Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change is Turning Antarctica Green, Say Researchers (theguardian.com)
Researchers in Antarctica have discovered rapidly growing banks of mosses on the ice continent's northern peninsula, providing striking evidence of climate change in the coldest and most remote parts of the planet. Amid the warming of the last 50 years, the scientists found two different species of mosses undergoing the equivalent of growth spurts, with mosses that once grew less than a millimeter per year now growing over 3 millimeters per year on average, (the link could be paywalled; alternative source below) the Washington Post reported on Thursday. From a report: "Antarctica is not going to become entirely green, but it will become more green than it currently is," said Matt Amesbury, co-author of the research from the University of Exeter. "This is linking into other processes that are happening on the Antarctic Peninsula at the moment, particularly things like glacier retreat which are freeing up new areas of ice-free land -- and the mosses particularly are very effective colonisers of those new areas," he added. In the second half of the 20th century, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced rapid temperature increases, warming by about half a degree per decade. Plant life on Antarctica is scarce, existing on only 0.3% of the continent, but moss, well preserved in chilly sediments, offers scientists a way of exploring how plants have responded to such changes.
The Greens Party should be happy, Antarctica is becoming Green, after all. Much better than that PC-incorrect all White!
More BS from the AGW crowd. MOSS! Give me a break!
I guess we need to get those wheat seeds in the ground.
The problem with climate science, as always, is explaining the significance to the general voter, who might be unlikely to attach the same degree of concern for a +/- 2mm annual growth spurt... even if the millimeter is a measurement the voter understands.
Further complicating the dilemma is exaggerations like the click-bait title, as you have to read down a ways to discover that "Antarctica is not going to become entirely green, but it will become more green than it currently is." Stooping to the same level of deception as your adversaries backfires, more often than not.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
.Scientists would agree that this is an alarming trend.
"Scientists" might but I don't think real scientists would.
What is alarming about moss taking advantage of warmer weather for a rapid growth splurge? There are lots of examples in nature of things that grow very slowly with an incredibly rapid ramp-up when conditions are even a tiny bit more favorable.
Alternatte headline "warming expands zone of habitability for species". It's a headline that is equally true but one you will never see in the current climate of fear-mongering.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The most surprising thing here is that Antarctica has a northern peninsula. How do you find it? Isn't the entire place 'north'?
Wow! Those journalists can do anything - even cutting edge science! If you think that just give up your job and let a journalist do it.
Outside of a TIME magazine article thrown together by a hack to provide "balance" you've got nothing. I'm a little disappointed that with that low an ID that you are not old enough to remember that the article was seen as utter bullshit at the time. I'm not quite old enough to get it first time but hit a huge pile of Scientific American back issues in my teens to make up for it, and there was no ice age bullshit in that, only TIME where a journalist out of his depth printed bullshit so that there would be the excitement of something opposing the mainstream view.
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-an...
About to go into a mini ice age... so get ready.
Settled Science.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Has it uncovered the petrified vegetation that Antarctica used to be covered with?
-Styopa
"are you really arguing the humans do not adapt, gain knowledge, and progress?"
no. where did you get that? lol
nor do i say "because someone was wrong early in the process" "forward looking predictions are all wrong or that even the fundamental basis is incorrect"
again why do you assume all that?
but i am properly placing "into context" one example of a widespread "wrong prediction from decades ago ".
and in the interest of "study and learning" i am merely drawing attention to validity of skepticism about new speculations (lead post here) given the history of such speculations.
FUUUUCCCKKKKKKK It was a news week article about a crack pot idea from a single crack pot guy that had no backing from the scientific community. GAH....this talking point needs to die....it makes people look stupid.
a fucking news article....dumb shits.....
from TFS: "on the ice continent's northern peninsula"
Antarctica is south. As far south as you can go. There is a tiny spot called the south pole. Stand on that spot and move in any direction and you are going north. Now this 'northern peninsula' ... isn't every peninsula in Antarctica a northern peninsula?
Likewise, there are "About 330,000" references to west Antarctica in my Google search results. Can someone please direct me to the spot on the globe that is 'west'?
...omphaloskepsis often...
Finally, Greenland will be green! Look at all that water front property, buy now, HUUUUUGE savings, but only for early investors.
Scientific experimentation is only valid if the results are repeatable in similar circumstances, by others; an admittedly higher standard.
But, a cautionary tale. Understanding how the greenhouse effect works, and what carbon sequestration is in the ecosystem... If you have to believe in something, it is not out of the realm of probability to imagine that 7 billion people are plausibly having an effect on the world's ecosystem and their burning of fossil fuels, just maybe, might be, a factor influencing weather patterns.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I take comfort in thinking that most civilizations on planets start with burning fuels such as we are. This should be accounted for in the grand scheme of things. I like to think about what we would in share in common with other folks in our galaxy, and this is one of them.
[($)]
Gosh, I hope nothing unpredictable and horrible comes out of the ice with all these changes... like smallpox and anthrax that is coming out of the arctic.
https://news.vice.com/article/...
I'm not saying it's aliens with knees that bend the wrong way which enables them to leap twenty feet into the air, but it's probably aliens with knees that bend the wrong way which enables them to leap twenty feet into the air.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you have to believe in something, it is not out of the realm of probability to imagine that 7 billion people are plausibly having an effect on the world's ecosystem and their burning of fossil fuels, just maybe, might be, a factor influencing weather patterns.
