Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Marvel At 'Increasingly Non-Natural' Arctic Warmth (msn.com)
mmell writes: Recognizing that this is a dreadfully old story (at least by Slashdot standards), current developments make this once more a current story. Scientists studying the Arctic environment are used to seeing broad variations in average temperature readings, but recent results have been so far beyond the normal range that they are only able to conclude that they are being caused by human activity. The temperature data (which includes a great many days with readings above 0C) is bolstered by measurements showing that the Arctic ice shelf is both thinner and less extensive than has ever been previously recorded. I wonder if the Arctic ice cap will reform in the winter, or if it's possible that its absence will cause irreversible changes to the Earth's ocean currents (and by extension, Earth's climate)? "[A]fter studying the Arctic and its climate for three and a half decades, I have concluded that what has happened over the last year goes beyond even the extreme," wrote Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, in an essay for Earth magazine. According to The Washington Post, the scientists' simulations predict some places in the high Arctic will rise over 50 degrees above normal. One chart, embedded in the report and shared by several meteorologists online, shows a "jaw-dropping and emblematic display of the intensity and duration of the Arctic warmth. It illustrates the difference from normal in the number of 'freezing degree days,' a measure of the accumulated cold since September."
So stop it. Come on. Stop.
Ahh, news about 21st century alchemy. A philosopher has lost his stones.
Queue army of data denying anti-Earthers in 3...2...1
You think slashdot news is somehow cutting edge?
Homo sapiens, R.I.P late 21st century "they denied the truth of their actions to the very end"
Pettit's Ice Volume Death Spiral graphs are somewhat more understandable, but no less depressing.
https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
There is a reason I chose to live at elevation in the colder north of England.
At 50 degrees (Fahrenheit right?!) I should be living in a tropical environment very soon. If sea level rises significantly land value will rise as well.
This simulation model really does sound fantastic...but for full disclosure, was my estate agent involved in the creation of this model?
I mean, not that it does not sound awesome but isnt a computer simulation a thing in which scientists make educated guesses as to parameters and then "reliably predict" an outcome?
Wouldn't it be cool to max-out all the factor multipliers and simulate what would happen? will the 'greenhouse effect' continue to spiral temperate out of control to +200c in less than 3 years?! -you know like when you change nuke yields in scortched Earth and it takes the entire map out with that radiation "effect".
Cool jaw dropping simulations bro.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Tweets to come out of that place in DC saying that it is natural and is a good thing for the USA and will 'Make America Great Again'.
Then the people in Colorado will be 're-assigned' to the the middle of the Saudi Desert with the words,
'If they want heat let them have heat'.
Joking aside, I fear for their jobs. They know that the Dear Tweeter does not like anyone speaking out of turn and even less disagreeing with his orangmess.
Long story short. We're all fucked..despite what president Cheeto says.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
It's now illegal to blame climate change on the following list of contributors: Trump Co. Trump Inc. TrumpCo Enterprises. Compu Global Hyper Meganet. The Martians. Exxon. Burns Atom Smashing Company. COBRA. The KKK. GazProm. The Kremlin. LEXCorp. Adipose Industries. Monsters, Inc. Weyland-Yutani. CHOAM. John Galt. Omni Consumer Products. Slate Gravel Company. Spacely Sprockets.
Remember, citizen, your compliance is mandatory.
attic = collateral damage
and past presidents done nothing but ignore it for thier 8-year terms
I surely hope that the data is representing more than 35 years for temperature variation. We can have a hybris and think everything is man made if we only look things in the scope of single human lifetime. I bet in the 1850's they believed that all the coal burning was the reason for the mini ice age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's been hot this summer, really hot so naturally, I'm catching some waves.
The water is cold, icy cold and I'm only half joking when I say, 'now we know where the icebergs are melting to'. I know it's subjective, I posted this in previous years, however I have decades of experience in the ocean and I remember by month just how cold the water should feel for that time of year. My mental map of the way the ocean should feel is changing enough to notice.
I can sustain a 2+ hour body surf if I have time. I had time the other day and could only stay in for an hour, it was that cold in the middle of summer on a 42C day.
This used to be a pretty rare occurrence, now it is becoming more common at least to my local observations.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Rather than change the weather where you are, why not move where the weather is what you want?
