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!

Stronger Winds Explain Puzzling Growth of Sea Ice In Antarctica

Soulskill posted 1 year,1 day | from the ice-goblin-theory-slides-into-obscurity dept.

Earth 236

vinces99 writes "As NOAA announces a new record for the extent of sea ice in Antarctica, a new modeling study to be published in the Journal of Climate shows that stronger polar winds lead to an increase in Antarctic sea ice, even when Earth's overall climate is getting warmer. The study (abstract) by Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington oceanographer, shows that stronger westerly winds swirling around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in Antarctic sea ice volume during the past three decades. The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it also shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging. Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth. A computer simulation that includes detailed interactions between wind and sea shows that thick ice — more than 6 feet deep — increased by about 1 percent per year from 1979 to 2010, while the amount of thin ice stayed fairly constant. The end result is a thicker, slightly larger ice pack that lasts longer into the summer."

cancel ×

236 comments

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

host file apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44878725)

host file apk

OMG! It wasn't puzzling (0, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878741)

It was predicted through regression to the mean.

Now ignorant people are cherry picking it as if a predicted single even undermine all other data.

For fuck sake stop this ignorant nonsense.

Re: OMG! It wasn't puzzling (5, Insightful)

Truth_Quark (219407) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878891)

This isn't the northern sea ice. The Antarctic sea ice has been trending slowly upwards, overall. With strong loss near the peninsular.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44878897)

lol you aren't confusing 'Arctic' ice growth with 'Antarctic' ice growth are you? Might want to stop this ignorant nonsense (that's a phrase I heard somewhere).

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (0)

oodaloop (1229816) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878981)

For fuck sake stop this ignorant nonsense.

It's not healthy to talk to yourself in internet fora.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (2, Insightful)

fatwilbur (1098563) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879197)

Sure, but with this article we should admit there is still a lot of climate phenomena we do not understand, and therefore cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (2, Insightful)

Truth_Quark (219407) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879545)

There is a lot of active research in climate science.

But this article doesn't discuss what they all are. It shows that with better modelling of wind-sea interactions in the southern ocean, we can get a much better handle on what is happening to the southern sea ice.

I might be hypersensitive to the climate conspiracy theorists on the internet, but I read "therefore cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future", as the common wrong argument that therefore trying to reduce emissions is not justified, and this is why you try to hit this point despite its irrelevance to the article?

Higher uncertainty of the regional effects of global warming is not a good argument for not taking action, unless those regional effects have a very significant effect on global costs of adjustment. The CBR is running at about $10 in benefit for each $1 in emission reduction costs at the moment. With the developing world bearing most of the disbenefit of inaction, and that coupled with the least ability to finance. (You may remember the Stern Review [nationalarchives.gov.uk] ... The number date a bit, and you can argue the discount rate, but the orders of magnitude are pretty robust)

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880295)

"Higher uncertainty of the regional effects of global warming is not a good argument for not taking action...blah blah blah"

Probably the clearest admission that Climate Science isn't about science, but about the redistribution of wealth. It is the hijacking of Science in the name of radical leftist agendas with the Scientists playing the unwitting fools.

I hate Watermelons as much as the next Capitalist (2)

reluctantjoiner (2486248) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880479)

Truth Quark was just examining one of the arguments between inaction and action in a logical way. Put explicitly, climate change is a sufficient condition for reducing emissions, but not a necessary one. If an Oracle appeared and told you climate change was definitely not happening, would you stop trying to reduce pollution?

Slashdot likes car analogies, so here's one: When your mechanic says he can't find a problem, it doesn't necessarily mean your car is fine.

Re:I hate Watermelons as much as the next Capitali (1)

stoploss (2842505) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880813)

If an Oracle appeared and told you climate change was definitely not happening, would you stop trying to reduce pollution?

Ooh, I like this question and how it is phrased. Of course I would continue to advocate reducing pollution; however, CO2 wouldn't be defined as a pollutant as a corollary to the Oracle's statement.

No reason not to use fossil fuels then, unless scientists discover that the underground reservoirs of petroleum are reducing the Earth's density and are the only thing keeping our planet floating in space. Then I would advocate reducing consumption to fight Global Sinking.

Re:I hate Watermelons as much as the next Capitali (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44881061)

How about a slightly different one.

If an Oracle popped up and said that increases in atmospheric carbon levels and reduction in atmospheric oxygen levels would not change the global climate one bit.

Would you continue felling trees and burning fossil fuels until the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide would kill a human being.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879247)

It looks rather like the "global-warming-is-man-made-sound-the-alarms" people have been cherry picking. First it was the higher temperatures. Then when the temperatures did not support their theories, it was "well global warming causes extreme weather!". When THAT got disproven, it was "look-look-look, all the ice is melting!" Now that THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself, what will the GW people predict next?
Quite a few "inconvienent truths" seem to be getting in the GW peoples' way. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is stupid to treat it that way - unless you are a politician, who wants to tax the very air we beathe.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (1, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879367)

Anthropogenic global warming is causing the wind, of course!

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879401)

How was this modded insightful? None of those have been disproved. Look at any of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere for example. Not 1 of them is even as large as it was 25, 50, 75, or 100+ years ago. Many of them don't even exist anymore. Same in South America and anywhere along the equator. If you are trying to say this Antarctic ice difference makes up the total difference for a net 0 result, then you need to check your facts.

While I agree with you that trying to stop the change is foolish, I don't disputing that global warming exists. I just don't think we can do anything about it (even if Americans change their ways drastically China and India will compensate as their standard of living improves). Adapt or perish. That's how life has always worked on Earth.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (3, Insightful)

chipschap (1444407) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880201)

I think all the warming/no-warming climate-change/no-change argument misses an important point. There may be controversy and uncertainty, but it's got to be to our advantage to act prudently and reduce emissions. In other words, do we dare take a chance? It's a shame this has been reduced to politics instead of objective science.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880421)

This was the same "logic" that parent used when they refused to give their kids vaccines. Now their kids are dying of preventable diseases. Do we dare take a chance? FUCK YES! Reducing CO2 emissions is a huge waste of money, and hurts everyone. We absolutely should not make policies based on fear-mongering and bullshit pseudoscience.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (1, Troll)

riverat1 (1048260) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879565)

It looks rather like the "global-warming-is-man-made-sound-the-alarms" people have been cherry picking. First it was the higher temperatures. Then when the temperatures did not support their theories, [Stee-rike one!] it was "well global warming causes extreme weather!". When THAT got disproven, [Stee-rike two!] it was "look-look-look, all the ice is melting!" Now that THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself, [Stee-rike three, ye're outta here!]

... what will the GW people predict next?

Something that you will again totally misunderstand the meaning of.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (3, Informative)

riverat1 (1048260) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880753)

Hmm... I guess y'all want a more serious answer.

It looks rather like the "global-warming-is-man-made-sound-the-alarms" people have been cherry picking. First it was the higher temperatures. Then when the temperatures did not support their theories,

While the slope of temperature increase in the atmosphere is lower than it was in the 1980's and 1990's, the 2000's was still the hottest decade in the modern temperature records and 2005 & 2010 are tied for the hottest year in most of them (1998 still is hottest in HADCRUT3). The oceans are still warming and the ice is still melting. None of this is a surprise to climate scientists who realize that natural variability can overcome the forcing of greenhouse gases for a decade or more. The oceans, where over 90% of the heat of global warming goes anyway are still warming and the next time we get a moderately strong El NIno (which reduces the heat going into the ocean) you can bet we will set a new global temperature record (unless we coincidentally get a large volcanic eruption).

it was "well global warming causes extreme weather!". When THAT got disproven,

You've got a little bit of truth in this because global warming doesn't cause any kind of weather in and of itself. What is does is affect the context within which weather occurs. So for instance if the climate is warming then the high temperature events will be a little warmer and the peaks a little higher. There is more energy in the system to drive weather. There is more water vapor in the atmosphere to drive precipitation.

it was "look-look-look, all the ice is melting!" Now that THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself,

When you look at natural ice on the Earth it can be divided into a number of categories. The ice sheets (Greenland & Antarctica), the lesser ice fields and glaciers, the ice shelves (the tongues of glaciers floating on the sea) and sea ice in the Arctic and in the Antarctic. Of all of those kinds of ice the only one that has had a net increase is the Antarctic sea ice which is a very small portion of all of that ice. The net volume of all of the ice taken together is on a strong downward path.

The climate conspiracy theorists are out in force. (4, Informative)

Truth_Quark (219407) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879689)

It looks rather like the "global-warming-is-man-made-sound-the-alarms" people have been cherry picking

No, this is not cherry-picking. There's not question that the earth is warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. The oceans are expanding [csiro.au] . The surface temperatures [nasa.gov] are increasing.

This paper looks at the response in the Antarctic Sea Ice, and has found a possible improvement to its understanding.

No cherry picking involved.

Then when the temperatures did not support their theories, it was "well global warming causes extreme weather!".

It was always suspected that global warming would increase extreme weather events because hurricane intensity is highly related to sea surface temperature when they form, and more energy in the atmosphere gives more evaporation so heavier rainfall.

But the theories are thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and optics. They are not challenged if warming is only 0.1C per decade for a decade instead of the long term trend of 0.16C per decade.

When THAT got disproven, it was "look-look-look, all the ice is melting!" Now that THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself, what will the GW people predict next?

