×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Shrinking Waves May Save Antarctic Sea Ice

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the no-wake-zone dept.

Earth 298

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "It's a nagging thorn in the side of climatologists: Even though the world is warming, the average area of the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction—and climate change deniers tout that failure early and often. But a new paper suggests a possible explanation: Variability in the heights of ocean waves pounding into the sea ice may help control its advance and retreat."

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

News at 11 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117145)

Both sides of a debate ignore facts that don't match their veiw of the world. Shocker.

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118093)

I've been going around to different climate sites looking for unaltered data on either temperature or sea level. so far it was all "corrected".

Then a light bulb went off in the back of my head, the weather sites.
It's not intuitive, but it was more straight forward than the climate sites.
I went to http://www.intellicast.com/Loc... [intellicast.com]
You can set it to any city by using the http://www.intellicast.com/Loc... [intellicast.com]

Then go to the Historic Averages. there is a link at both the top and bottom of the page.
The Historic averages will list record months highs and lows. you can also click on months to look at records for individual days.

So far the most recent record high I've found was in 8 May 2007 for L.A but the most recent monthly average that set a record for L.A. was February 1995.
For New York it's Feb 1997.
For Anchorage/Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, it was March 1995.
For Des Moines Iowa it was Jan 2003.

There are also record lows that fall in that same time frame.

Re:News at 11 (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118227)

Beware that that is a biased source too, as most cities in the US have been growing until very recently, meaning more heat generated meaning larger heat domes.

Re:News at 11 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118317)

so you are saying the real temperature should be "Corrected"

Re:News at 11 (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118535)

To an extent, but it is better to use data from remote measuring stations, rather than ones that used to be outside of town, but are now in the middle of town due to urban sprawl.

Burn the Climate Deniers (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117157)

We should burn the Climate Deniers. If we burn enough of them, it'll create a haze that will block out the Sun, and send the Earth into a multi-years long winter. Just like a meteor strike or super-volcanic eruption. If you disagree, you're obviously a Climate Denier. Into the furnace you go.

Re:Burn the Climate Deniers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117179)

Burn the Climate Changers too, so they won't feel left out. Plenty of room in the furnace.

Re: Burn the Climate Deniers (1)

AgNO3 (878843) | about 7 months ago | (#47117875)

Can we just use the old furnaces in poland? Geez do you even think about what you are saying?

Re: Burn the Climate Deniers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117183)

Good on you for admitting that there are enough critical thinkers ("deniers") out there to do that kind of damage if thrown into a furnace. That's what you "only one way to think" folks fail to comprehend. I'm not a "denier" but I'm not a "crier" either. Most reasonable folks don't believe all the doomsday is impending scenarios because many have already been proven wrong (according to, aren't we already just a couple of years from the Eastern Seaboard being underwater? In like 2020? Mother Nature better get working on that then). The truth is, most folks believe that yes, we as humans have caused some climate change - and we should do what we can to lower our contributions. But the other side who insists we are all going to die tomorrow, or even in ten years, from it are just as bad as those who won't admit we have any doing in the matter (which is few and far between, very few folks outright claim that we have nothing to do with it, simply the degree, no pun intended). But this will all fall on deaf ears to the sky is falling crowd - who, even if they are correct, which I don't believe they fully are, make folks believe we are already so far gone we might as well just live it up until then since it's going to happen anyway. The entire movement works against itself in this way, if their goal is really to make folks believe their theories they have gone about it in totally the wrong way.

Re: Burn the Climate Deniers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117215)

Hey, I've got some Carbon Shek... I mean Carbon Credits to trade to you. Just send your manufacturing to China and I'll make sure you get a good deal.

Re: Burn the Climate Deniers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117443)

> I'm not a "denier" but I'm not a "crier" either.

"But if you are not with us, you're against us." etc.

Re: Burn the Climate Deniers (0)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about 7 months ago | (#47117691)

Most reasonable folks don't believe all the doomsday is impending scenarios because many have already been proven wrong

Oh, really? Name three. Please provide citations of peer reviewed scientific research, not whatever bullshit you read in the popular press.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Re: Burn the Climate Deniers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118071)

No, the AGW clowns are making the assertion, proving a negative is not necessary. You must prove your case, which has not happened.

