According to Wikipedia that changed when they developed live wells in the boats and they were able to ship live lobsters so they'd stay fresh until cooked.
Odd how republicans campaign on slashing and eliminating unnecessary regulations while simultaneously adding burdensome regulations without bothering to demonstrate that they solve an actual problem.
No mod points so I'll just say that's an insightful comment.
I'm not sure what your point is. The Arctic 80N+ temperatures are interesting to look at but they don't have anything to do with what's happening in the Antarctic.
The problem with the hypothesis is that given the natural drivers of climate we had the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago and the factors since then have pointed toward a slight cooling trend which we have seen until the recent dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.
Sea ice is not ice that comes off of land based glaciers but is ice that freezes directly out of the sea. The ice that comes off of land based glaciers is commonly called an ice shelf.
It's not really accurate to say that Antarctic sea ice is being added. This is because the Antarctic sea ice melts (nearly) completely every year and reforms the following winter. There is no multi-year ice in the Antarctic like there is in the Arctic. I explained why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing here.
Antarctic sea ice has increased. I explained it here. The Antarctic ice sheet has been losing more ice that the sea ice is increasing so the net is negative.
There is already evidence that the melting of Arctic sea ice is causing an increase in extreme weather over the continental US. Apparently the additional heat and open water cause the north polar jet stream to slow down increasing the amplitude of the meanders which brings colder weather further south and warmer weather further north and because of the slow down the extreme events linger a bit longer over any particular location. I think it's naive to think that the melting of Arctic sea ice won't have effects elsewhere, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
Antarctic sea ice is at high levels, the Antarctic ice sheet is losing ice and overall the there is a net loss of ice in Antarctica. I explained why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing here.
Sea ice in Antarctica mostly just freezes from the ocean water although that might be aided somewhat by ice calving off the ice sheet. Unlike the Arctic the Antarctic sea ice melts (nearly) completely every year and reforms the next winter. The that Antarctic sea ice is increasing are kind of complex as I explained here. Overall the Antarctic region is losing more ice than it is gaining.
Antarctic sea ice has been growing somewhat for reasons that I explain here. The Antarctic ice sheet has been shrinking and the net for all Antarctic ice is less ice in the region.
Actually the Arctic sea ice melt is about three times greater than the increase in Antarctic sea ice. Antarctic sea ice has not increased because it's been getting colder in Antarctica because it hasn't. It's really kind of an interesting and complex explanation.
One part of the explanation doesn't have much to do with global warming but rather the Antarctic ozone hole. Ozone is a greenhouse gas and the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica causes the stratosphere to cool. This increases the strength of the circumpolar winds around the continent which pushes the ice around opening up polynyas exposing more open water to subsequently freeze thus expanding the ice area.
The second part does have to do with global warming. "The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted." The paper on that effect is (Zhang 2007)
One other interesting fact, the Antarctic sea ice melts (nearly) completely every year before reforming the next winter as opposed to Arctic sea ice which has multi-year sea ice (for a few more years anyway). The reason being is that the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents and the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean.
That's because you haven't bothered to pay attention to the time frame attached to these predictions. No one who actually studies the situation would say that.
They didn't set off the bomb test just to see if beer would be affected by it. They just used the opportunity of the test. A six-pack of beer was less than a dollar back then so it didn't cost much. I imagine they tested a lot more things than beer to see how radiation affected it.
You're talking about what happens in the transition from a glaciation to an interglacial. Increases in atmospheric CO2 are a natural feedback of warming temperatures. The biggest reason for this is probably as temperatures warm the oceans warm as well and warmer water is capable of holding less dissolved gases including CO2 than colder water. So the warming oceans release CO2. It's also possible that there was trapped CO2 held in bubbles in the continental ice sheets that was released as they melted back. Calculations have shown that the interglacials wouldn't be nearly as warm as they are without the knock on effect of the added CO2 so it can be both a feedback from temperature change and a forcing of temperature change.
Now today atmospheric CO2 is increasing and oceans are warming but measurements also show that the level of CO2 in the oceans is still increasing as well (commonly called ocean acidification because the CO2 becomes carbonic acid in water). So why is the ocean content of CO2 increasing despite warming ocean temperatures? It is because the CO2 content of water not only depends on temperature but also on the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere over the ocean. As we burn fossil fuels we add to the CO2 in the atmosphere and that makes the partial pressure high enough that the oceans are still absorbing CO2. Once we stop adding CO2 the oceans will reach the proper balance and then start releasing it.
