Slashdot Mirror
Sea Ice Extent Sinks To Record Lows At Both Poles (sciencedaily.com)
According to NASA, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent. On the opposite side of the planet, Antartica ice hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites (since satellites began measuring sea ice in 1979) on March 3 at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Science Daily reports: Total polar sea ice covered 6.26 million square miles (16.21 million square kilometers), which is 790,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers) less than the average global minimum extent for 1981-2010 -- the equivalent of having lost a chunk of sea ice larger than Mexico. The ice floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas shrinks in a seasonal cycle from mid-March until mid-September. As the Arctic temperatures drop in the autumn and winter, the ice cover grows again until it reaches its yearly maximum extent, typically in March. The ring of sea ice around the Antarctic continent behaves in a similar manner, with the calendar flipped: it usually reaches its maximum in September and its minimum in February. This winter, a combination of warmer-than-average temperatures, winds unfavorable to ice expansion, and a series of storms halted sea ice growth in the Arctic. This year's maximum extent, reached on March 7 at 5.57 million square miles (14.42 million square kilometers), is 37,000 square miles (97,00 square kilometers) below the previous record low, which occurred in 2015, and 471,000 square miles (1.22 million square kilometers) smaller than the average maximum extent for 1981-2010.
The oil was going to be drilled whether or not Keystone was green-lighted. It was only a question of whether it would be shipped by tube or by ship.
It would also be a great place for all the world's refugees to go and start a new life. Global Warming could turn out to be that best thing to happen to humanity in a long time.
And what a prime opportunity with all the new refugees this will create!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Yes, and the journal Science was in on the conspiracy!
They're all in on the conspiracy, you know. Because they hate capitalism. And freedom. And apple pie.
ESPECIALLY apple pie.
My interest levels of sea ice have gotten to an all time record low as well.
Science is nerdy, climate records are science news. And the climate changing does in fact matter. I would say that such an article ticks all boxes of "news for nerds, stuff that matters".
If you don't like hearing about it, feel free to go to another website or simply not read and comment on the article.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What? You can't transport oil via the Internet!
#DeleteFacebook
No progeny then?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
I don't think "fox news" and "science" belong in the same sentence, let alone the same URL.
#DeleteFacebook
The thing we need to remember is that this has happened before, during the so-called "Medieval Warm Period". This global rise in temperatures happened between 950 AD and 1250 AD, which is kind of a problem because it means that the trendy explanation of post-Industrial Revolution human pollution being the cause of this rise in temperatures can't be used. So it tends to be downplayed today because, well, you can't really justify lucrative (for governments; awful for everybody else) carbon taxes when it's solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, or changes to wind circulation patterns that are responsible for the increased temperatures.
What angers these experts more is that humanity actually did quite well during this period of time. These higher temperatures allowed Europe, for example, to flourish agriculturally, which allowed for accelerated social development. The Norse were able to navigate to places like Iceland, Greenland, and even to the east coast of North America during this time. It was thanks to these temperature changes that Europe exited the so-called "Dark Ages" after the fall of the Roman Empire, and was set on the path of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and today's modern society.
Of course, it wasn't just Europeans who benefited. There was also significant social growth in places as diverse as South America, Central America, Japan, South-East Asia, and India.
So we shouldn't fear temperature increases. Historically, they have been what has allowed societies around the globe to accelerate their development and to progress to new heights both technologically and socially.
According to NASA
Didn't they already get told they weren't allowed to gather let alone publish this sort of data?
Someone is getting sacked. I'm assuming there is going to be some kind of equivalent of the gulag soon for the people who persist in producing unapproved data.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
The medieval warm period did not affect sea ice at all. It also did not affect the global temperature at all. It was a localized effect in such a small area that the global average didn't even move.
Nope, nothing like this has ever happened before.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
What? You can't transport oil via the Internet!
It is a fine transport mechanism for bullshit however.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes, because when dealing with a complex topic, rather than listening to professionals and peer-reviewed research, I like to play amateur scientist and get all my info from blogs.
FYI, you can make your own comparison graphs here. On the about page it has links to all of the datasets, which you can download: Sea Ice Index, Near-Real-time DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Daily Polar Gridded Sea Ice Concentrations, and the NASA-produced Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave Data.
