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!

Arctic Ice Extent Tops 2012's, But Is 6th Lowest In History

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the nicest-arsonist-on-the-block dept.

Earth 310

We mentioned recently the rebound in Arctic ice levels compared to those found at the end of last summer; now that the 2013 minimum has been reached, Forbes' Alex Knapp points out that 2013's figures still show the 6th lowest ice extent in recorded history. "This pattern is expected to continue as average global temperatures continue to rise, leading to further Arctic Ice melts. The volume of sea ice – that is, how thick the Arctic ice is, has also been steadily declining over the same period. And although the charts above only go back to the 80s, the loss of sea ice began several decades prior to that. In 2011, a paper published in Nature estimating Arctic ice extent for the past 1450 years shows a sharp decline in Arctic ice beginning in the mid-20th century."

cancel ×

310 comments

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

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921475)

That's weird. I wonder what's causing it to do that.

Re:Wow! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921581)

Arctic ice AGAIN?! This is obviously a left-wing propaganda topic designed to rewire your brain to receive the transmissions of the Jupiterians. AGW is fake of course, it's just part of their deception.

Wonder no more. (4, Insightful)

gargleblast (683147) | about 10 months ago | (#44921593)

Wonder no more: it is a statistical effect called Regression toward the mean. [wikipedia.org] Specifically: ... following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme.

Not that annual Arctic ice levels are entirely random. They are somewhat linked, hence this year's being among the lowest in observed history.

Re:Wonder no more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921731)

What is your confidence interval for making this claim?

Re:Wonder no more. (3, Funny)

real-modo (1460457) | about 10 months ago | (#44921953)

A fish.

Re:Wonder no more. (2)

real-modo (1460457) | about 10 months ago | (#44921957)

* Absurd questions demand surreal answers, and the surreal answer to every question is "a fish".

Re:Wonder no more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922371)

Why is the question absurd?

High confidence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922407)

What, in the meantime is your confidence in the ice being on the road to recovery?

Unacceptably low, I take it?

Re:Wow! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922359)

The arctic ice has been melting for the last 6000 years or so - or we wouldn't have the great lakes. The absolute asshole arrogance to think that anything man does will have a long-term effect on climate is unbelievable - these same idiots also claim we will be out of oil in a few years, but can't see that if we run out of oil, then we can't "affect the climate" long term.
Just another manufactured crisis to grab grant money and headlines - and the beauty is, if anyone disagrees, just claim they are not "educated" enough to understand....

Re:Wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922379)

How much do you get paid for this shilling gig? I mean, really. I want in.

Re:Wow! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922395)

How much do you get paid to call everyone who questions the leftist AGW wealth redistribution "solution" a shill? I mean, really. I want in.

ReMAX and Century 21 in Greenland (1)

retroworks (652802) | about 10 months ago | (#44921479)

If you want to speculate in real estate, go north young man.

Re:ReMAX and Century 21 in Greenland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921501)

Alaska had a real summer comparable to the lower 48 of the United States. Nice cabin there if the summers warm up to near 20 Celsius for months on end!

Re:ReMAX and Century 21 in Greenland (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921629)

I live about 2 hours from Anchorage. I wasn't any warmer than usual.

Re:ReMAX and Century 21 in Greenland (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 10 months ago | (#44921627)

If you want to really speculate, go south, grab all the new land before it becomes clear of ice next century. But maybe you will get to the race too late, probably oil companies already bought them.

So who said... (4, Insightful)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | about 10 months ago | (#44921481)

... that the trend of annual extent minima was supposed to be monotonic?

Re:So who said... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921617)

... that the trend of annual extent minima was supposed to be monotonic?

If that can possibly be phrased in a sexual manner then yo mama said it. That's who.

Re:So who said... (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 10 months ago | (#44921733)

Hmm, let me think... Was it Miley Cyrus? It was possibly part of the lyrics of her latest song, although to be honest I watched her video with the sound muted.

Re:So who said... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#44921811)

I don't know about that, but at least one professor at Cambridge predicted the ice would be gone by 2015-2016 [theguardian.com] .

Re:So who said... (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 10 months ago | (#44921913)

If the warming trend continued as it was, but as it has wavered slightly, we're looking at at least 2020.

Re: So who said... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921927)

Commentator at soccer match:

"If the ball had gone in the net, it would have been a goal!"

Re:So who said... (1, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 10 months ago | (#44921963)

That's pretty good, I remember back in the late 80's that they said that it would all be gone by 2000 or so.

Re:So who said... (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 10 months ago | (#44922061)

That's pretty good, I remember back in the late 80's that they said that it would all be gone by 2000 or so.

Ah, you remember that, do you?

"they" said.

Who was they? When in the late 80's. Where was this published? What does "2000 or so" mean?

Re:So who said... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922313)

Scientists.
This source is dated 1960.
New Scientist.
The year 2000.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=yJjFw4bzRi0C&pg=PA1453&dq=global+warming&hl=en&ei=_vZbTfq4F5OCsQPI5vyxCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Re:So who said... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922397)

I seem to recall reading about the flying cars we'd have by the year 2000. I also remember reading that we'd have man-portable telephones around then.

Are you suggesting that the models used in 1960 are equally reliable to the models used in 2013?

Or are you suggesting that because some people were wrong about something in 1960, some other people can not be right about something else in 2013?

Why a line? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921495)

Why not fit an ARIMA model to the daily data along with some sin functions (or whatever oscillating function would be good) instead of taking averages

Re:Why a line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921611)

Here is an example from John Kruschke using JAGS:
http://doingbayesiandataanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/bayesian-estimation-of-trend-with-auto.html

It would be interesting to hear why this approach is not taken more often for this type of data.

Re:Why a line? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921687)

The reason this isn't used is because it would create a model that was cyclic rather than leading to a catastrophic end. You won't make any money or political points from a cyclic phenomenon if people think that the trends will reverse and not become catastrophic.

Re:Why a line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921715)

Well if you look at the example it has linear trend + lag-1 autoregression + cosine function. So they could still have the catastrophic trendline if desired.

Re: Why a line? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921933)

Typical statisticians: the trends justify the means...

I'll get me coat.

Re:Why a line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922311)

Or to put it another way, we don't have any good reason to believe the phenomenon is cyclic, and therefore we don't try to use a cyclic model to explain it.

The models we use don't inherently lead to a catastrophic end, and so if they do predict one then that's informative. In contrast, a cyclic model predicting cyclic behaviour tells us nothing at all.

history? (4, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#44921497)

Reliable monitoring with authoritative of sea ice extents began only with the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on the satellite Seasat launched June 28, 1978.

Very spotty records before that time are not considered reliable.

Re:history? (5, Informative)

haruchai (17472) | about 10 months ago | (#44921507)

The Danes have excellent records going back to the '30s.
And let's not forget that the volume is also dropping precipitously but that's much more difficult to measure.

Re:history? (2, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 10 months ago | (#44921639)

Even if it goes back to the '30s, 80 years is a millisecond in geologic terms. There is too much emphasis put on "recorded history" when is is such a short time period.

Re:history? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921701)

True, but you can make some deductions from biology. The existence of polar bears, not to mention their threatened status with receding ice, paints a picture of a lot of ice going way back: had there been no ice 100 years ago, there would be no polar bears. 100 years isn't time enough for them to evolve from brown bears.

Re:history? (4, Informative)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 10 months ago | (#44921799)

So where were they when it was warm enough that the Vikings had two separate colonies on the southern shores of Greenland? Or was Canada still frozen while Greenland was basking in warmth?

Re:history? (-1, Flamebait)

Deluvianvortex (2908365) | about 10 months ago | (#44921855)

Except those colonies both failed from lack of food so your idea that it was warm seems deductively false.

Re:history? (5, Informative)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 10 months ago | (#44922029)

They failed after being there for 500 years. The first 400 must have been warm enough to keep them there and in good health.

It was only later that the climate cooled, and they were forced to change their lifestyle, and finally leave Greenland.

So my point stands: When it was that warm in Greenland, it was certainly warm in Canada and Alaska. So where did the polar bears live, if warmer water is lethal to them?

.
PS. This article says the Vikings actually adapted to the colder climate, and ate more seal meat as their livestock dwindled over the colder years. They only left in the end because they couldn't trade for needed materials anymore.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists-uncover-clues-to-why-vikings-abandoned-greenland-a-876626.html [spiegel.de]

Some data (4, Interesting)

amaurea (2900163) | about 10 months ago | (#44922097)

There is some discussion on this here [skepticalscience.com] .

In particular, these two images from the same article are interesting: Temperature anomaly for the medieval warm period [skepticalscience.com] and temperature anomaly for the period 1999-2008 [skepticalscience.com] . Both are anomalies relative to the same 1961-1990 average, so they should be directly comparable, though of course the medieval warm period is a reconstruction with significant uncertainties.

So to answer your question. yes, you could say that "Canada was still frozen while Greenland was basking in warmth". Though temperatures slightly elevated in some parts of Canada, most of it was cold. And none of them were anywhere near as hot as they are now.

Re:history? (2, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 10 months ago | (#44921973)

Yeah...you might just want to stop trotting out the "threatened status with ice" bit. There's no shortage of the bloody things, if anything there are more every passing year and their range of liveable area keeps expanding. In fact, there have been more than a few clashes between brown and polar bears in the last few years. As a fun point, we have them here in Ontario, and not all that far outside of the "southern half" of the province. And they range south, even in the summer here. There have been warnings posted as far south as Kesagami Provincial Park.

Re:history? (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 10 months ago | (#44922081)

You are still thinking too short a time period. I am thinking 1,000, 10,000 and 100,000 years ago. What happened in the last 500 years is still to short a time to say that ice loss similar to what is happening now has not happened before and without the help of man.. Recorded history is a snap of the fingers in geologic time.

Re:history? (3, Funny)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#44922243)

100 years isn't time enough for them to evolve from brown bears.

They didn't evolve from Brown Bears. They transformed from Cartesian Bears :)
We may as well just laugh because the science deniers have even more of a problem with evolution than they do with the climate changing. Both argue against a perfect unchanging world since day 7 which Christianity-Lite likes to pretend is the state of things.

Re:history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921737)

Are you a scotsman or a TRUE scotsman?

Re:history? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 10 months ago | (#44921801)

He sounds like someone who doesn't have to resort to high school debate team minutia to make a point. You should try that next time.

Re:history? (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 10 months ago | (#44921663)

There's some pretty good volume estimates based on declassified sonar maps from the cold war, volume is now roughly 1/5th of what it was when I was born in the late 50's.

Re:history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921621)

So perhaps it should be in "8th lowest in recorded human history". So only a few thousand years when there certainly was more ice. Ask the Inuit how they like their "dancing trees" and tundra turning to bogs.

You should consider *reading books* about arctic explorers back "in the day".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen [wikipedia.org]

Let's just say, if there wasn't so much more ice back then, it would not have taken him 2 years to cross the northwest passage. Today, he would have sailed straight through, not even seeing any ice.

But let's not get facts in the way.

Re:history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921683)

Yeah, let's not. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Re:history? (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#44921649)

So it's the sixth lowest record in 35 or so such records. That's a bit underwhelming. And I find it interesting how the other replier goes on to say that ice volume is down significantly even though it is "hard to measure". It's interesting how much modern climatology relies on data that is hard to verify.

Re:history? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921773)

Yes a bit like saying the earth is still warming because the heat is in the deep ocean while admitting that we have no way of measuring that and establishing wether that's true or not.

Re:history? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921793)

With the new European satellite, its not hard to measure at all. Don't confuse "hard to estimate" with inaccurate. Such cute sophism may be great on blogs but is meaningless as far as the science is concern.

It is interesting that the climate deniers new trick of trying to quickly put out a spin on science stories is actually turning out to be a disaster for them as their denial only gives more and more media outlets and scientists to set their missinformation campaigns back before they even get started. The good news is that more people are getting educated on the subject far more quickly than before. Progress is being made. When the Arctic is ice free in summers, probably within the next decade the deniers will have no credibility left, which will be good for the effort to curb fossil fuel exploration and development, not to mention use.

Re:history? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921815)

When the Arctic is ice free in summers, probably within the next decade the deniers will have no credibility left, which will be good for the effort to curb fossil fuel exploration and development, not to mention use.

And if the arctic is not free of ice?

Re:history? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#44921857)

When the Arctic is ice free in summers

Which is just fine. That would be observable. And when you're done screwing around with the "climate deniers" perhaps we can then discuss just how much of a problem AGW would be at that point.

Re:history? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#44922251)

Why are you pretending that effects are not "observable" now?

Global Climate Change (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921499)

Not just "science", it's a religion too!

We'll bend the data any way we can, to show it's all the fault of man.

Re:Global Climate Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921541)

Which really isn't all that necessary, since it is.

Re:Global Climate Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921597)

I thought cafe standards, weird toxic light bulbs and daylight savings time were
supposed to fix all this. Are you telling me those things did squat? Just curious.

Re:Global Climate Change (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921729)

Toxic lights bulbs don't actually save as much power as they claim. The daylight saving time change actually resulted in more energy being consumed than saved. BUT that doesn't mean they were ineffective. They're having just the result desired, making people feel like they are doing something to solve the problems but having those same problems still around to force even greater changes.

Re: Global Climate Change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921779)

This climatist garbage has already caused untold suffering.
Because of green fascism even in "rich" Germany hundreds of thousands can't afford to heat their homes properly. Absolutely disgusting.

Re:Global Climate Change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921609)

except it was proven time and time again that it was not caused by man, and presently the world is in fact cooling. But either way, there are numerous other more urgent matters that should have our nearly undivided attention.

Re:Global Climate Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921719)

It's getting harder to dig up the original mandate of the IPCC but it wasn't to determine IF there was an anthropogenic factor in climate change but to PROVE there was an anthropogenic factor in climate change. Such an anthropogenic factor was required in order to create a movement toward a single purpose for the human race, in this case, fighting climate change. There are some famous lines generated in the process of creating the science of climate change, such as the one where the whole process of peer review of climate change papers would be changed to make sure that only AGW positive papers were published, research grants threatened if the results of the research contradicted AGW, and such.

I'd rather they'd pretended we were being invaded by aliens. It would have been much better for the economy. The only thing that fighting AGW leads to is ruined economies until we can reliably produce our base energy demands without consuming fossil fuels.

why should anybody care? (-1, Flamebait)

stenvar (2789879) | about 10 months ago | (#44921531)

It's generally getting warmer, so the Arctic ice is melting. Maybe we'll even get a completely ice-free Arctic summer one of these years. It's not a big deal.

Re:why should anybody care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921539)

that was supposed to be this year.

Re:why should anybody care? (1)

real-modo (1460457) | about 10 months ago | (#44922033)

2080 plus or minus 20 years, according to most climatologists.

2040 plus or minus 10 years, according to climatologists specialising in the Arctic.

2028 plus or minus 7-ish years [google.com] (for under 1 million square kilometers of ice area at minimum), according to the trend.

Re:why should anybody care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922099)

Yeah, and i already had a beach vacation reserved. I was gonna fish me one of those swimming polar bears too. Waste of money i tell you.

Re:why should anybody care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921619)

One or two more volcanic eruptions a year and we would be headed back to an ice age. Unfortunately the cooling hoax of the 70's was a bit more convincing.

Re:why should anybody care? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 10 months ago | (#44921705)

Temps didn't bottom out until 1976. We came within a gnat's whisker of runaway snowball conditions.

Re:why should anybody care? (1)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | about 10 months ago | (#44921783)

Temps didn't bottom out until 1976. We came within a gnat's whisker of runaway snowball conditions.

No, it was much colder at the peak of the last glaciation. I doubt we were all that close then, but who knows?

Re: why should anybody care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921721)

The cooling hoax as you refer it to was just a handful of scientists spouting it and no one believed them even then.

The oil industry has a long reach. Why they are so hell bent in terraforming the planet to be unsuitable for human life one can only guess.

Re: why should anybody care? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921777)

The oil industry has a long reach. Why they are so hell bent in terraforming the planet to be unsuitable for human life one can only guess.

The bigger players are not in the "oil industry" but the "energy industry". They'll sell you solar power, just no one wants to pay for it yet. We all throw money at them for oil, what are they supposed to do, have super-human morals? Might as well turn control of Exxon And BP over to the Vatican or something.

Re:why should anybody care? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921695)

Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually unaware of the fact that diminishing Arctic sea ice cover will significantly alter climates across the world* through ice-albedo feedback?

*Note: This includes the place where your food is grown.

Re:why should anybody care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922325)

What I don't understand is... Why should I give a shit. So the temperature rises by 5C. Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, etc all become more habitable, more plants grow, greater biodiversity occurs (as has happened every time the global temperature has been high). What's the problem?

The only one I can think of is that we've been dumb and built a lot on low-lying areas, which are liable to become flooded. Simply fix that, and there's no problem at all left.

Re:why should anybody care? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921813)

It is if you live in Colorado or other places in the Northern Hemisphere being seriously affected by the slowing of the jet stream. Then you have lots of reasons to care, especially if you like to eat.

Slowing of the jet stream leading to more slowly moving weather fronts is a direct result of the fact that the Arctic is getting warmer and as a consequence, the temperature and pressure differential means that their is less of a "hill" that gives the Jet Stream its acceleration. If you are a farmer that means that the weather patterns you have taken for granted as "in place" for the past few thousand years are rapidly changing, with a significant increase in the probability of much more extreme weather (severe flooding and severe drought). Severe, extreme weather means lower crop yields, which are already being witnessed across many different kinds of crops.

Re:why should anybody care? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922331)

Except that if you go and actually look at the data, you discover that the increased temperature and CO2 periods are correlated (with good reason too) with increased biodiversity, and massively increased plant life. We're actually at the moment, right on the lower limit of what plants are happy to deal with in terms of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Who gives a rat's ass? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921555)

I should care because???? Oh, because Obama the Muslim says so. Sorry Mohammed, I don't give a rat's ass.

Actually I should care because a bunch of rich New York Jewish liberals clipping Wall Street coupons want to use it as an excuse to jack my electric bill. Hey Hymie, jack this!

Re:Who gives a rat's ass? (-1, Troll)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 10 months ago | (#44921623)

Since when has a retail electricity supplier ever needed an excuse to jack up prices? Excuses are for losers like you.

looks like we are safe (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 10 months ago | (#44921589)

Looks like we may be safe from the impending ice age, at least for a while.

Regression toward the mean (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 10 months ago | (#44921605)

The idea that this year, following an extreme year, can be formally called regression toward the mean seems OK but it seem clearer to say something like a return to closer to the trend line. Anybody got a better description than that?

Re:Regression toward the mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921763)

Its like a stock. You don't know if it was a bubble or not until it's over. The same way, you don't know whether this is regression to the trendline or a reversal of the trend until its over. Also, ad hoc technical explanations for deviations from the prediction are a sign of a theory that needs to be modified, from the forbes article it seems they are either implicitly or explicitly modeling the residuals from the trendline with a normal distribution (the use of +/- 2 sd in the one chart). This will underestimate tail risk in either direction if this is a poor choice of distribution.

Why only the Northern Hemisphere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921633)

And sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is growing:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png [uiuc.edu]

Re:Why only the Northern Hemisphere? (0)

real-modo (1460457) | about 10 months ago | (#44922057)

Only very slightly, if at all. This post was about the minimum extent, not the maximum. There's not really [wordpress.com] a material trend in minimum extent of Antarctic sea ice.

GW over! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921675)

Yay! I'm declaring Global Warming over!

Imbalanced discussions again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921689)

Much higher levels of sea ice in the Antarctic in recent years, who's the latest trying to stir their money || ego pot with imbalanced scientific scope in results?

volume? (1)

onemorechip (816444) | about 10 months ago | (#44921709)

"The volume of sea ice – that is, how thick the Arctic ice is..."

Er, no, "how thick the ice is" is called "thickness". Volume is thickness times area (or more precisely, thickness integrated over area).

That said, two data points (last year's area and this year's area) do not a trend make. I can't believe how many people don't get that (or enjoy telling lies so much that they don't care that it contradicts reason).

Re:volume? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921825)

Except that this isn't just two measures. Its measures over the past 70 years or so and the negative trend, which is highly significant statistically is more or less as predicted by climate models that predict the effects of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and their ability to warm the air, but primarily the seas.

Education (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921723)

Nice info. Thanks!

Please visit my blog.

Pre written Research Papers [weebly.com]

Global Warming on Slashdot? (1)

poetd (822150) | about 10 months ago | (#44921739)

Trolling solely to cause arguments or a sounding board to see if the public is willing to bite again after ClimateGate?

Re:Global Warming on Slashdot? (3, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about 10 months ago | (#44921919)

There was no misconduct found due to "ClimateGate". Read the scientific literature, not some interpretation by some talking head you happen to agree with. That's not learning, that's masturbation.

Re: Global Warming on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921975)

Nevermind that in the review of the emails Muir Russel wrote that Phil Jones wasn't asked certain questions because that might have revealed a criminal act- the deletion of records held under FOIA,

Re:Global Warming on Slashdot? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 10 months ago | (#44921977)

And if police officers were investigating police officers for a crime that had been committed without a civilian SIU, people would be crying corruption.

Re:Global Warming on Slashdot? (1)

Bongo (13261) | about 10 months ago | (#44922151)

We are gradually running out of professions which enjoy unquestioning blind respect from the public.

Re:Global Warming on Slashdot? (1)

Deluvianvortex (2908365) | about 10 months ago | (#44922177)

yeah well fear sells better than respect

The last one (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 10 months ago | (#44921821)

In 2040, the last chunk of Arctic ice will be swiped up, stowed in a regular fridge, and auctioned off on Ebay.

Arctic ice is a ridiculous liberal myth (5, Funny)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | about 10 months ago | (#44921859)

Nothing resembling "the arctic" is ever mentioned in the Bible.

Here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921879)

Cue the cliimate-science-ignorant Slashdotters.

Look, let's get one thing straight. There's a common misconception floating around Slashdot that is a major cause of unwarranted self-importance, so let's get it straight now: computing science is NOT science.

Computing science is NOT science. Computer scientists, please don't pretend you know the first thing about "science" just because it appears in your job title. Computing "science" does not involve hypothesis testing or discovering empirical facts about our world. Most computing "scientists" are ignorant of the process of science and the overwhelming majority of scientific findings in every single field.

Mathematicians and engineers are not nearly as conceited about their lack of scientific knowledge as are computing scientists. That's likely because they've not mislabelled themselves as scientists.

TL;DR. Computing scientists are not scientists. Please don't pretend to be an expert in the scientific process or about empirical facts in realms of science you know nothing about.

Re:Here we go again (1)

gox (1595435) | about 10 months ago | (#44921959)

Come on guy. Knowledge is not bestowed upon you by a holy power, just because you attended to some classes and had the privilege of shaking hands with famous "scientists". Anyone who wants to know about scientific process already knows about scientific process.

Furthermore, while scientists (or at least those who are labelled so) may be trained to adhere to the scientific method, with your logic, they can't know what it really is, since the nature and meaning of scientific method is not the subject of science.

Re: Here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921991)

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." R. Feynman

No such thing as 'man made global warming' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44921891)

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Debbie Downer! Debbie Downer! WOO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922083)

Because, no matter what the news is regarding climate science IT'S ALL BAD!
WE IS ALL GONNA DIE!!!
So yeah, let's spend more money on cockamamie plans that have no basis in science or engineering.
Let's keep doling out cash for the whole "carbon credit" scheme!
Let's kill off half the population via starvation and societal collapse! Just so we can say we tried to help the planet!
And then talk about how we destroyed it anyhow!

At this point, it's a fucking religion. Relying completely on belief of adherents with a bunch of self-reinforcement and handwavium to cover up the panic that ensues when simple, straightforward questions can't be answered.

LOL at the first graph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44922235)

... showing the summer months...

Of course the ice cover dropped, it was SUMMER.

There is no such thing as 'man made global warming'.

www.climatedepot.com

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>