The northern sea ice [washington.edu] is in steep decline. The Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland Ice Sheet [wiley.com] are in accelerating decline.

How on god's green earth do you manage to get to "THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself" for there?

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is stupid to treat it that way.

You've not heard of the greenhouse effect then?

Re:The climate conspiracy theorists are out in for (3, Interesting)

Truth_Quark (219407) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880887)

Flamebait??!!

When did slashdot become a stronghold of science-denialist crackpots?

There are about ZERO scientific organizations: (as of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change [wikipedia.org] ), and about ZERO scholarly papers (Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position [sciencemag.org] ) that support your denialist bullshit.

The OP is a perfectly scientific discussion of a finding about the changes in Antarctic Sea Ice. How the hell did the average IQ in here drop so far that this became a George-C-Marshall deniomatic thread.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880477)

Anonymous Coward asks "... unless you are a politician, who wants to tax the very air we beathe.(?)"

Large companies, that's who. If a company (or government) can figure out how to make money by charging you for fresh water and air, you bet.
Consider 'fracking' is destroying grown water.
Consider 'deforestation' and expanding cities and suburbs are destroying the biomass.
The 'fact' that some of this is 'accidental' is just a simple way of covering up the emergent property of industrialization and population increase.
Once jobs depend on the air and water not being 'free', you can bet the tide will never turn back.
There's no money for companies or governments if you can get something 'free' from the land.
You simply aren't paranoid enough.

Re:OMG! It wasn't puzzling (2)

Jerry (6400) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880743)

When a theory cannot be falsified because ad hoc adjustments explain every discrepency, it has become a belief.

Lol, yea it ok. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44878765)

Lol, yea it ok.

Still Cold (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878767)

So it's still code as buggery down there?

Re: Still Cold (3, Informative)

Truth_Quark (219407) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879047)

Eastern Antarctica is affected by ozone loss, which is a strong greenhouse gas. It's still cold. The Antarctic peninsular is warming at about three times the global average. That's getting quite balmy.

Re: Still Cold (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879639)

I always thought buggery was rather hot. Maybe that's just me.

Snowball Earth (1)

Pecisk (688001) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878787)

Smells like "Snowball Earth" scenario.

Re:Snowball Earth (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879579)

You need to get your smeller fixed.

Wat? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44878835)

I really did believe in global warming, but now even I am beginning to wonder about the way every event that seems to discount climate change predictions is attributed to an outlying event, while everything that seems to prove climate change is attributed to human caused global warming...

Re: Wat? (0)

Truth_Quark (219407) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878967)

This does not suggest that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, nor that burning fossil fuels release it. It is a study of why the southern sea ice has been growing, not near the antarctic peninsular. The southern ocean is still seeing devastating effects of anthropogeneic climate change on biodiversity. As are many parts of the the world. Increasing temperatures are allowing crabs to invade ecosystems on the continental shelf that have not seen such predators for millions of years. The destruction is almost total. Studying an aspect of climate change does not refute the rest of it.

Re:Wat? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878971)

I'm not clear. How does this disprove climate change?

Re:Wat? (2, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879411)

In exactly the same way that the lack of "divine manifestation" disproves the existence of god. Unless, of course, you "believe". Then you'll see divine manifestations everywhere, even in your breakfast cereal.

Re:Wat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880249)

Oh, thank goodness for that. I thought the dishwasher was leaving debris on the bowls again.

Re:Wat? (5, Funny)

Lendrick (314723) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879173)

The global average temperature is still trending up. But to consider things a bit more accurately:

Think of the earth as one big system. For the most part, energy only comes in and goes out through the atmosphere. At the moment, gases in the atmosphere are causing the earth to radiate slightly less energy out into space than it takes in. Before we got started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, earth was in a state of equilibrium, but that equilibrium has been disrupted. Provided we can stabilize that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should reach a new state of equilibrium, and with any luck, it will be similar to the one we were in before.

If not, then there are a lot of things that could happen, and most of them aren't good.

Extra energy in the atmosphere often becomes heat. This is pretty much the simplest thing that can happen.

Extra energy can also go into warming the land. This seems like a good thing, because the land can act as a buffer by absorbing energy from the atmosphere, but if the land gets too warm and old swamps start to thaw out, large quantities of methane will be released into the air, which will further decrease the earth's ability to radiate excess energy.

Extra energy can also cause increased evaporation of water from the ocean, which increases cloud cover and precipitation. This is why snow isn't evidence that global warming has somehow reversed. That being said, cloud cover and snow are both white, which increases the amount of light reflected back out into space. The trouble is, we're not going to reach an equilibrium state until the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere level off. Increased precipitation might stave off big rises in temperature for a while. Or, it's possible that precipitation will increase so much that the ice sheets will expand very rapidly, causing the earth to radiate away *more* energy than it takes in, which could set off an ice age, which would be really bad. Or, it's possible that cloud cover and precipitation aren't enough to counteract the warming effect at all, in which case we'll continue to see the heating that we're seeing now.