As for MASIE:
Kiribati is going underwater. Does anyone else care? *sigh*
Many places will. As well, while a lot of folk are enjoying the warmer winters, and give not one tiny fuck about what is happening in other places, there are little issues that can crop up that might affect them.
Sea level rise is just one issue.
Local climate change is another. If the gulf stream is disrupted by Greenland glacier melt, the British Isles will actually get colder.
Some places will become more lush, and some places will become desert. The Sahara was once a nice place. If a natural climate shift can do that, it will be interesting to see what happens when we release all that sequestered carbon.
But especially in America, people don't give a shit about anything that isn't happening to them personally.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This is quite possibly the stupidest response to climate related issues I've ever seen. It's very very true that the change cannot be reversed or prevented altogether, but that still doesn't mean there aren't plenty of things we can - and should - do to mitigate the effects. We can't fix everything, but if we opt to do nothing and continue business as usual with the fossil fuels for example, we can make things a lot worse,
It's psychologically appealing to lift one's hands into the air and declare that it's all fucked already and we can do nothing but sit and wait for extinction, but it's also simultaneously the intellectual equivalent of 'well, my liver's already damaged from all this drinking, so might just as well keep drinking because who cares at this point?'
Call me an idealist if you wish but even though I may never end up having kids, I still care about the continued survival of the species past the point of my own death.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Mark Serreze is a well-known person in the climate debate community. But the link above is to HIS OWN data which directly contradicts his statements in the NYT article. I'm not attacking him personally, but I have substantive conflict with the way he conveyed the veracity and conclusions about his own data.
Unless Greenland melts in which case the sea level rise is about 23 feet. Do ya feel lucky?
if we opt to do nothing and continue business as usual with the fossil fuels for example, we can make things a lot worse
And things will get worse - We'll help. It remains to be seen how much we'll contribute and how warm we'll eventually get, but global warming will continue. I'm not an expert, but that's something I believe based on what I've read. Along with minimizing the problem as much as possible, we'd best plan for the consequences.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Thanks for throwing out ad hom attacks and red herrings. Now, back to the fact that Mark's data directly contradicts his own statements and conclusions. I'm sure that data is published in a peer-reviewed journal, too.... so let's talk about the issue I've raised.
Nice try at reality denial, but experts know more than laymen.
Are you really so shit at what you do that you think everyone else is just as good at what you do? No? Then have you thought that other professionals may be better at what they do than others who have never attempted to do their jobs?
"several thousand people whom rely on the climate change scam, for their paycheck, are ramping up the BS so they can remain on the gravy train...."
It really blows my mind that people believe engineers and scientists from the best scientific organizations in the world, including NASA and NOAA are ALL in on a worldwide scam, while the companies that actually have skin in the game (oil, nat gas, coal, etc) are innocent victims. If you know any engineers (I'm an M.E.), you know they're often quite anal about technicalities and correctness. To even consider that a group, much less several groups across the globe would sacrifice their integrity for grants, or whatever, is absolutely ludicrous.
But then again, we elected Trump as president so it seems the majority of people aren't capable of rational thought.
You're not wrong about the past glacial extent. And no, the glaciers didn't disappear because of humanity, they receded well in advance of the first permanent human settlements (roughly the dawn of civilization, though humans were around well before that). And interestingly enough, global temperatures were in a (slow) cooling trend from about 7000BCE onward.
But that stopped around 1900, and the global temperature average has begun to swing sharply, at a rate that ought to be alarming, because as the graph shows, it is quite literally without precedent, in terms of the speed of the change, and shows no signs of stopping unless we take action to affect it:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
The top four comments as I write this are replies to those looking at the bright side, claiming disinterest, or arguing against the observation or its significance.
This is on slashdot. This isn't some dopey AM radio comment forum.
That's .. concerning. :(
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Not sure where your 8 C came from. It took about 11,000 years for the temp to rise 4 C. By contrast, we're up 1 C in just 100 years, and that's the issue. Nobody's saying the climate doesn't change naturally, just that this extremely rapid change is caused by humans.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
"It's just a flimsy excuse by the lib-left for bigger government."
No, it's just reality. How about, instead of denying reality you come up with a solution that doesn't require government to grow. I'll be all for it.
The medieval warm period did not affect sea ice at all.
Probably.
It also did not affect the global temperature at all.
On your weird definition of global?
It was a localized effect in such a small area that the global average didn't even move.
No it wasn't. We just have no data about the _global_ temperature at that time, but we have reports from many places of the world, notable China and Japan that it was warmer than normal there, too. So: very likely it was at least on the northern hemisphere a global phenomenon.
So: the lack of written evidence, because we have none from Inka, Australians, Africans, does not mean it did not happen there.
And: if you talk about a/the medieval warm period, it would be cool to add which one you mean. There where three AFAICT.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You are mixing up feet with meters.
The latest estimates were if the whole ice cap on greenland melts or slides in to the ocean a 15m - 17m, 45feet to 51feet sea level increase.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ice extent is the easiest variable to measure but can be misleading as there's no difference in a patch that 15% covered or 100% covered.
Ice area and volume are also very important but more difficult to determine but Arctic sea ice volume has declined dramatically in the satellite record and is 30%-50% lower than 2006-2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
You know, a thought just occurred to me.
If people can at least agree that climate change is happening (man-caused or otherwise), can we not also agree that some form of mitigation is necessary? It's not as if climate change is an unheard of thing on our planet. That's not even the issue.
Humans are unique in that we can modify an environment to suit us, but that doesn't make us any less dependant on the other species on this planet, and so it is *still* in our best interests to keep things on as much an even keel as possible.
Species evolve slowly over time. As conditions change, animals *will* evolve. But if conditions change too quickly, then there isn't enough time to adapt and species die. So we don't necessarily need to stop it... only slow it down as much as we can so that everything else can keep up and we don't risk getting ourselves taken out in the process.
This of course presumes one a) understands evolution, b) understands that climate *will* change and c) gives a shit about things beside short-term financial gain.
(slow) cooling trend from about 7000BCE onward. ...
Where do you have this myth from? Hu? The last "ice age" barely ended around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. And you want to tell us just ~3,000 later it already started to cool again? Rofl
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So you're saying that if I don't like your opinion I should go somewhere else.
Good stuff. Works both ways.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
My interest levels of sea ice have gotten to an all time record low as well.
Translation: I'm the most important thing on the planet.
Science especially doesn't involve data that have been "adjusted" to benefit certain political movements or to increase the likelihood of getting grant money.
You've never read any primary scientific literature or grant applications...
And science really doesn't involve extrapolating a couple hundred years' worth of "adjusted" data across thousands, millions, or even billions of years.
You've never read any books on evolution or geology....
There are too much politics involved.
You've never read anything about medical research...
We want to discuss real science, backed by hard facts, non-adjusted data, and untainted observation.
You've evidently never talked to any scientists of any kind either and may have never talked to any real human before. There is no such thing as "untainted observation." If you're observing it, you have your own spin on it. "Non-adjusted data" similarly is a myth. Look out your window at the world. What does the world look like? WRONG. Unless you're on a boat in the ocean, that's not what most of the world looks like. In order to get a real understanding of what the world looks like, you can't just pick the first thing that you see, you need to... adjust it.
You come off like a kid who is telling people how adult relationships should go based on his extensive watching of porno movies. You're arrogant to be dictating on things you don't know about, you look silly, and you're in for real disappointment unless you persist forever in your ignorance.
I contend that your ability to translate English is rather limited.
Of course as you were only trying to help I should thank you, Mr PoopJuggler for that insight.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
But don't you see! It's a vast conspiracy with thousands of participants who all collectively are keeping the global warming hoax a secret!
We just ended a period of a global maximum, which, started in the early 1900's, ending in the 1990's. We have been sliding into another solar minimum. The last one, called the Dalton Minimum, started in the 1700's to early 1800's. The Maunder Minimum, caused the Hudson river to freeze, the Thames River to freeze...the period was known as the little ice age, couple volcanoes burst at the same period of low sun output, which didn't help either. Some called it "no summer" weather. Ice might be dissipating, but it will come back big time
Nope, nothing like this has ever happened before.
