Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

West Antarctica Warming Faster Than Thought

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the it's-just-preheating-for-now dept.

Earth 247

New submitter dgrobinson writes "NY Times reports that West Antarctica has warmed more over the last half century than was first thought. A paper released Sunday by the journal Nature Geoscience (abstract) found that the temperature at a research station in the middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1958. That is roughly twice as much as scientists previously thought and three times the overall rate of global warming, making central West Antarctica one of the fastest-warming regions on earth."

cancel ×

247 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Last post (5, Funny)

fotoguzzi (230256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378229)

Water almost up to my keyboard.

Re:Last post (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378473)

You must live in North Antarctica.

Re:Last post (-1, Troll)

jc42 (318812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378739)

You must live in North Antarctica.

The authors of TFA probably live in North America. This would explain the comment that the warming was "twice as much as previously thought". This is a hint about what really went wrong: It's yet another case of confusing SI units with English units. This time, it's degrees C versus F. The warming is reported as 4.4 F, which is close to 2.5 C, which is (numerically) about half the expected increase. North Americans in general, and Americans in particular, are sufficiently ignorant of the topic that they'd understand 4.4 F as about twice the value of 2.5 C.

Hey, NASA once lost a Mars probe due to not correctly labelling SI and English units. This is a lot less of a news story than that error.

(My favorite example of confusion between the C/F scales was once hearing a reporter explain a 6 degrees C increase as a 35 degrees F increase. No, I'm not joking. ;-)

Re:Last post (2)

rockout (1039072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379209)

Forgive my ignorance, but I read the article (i know, bad form) and did not see a 2.5 C reference, or an expected increase reference in degrees C, anywhere. Where are you getting that?

Re:Last post (4, Informative)

todrules (882424) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379279)

That's incorrect. If you read the article on nature.com, it states that the rise in temperature was 2.4 +- 1.2 C, not F. The 2.4 was also twice what was expected.

Re:Last post (4, Insightful)

catchblue22 (1004569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379301)

The authors of TFA probably live in North America. This would explain the comment that the warming was "twice as much as previously thought".

Why is this marked insightful???? It is in essence accusing without grounds PhD scientists who spend their lives studying these things with basing the entire thesis of a paper on grade school math errors. The author isn't supplying any quotations from the article supporting his assertion, other than a single number. It seems to me that the writer of this article is a peddler of misinformation. In the relatively recent past, he would be opening himself a libel suit. In the more distant past, the author would possibly in need of practicing his pistol aim and would need to find a second for his duelling appointment.

Re:Last post (5, Insightful)

Holistic Missile (976980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379023)

Isn't the entire coastline of Antarctica north?

A single weather station? (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378253)

A single weather station? Whatever happened to "weather's not climate?"

Also, why is this single weather station suddenly getting a paper? It's been there since 1958, there is nothing here we didn't know.

Re:A single weather station? (2, Insightful)

Dolphinzilla (199489) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378297)

slow news day at the NY Times I guess.....

Re:A single weather station? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378331)

Single weather station indicates climate too - local climate.

The difference is not spatial, it is temporal. Weather is short duration. Climate is average over long period of time.

Single weather station measures local climate over decades. It also measures local weather.

Re:A single weather station? (4, Insightful)

asifyoucare (302582) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378503)

Fair enough, but nobody is very interested in local climate in the immediate vicinity of one weather station. The fact that a paper was written is evidence that the importance of these measurements is being overstated. And it's worse that that - the record for this weather station had many gaps, and the researchers had to 'correct' the data and to interpolate the gaps.

I believe the world has warmed over the last century or so, but I can't get worked up over incomplete data for a single station. I realise that this data is the best they have, but it is insufficient to indicate anything of importance.

And the trumpeting doesn't help (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378683)

Yep. Yet they'll keep beating that alarmist drum.

And every time normal people wake up to pretty much normal weather, that will lower confidence in AGW.

The Mayan Chicken Little Climate Alarmists Who Cried Wolf 9,120,123,714,315 times are doing more harm to getting anything done about AGW than all other forces combined.

Re:A single weather station? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378397)

A single weather station? Whatever happened to "weather's not climate?"
 

Well, weather isn't climate. The aggregate of all the weather in combination is climate.

Also, why is this single weather station suddenly getting a paper? It's been there since 1958, there is nothing here we didn't know.

And this is where bothering to read the article saves you from looking like either an idiot or a troll....

It is by far the longest weather record in that region, but it had intermittent gaps and other problems that had made many researchers wary of it. The Bromwich group decided to try to salvage the Byrd record.
They retrieved one of the sensors and recalibrated at the University of Wisconsin. They discovered a software error that had introduced mistakes into the record and then used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps.

Now, go read the rest of it, and maybe start doing that in the future and you won't have to keep asking questions which could easily be answered by any 14 year old school child.

Re:A single weather station? (1, Insightful)

517714 (762276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378569)

Data is data and everything they added is not data, it is fabrication. They aren't researchers they are revisionists. You can't recalibrate a sensor and apply the correction after the fact as you don't know why the sensor lost calibration - was it a drift over time or due to a single incident? This sounds like really bad science, but it may just be really bad reporting.

Re:A single weather station? (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378649)

Amazing. I have now seen the AGW skeptic equivalent of "there are no fossils of fish turning into humans."

Most data has gaps of some kind. That's why you use statistical analysis and correction. Once again the need to deny AGW means having to deny methodologies used in vast and diverse areas of science.

Re:A single weather station? (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378715)

Most data has gaps of some kind.

At least with fossils, they look for new fossils to fill in the gaps between existing ones rather than interpolate and hope they got it right.

Re:A single weather station? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379381)

Not so much. By the most generous estimates of anthopologists, the number of fossils we have relative to the number of species proposed (and necessary) for the evolutionary model, is less than 2%.

Interpolation with, say, 50% of the data points strikes me as quite viable. Interpolation with 2% seems more like sheer guesswork.

Re:A single weather station? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378731)

Yes. We should question the last 50 years of science, go look up null hypothesis testing. What scientists have been doing makes no sense and was invented by the guy who created the ACT while confused.

This is not a conspiracy, it is well documented.

Re:A single weather station? (-1, Flamebait)

517714 (762276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378751)

This is the equivalent of Piltdown Man - deal with it.

Re:A single weather station? (3, Insightful)

repapetilto (1219852) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378837)

I don't think it is that bad (outright fraud). It is just bias run rampant along with financial incentive to underestimate uncertainty combined with widespread failure of science education in statistics.

Re:A single weather station? (3, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378787)

You can't recalibrate a sensor and apply the correction after the fact as you don't know why the sensor lost calibration...

Even more important, you don't know when it happened, or if it all happened in one change or in several small changes. Unless you know that, any corrections you make are going to be honest guesses at best.

Re:A single weather station? (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378453)

You cannot tell with a single coin flip whether the coin is fair (50% probability of heads) or not. You cannot predict any particular flip of the coin. But if you flip a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads 659 times, you can say with a high degree of confidence that the coin is not fair. You still cannot predict any particular flip, but we can predict that we would see about 66 heads if we flipped the coin 100 times. If tomorrow we flip the coin 1000 times and it comes up head 831 times you have a high degree of confidence that the distribution of heads and tails changed since yesterday.

Weather is like a single coin flip. You cannot tell in advance easily whether it will rain or not or exactly what temperature it will be. But we can make statements about the average temperature in January or the average number of rainy days in April. If we see those values change over time, as we have all over the Earth, you can say that the climate is changing. With enough measurements over a long enough period of time, you can see the climate change at only one weather station. If we also see the same thing happen at thousands of other weather stations over decades, and we observe the ice sheets melting and the humidity increasing, then that's clear evidence of the climate changing.

That's the difference between weather and climate. Weather determines what you wear on a particular day. Climate determines what clothes you have in your closet.

...alternatively (1, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378663)

But if you flip a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads 659 times, you can say with a high degree of confidence that the coin is not fair.

Not quite - it might also be because the person tossing it is not flipping it fairly...which interestingly is also like climate change. We can have a very high degree of certainty that the Earth is warming but the degree to which this is due to human influence vs. natural influences is not yet very clear (at least that's what my colleagues in geophysics tell me).