Or will you be opening up britain to people who liked the weather in Spain but now find that it's happening in the UK, so want to move there?
Once the ice is gone it will start to snow and will suck in warm atlantic water to replace the evaporation forming the new ice age glaciation over europe, asia and north america.
Of course it's all the fault of evil humans ('evil humans' = Western civilization) and could not possibly be due to undiscovered natural climate mechanisms. We thoroughly understand how planetary climates work, that's why scientists never announce new climate mechanism discoveries, because all is known that is knowable regarding the Earth's climate system.
Anyone who voices a different view or attempts to present conflicting data should be persecuted, ridiculed, prosecuted, and thrown in prison because they are evil. It is imperative that we cripple Western civilization as it alone is solely responsible for CAGW because Western CO2 is evil, but Chinese/Indian CO2 is climate-neutral due to not being generated by evil Western civilization.
By slashdot. Winter is usually the off season for these nuts. Not hard to drum up a leftist hysteric whenever they need one.
So it's non natural warming right
And because we lack an explanation it can only be human activity that's causing it right
So how about we point out the human activity and prove it instead of throwing out unsupported conjecture.
Religion is basically when you blame anything you don't understand on a particular deity, boogeyman, or other "assigned cause," and then vociferously defend that "assigned cause" as fact despite lacking any evidence of a causal link.
And, before you start screaming "but the data says..." the data does not say. The statistics don't even say, and even if they did, correlation is not causation.
There have been umpteen models developed that attempt to fit the data to the narrative, and in each case it has taken extensive cherry-picking of that data to make the models work.
When do we say "enough is enough?" Stop blowing billions on collecting data from sensors only to cherrypick that which fits the model.
It's still a friggin' simulation. Occam's Razor says it's a bug in your code.
if the model simulation is saying 50C higher, I'd get a better model, some fruit loop must have messed with the parameters.
Then again all the present simulation models are fucking shit, biased to run way too hot. and don't model reality correctly. stop adding dumb fucking parameter kludges.
In this Science Friday interview, DJ Patil says that the climate data is available for anyone to download and that the results are so overwhelmingly clear that anyone can analyse the data and see the human impact. I never thought this type of analysis was so accessible. I am wondering if anyone here on slashdot has tried to look at the data themselves.
... specially those scientist living there warming the place, if they moved out it would obviously cool down again.
Once the humans are gone.
as it's pretty obvious the climate IS changing.
I'm just not so sure about the sole root cause being what the politically correct opinion is on the matter. ( Eg: Humanity is the reason )
In the grand scheme of things, our species is a relative newcomer to all things Earth. Since long before we showed up, the planet has cycled between two states. One of them being the Greenhouse version, the other the rather Chilly Ice Age variety. It's been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so long after we're dust. I'm pretty sure we have had nothing to do with the previous cycles, thus my reluctance to blame humanity as the sole contributor to the issue.
At some point it's going to get really hot around here. The Polar Caps and glaciers will all melt and the sea levels will rise once again. Somewhere along the way a Super Volcano will do its thing or we'll get a big enough NEO impact and the resulting dust / ash clouds will block enough sunlight, cool things off and we'll swing the cycle back the other way. Wash, rinse and repeat for billions of years.
It's Natures way of reformatting the planet so to speak.
Not to say we shouldn't try and minimize the pollution we spew out. It's nice to live in a non-toxic environment where I can breathe without a coughing fit.
If we want to blame human industry, so be it. Something needs to be the bad guy before folks can even be bothered to notice that something needs to be fixed.
The human variable may ultimately help speed things up, but in the end the cycle will continue to repeat itself and there isn't much we can do to stop it.
Whatever happened to "unnatural" or simply "abnormal"? Why do people keep insisting on using "non" as a prefix?
Yes, it may be shrinking a little, but the sampling period is extremely short, compared to our planet's age. This can or cannot be caused by humans
This is very true. However, in this case we are certain that it is, in fact, being caused by human activity. The Keeling curve leaves very little room for interpretation.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
how heavily they are pushing this man made climate change conspiracy theory lol
It's called "El Niño", we're experiencing a stronger one this year.
http://www.upworthy.com/the-re...