In any case, as long as we're increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, we're pushing things further and further out of equilibrium. If we can't get things under control, it is inevitable that things will eventually swing wildly out of control, because there are only so many potential buffer effects that might absorb or reflect the excess energy. Take the aforementioned cloud cover and precipitation. Since we can increase the greenhouse gases in the air indefinitely, even if cloud cover and precipitation are enough to equalize things for a while, eventually they aren't going to be enough. Or, as I said earlier, they might spiral out of control and become too much. We don't know for sure. But eventually, bad things will happen.

Maybe if we're lucky it'll be in a few hundred years. If we're not so lucky, maybe a few decades.

Re:Wat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879527)

Before we got started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, earth was in a state of equilibrium

When was it in equilibrium? Where is that extensive data set stored?

Re:Wat? (5, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879869)

Equilibrium? Extra energy often becoming heat? Ancient swamps thawing? [worldoceanreview.com] Additional atmospheric water vapor helps cooling? [nasa.gov] , Apocalyptic heat death in a few decades?

I'm really not trying to be mean to you, because we need to stop poisoning ourselves. But posts like yours do not help. Your post is a "deniers" wet dream. It's makes people who want to be better stewards of the planet look like crazy people.

The temperature trends look like they are going up at an insane rate if you look at the last 500, or 1000 years. But if you look at the last 200K years of half or million years, it's debatable.

The earth is not and hopefully will never be in a state of equilibrium any time soon. Do you know what is in a much closer state of atmospheric equilibrium? The moon is a pretty good place to look. Mars isn't bad either. I don't know about you, but I like our atmosphere. As long as we have it and there are living things on this planet, it will remain that way. Hopefully for a very long time.

I'm not even going to get started on the heat energy thing

I assume the link above is what you are referencing in regards to as "old swamps". At least that's what I'm guessing as I've never heard of the danger of thawing swamps. Plus there's a hell of a lot more methane in those formations than any swamp. It's also unknown if that methane will be released with rising temperature. But like you, I'd rather not find out. I would much prefer it remain an academic debate than see it put to the test.

There is strong evidence for the Albedo effect [wikipedia.org] . However the link regarding atmospheric water vapor also seems to provide compelling evidence that water vapor in the atmosphere is also a strong greenhouse gas.

I understand that trying to make this problem something dire that will affect most of us in our lifetimes seems like a way to make others more motivated. But when it doesn't happen in the ridiculously short time-frames you are using, it makes most people call BS. Spreading this amount of misinformation is really not helping. I apologize for sounding like an ass, but posts like yours make it too easy for those who don't give a shit to keep on not worrying about it.

Re:Wat? (2)

Lendrick (314723) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880425)

The earth is not and hopefully will never be in a state of equilibrium any time soon. Do you know what is in a much closer state of atmospheric equilibrium? The moon is a pretty good place to look. Mars isn't bad either. I don't know about you, but I like our atmosphere. As long as we have it and there are living things on this planet, it will remain that way. Hopefully for a very long time.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "equilibrium". Perhaps I'm using the wrong word, but the sort of equilibrium I'm talking about is the fact that on the time scale of a few years, our climate is relatively predictable, even if the weather is not. You don't know how hot or cold it will be tomorrow, but you do have some idea, within a few degrees, of what the average temperature will be over the course of a year. When I talk about things falling out of equilibrium, I mean a change in energy to the extent that the entire climate will shift one way or another.

Re:Wat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879915)

The global average temperature is still trending up.

Source 1 [nytimes.com]
Source 2 [forbes.com]
Source 3 [spiegel.de]

Many more available online.

I read your first sentence and stopped. When you begin with a lie the rest of what you say is probably crap. Is this a case that if you say it enough people will just refuse to look up the truth for themselves?

Re:Wat? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880765)

It all depends on your point of view. If you're a global warming proponent then the temperature is trending up. If you are a global warming denier then the temperature isn't trending up. I'm enjoying this debate with it's non-stop fact making.

Re:Wat? (1)

Petfish (1254220) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879651)

Why is climate not "narcissistic" and "egotistical"? When anonymous cowards "discuss" Snowden and Assange they always include these terms - why does climate science miss out?

Re:Wat? (1)

tsotha (720379) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880571)

It's like string theory - impossible to falsify. That's why it's not actually science.

Bullshit! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44878837)

Any time "experts" flawlessly explain occurances after the fact, even when it contradicts their predictions, it makes me believe they have no idea what they are talking about. Last summer, the north polar ice had "historic" reductions and would be gone in a few years with cataclysmic results. This summer, the record ice caps are explained by " climate change. I will believe these pig fuckers when they can accurately predict what will happen next year. Otherwise, why would I believe what they say will happen 10 years from now. Computer models are only as accurate as the assumptions programmed into them. Sorry if this challenges the religious beliefs of the climate change worshippers.

Re:Bullshit! (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878917)

No it's real my friend. You just need to believe.

Now put these flowers in your hair and come dance with us.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

varmfskii (2910763) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878951)

You never will accept because what you are saying is until they can predict the weather a year out you will not trust climate models.

Re:Bullshit! (1, Troll)

PortHaven (242123) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879011)

I'd settle for predicting the weather 5 days out. I am lucky if they can get it right two days out.

You are not winning your argument here.

Re:Bullshit! (2)

KirbyCombat (1142225) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879711)

actually. no. Please find 1 - just one - study that claimed that the polar ice was going to increase. What you will find is that study after study explains why what has already happened does not match what was predicted. Plain and simple - find the "om the good news side" part of the study. The weather is better in some plain in Chile. Some small part of Africa gets better... But you won't find it. All worse everywhere. All the time. Oh - those record hurricanes, both in frequency and size... well, actually now the models predict decreased hurricanes .....

Re:Bullshit! (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880771)

So what you are saying is they change the models to fit what happens? But that is science! You've stumbled onto the scientific method.

Re:Bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44878923)

Look up the difference between "weather" and "climate."

Re:Bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44878965)

Look up the meaning of average and standard deviation.

Re:Bullshit! (2, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879027)

Look up the meaning of variation. Prediction. Accuracy.

Both the weather and climate are vary and fluctuate greatly. Both are unpredictable. Both have a habit of showing mankind's predictions to always be wrong.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879075)

Weather: the state of the atmosphere where you are today.

Climate: change over time. Length of time? Whatever's convenient to your argument.

Re: Bullshit! (0)

Truth_Quark (219407) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879003)

The Northern summer sea ice is still in sharp decline. This article about the southern ice. At least the pig fuckers who study this can read.

Re: Bullshit! (1)

fazig (2909523) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879213)

I think the Coward was referring to this here [slashdot.org] , which curiously is about the northern ice.

Re: Bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880263)

Nope, it isn't. In fact this summer sea ice extend in the arctic was much higher (60%) than 2012. Do you call that decline?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Re: Bullshit! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880787)

But it must be declining. If the temperature is like 20 degrees hotter than it was a decade ago the ice has to melt. Doesn't it? Oh, now I'm so confused.

Re:Bullshit! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879383)

Why can't you comprehend that it just doesn't matter. Laws related to reducing global warming are good for the environment so it does not matter a damn what the data says. It is morally and ethically right to support global warming with or without the data. You're just trying to be a jerk and hurtful by arguing the position. It's like CONservatives arguing against food stamps. It doesn't matter that it is morally wrong to take money at gun point to give to another group because the other group includes children. As long as we are feeding children, they have no right to keep more than they need.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

sycodon (149926) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880365)

Laws related to reducing global warming are good for the environment so it does not matter a damn what the data says.

Evey now and then these people say what they really think and show their true intentions. The whole AGW thing is merely a cover for their agenda.

Do it because "it's for the children".

Re:Bullshit! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880795)

We have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Re:Bullshit! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879431)

I work in a government remote-sensing role, where we generate a lot of derived data (backed up by ground truth data we collect in the real world to compare against).

We've got a bit of an unspoken law about models: they're shit.

No matter how hard you try, when you attempt to model/simulate large-scale natural phenomena - where you have so many different systems affecting one another, and so much to keep track of - you end up with a realistic workload of dozens of man years of scientific development just to come up with the mathematical model (ignoring the software side to actually simulate it on a computer).

The end result of this is: People simplify, and then simplify again - to take what should take the better part of a couple years, and do it in 6 months to get reviewed and presented at their next conference of choice; ultimately coming up with useless results - which on the surface if they're lucky may look valid, but just end up proving to be horribly incorrect in a different spatial or temporal domain (eg: on another continent, or in your case - a year later...)

There's are of course a few exceptions to this rule (typically around radiative transfer models, and flood plain modeling - and a few other places where you're either working at such a low level and scale or an incredibly well studied field (eg: radiation/light physics has centuries of scientific backing)).

Needless to say though, 'climate change' is a worst case scenario here - large scale, many complicated systems, and in aggregate everything needed to model this accurately doesn't have the solid scientific understanding.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

arcticinfantry (1130171) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879457)

Good point. Now Slashdot Groupthink will mod you into obvlivion.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

jrumney (197329) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879477)

...and I'll believe your bullshit ranting when you learn some geography.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880801)

What has the study of rocks got to do with it?

Re:Bullshit! (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879487)

There's nothing insightful about the AC's comment. Instead it just demonstrates a very shallow understanding of of the subject that shows the AC has no idea what they are talking about.

While last year was a new record low for Arctic sea ice very few people in the cryology field thought it "would be gone in a few years with cataclysmic results". It's true though that late summer Arctic sea ice could be gone sometime in the 2020's and it's impossible to rule out cataclysmic results from that at this time. This summer the Arctic sea ice is no where near a record high but has merely moved back to the general declining path it's been on after last year's exceptional melt.

Climate scientists are trying to predict climate, not weather. The World Meteorological Organization's definition of climate is [wmo.int] :

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

To expect them to predict in detail the weather next year or even in 10 years is expecting too much. What they're predicting is what the average weather will be over a 30 year period given a specific input scenario. If you don't understand that in the first place you have no business commenting on the subject.

Climatology is not a working science yet (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879771)

The reason for this mess is that some climatologists fail to distinguish between their personal beliefs or gut feeling and what the scientific method really allows them to state with precision. They regularly claim that their observations "prove" their preferred interpretation despite the absence of any validly predictive theories in this area yet. All we have today are piecemeal components for some future theory.

The GCMs of climatology are helpful and fun, but they're just extremely rough approximations and full of known kludges (generously called 'shortcuts') to make the extraordinarily complex natural systems computable this side of eternity. The GCMs are certainly not accurate physical simulations of Earth's systems. The unknowns in our models are utterly vast.

It'll require many hundreds of years of further research before we have a deep understanding of how the biosphere and many circulatory systems operate and interact, not to mention the similarly complex effects introduced by humans. We're barely on the first rung of the ladder at the moment.

Right now climatologists are just handwaving, and can't be expected to do more than just handwave. Their observed data is very valuable as input, but any interpretations they might make are totally unsafe in a scientific sense, because the necessary foundation of a predictive Theory of Climatology that combines all the parts of the puzzle in a valid scientific way just doesn't exist yet.

Making conclusions in advance of predictive theory is not how the scientific method works. The honest scientists in the field know that, and they don't pretend otherwise.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

MHz-Man (1066086) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879777)

Apparently I'm the only one that noticed this article is about Antarctica and not the Arctic. Different side of the globe. The predictions for what will happen in the Arctic do not apply to Antarctica...

Re:Bullshit! (3, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880027)

Any time "experts" flawlessly explain occurances after the fact, even when it contradicts their predictions, it makes me believe they have no idea what they are talking about

Correcting your theories after they've been proven incomplete or incorrect is part of the scientific process. The alternative, declaring reality wrong if it disagrees with you, would be religion.

I guess this is why people seem to listen to religious experts more often than scientific experts.

Re:Bullshit! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880381)

They aren't correcting anything. They are making up new ones: A causes B. OK, except when it doesn't because C is happening...maybe.

Re:Bullshit! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880811)

Very Scientific! Brilliant!

Re:Bullshit! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880807)

I just have a hard time with people who piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Re:Bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44881037)

The point is that if your theory does not have predictive power then perhaps it is not such a good theory. Given a data set you can always do a backwards analysis that comes up with correlations for what happened. That isn't science.

Re:Bullshit! (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880039)

To all the idiots who modded this up: just one key mistake from the last few weeks is that there are no record ice caps, just that the growth from summer minimum has been going at an unusually high pace. We're still way below average ice coverage and volume.

And this is how you lie to ignorant people and make them believe whatever you want: tell them something that is close enough to the truth that they sort of remember something like it and that tells them they are going to be alright. They won't catch the error, happily repeat it to everyone, and then wonder why WW2 broke out.

We Know .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44878933)

The world is stranger than we can image.

Re:We Know .... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879039)

You "twerk" the truth brother....

One of Man's Vestigial Gifts (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878947)

is his inability to imagine he cannot explain every single thing. No matter where you mark time in history, you may rest assured that thinking men were fairly smug regarding the technology and science of their day.... there will hopefully always be much we have yet to comprehend.

Re:One of Man's Vestigial Gifts (1)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880815)

Bullshit! We'll keep making up new theories until one of them fits!

OMG....this blows... (0)

PortHaven (242123) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878987)

So wait, all this time I thought Global Warming and the melting of the arctic ice caps was due to CO2. But now I know, it's just the fact the northern hemisphere hasn't been very windy.

I mean if wind is responsible for 80% of the growth in the anarctic, then the arctic decline must be due to wind. If not, we can fix it by building huge fans in Alaska. Or just send all of the Tim Tebow and Miley Cyrus fans up that way.

Re:OMG....this blows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879007)

The winds are being caused by wind powered energy plants. They must be stopped at once before they freeze the entire earth!

Re:OMG....this blows... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879227)

Not to call you stupid, but there's a difference between the arctic and antarctic. This is talking about the antarctic, not the arctic.

Re:OMG....this blows... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879419)

Send him to the arctic to look for penguins and the first polar bear he sees will teach him the difference between the poles rather quickly.

Re:OMG....this blows... (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879655)

Until you understand the difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic you really can't understand why the two react differently to stimulus. Simply stated the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents while the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. That is one reason why the sea ice in the Arctic tends to persist over the summer while the sea ice in Antarctica melts completely away over the (southern hemisphere) summer every year. Because of those differences don't expect wind to have same effects on the Arctic sea ice as it does on the Antarctic sea ice.

Re:OMG....this blows... (4, Interesting)

bane2571 (1024309) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880513)

Despite the obvious fallacy of comparing the two, he does make a valid point. Every time you see something that discounts global warming impacts EG: Growth of ice in Antarctica increasing. It rapidly gets dismissed as "oh that is just natural variation" but you get the opposite EG: Loss of ice in the Arctic and it is end of the world global warming doom all the way down.

This kind of reporting is really very troublesome for both sides of the argument. Pro-AGW folks get painted as biased alarmists and Anti-AGW folks have any evidence they might use immediately dismissed.

I know enough to know I don't have the truth one way or the other about the whole AGW issue, but I sure as hell can tell when people are putting spin on things and everyone on both sides is doing that.

All those liberals (1, Interesting)

tmosley (996283) | 1 year,1 day | (#44878993)

All that damage control.

I don't understand why all the libs are butthurt, though. If you want an excuse to shut down industry, then you are looking in the wrong place. Ocean acidification is definitely real, and isn't disproved by a simple analysis of the IR and Raman spectra of CO2.

Seriously. Ocean acidification is far more dangerous than AGW could ever have been. Fisheries are already in a state close to collapse. Additional pressure from acidification could push them over the line and into extinction. That would be monumentally bad, on par with, say, the extinction of rice.

Re:All those liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879361)

So the ocean pH is going down, thus in the direction of acidity, but still waaaaaay alkaline?
Either way, the goal IS to shut down industry and stamp out greed, all those greedy westerners.
Meanwhile, we will keep energy from the poorest on the earth, all while touting the green scourge.
It is the end game, climate is simply the cause dejour.

Re:All those liberals (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879541)

So the ocean pH is going down, thus in the direction of acidity, but still waaaaaay alkaline?

It isn't whether the ocean is alkaline, but whether it's alkaline enough. Do you really want to see sea life reduced to algae, brittle stars, and squid?

Re:All those liberals (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880047)

So the stuff that's been predicted for years by climatologists is happening, and yet, for some reason, the core mechanism for it is wrong.

You are one piece of work.

Puzzling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879175)

There's nothing puzzling about it.

and.... (0)

viperidaenz (2515578) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879313)

This is what will happen when the Arctic ice recedes too far. It will be surrounded in water, the winds will circle it again, just like it does in Antarctica, and the ice will come back.

Antarctica was a lush rain forest before it split from Australia.

Re:and.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44881029)

Actually, it was Australia that split from the Antarctic, and for damned good reason.

Its hard to drink a beer when its a solid block of ice, and your testicles have retreated so far into your body you have 3 adams apples.

AI research (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879323)

And I thought they moved the goal posts too much in AI research, sheesh.

Strong winds are blowing bullshit over the artic (5, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879535)

I predict humans will observe the earth warming, then cooling, then warming, etc.. in a cycle that repeats itself over and over again with varying frequencies and amplitudes until such time humans become extinct and are replaced by a more evolved species that lacks the pretense of understanding a system as complex as the earth's macro climate.

Re:Strong winds are blowing bullshit over the arti (1)

mysidia (191772) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880179)

until such time humans become extinct and are replaced by a more evolved species that lacks the pretense of understanding a system as complex as the earth's macro climate.

Why wait?

I already understand earth's macro climate... it's very simple: When God cranks up the thermostat, the temperature increases. When God thinks it's too hot, he lowers the thermostat, and the temperature decreases. If he feels particularly sneaky one day; he lowers it a little more than usual, thus creating an ice age.

Re:Strong winds are blowing bullshit over the arti (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880861)

it is funny to see you criticize the "species" for arrogance when you yourself implicitly claim to know more than the smartest researchers it has, and do so without a shred of evidence in your support.

Could it be Superman? (1)

GoChickenFat (743372) | 1 year,1 day | (#44879607)

I seem to recall Superman having the ability to create ice by blowing a strong wind. Yep, must be Superman.

ahhh more climate change conspiracy theorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44879737)

got my tinfoil hat at the ready LOL

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880355)

Who even read anything from these 'climate experts' clowns anymore.

Everyone knows by now these 'experts' either have no idea wtf they're on about, or is lying to please the TPTB who approved their funding, or both.

80% NOT 100% (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880447)

So what is the p-value of the simulation compared to observational measurements? [Very likely 0.5 i.e. a 50 50 chance that the 'result' is a fluke.]

Ah. Don't know (!) ... and can't figure it out! ... just Not smart enough!

Just another 'near-miss' that misses the entire target ... and full fail.

These zombie paper things come along at this time of the year at a Dime A Dozen per day.

Grasping at straws (1)

p51d007 (656414) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880757)

The "global warming" crowd will grasp at anything to keep the myth about MAN made "climate change".

Um..., Earthquakes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44880767)

With earthquakes and volcanic activity on a steep rise,

With cometary activity increasing,

With the sun acting really oddly,

We know something is going on, and sure, the climate is also acting up, but with all those other factors included in our consideration, we can probably strike automotive exhaust of the list of probable culprits.

So what is going on, really then?

Here comes the Wave.

The Earth is not getting warmer! (1, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880789)

The data shows that after a spike in Earth's surface temperature two decades ago the temperature has stopped rising for 16 years. Even the British Meteorological Office has finally been forced to concede that the warming predicted from climate models has not occurred. Rather than confess that Global Warming is and always was based on poor science, the British Met Office now says warming has "paused" (as if they knew the future, which they clearly don't, since they've been wrong so far).

Then we have climate 'scientists' like James Hansen and Michael Mann who have been fraudulently manipulating NOAO and NASA data that didn't fit their climate warming alarmist hypothesis.

Yes, I know this information will be a big surprise for many of you. Before you call me a "loon" (or the favorite word of the anti-scientific climate alarmists, a "denier") or mod me down, I urge you to consider the science and analysis displayed here (mixed in with other articles): http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]

As an example, check out some of these graphs:
Arctic Sea Ice up 67% this year:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/in-praise-of-nasa/ [wordpress.com] [This graph is excellent, easy to see how the reported changes reported at the minimum exaggerate the change, good if you intend to freak people out]
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e [uaf.edu]
Fraudulent scientist James Hansen's predictions vs observation:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hansen-forecast-0-6oc-warming-from-1997-to-2013/ [wordpress.com]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/arctic-gains-seven-hundred-million-hockey-rinks-of-ice-since-last-year/ [wordpress.com]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-specious-long-term-trend/ [wordpress.com]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013/ [wordpress.com]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/monthly-ncdc-us-fraud-update/ [wordpress.com] [examples of data tampered with by climate scientists]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/tennessee-summers-have-cooled-dramatically-since-the-1920s/ [wordpress.com]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/arctic-ice-experts-say-the-arctic-is-past-the-point-of-no-return/ [wordpress.com]

If anyone has any questions about the graphs, or data that contradicts them then I'll be interested to hear it. I have an open mind - I'm just following the Scientific Method and going where the data leads. I hope you do too :)

The simplest explanation for the observed ice cap data, Antarctic ice growth, lack of any hurricanes in the US this August, drop in wildfires in the Continental US, many US States recording below average winter temperatures, etc etc is simply that the predicted "Global Warming" has not continued. In fact, there appears to be a very slight cooling (especially in the Southern Hemisphere). The weather has simply been going up and down as it always does on a year-to-year basis, with no real trend over the hundred year timescale.

Why does it matter? because the current meme of "Global Warming" is out of date. Some shysters have already switched meme to "Climate Change" so they can continue to pilfer your tax dollars - but the reality is that the Earth is not experiencing any climate changes that are abnormal. Even more dangerous than hucksters getting your tax money, are politicians that are making very bad decisions based on out-of-date memes and fraudulent science. This is killing people around the globe as heating and food becomes expensive. It also means that instead of tapping the vast gas reserves of the US and Canada the Western World continues to give money to Middle Eastern countries who use it to wage jihad around the globe and against each other (eg, Syria).

Simply look at the raw observations yourself (before they get tampered with by organizations like NASA and NOAO). You'll see that Climate Change is in defiance of observation. Anyone who says the "science is settled" is lying to you and being anti-scientific. Also, the word "consensus" is used. Remember, Galileo was one man against a "consensus", and who was right? Be like Galileo, and check the observations, not the prevailing opinion/talking points.

BTW: this *is* on-topic (I'm explaining the observations mentioned in the summary); I'm *not* being a troll, and providing quality references is *never* overrated. Just because you disagree with the observations is not a reason to wage jihad on me - instead, I urge you to check the data in the links I have provided.

The devil you know (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | 1 year,1 day | (#44880901)

The problem is that it's tough to decide which outcome is preferable -- avoiding the next ice age, or making it inevitable. As the southern ice sheets expand, more solar radiation is reflected back out, and when a tipping point is reached the ice age takes full hold until it basically exhausts itself of the ability to increase further and bounces back the other way. Which is more survivable? My money is on warmer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>