Well, strictly speaking, there was a sharp spike in temperatures some 10 million years after the dinosaurs wen't extinct, if I remember correctly, but what is unprecedented, is that it is changing so fast - about 10 times as fast as that spike, and that should be cause for deep concern. We simply don't know that the world's ecosystems will be able to adapt fast enough. Human lifespan is too short for us to really see how fast the changes are - but it does actually come to something when these changes are so rapid that it has changed appreciably within living memory. I remember that we used to have snow every winter that lay on the ground for at least a couple of weeks; now I see the first spring flowers around Christmas. If that was just me and my anecdotes, then it wouldn't matter, but when it is confirmed by everything science can throw at it, then it becomes significant. Especially when we know that these transitions follow something like an exponential curve for the first half of the transition; so when we are seeing temperatures somewhat now, it may be the changes in the future will be much, much faster, at least for a while. We don't really know without doing more science.
So you're saying that if I don't like your opinion I should go somewhere else.
Bro, do you even read?
I said, if you don't like this website (tag line: news for nerds, stuff that matters) when it has an article which (a) is of interest nerds and (b) matters, then perhaps you should consider visiting a different website, one more aligned with your interests perhaps.
I don't really care if you like my opinion. All things considered, I think I'd feel better if you disliked it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's the new response. I like to call it the "Eat, Drink And Be Merry For Tomorrow We Shall Die" response, wherein the pseudo-skeptics finally concede that we're fucking up global climate, but just shrug their shoulders and go "Oh well", or pretend that they care about poor people because "OMG, if we move from oil, just imagine all those poor brown-skinned people that will be harmed!" as if they ever actually cared about vulnerable populations.
What it all really lays bare is the pure greed and nihilism of the fossil fuel lobby, oh, and the complete idiocy of morons on the Internet who follow them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I thought the oil traffic was a series of optical fibers? That would make it possible to download oil.
Ezekiel 23:20
This is a misrepresentation of the solution, the kind of thing that demonstrates the nihilism at the core of your argument. We need to start reducing CO2 emissions, with an eye on the next twenty or thirty years. Yes, we're going to cross some red lines, but we can still mitigate the worst of it, and no, it's not going to kill billions of people.
But if the lives of large numbers of people are of such great concern to you, why are you so willing to abandon all the people that are and will be affected by unconstrained climate change?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Translation: I'm a delicate snowflake, only report things that make me feel good.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes. when I said "nothign like this" I was including the speed in that assessment.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
A quick Google search disagrees.
If the Greenland ice sheet melted, sea level would rise 6-7meters. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
Much as I hate "citation needed" tags, I would like to know where you got 15m-17m from.
Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable. And whilst science tends to self-correct, sometimes, just sometimes, it can take decades for that self-correction to take place, simply because as you say, it is impossible to remove any bias and error all the time, yet science as a practice must go on.
We are just now, for example, a big example, witnessing a 100% reversal in the thinking behind dietary advice which was the basis for public health advice for the last 50 years. It seems it was soo wrong, that it actually created the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and maybe even dementia. But this correction is ongoing, and we'll probably need another 50 years to know whether this correction is actually correct.
And it was all science. Albeit, given the limitations of what you can do to people in a lab, it was all soft science, but despite it being soft, the authorities and people in charge still pushed it as pretty definitive and correct. See, that's risk.
Put aside all the politics and questions of morality and ethics and whether humans are too stupid to do the right thing, there is always risk that the big theory is wrong, dead wrong, and that it will have consequences. And when you look at what things like, "97% of scientists are in consensus" are actually based on, you can see it is being oversold, for the sake of "saving the planet".
We cannot, well some people do, rule out the bias of "expert bias". It happens. We know it happens, from time to time. Especially when there is apparent consensus. I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.
Science, the one thing is needs to be in practice, is self-correcting, but once people declare consensus and virtual certainty, we can no longer know whether it can be trusted because that one thing, self-correction, it being open to question by anybody, "on the word of no-one", as the motto used to go, goes out the window.
It cannot self-correct if any dissenting scientists gets lambasted as deniers.
It may be right it may be wrong. Wait another 100 years to find out.
Act in the meantime as you see fit. May the consequences be on your head.
And we should all ignore the records of people sailing across the north pole (no ice) from a few hundred years ago...
New refugees? Like polar bears, Inuit, penguins?