How much has the composition of the atmosphere changed as a result? The atmosphere is really big. Surprisingly, it hasn't changed much.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I don't believe climate change is a bad thing. With the amount of damage that raw crude oil and methane does to the environment, i think that burning it is probably the cleanest thing to do with it. Sure, it's much better to leave it where it is, but the earth is changing all the time, and that crude oil may indeed make it to the surface to pollute the oceans naturally. Also, given the amount of forests we chop down and don't replace, the Arctic (and Antarctic) becoming greener, gives us some new carbon sinks where we never had them before. We're heading for warmer times, sure, but is it really all doom and gloom? I Think that all the other life on the planet will thank us in a few thousand years (probably because we've starved ourselves to death, due to all our crops dying out due to climate change, or maybe skip the middle man and just nuke ourselves)
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
The bridge example is a very bad one. ...
After the engineers and their families slept under the bridge, you exactly know zero about how stable the bridge is. And can only judge the confidence of the engineer
Regarding climate scientists you are quite unfair. it is getting warmer. Reason is mankinds CO2 exhaust. As long as we increase the exhaust, or more precisely the concentration of CO2 it will get warmer. What more do you want predicted? At which exact date sea levels at New York will have risen exactly 1m?
For what purpose? To test your confidence in their science? Reread your bridge example ...
However scientist can calculate quite precisely how much Greenland ice needs to melt to get that 1m increment.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
As far as basic laws of physics are everywhere the same, you don't really need that control group in the overwhelming majority of useful applications of these laws. What would you suggest that we check it against, different atmospheres that we don't really have so they don't bother us in our particular case? How would that help?
Ezekiel 23:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
So the northern peninsula they talk about must be either Anvers Island (wich would be north west, obviously) or one of the very small peninsulas at the "upper edge of the map" which non nitpicking people call: north.
There is one place called "the Antarctic Peninsula", which is the one referred to. It's clearly evident on any map of Antarctica. The journalist writing the article called it "north," which is correct.-- it is the northernmost extension of Antarctica.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
I'm not old enough to remember the 70s, but I am old enough to remember science books, articles, videos etc. referencing such science from the 70s.
I am old enough to remember the 70s. There was no controversy over the greenhouse effect then. It was well understood (having already been known for most of a century), and nobody doubted that if we added greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, the temperature would warm according to theory. This was most evident in astronomy classes, where the greenhouse effect was taught usually with a textbook that concluded with a paragraph saying "by burning fossil fuels we are adding carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere, and if we burn enough fossil fuels, this effect may be large enough to measure by the late 20th century." (Which is what my astronomy text said.)
There was absolutely a "new ice age" idea/theory that was given broad consideration and even acceptance.
No, there wasn't. There was the occasional pop science article, almost always ending with a question mark. Betteridge's law of headlines applied.
... and that includes the climate scientists. I imagine it would be hard to find a climate scientist who would be willing to bet his house on a measurable and non-trivial prediction about the future -- one that he would make from his climate models in the span of a few years.
I don't think anyone has bet a house, but a scientist and economist did bet £1000 against some of the GWPF advisors, (spoiler: the GWPF people lost)
Of course, Bill Nye offered to bet $20,000 against Marc Morano's predictions of cooling but Morano turned him down. He offered a similar bet to Joe Bastardi who also turned him down.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You are confused by the particulates from ash in industrial exhaust. They were and are a major problem able to cause global dimming, which THEN causes an ice age by blocking heat and light from reaching the surface. Same reason nuclear war does it - ash IS particulate matter.
Particulates, partly, but mostly this is sulfate aerosols. They're highly reflective. You can see the temperature effect by looking at global temperature after major volcanic eruptions (which can blast a large amount of sulfates into the stratosphere).
A side effect of the move to low-sulfur coal (to reduce pollution and acid rain) was a reduction in sulfate aerosols. The atmosphere really cleared up in the 70s.
Wikipedia is not a source of truth. Dear God, what has the world come to when people seriously refer to wiki as a source in a political debate and really don't see anything wrong with that.
It's not a "source of truth," but the nice thing about Wikipedia is that the articles are usually is backed up by citations.
It's a good place to start if you want to find links to the actual science, and then form your own opinions.
(I am going to make the phrase "citation needed" my motto. https://xkcd.com/285/)
Thank you for noticing that the environmentalists are intelligent scientists, rather than partisan fools.
I don't know that "environmentalists" per se are always "intelligent scientists". But it does happen that in this particular phase of the political see-saw, the people embracing the "environmental movement" are the one quoting real science, and the anti-environmentalism movement the ones trying to muddy the waters to score political points.
Likely as not the see-saw will tip in another few decades.
(I'm assuming that the word "environmentalist" as you use it means the commonly used meaning, and not "biologists who study the environment and ecology of the Earth/")
Where's the control group of earths (and suns, and moons) they did the tests with?
Every body with an atmosphere in solar system.
I should say I do believe -- on a purely intuitive and logical level -- that 7 billion people burning fossil fuels are having a negative effect on the world's ecosystem. What I don't believe is that this effect can be quantified and made predictive in any way you can trust and verify, as the system is too complex. And without trust and verification you can't have a major policy decision that brings additional burden to the populace, you can just zigzag as with Obama and Trump.
What I would propose instead is focus on the positive and on bottom up instead of top down: provide stimulus for developing green energy sources and let them take over with time if they get good. Meanwhile cut the measurable pollution -- improve air quality, forbid toxic dumps etc. Those you can see work in a relatively short time, vs. a hypothetical 0.3 degrees cooling in 100 years. Otherwise I believe the perceived arrogance and hubris of the pro-climate change side (mostly non-scientists, to be fair) will only hurt the cause further.
Nope, because in contradistinction to the near certainty of increasing desertification
As the Earth warms desertification lessens because there is a LOT more water vapor being put into the atmosphere and then dispersed.
If you want to pretend to support "science", you should at least try and know some of it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
An increase of 3x is not "exponential" and there is no sign the grown is turning so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley