity of the hurricanes we do get will increase. I.e. about the same number of hurricanes but they'll be more destructive.
Yea, you did a search.
Found all these in less than 1 minute, and everyone voted you up because they want you to be right, but obviously you are not. I like the one claiming Category 6 hurricanes will be hitting any day now.
Bonus speech by Al Gore saying the same thing.
Read that long winded piece and it is mostly a regurgitation of d
What argument? I just provided data. The greenhouse theory is basic physics understood even back in the 1800s: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh....
That the world is warming is confirmed by direct measurement, and satellite measurement. We can directly observer the impacts of that warming on the cryosphere, and sea level. We don't need to use pan evaporation rate as a proxy for global temperatures when we have direct measurements. This is especially true since PER makes a very poor thermometer - it's affected by a number of factors other than temperature including humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. A change in any of these other factors would render it useless as a thermometer.