No more burning fossil fuels. Stop doing it. Do nothing to burn them. End the activity of burning fossil fuels. Nothing is what we ARE NOT doing. We're still making the fucking thing worse. "Do nothing" *IS AN IMPROVEMENT WE ARE NOT TAKING*.
Price is a factor for how much oil is drilled. And then there's that pesky externality called pollution, and who pays to clean it up. (The oil industry socializes its losses.)
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Like the 90% of the world population that lives at sea level, and in tropical zone deserts. This includes most of the Levant.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
As an engineer, I would love to believe that.
But as a person with eyes and ears, I know that is incorrect.
Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. Skepticalscience.com has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Everywhere from California to Indiana will desertify. California may well lose its agricultural sector over the next 50 years.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993, he continued." - if this is his excuse of ignoring it then he does need to resign from science completely because those problems he lists were tackled and changes made to mitigate the problems, just because they are not so prominent now, doesn't mean they didn;t exist
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
There is no need for written history to know the climate in the past. So that is irrelevant. Also something local to the northern hemisphere isn't global per definition.
Why not do some basic research before writing things like this? Wikipedia is an okay start.
If we can just raise the temperature enough to melt the ice in Antarctica, it will become habitable year-round. It could then be opened up for real estate development. Apartment complexes, strip malls, industrial parks...the possibilities are mind-boggling.
I believe the parent post is a joke (and should be marked as funny). Some countries that have shore line could easily lose the land because the sea level will rise and that is not really a gain for them in most ways...
Its ok, I won't tell Soros that you were late to work today. At least you aren't as cranky as you were the other day.
It's just sea-ice that's melted. When sea ice melts it doesn't change the water level. That's because it's floating in the water and the water level has already been displaced by it. For example, when the ice in a glass of water melts, does the water level in the cup go up?
Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable.
No. "Soft sciences" refers to fields which arrogant scientists feel are less deserving due to subject matter, not reproducibility. Social sciences are described as soft science.
Your opinion on social science as a "real" science is up to you, but reproducibility is an issue no matter how "hard" the science is.
I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.
Because obviously scientific findings don't change society by themselves. At a bare minimum, you must publish your results or the scientific findings may as well have never been made. With even non-controversial findings, scientists need to do more, results simply don't speak for themselves, you need to write review articles placing the findings in context, issue press statements in journals, present it at a conference. And that's just to get it known within the scientific community in the absence of opposed nefarious interests.
With climate change specifically, you have powerful industries and motivated ideologues trying to cast FUD on the findings. There's an effort to convince the public that it's far from certain. This approach is having it's intended effects. Scientists and people who realize climate change is happening would be idiots to merely keep presenting dry papers when the public is convinced by scumbags in suits saying "Well, they don't REALLY know do they?"
They go something like this
There's nothing going on that would negatively affect our society
There might be something going on that would negatively affect our society, but nobody knows for certain. So, we shouldn't do anything different.
There's probably something going on that would negatively affect our society, but it would cost too much to do anything about it.
Our society is definitely in trouble, but it's too late for us to do anything about it. Everybody pray..
Of course, there are also societies described that didn't collapse, but they had a different response at some stage before the last on.
Everywhere from California to Indiana will desertify. California may well lose its agricultural sector over the next 50 years.
Do you have any projections for that? I've always been loathe to make predictions for a specific area, although if Nebraska gets a little drier, it will become desert .
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
To even consider that a group.....would sacrifice their integrity for grants, or whatever, is absolutely ludicrous.
OK, that's just naive.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
but we have reports from many places of the world, notable China and Japan that it was warmer than normal there, too.
If you dig a bit deeper into these reports you'll find that the warming effects around the world around the medieval warm period were not quite aligned, so it was more a case of heat shifting back and forth than extra global heat, like we have now.
The last couple of glaciation cycles ended rather abruptly, yes.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...
https://grist.files.wordpress....
If you have better data to support your view, let's have it.
I like how they pretend to care about birds whenever the subject of wind power is discussed when it is obvious they don't care about the environment.
Everyone is always so down on Global Warming. Why doesn't anyone ever look on the bright side of things? After all, once the icecaps and glaciers all melt, think of how much better the world will be: 1) Florida will be completely underwater. Not just Miami, but the "Florida Man" parts too. 2) So will large chunks of the Middle East (though admittedly they'll probably be a bit more worried about the heat than that). 3) Lots of currently undervalued inland property will become valuable beachfront areas. And without having to fire nuclear missiles at the San Andreas a la Superman! 4) Huge swathes of inhospitably cold Canadian land will be sunny, warm, and liveable, which will be good news for those of us fleeing the future American hellscape. 5) Make the Great Lakes Great Again - there will be a new Great Lake, right about where Montreal currently is. (French Canadians underwater? Bonus!) Sure, there will be some downsides. The Netherlands will wind up completely underwater, though I'm sure they can build a wall to keep the North Sea out, since they've been doing it for decades already. I know a guy, he's very big on building Walls (big, classy ones), maybe I can send him over there. Install some tidal power generation, and they can even make the North Sea pay for it, too!
I think they've done a good job at that by diverting water from the croplands to some fish somewhere.
BTW, most of CA already is a desert.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What it all really lays bare is the pure greed and nihilism of the capitalist system, oh, and the complete idiocy of morons on the Internet who follow them.
Fixed that for you.
And no, this is not a call for communism, it's just an observation that (unchecked, free-market) capitalism seems almost inherently designed to cause this type of greed and nihilism (not to mention an ever-increasing wealth gap).
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Which is why I am so tired of this alarmist crap.
People with a hardon for stats are more bothered about someone refuting the data than the actual effects.
They'd rather argue with me about the relevence of my post then actually doing something about it...
But especially in America, people don't give a shit about anything that isn't happening to them personally.
So so true.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Funded by governments who use the results of these paid studies to do ... nothing.
I guess everything is extremist relative to something. What's with all these hypocritical Anti-Murder-Extremists running around saying I can't kill people! SOME OF THOSE HYPOCRITES GIVE LETHAL WEAPONS TO SO CALLED COPS TO STOP PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM KILLING PEOPLE!
Extremism in my view is violence, not demanding a reduction in pollution.
An accurate summary of the GOP's position.
I don't think it's greed. I think it's wishful thinking.
And it absolutely would be great if there were no downsides to burning all the fossil fuels we can lay our hands on. Most people on this site are too young to remember the smog we had in the 1960s and 1970s; they're imprinted on a time when gas was cheap, air was clean, and anthropogenic climate change was (as far as the general public was concerned) undreamt of. Who wouldn't want that to be true?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Actually, we have reliable written crop and weather records from Asia during that time. We also have tree ring data and cores from all over the world. We also know the sea level at that time. The conclusion is that there was no significant warming during that period.
One pixel on this graph is around 500 years. So even the most rapid changes took _thousands_ of years on your graph.
Kiribati is going underwater. Does anyone else care? *sigh*
I could rob you and beat you to pulp. Would anyone else care? The answer is that wise people would care, because they'll know if I get away with that I'll be getting away with a lot more.
Same with climate change. Yes, Kiribati may disappear. But the Kiribatians aren't the only people who will pay; in fact most people in the world will end up paying. The way this works is that we all get some up front economic benefit from unregulated carbon emissions and we all pay for the consequences later, but the trick is that the benefits and costs aren't spread uniformly. Some people make a killing on cheap fossil fuel and then can move the bulk of the resulting assets out of the way of climate change. The worst hit are those whose wealth is in land -- the Kiribatians obviously, but also farmers in places which become unsupportably arid.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Climatologists are not mechanical engineers, they are PhD's. I agree, engineers are very careful about the details. However, PhD's don't have life-risk to consider. I fact, there is overt manipulation of the data upon which most (if not all) of the climate "conclusions" are based.
Oh yeah, like the engineers at Volkswagen that cared about the details of their vehicles emission.
Engineers are in the first row when it's about cooking the data to fit the specifications. Dishonesty is everywhere the same, as long as it involves a gain. Most people don't care about being right or wrong, they just care more about themselves than about the facts. It's putting feelings over reality. Which might explain why you elected Trump.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
The story is just another alarmist anecdote about climate change.
Your true colours show through at last.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There are always winners and losers. What amuses me is how you pretend you like birds, when what you really like is not having to do fuck all, and passing the buck to the next generation. And how many species do you imagine will get driven to extinction by spiraling climate change over the next century.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He is awesome, ain't he.....