Re:...alternatively (2)

bunratty (545641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378725)

What specific "natural influence" is causing the Earth to warm, and where is the evidence that supports this idea? To me, the "nature done it" is as much a cop out for global warming as "God done it" is for evolution. What are the details of this "natural influence"? Is overall solar output increasing significantly? I remember an extended solar minimum [wikipedia.org] a few years ago, during which the temperatures on Earth did not go down. Are more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the Earth, causing more or fewer clouds, which is causing a warming effect? I've heard some talk about that idea, but never any measurements of cosmic rays increasing or decreasing over time.

Re:...alternatively (2, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378993)

What specific "natural influence" is causing the Earth to warm, and where is the evidence that supports this idea?

There are many natural influences: precession of the earth's axis, precession of the earth's orbit, ocean currents which change due to continental drift, massive volcanic eruptions, meteor impact etc. There is an established record of global temperature variations thousands, if not millions, of years before humans burnt fossil fuels from e.g. O16/O18 isotope ratios. The causes of some are believed to be known and understood but others are not but it is very clear that the climate has fluctuated by itself before humans were on the scene. That is not to say that we should not be very careful about our impact on the environment because we don't know exactly what the effect is but I have yet to see compelling evidence that humans are primarily responsible for the current change but that certainly remains a distinct possibility.

Re:...alternatively (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378909)

you know what?

no one with half a brain cell cares whether or not the cause of warming over time is due to burning of fossil
fuels or some yet undiscovered natural process.

the only important question is whether or not there is anything we as a people could conceivably do to mitigate
the environmental changes which over the long term are going to be kind of a big deal. if you insist on distilling
reality down to a dollar count, a big deal in terms of costs.

and it turns out that under the best understanding of the way that the light form the sun interacts with the
mass of the planet, and the incoming light and outgoing heat react with the atmosphere, that there is...if we just
tried to deal with it.

so in summary shut the fuck up and deal with consensus reality for once

Re:...alternatively (4, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379063)

no one with half a brain cell cares whether or not the cause of warming over time is due to burning of fossil fuels or some yet undiscovered natural process...the only important question is whether or not there is anything we as a people could conceivably do to mitigate the environmental changes

Fortunately those of us with more than half a brain cell realize that the two are very closely linked. If the current rise in temperature is driven by natural cycles then stopping the burning of fossil fuel will have little, if any impact. So how do you know what to do to mitigate the impact if we are not certain what is causing it? Reducing fossil fuel use is probably a good idea but when I talk to scientists active in the field of climate research they themselves say that the jury is still out on how much is human driven vs. natural but reducing fossil fuel consumption is probably a good idea while we figure it out.

so in summary shut the fuck up and deal with consensus reality for once

What an enlightened attitude. I suppose a few thousand years ago you would have been arguing that the Earth is flat because that was the consensus? I'm a scientist so actual reality, rather than a group consensus of reality, is what I'm interested in. If you want to convince be I am wrong provide evidence and reasoned argument. Swearing about a consensus will help be form an opinion about you but will do little to persuade me that I'm wrong especially when I've spoken with colleagues in climate research and they say the same: it is not yet clear how much of the recent climate change is due to humans.

Re:...alternatively (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379027)

are you from that part of the united states where people vainly try to practice science backwards?

Re:A single weather station? (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378723)

But if you flip a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads 659 times, you can say with a high degree of confidence that the coin is not fair.

It may also be that you are reporting a number of tails as heads. Or didn't record a number of flips and are guessing at what those flips were from what you do have.

Re:A single weather station? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379165)

You cannot tell in advance easily whether it will rain or not or exactly what temperature it will be.

Actually when and where and how much precipitation will occur and temperature over time are some of the meteorological predictions that are almost always correct or very close within the time frame of a day or a few hours, and they're not all that difficult to formulate from collected data. What is tricky is correctly predicting weather a few days to a week away.

Re:A single weather station? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379197)

With enough measurements over a long enough period of time, you can see the climate change at only one weather station.

From observing weather stations across the globe, we can be certain that the time since 1958 isn't enough to discern any trend from a single weather station.

Re:A single weather station? (-1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378643)

A single weather station? Whatever happened to "weather's not climate?"

Also, why is this single weather station suddenly getting a paper? It's been there since 1958, there is nothing here we didn't know.

When it is a crisis who will remember all these little events pointing to what became the rising sea levels and flooding of major metropolitan areas around the world? Almost the same sort of blinkered view which didn't see the Nazis invading Poland or IJN bombing Pearl Harbor until it was actually happening.

Re:A single weather station? (1, Insightful)

repapetilto (1219852) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378819)

Well not even scientists are saying this. That is just the news. Go read what the scientists are saying then come back informed.

Faster than thought.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378259)

...now _that's_ fast.

It's not all bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378261)

Hopefully when the ice melts we will find the abandoned alien base.

Re:It's not all bad (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378549)

I certainly hope not [wikipedia.org] .

West? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378279)

Which way is west in antarctica?

Re:West? (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378379)

Which way is west in antarctica?

Face north, then turn left.

Re:West? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378501)

That still doesn't correct any ambiguity. The "western half" of Antarctica is the part to your left if you are standing at the pole facing along the prime meridian towards Greenwich.

Re:West? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378597)

Whoosh.

Strange Name (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378707)

While you can find west there is no "western edge" to the continent so it seems a somewhat strange name given that no part of the continent is more westerly than any other.

Re:West? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378857)

My guess it that it is between 0 longitude and 180 longitude.

But that is just a guess.

Re:West? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378877)

The western part is the skinny bit, the eastern part is the fat bit. Remember it as the eastern bit is south of China and the western bit is south of Texas.

Re:West? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379055)

Which way is west in antarctica?

Face north, then turn left.

Which north?

Re:West? (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378387)

north.

Re:West? (2)

reub2000 (705806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378509)

I'm guessing the portion west of the prime meridian and east of the international date line. Just a guess.

Re:West? (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378537)

Which way is west in antarctica?

It's in the greatest hemisphere on earth - the western hemisphere!

West Antarctica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378281)

Isn't just about everything more or less north in Antarctica?
Defining west in Antarctica is like trying to find a corner in which to piss in the oval office.

Re:West Antarctica? (3, Interesting)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378325)

Thats only at the South Pole

Antarctica is BIG

Bigger than the 48 states

Re:West Antarctica? (4, Funny)

josmith42 (1443813) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378459)

I just looked at Antartica in Google Maps. According to Google, it's bigger than the rest of the continents combined! Forget about raising ocean level. That fucker's gonna extinguish the sun if it melts.

Re:West Antarctica? (1)

bunratty (545641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378593)

Most common projections of the globe [xkcd.com] onto a float surface do not preserve area. Very often, the area near the poles is exaggerated. Greenland is actually smaller than Australia.

Re:West Antarctica? (2)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378629)

I just looked at Antartica in Google Maps. According to Google, it's bigger than the rest of the continents combined! Forget about raising ocean level. That fucker's gonna extinguish the sun if it melts.

On the internet, nobody knows if you're stupid or actually making a joke about distortions in size due to mapping projections.

Re:West Antarctica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379287)

I just looked at Antartica in Google Maps. According to Google, it's bigger than the rest of the continents combined! Forget about raising ocean level. That fucker's gonna extinguish the sun if it melts.

On the internet, nobody knows if you're stupid or actually making a joke about distortions in size due to mapping projections.

True, but before posting, remember - the default is set at "you're stupid"

Re:West Antarctica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378921)

The Greenland icesheet is exactly the same size as the Australian state of Queensland (bigger than Texas and smaller than Alaska) and up to 4 km thick. Its melting wil raise the ocean by about 5 metres. West Antarctica is the small bit of that continent and the ice sheet melting there would raise the ocean by another 15 metres. East Antarctica is the fat bit, it's thought that its ice has never melted since it first formed and its melitng would raise the ocean by another 60 metres. My place is high up with long panoramic views in an arc of 270 degrees and it's 25km from the ocean. If all three melt ice caps melt then my place will be on the seaside at the end of a peninsula.

aliens! (0)

pbjones (315127) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378317)

the Aliens are starting to thaw out and the invasion will start soon.

Re:aliens! (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378413)

maybe ET has this Reality Show thing figured out. essentially the Redneck Request: Hey Y'all, Watch This.

Y?ou fail it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378403)

I don't want to PPor priorities, [nero-online.org].

Why is that in Fahrenheit? (4, Insightful)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378435)

Is 4.4 much? Or is it not so much?
Scientific articles that suddenly use Fahrenheit are ... disgusting.

Re:Why is that in Fahrenheit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378499)

4.4 degrees is so trivial as to be disregardable. Proof that AGW and climate change is just made up by alarmists. Even science cannot be trusted because it is by committee what their official beliefs are.

Re:Why is that in Fahrenheit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379247)

Close. The current state has it that science cannot be trusted because they have to bias their research results so as to continue to get grant money from more politicized sources. We really don't know what many scientists do or do not believe because they cannot say anything that would compromise their funding.

There are a few that do not worry about this but they are usually branded as rogues that cannot be trusted.

You might guess that I don't believe that all global warming is AGW but even if it is then there's not much we can do to stop it. People are animals at their core and they will do whatever they feel they need to in order to survive and procreate as comfortably as they can. You have the inertia of the perceived needs of 7 billion individuals to fight. If it is AGW then we'll have to accept, adapt and improve using what we're left with. If it's not, then we'll have to accept, adapt and improve using what we're given.

Re:Why is that in Fahrenheit? (1)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378627)

its the difference between a long sleeve shirt and a hoodie say 60 degrees you have a long sleeve shirt 56 degrees is a hoodie(of course this is all relative as to how you feel the weather, personally i dont need a hoodie till about 48-50 degrees Fahrenheit).

So to be quite frank, it's the difference between no breeze and a slight one, will you feel it yes, will it bother you...not really.

Re:Why is that in Fahrenheit? (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378639)

Same reason you weight yourself in stone [wikipedia.org] when you are on a diet. It makes the numbers sound better.

Re:Why is that in Fahrenheit? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379403)

He he he ...

Fahrenheit below freezing?! (1)

amorsen (7485) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378437)

From the article "[..] average annual temperatures in the center of the ice sheet that are nearly 50 degrees Fahrenheit below freezing." What is that, -50F or -18F?

"Celcius below freezing" I can understand, but not Fahrenheit or Kelvin. Well I suppose Kelvin could make sense, "Kelvin below freezing" would mean exactly the same as "Celcius below freezing".

Re:Fahrenheit below freezing?! (3, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378477)

Kelvins below freezing would not make any sense. Kelvins are absolute units. 0 K is absolute zero. 1 K is one degree Celsius above absolute zero. On the other hand, degrees Fahrenheit below freezing makes perfect sense. One degree Fahrenheit below freezing is 31 degrees Fahrenheit.

Re:Fahrenheit below freezing?! (2)

wakeboarder (2695839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378531)

Its all part of those in science who are evil and want to confuse you. I've also wondered the same thing, but if your just measuring a differential temperature 1K is the same as 1C when talking relative temperature.

don't tell me you've never heard of hyperfreeze (4, Funny)

decora (1710862) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378555)

It's how Geordi solved the locked intercooler problem in season 7 episode 14 - the Ferengi warp coils had damaged the nydomium lines to the point where crystalline anti-pores were building up inside the reaction chamber. He had to redirect the hauser inverters to counterfeed through their own backup loop just to keep the Marfa separators from clogging.

Re:Fahrenheit below freezing?! (2)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379075)

Kelvins below freezing would not make any sense. (...) One degree Fahrenheit below freezing is 31 degrees Fahrenheit.

Negative Kelvins would make no sense, but as long as the freezing point is 0 C = 32 F = 273.15 K then one degree Kelvin below freezing would be 272.15 K. Why should it be any different for Kelvins than for Fahrenheit?

Re:Fahrenheit below freezing?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378489)

Kelvin below freezing would make exactly as much sense as Farenheit below freezing, or Celius below boiling, since none of those scales is zeroed at the point referenced. While it does presume knowledge of the reference point given, it is probably used in this instance to lend context to the figures being described for readers who do not have a personal reference for what -18F is like.

Re:Fahrenheit below freezing?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378495)

It's not that the article is stupid. You are.

Re:Fahrenheit below freezing?! (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378667)

From the article "[..] average annual temperatures in the center of the ice sheet that are nearly 50 degrees Fahrenheit below freezing." What is that, -50F or -18F?

"Celcius below freezing" I can understand, but not Fahrenheit or Kelvin. Well I suppose Kelvin could make sense, "Kelvin below freezing" would mean exactly the same as "Celcius below freezing".

When you say "degrees C below freezing" it would be reasonable to assume that by "freezing" you mean the freezing point of water, because that is what Celcius is calibrated to.

Fahrenheit is calibrated to the temperature of an salt + icy water solution (I think - or at least something like that), so if you said "degrees F below freezing" it could be a little ambiguous as to what you mean, at least to someone from a country that no longer uses the older measures. (My first guess would be "degrees F below the freezing point of goats blood"... based on what I know about the countries that still use Fahrenheit ;)

If the popular media started using Kelvin for any form of such measurement I'd regard them as too pretentious and would stop reading.

West Antartica? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378449)

Where on the map is this mysterious "West Antartica". It looks like there is south Antartica and everything else is northern Antartica.

Re:West Antartica? (1)

mab (17941) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379011)

The part that lies west of the IERS Reference Meridian (which crosses Greenwich, London, United Kingdom) and east of the Anti-meridian

"Worse Than We Thought" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378463)

Global Warming Advocates promote Arctic Ice Melting when the Northern hemosphere has its summertime.
Once wintertime comences in the Nothern Hemos and the Southern Hemos has begun it's summer, "ICE melting in Antarctic faster then previously thought".

How many more fear mongering "worse than we thought" reports are we going to tolerate until we see notice it's all for naught?

When only we cut through the sensationalistic distortion to discover, it's to promote carbon life tax credit exchange bury your f-ing children because the materials coporations need to maintain captiolism and your life is not worth living hype?

No other coutry is buying it, and why shoud we?
Because the USA has TONS of land that is benificial for human development and growth and resource trade.
The countless agencies and politicians that sell us and our homes out from under our nose.
As they place us under trillions in debt, try to convince us to give up our guns, our right to privacy and due process.
Make the cost of living so damn high and the fear of your neighbor so damn great that an alien in another glaxy seems more friendly. Divide us under issues of family and love instigating fights for drug use or same sex whatever, while our birth rate plumits.
And the ignorace of the immegrant is a tool used by any poltician to snuff everyones liberty and human right for a false sense of security.

Only the blind....

Re: "Worse Than We Thought" (1)

minogully (1855264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378661)

Having trouble sticking to one topic, are we?

Re: "Worse Than We Thought" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379299)

It does actually all come together in a thing called Agenda 21, a reformation of the political structure of the world into a single world government. The Agenda needed a single threat to try and force everyone into a single path and that's AGW. To create a sustainable world they needed a way to bring the American middle class to its knees and live at a subsistence level like the third world countries and the financial crisis will do that. To create a sustainable world they need to bring the world's birth rate under control and social changes that make the standard family the exception will do that. The only thing left is to bring the current population down to a sustainable level but they'll need a large pandemic for that. Look up ebolapox. If it hasn't actually been created already, it's being worked on.

Isn't this great? (2)

Oceanplexian (807998) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378475)

In a few centuries we'll all be buying beachfront Antarctic condos.

Re:Isn't this great? (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378519)

hey...it happened in Vietnam. consult your agent.

West Antarctica... (5, Informative)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378529)

...is an interesting place. It "stick out" more than the rest of the continent and hence is surrounded by more water, and it's home to at least 6 surface volcanoes (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AntarcticVolcanoes2.jpg).

A few years back scientists discovered at least a bunch of sub-oceanic volcanoes with at least one merrily bubbling away. They remarked on how warm the waters were and how this had caused unique "oases" of lifeforms all along the extent. (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1541}

These and the unusual "surrounded by water" nature of this area are more likely contributors to localized melting.

Ferret

Re:West Antarctica... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379167)

That and the whole "global warming" thing.

And in a other news (1, Informative)

jacekm (895699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378539)

Jupiter pole has warmed by 10 degrees.

JAM

Re:And in a other news (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378601)

How about the rest of Antartica? (1)

wakeboarder (2695839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378551)

You always hear about the warmest part how about the rest of it? Oh, and I wanted to look up the local climate for my area because I got into an argument with my boss about local climate (I think it is warming up here). I could not download more than several days to 1 year of temperature data anywhere, so where would I find that data? Any guesses? I'm in the states. The best one I could find is weather underground, but that will only let you download a year-ish at a time.

Re:How about the rest of Antartica? (2)

dugjohnson (920519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378613)

You got in an argument with your boss? About weather? And you want to keep this job? If the latter, I'd figure out a way to prove your boss right and then suck up. Or you can just be right and hungry. Just a thought.

Re:How about the rest of Antartica? (4, Informative)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378655)

http://data.un.org/Explorer.aspx?d=CLINO [un.org]
About 5 minutes on google, didn't really check for much else being that i don't really care, but that should give you a starter point at the minimum.

Meh. (1, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378603)

Call me when Greenland is warm enough to support agriculture.

Re:Meh. (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378619)

It will be hard calling you six years ago [spiegel.de] .

Nevermind, figured it out... (5, Informative)

wakeboarder (2695839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378633)

This is a better link, and has more info: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-rapid-west-antarctic-ice-sheet.html [phys.org]

Re:Nevermind, figured it out... (2)

wakeboarder (2695839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379067)

You know this map says to me that Antarctica has warmed up 0.3C (or K) and quite possibly that one station in antartica is out of sync... And since this data is only from the last ~50 years, I don't feel the need to get worked up about it. By the way isn't the global average in the past higher than the 0.3C shown here?

WEST Antarctica? (2)

swell (195815) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378653)

I'm having a little trouble visualizing this concept.
I can imagine North, or South Antarctica, but those don't seem very useful either.

Re:WEST Antarctica? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378709)

Thank you. I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I'm guessing it's the left side, as one would view it on a map where North America is on the left, and Asia is on the right. The right side would be the east side I guess.

Re:WEST Antarctica? (1)

ballpoint (192660) | about a year and a half ago | (#42379365)

The right side would be the east side I guess.

And where do you guess the wrong side to be ?

Re:WEST Antarctica? (1)

vmxeo (173325) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378981)

I'm having a little trouble visualizing this concept.
I can imagine North, or South Antarctica, but those don't seem very useful either.

And here I thought the cardinal directions for that continent were North, South, More South, and Suddenly North Again.

Al gore just farted!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42378679)

Al gore just farted!!

and some areas in Russia... (0)

night_flyer (453866) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378717)

... are experiencing record cold

Down to -50C: Russians freeze to death as strongest-in-decades winter hits

http://rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/ [rt.com]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-25/russia-s-south-hit-by-record-low-temperatures-center-says.html [bloomberg.com]

Re:and some areas in Russia... (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378747)

We would expect to see some record lows even during warming [skepticalscience.com] . The important point is that there are many more record highs being hit in recent years than record lows, which is exactly what you'd expect if the climate is warming. You can't tell whether the Earth as a whole is warming or cooling based on cherry-picking data.

Wrong naming (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378873)

This is not about climate, is about temper. The measurement was done in the base now known as Angry Byrd.

Melting Antartica (5, Interesting)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year and a half ago | (#42378965)

Well, if we manage to melt Antartica, we are in hot waters!

Here is the sea rise interactive map [firetree.net] . You can choose how much sea level rise and see if you still live on land. I recall melting the whole Antartica would cause a sea rise of 70 meters. I do not know if it includes water thermal dilatation, but I hope it does.

thats nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42379187)

im just glad that we finally determined climate change was caused by natural phenomena and not mankind.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>