Most of these "scientists" are delusional crackpots. Using an idea that drives there socialist utopian ideas. So we are all subserviant to their idealogies. Telling us how to live and what to eat and what to produce. All controlled by an elite class that wants to drive us to slavery.
You see, I've been watering my lawn more than usual.
THAT is the cause because it puts more moisture into the atmosphere.
Pretty low on commas too - they're all in your post.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There was a time the Arctic Sea was brackish. And plants grew all over its surface. So it was green.
"Climate Change" or "Global Warming"?
The Global Warming hoax was brought into the public arena by a sleazy politician named Al Gore. It was based on "science" at the University of Angola, which was later proven to be based upon falsified data.
Now they call it "Climate Change".
Regardless of what you call it, we (you and I) are not responsible for it.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon, although it is likely be being accelerated by large corporations (the oil industry) in an effort to melt ice and thaw the ground in northern regions in an attempt to extract more oil - to fuel the so-called "war on terror" (aka Zionist terrorism and against Arabic peoples).
Bullshit.
Frank Luntz invented the bullshit euphemism to hide Global Warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz , https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Thats because they are messing around with the ruins of Atlantis in Antarctica and its starting to wake up.
Atlantis didnt sink or get destroyed, it was deliberately put into sleep mode and made to generate extreme cold so as to be impassable by humans until our current level of technology.
It's aliens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
They can't be very good scientists if they "marvel" at long predicted and long observed gradual changes in climate. Yes, the Arctic is getting warmer. That's pretty much what we expect to happen. And it will likely continue to get warmer. Every couple of years from now on, we will have a new high-temperature record in the Arctic and the whole planet (it's pretty much the same thing). No need to hyperventilate or write new sensationalist headlines every year.
It's getting warmer.
There is nothing we can do about it.
Learn to live with it and adapt.
Never mind the cause (which seems obvious to me) - what can we do to stabilize our planet's ecology? It may cost a fortune, but it strikes me as money well spent, and think of all the jobs it could create!
I love how Slashdot champions every feat of engineering and scientific discovery, until it relates to climate.
The cognitive dissonance is deafening.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Canada's PM is hella hot !
How much ice melt is require to get rid of Hollywood? That's my target.
Doesn't mean we don't need to do something about reversing the destruction of the environment. Arguing whether climate change is almost a moot point from that perspective (although definitely not so for the coastal/island countries). I guess the general human as a species are too selfish and stupid to do anything until there is catastrophic failure all over the globe.
The climate change doomsday clock has been moved ahead by 2 cow farts.
A perv, a con man and a fascist walk into a bar. The barman says: "What'll that be Mr President?"
Sorry, but that'd be Mrs instead. And Hillary didn't win so it's not that funny.
Not 100% sure about the fascist though, but I'd be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
And that means 50 degrees of what? Gray?
BTW, which degrees? Latitude?
And normal is???
No, we think it's a man-made issue because we're dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. In the 1850s (and for that matter the 1950s as well) it was generally assumed that the climate was, if not static, then cyclical, to where cold years were balanced out by warmer ones. Evidence that the climate had been vastly different was beginning to arise, and it's about that time that Ice Ages were considered to be pretty well proven. Also, in 1859 Tyndall measured the absorption of heat by various atmospheric gases, which was the foundation for Arrhenius' 1896 paper describing the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. There were other theories of climate change, and at that time no one considered that warming could result from human activity, Arrhenius included calculations of the effects of both a halving and doubling of CO2 just for good measure. His theory was considered to have been refuted for the next 50 years. At that point, various better measures of the atmosphere were made that overturned our previous assumptions about what was going on up there. Now we have planes, rockets, satellites, computer modeling, and various devices and stations gathering information all over the globe, which have done nothing but confirm these findings for the last 60 years or so. There are specific observations which would falsify the theory. We have yet to observe them. At this point, it's about as likely that we're wrong about CO2 as it is that we're wrong about gravity.
You are clearly completely ignorant of anything related to this topic. You also didn't bother to read the papers presented. Your post is about as useful to a real discussion of this subject as a dog's barking. It takes years of study to be able to usefully critique a research paper, and I am not going to pretend to be able to do so myself. You should probably think carefully on what is meant by hybris before denigrating climate science.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You can blame this on liberals or other politicians all you want, but it's not true, and you're not going to fight science with bullets.