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I think they've done a good job at that by diverting water from the croplands to some fish somewhere.
This actually worries me more than AGW. And AGW worries me a lot. The situation needs addressed. But we aren't a country that can address much any more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
BTW, most of CA already is a desert.
Exactly. Its a situation where the weather is pretty good, lots of sunshine, OK soil, but not much water. They've wrecked their local sources and when you get soil subsidance like this, http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~... https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land... you've probably made the water table recharge either impossible or a tens of thousands of years effort.
Then we have the river diversion issues. Already the Colorado no longer reaches the sea. Most impressive to stop that river.
If I had a say in how water use in California is handled, I'd say you start with the Sunshine. That's not likely to go away any time soon. So that's good. But the next issue is that water. It has to be used better, and more efficiently. I'm seeing a lot of farming under glass, so to speak. If you are going to use water, you have to meter it out and limit evaporation. If you are going to ship water from another state, you need to keep the damn stuff covered. Gotta watch how we deliver it to the plants though, because drip irrigation is great for saving water but you eventually salinate the soil. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Inte... https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
We are perhaps a dog that likes to shit in it's dinner bowl.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In a shocking turn of events that no one could have foreseen you concluded what you wanted to conclude.
You seem rather colour blind. All you managed to process was black or white.
Hopefully now that you have "uncoverd the truth" you can find peace.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
I grow weary of more and more proof of global warming without one hint as to how we can maintain modern civilization without fossil fuels. Of course there is no money in telling people we have to revert to an eighteenth century four legged horse-powered agrarian lifestyle.
That is wrong.
The conclusion is as I said before. It was at least on the northern hemisphere a global happening.
And I really doubt that you can measure happenings of such short life span with tree rings. Trees usually don't survive long enough in quantity to be assigned to a period that is just 10 - 30 years long.
Regarding China and Japan, we have written evidence in chronicles that it was unusually warm. (Albeit only discovered during the last ten years).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The parent talked about _cooling_ not heating.
Yes, the heating up went relatively quick, but right now we are heating up the atmosphere 100-1000 times quicker.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The northern hemisphere os half of the globe
We don't know much about the south during those times because the christians destroyed to much of the written history, or areas like Australia/Newsealand had no written language at those times, which makes gathering of data a bit difficult.
Wikipedia is unfortunately about ten years of research information outdated, so I suggest you take your own advice and read a bit about the topic?
And, frankly, the idea that large scale phenomena like a warming of a whole continent could be a local phenomena, is pretty idiotic, don't you agree?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
From yes prime minister
Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Bernard Woolley: What's that?
Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
It's not all that new. Career Exxon oil slick & new Sec of State Rex Tillerson adopted this attitude years ago, that global warming is happening but we can only geoegineer or adapt
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Mark Serreze is a well-known person in the climate debate community. But the link above is to HIS OWN data which directly contradicts his statements in the NYT article. I'm not attacking him personally, but I have substantive conflict with the way he conveyed the veracity and conclusions about his own data.
His own data, which he points out should not be used "when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important". https://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_faq
Because a tool do a certain thing is usually a terrible tool do do something else. Unless you try to prove a point that is only in your head. And MASIE is a tool to tell were the edges of sea ice are more precisely than other such surveys, and the area calculated is just a side product. https://nsidc.org/data/masie/about_masie
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
In a shocking turn of events that no one could have foreseen you concluded what you wanted to conclude.
Climate change is happening, whether or not you believe that extremes are anecdotes. Physics doesn't care about your trivial politics.
You seem rather colour blind. All you managed to process was black or white.
Colour blind people can see shades of grey just fine. I think your analogy insult needs work.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Price is a factor for how much oil is drilled. And then there's that pesky externality called pollution, and who pays to clean it up. (The oil industry socializes its losses.)
Industry socializes its losses
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
It used to be a free software forum, and anti-Microsoft site. It has become a fake news outlet peddling the latest, fashionable left wing propaganda.
Let's say this is true - how has anything changed? Being free software and anti-Microsoft is hardly alt-right. Or science hating for that matter.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Climate change is happening, whether or not you believe that extremes are anecdotes. Physics doesn't care about your trivial politics.
Bro, do you even read?
I never refuted climate change or questioned physics.
Yes, climate change is a thing. Yes it's gonna get worse before it gets better. I'm already braced for record breaking climate based phenomena thanks.
Kiribati is going underwater. Does anyone else care? *sigh*
It's been well publicised and a long time coming and no one gives a shit -> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Criticising a story is not criticising the existence of climate change. That's just you being trigger happy.
The story is just another alarmist anecdote about climate change.
Your true colours show through at last.
Yeah, about that beige..just stop for a moment and imagine a plane crashing to the ground; this plane is one of many and their fate is in question but this specific one is crashing and that cannot be altered. Yelling out how the plane is reaching the ground and is closer than ever is anecdotal and alarmist drivel.
This does not refute that the plane is crashing. It does not refute physics. It does not actually refute anything. Kiribati will be underwater and there is nothing that will change that.
Colour blind people can see shades of grey just fine. I think your analogy insult needs work.
If you failed to "get it" that's not because I take issue with climate change or due to my political persuasions nor my understanding of physics. That's just you.
You are factually incorrect as per the above and the analogy of colour blindness rings true. Shades of grey is demonstrably no substitute to the ability to observe the visible colour spectrum. You missed several.
Maybe you're right and my analogy still needs "work"...you know because there's a way to restore original colour from old black and white (read shades of grey) film.
TL;DR - If the sentences in bold do not appear in red, green or blue colour just assume you are without error and I'm still hard at work...
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
The warmer it gets here, the better.
You know, it's funny how all you guys can only think back to winter, and not even ahead to summer, let alone decades ahead.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. Skepticalscience.com has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.
Look, I am sure you won't like this or agree, but as a human being, I can only say it as best as I have come to see it, and from trying to follow this issue over the last 15 years or so, there's a couple of things I see quite clearly, albeit, had I not read the stuff I read, I would not see it this way, but for what it is worth, as reasoned debate here's a couple of key points:
All of us are part of one sub culture or another and we all make value judgements. The environmental movement is a values driven culture, and is broadly about human's place in the ecosystem, which is a values judgement which says that humanity is one species on the planet. That particular values judgement downplays the role of human, seeing human as just another species. That's kinda the deep ecology view. Now there's variations on that, as not everyone goes that far, but that is an example of values judgements. That humans are less valuable than forests.
Now your values judgements may or may not line up with that. That's not my point. My point is that you are making values judgements, one sort or another, as for example, all the people who say we must act, and then pick solutions which are base do the belief that humans are essentially selfish and consume too much and don't know how to live in balance.
People who say that would not, for example, say that a human is a part of nature, created by nature, and that a human is merely living out their natural competition and drive in evolutionary natural selection to become the dominant species and transform as much raw material as possible into survival advantage, and that therefore the answer to running out of resources is to go to space and mine asteroids, because that's what nature does, expand and propagate life as fas as possible.
Can you see the implied values judgements in saying that humans should cut back on consumption? Now I'm not saying that's a wrong judgment, but it is a judgment, ie. ethics and not facts, it is a human ethical judgement, and only then do people decide what we "must" do to combat climate change. Instead, people who don't have this judgment about selfishness will more normally go for the "adapt" with "new technology" ideas, rather than the "reduce" and "consume less" ideas.
Climate change as an issue about solutions is all about values judgements. And that's why oil companies as symbols of big bad polluting uncaring capitalism are seen as the only ones driving the politics, whereas the good guys like wind are seen as just doing the right thing based on the facts.
Yet, we use lots of energy so any solution will be a big solution, and wind farms are not little friendly wind mills, they are billion dollar installations, and before long they'll be trillion dollars' worth of installations, and that by definition is big energy, and I find it hard to believe that those big companies don't have vested interests in promoting the idea of man made climate change and decarbonisation.
And nuclear has a vested interest too. Now we may say they are
It's about understanding people need things to survive, and these things are being threatened. If you don't want to be confused with a denier, don't sound like one. Rightly or wrongly, your logical appraisal of this topic has lead you down a very similar path to deniers. If you really are interested in understanding this, you have some work ahead of you.
We don't rely on historical accounts for climate data - we have plenty of proxies we can look at today to get some useful data about the past. And yes, something that does not affect the whole globe is by definition a local event.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about this. What you doubt is of little consequence, as your doubts don't change reality :)