I first heard about it at least 5 years ago, probably on RealClimate. It's not something I see a lot about but I've mentioned it a few times here on/. before.
I did a little searching and found this paper: "Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research" (Ghosh 2003)
It's kind of a review of the state of the art at the time and how it applies to climate research.
I hadn't heard of this Great Depression anomaly before. Of course Keeling didn't start keeping accurate records of CO2 until 1958, before that there were spotty measurements of CO2 back into the 1800's. I'm not sure mass spectrometry was well enough developed until maybe the 1980's to measure the isotope levels. So I wonder how they would have really accurate measurements of CO2 and the isotopic ratio from back in the 1930's. Maybe the had a good selection of preserved samples of the atmosphere to work with. Also, humans weren't using 1/10th of the fossil fuels back then that we use today. The CO2 level didn't even reach 320 ppm until around 1960 (from 280 ppm in 1830, it's nearing 400 ppm now) so the slope of the curve was much shallower. Also there may be some factors like the Dust Bowl reducing the uptake of CO2 by plants changes in the ocean/atmosphere flux of CO2 that compensated for the human reduction.
BTW, I discovered we really should be writing the isotopes as 12C & 13C or more properly with the 12 & 13 superscripted before the C. It looks like/. doesn't allow the "sup" tag. 12C.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Wikipedia that changed when they developed live wells in the boats and they were able to ship live lobsters so they'd stay fresh until cooked.
That might be useful if the boss knows about the change tracking in Word.
Odd how republicans campaign on slashing and eliminating unnecessary regulations while simultaneously adding burdensome regulations without bothering to demonstrate that they solve an actual problem.
No mod points so I'll just say that's an insightful comment.
That's why you sign your name in the poll book.
True, but the Oxygen Catastrophe occurred 2.4 billion years ago so maybe you can say that's when plant life took over in the form of algae.
I'm not sure what your point is. The Arctic 80N+ temperatures are interesting to look at but they don't have anything to do with what's happening in the Antarctic.
The problem with the hypothesis is that given the natural drivers of climate we had the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago and the factors since then have pointed toward a slight cooling trend which we have seen until the recent dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.
There's a pretty good chunk of land ice on Greenland, enough to raise sea levels by 20 feet if were to all melt.
Sea ice is not ice that comes off of land based glaciers but is ice that freezes directly out of the sea. The ice that comes off of land based glaciers is commonly called an ice shelf.
Yes the climate is changing but the science is not clear about how much of this is manmade.
Yes, it is a bit fuzzy. Current estimates are that 80-120% of the warming is due to human contributions.
It's not really accurate to say that Antarctic sea ice is being added. This is because the Antarctic sea ice melts (nearly) completely every year and reforms the following winter. There is no multi-year ice in the Antarctic like there is in the Arctic. I explained why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing here.
Well the ice in the Antarctic ice sheet is about 304,152 trillion tons so I'm not sure how much difference a trillion ton block of ice would make.
Volume of Antarctic ice sheet = ~ 30 million cubic kilometers = 3x10^23 cc
Ice = ~ 0.92 grams/cc
So that's 276,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams of ice * 0.000001102 tons/gram
= 304,152,000,000,000,000 tons of ice.
This is a bunch of hog-wash.
I assume you are referring to the stuff you wrote after that line.
Antarctic sea ice has increased. I explained it here. The Antarctic ice sheet has been losing more ice that the sea ice is increasing so the net is negative.
When you consider that the drop in temperature that caused the Little Ice Age was only about -1C then +1 or 2 C doesn't sound so great.
There is already evidence that the melting of Arctic sea ice is causing an increase in extreme weather over the continental US. Apparently the additional heat and open water cause the north polar jet stream to slow down increasing the amplitude of the meanders which brings colder weather further south and warmer weather further north and because of the slow down the extreme events linger a bit longer over any particular location. I think it's naive to think that the melting of Arctic sea ice won't have effects elsewhere, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
Antarctic sea ice is at high levels, the Antarctic ice sheet is losing ice and overall the there is a net loss of ice in Antarctica. I explained why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing here.
Sea ice in Antarctica mostly just freezes from the ocean water although that might be aided somewhat by ice calving off the ice sheet. Unlike the Arctic the Antarctic sea ice melts (nearly) completely every year and reforms the next winter. The that Antarctic sea ice is increasing are kind of complex as I explained here. Overall the Antarctic region is losing more ice than it is gaining.
Antarctic sea ice has been growing somewhat for reasons that I explain here. The Antarctic ice sheet has been shrinking and the net for all Antarctic ice is less ice in the region.
Actually the Arctic sea ice melt is about three times greater than the increase in Antarctic sea ice. Antarctic sea ice has not increased because it's been getting colder in Antarctica because it hasn't. It's really kind of an interesting and complex explanation.
One part of the explanation doesn't have much to do with global warming but rather the Antarctic ozone hole. Ozone is a greenhouse gas and the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica causes the stratosphere to cool. This increases the strength of the circumpolar winds around the continent which pushes the ice around opening up polynyas exposing more open water to subsequently freeze thus expanding the ice area.
The second part does have to do with global warming. "The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted." The paper on that effect is (Zhang 2007)
One other interesting fact, the Antarctic sea ice melts (nearly) completely every year before reforming the next winter as opposed to Arctic sea ice which has multi-year sea ice (for a few more years anyway). The reason being is that the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents and the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean.
That's because you haven't bothered to pay attention to the time frame attached to these predictions. No one who actually studies the situation would say that.
They didn't set off the bomb test just to see if beer would be affected by it. They just used the opportunity of the test. A six-pack of beer was less than a dollar back then so it didn't cost much. I imagine they tested a lot more things than beer to see how radiation affected it.
You're talking about what happens in the transition from a glaciation to an interglacial. Increases in atmospheric CO2 are a natural feedback of warming temperatures. The biggest reason for this is probably as temperatures warm the oceans warm as well and warmer water is capable of holding less dissolved gases including CO2 than colder water. So the warming oceans release CO2. It's also possible that there was trapped CO2 held in bubbles in the continental ice sheets that was released as they melted back. Calculations have shown that the interglacials wouldn't be nearly as warm as they are without the knock on effect of the added CO2 so it can be both a feedback from temperature change and a forcing of temperature change.
Now today atmospheric CO2 is increasing and oceans are warming but measurements also show that the level of CO2 in the oceans is still increasing as well (commonly called ocean acidification because the CO2 becomes carbonic acid in water). So why is the ocean content of CO2 increasing despite warming ocean temperatures? It is because the CO2 content of water not only depends on temperature but also on the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere over the ocean. As we burn fossil fuels we add to the CO2 in the atmosphere and that makes the partial pressure high enough that the oceans are still absorbing CO2. Once we stop adding CO2 the oceans will reach the proper balance and then start releasing it.
I first heard about it at least 5 years ago, probably on RealClimate. It's not something I see a lot about but I've mentioned it a few times here on /. before.
I did a little searching and found this paper: "Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global
climate change research" (Ghosh 2003)
It's kind of a review of the state of the art at the time and how it applies to climate research.
I hadn't heard of this Great Depression anomaly before. Of course Keeling didn't start keeping accurate records of CO2 until 1958, before that there were spotty measurements of CO2 back into the 1800's. I'm not sure mass spectrometry was well enough developed until maybe the 1980's to measure the isotope levels. So I wonder how they would have really accurate measurements of CO2 and the isotopic ratio from back in the 1930's. Maybe the had a good selection of preserved samples of the atmosphere to work with. Also, humans weren't using 1/10th of the fossil fuels back then that we use today. The CO2 level didn't even reach 320 ppm until around 1960 (from 280 ppm in 1830, it's nearing 400 ppm now) so the slope of the curve was much shallower. Also there may be some factors like the Dust Bowl reducing the uptake of CO2 by plants changes in the ocean/atmosphere flux of CO2 that compensated for the human reduction.
BTW, I discovered we really should be writing the isotopes as 12C & 13C or more properly with the 12 & 13 superscripted before the C. It looks like /. doesn't allow the "sup" tag. 12C.
No, but it's very political.