If you insist on political stances at odds with empirical reality, you're going to be disappointed at the results.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Models have nothing to do with the evidence for global warming. The theory was developed in the 19th Century prior to the invention of the computer. Models are useful to try to predict specific outcomes, but AGW is a pretty straightforward result of the properties of atmospheric gases.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
CO2 within the natural carbon cycle is not pollution. CO2 created by human fossil fuel use is pollution because it causes the ice caps to melt and the oceans to acidify. Plants may like it, but humans aren't plants and have slightly different requirements for life.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
So in the early 19th Century the prevailing wisdom was that the climate did not change. The idea of climate as being the long-term average of weather didn't die until the mid-1950s at the earliest. Theories of climate change were necessary to explain Ice Ages.
These days the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both used interchangably, and both can be used to refer to the dominant theory of anthropogenic-CO2-mediated warming. There was once a distinction, and if there was any reason to believe that the climate might cool soon, we might start making a distinction between the two terms again. So not only are you completely wrong about why we have these two terms, apparently you're unaware the 'global warming' is the newer term/theory by at least 100 years.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You dorks are so fucking stupid
Consensus is how all competing models of reality are evaluated. However, global warming is not a model (per se). It is a very straightforward result of the properties of CO2. We'll skip semantic and philosophical arguments about what facts are, since it doesn't seem that you have much knowledge of the philosophy of science or epistemology generally, but suffice to say that you can test the principles of AGW the same way that Tyndall did, if you happen to think he needs revision. You should be able to make far more precise measurements.
Go ahead and pick apart the consensus, if you can. Do it with science -- it's the only way. It has changed before, so you have that going for you. Yes, you read that right. We thought we had disproved AGW conclusively until the mid-1950s. Then we got better data and the consensus changed. It wasn't some big deal, either, because people weren't trying to politicize the issue. No one was fired, and scientists just accepted that they were wrong before and kept on sciencing. Our ability to measure the world has expanded unimaginably since the foundations of AGW were laid over 100 years ago, so we're about as sure that increased CO2 will result in warming as we are of the germ theory of disease, but you're welcome to have a go at disproving it. It can only help all of us if you try, so please do. You should probably start by learning what the science currently says though.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
We have a *vast* amount of evidence from a huge number of observations over many decades, from a lot of different proxies. That is what has convinced so many climatologists of AGW, and that is what makes them so confident of its reality, though of course precise details are still in question.
Skeptics merely have to look at the accumulated evidence for themselves. That's what the Berkeley re-analysis did - and they came away convinced too. But by contrast, self-proclaimed "skeptics" who merely try to cast doubt on selected bits of existing evidence while ignoring all the rest, or who just attempt to undermine the credibility of the field instead, get labelled "deniers".
If you want us to doubt the conclusions of an entire scientific field - give us *strong evidence*, or go away. Just because a couple of fields have in the past made incorrect assumptions based on limited evidence does not mean you get to wave away any science you don't like, particularly when it's as well-studied as climatology.
Absolutist statements are dangerous.
Calibrate your irony meter.
There is no line of physical observation that will not lead you to conclude that perpetual motion or "free" energy is impossible. Thermodynamics, Relativity, Quantum physics, whatever. And anyone wanting to argue about conservation laws is going to need to take that up with Noether's theorem. Conservation laws are more like a result of the laws of physics not being dependent on the conserved element. If energy is conserved, that means that (e.g.) light does not travel faster or slower through a vaccum depending on some sort of energy condition. All of this says that [1] we've tested CoE explicitly or implicitly with nearly every observation of anything, ever, and [2] if you violate that assumption everything in physics breaks in wildly weird and inconsistent ways even within the same theory, and might actually end our being able to understand physics at all.
Nothing is certain. Science is empirical, and measurement error will always be with us. That doesn't mean that nothing is knowable or predictable. The Sun will rise upon a weary Earth tomorrow, and there will never be any such thing as an ansible, a faster-than-light drive, or a perpetual motion machine. Yes, it's a bit depressing, but that's reality for you.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I appreciate the characterization of my faults and your detailed refutation of my position. As it happens, I don't have any opinions on this matter, but I would be happy to provide citations for any part which you thought insufficient. The nice thing about being on the side with facts is that they all match up with each other neatly, and you can always find a source for something. And, if that is still not sufficient, there are actually a variety of simple experiments you could perform to verify them.
I admit I'm pretty stupid. The IPCC report is a bit thick, you know? So I went back and read Tyndall. Then I read Arrhenius, and Callendar. I read Keeling and at least looked through Hansen. Most of the old stuff is available online, but there's also university libraries all over the place. I read a couple of atmospheric physics textbooks too. The one from 1950 was the funniest, explicitly disclaiming the role of CO2 in climate. It was correct with what was known at the time though. But I didn't find any opinions in all of that, so I guess I didn't do it right. Perhaps you can do better?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You don't get to argue against this. Trump won, get over it. You supported him during elections and you continue to this day. This is the bed you wanted now lay the fuck in it!
People who challenge the consensus are called contrarians, unless they don't have a factual argument. Then we call them deniers. For example, Dr. Roy Spencer is a prominent contrarian climatologist, who has been lead author on sections of the IPCC reports. You also seem to be unaware that there was a consensus *against* AGW up until the mid-1950s. It was overturned by better observations of the atmosphere and oceans. In short, the idea that there is some political cabal in charge of the consensus view is false, bordering on the ridiculous. We KNOW, empirically, from experience, that not only has the consensus changed, the authors of the authoritative summary of climate change research selected perhaps the most notable contrarian as lead author (for the bits relevant to his research). Because it doesn't make a difference whether he or anyone else thinks about whether the Earth is warming, the only thing that matters is what the observations say. And unfortunately we've ruled out the alternatives to warming, at least without some bizarre new physics.
This isn't nutrition, this is basic atmospheric physics. If we're wrong about this atmosphere then we're wrong about all the extraterrestrial atmospheres too. Also, you're going to be able to demonstrate this fact unambiguously either way -- we're measuring heat, not health. The way to unmask this supposed conspiracy is to do the experiments yourself -- no trust in any community is required. Failing that you are able to read the papers and use a better analysis to figure out where everyone else went wrong. We figured this stuff out in the 19th Century so it's not like it requires a big lab setup. The IPCC report is big and complicated, but the actual science at hand is surprisingly simple. If you don't want to trust the scientists, but refuse to provide an alternate explanation, to experiment, or even read the theory, well, I'm not sure there's anything more descriptive than "denialist".
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Classic ignorant denialism. The evidence for AGW has nothing to do with models or the temperature record. It is a straightforward result of the properties of CO2. Straightforward as in, "Some guy in 1896 figured it out using research from 1859". You know this theory is more than 100 years old, right?
It's really irritating to read this. It's one thing to be completely ignorant of a subject -- we all start out that way. It's quite another thing for you to declare your ignorance of the causal chain but insist that other people got it wrong. Yes, you're right, it's hard to draw causal links from statistics, but that's not remotely what has happened, and the idea that you know this and some scientific community might not is breathtakingly stupid. But okay, I'll try to believe that you at least mean well and maybe don't have a lot of time to read about this. I would recommend starting here, and maybe continuing on the section about basic radiation maths. Keep in mind that what we know about Earth's atmosphere we have also been able to apply to extraterrestrial atmospheres, including the Sun. Generally what you're going to find is that warming is a direct result of CO2 trapping heat, and that we've been trying pretty hard to find reasons why raising the partial pressure won't also raise the temperature. There's only so many things that can happen in terms of radiation between the surface of the Earth and outer space, and we've pretty much ruled out anything that could prevent drastic warming. Which, yes, sucks balls. The other interesting thing that you'll find is that there was a scientific consensus *against* the CO2 theory, and you'll have to see why it was overturned.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Sorry bro, I farted.
What is the current status of the Gakkel Ridge? Lava + Big Ice Caps= small ice caps...
I try to keep up with it, as there was a M4.7 earthquake on October of 2016. It is a slow moving crack that may be speeding up. If the Magnetic Poles flip, who knows what the effect will be.
"Endeavour to persevere"
Watch: Snowfall in UAE, temperature hits -2.2 degree
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/temperature-hits--1-degree-celsius-in-uae