Oh and speaking of which, the amount of money and societal upheaval this incurs means that the level of demonstrable proof required here goes up significantly. You want us to spend all that cash your case better fucking be bulletproof. And it isn't.

So fuck you, that's what.

Re: Burn the Climate Deniers (2)

beatle42 (643102) | about 7 months ago | (#47118549)

No, the poster was clearly asking to back a very specific assertion, namely that many scenarios have already been proven wrong, which is the claim that needs to be proven.

I also don't accept your claim that the claim must be bullet proof. The expected costs and values can be a combination of likelihood and significance of the effects. If the effects are dire enough and the likelihood not sufficiently remote then it becomes a bad value to not make those changes even accounting for the costs they incur.

Besides, a lot of the money being spent isn't just being thrown into a hole and buried, it'll have positive effects as well even if they don't completely offset the effects you're concerned about.

Or.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117171)

Or perhaps the world really is cooling. Data on warming could be due to selection bias, perhaps we need more sensors in the Antarctic to lower the average world temperature.

For climate deniers it's easier to believe evidence you see, eg, colder home country, colder Antarctic

Climate Change Denial is a Social Construct (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117197)

Let's face it, Climate Change Denialism was invented by the Patriarchy to enslave the rest of the world. In order to free ourselves from their false narrative of an unchanging world, we need to kill all White people. Change is happening, you can't stop progress. Let the Climate Change come.

How many fingers, Winston?? 1984 reference (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117203)

Reminds me of that scene in 1984 where O'Brien is asking Winston Smith how many fingers. Why I suppose if I wasn't
such a thought-criminal I would just accept this highly retarded explanation. After all, when the party says 2+2=5 then
sometimes the answer is really 5 because well maybe the 2's are variable, more like 2.5's.

This is more paid for climate-amageddon "the polar bears are drowning" propaganda. Fuck you DICE.com.

Re:How many lights, Picard?? TNG Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117791)

There are FOUR LIGHTS!!!!!

I blame the Obsidian Order.

and just to drive my point home (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117211)

Just to drive my point home:
in this article titled 'Shrinking Waves May Save Antarctic Sea Ice' we get

" You may like to read:
Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts "

what is it?! How many fingers am I supposed to be seeing here??

Re:and just to drive my point home (4, Informative)

quantaman (517394) | about 7 months ago | (#47117447)

Just to drive my point home:
in this article titled 'Shrinking Waves May Save Antarctic Sea Ice' we get

" You may like to read:
Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts "

what is it?! How many fingers am I supposed to be seeing here??

Both.

This article is talking about the increased sea ice extent. Basically the amount of the ocean that's covered ice. It affects the albedo a bit, but mostly it's an interesting mystery because you'd expect it to shrink in a warmer climate.

The other article is talking about the decreasing ice volume. The thickness of multiyear ice on both land and sea is shrinking. This is expected given the warming climate, it's also worrying because it causes sea levels to rise.

Re:and just to drive my point home (4, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 7 months ago | (#47118353)

It affects the albedo a bit, but mostly it's an interesting mystery because you'd expect it to shrink in a warmer climate.

Counter intuitive yes, but it ceased being a mystery decades ago (largely due to climate models that would run on a retail video card these days), if anything this paper is a refinement in the details of the accepted explanation - hint fresh water freezes at a slightly higher temp than salt water. Also the sea ice has always completely melted in the Antarctic summer and its dark in winter, so Albedo is not (currently) as important down south as it is up north.

As for the denier angle - this topic is currently ranked #10 on the climate myth list [skepticalscience.com] .

It's up at #10 because the physics of collapsing ice sheets is not well understood and thus difficult to model. Deniers depend on conflating sea ice, land ice, ice shelves, ice bergs, permafrost, ice volume, ice coverage, north pole, and south pole. Someone who is not deliberately trying to mis-inform the reader will also attempt the be clear about which particular "ice metric" they are talking about ( which brings us full circle to the main point of your post :).

Re:and just to drive my point home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118445)

It's not a mystery. The ice is like a big pile. Earth warms, it slumps down, and spreads out. Think of it like a blob that is being squished.

Re:and just to drive my point home (4, Informative)

Layzej (1976930) | about 7 months ago | (#47118529)

Skeptical Science has a good summary of the science. It looks like there are many contributing factors to the apparent contradiction of warming temperatures, shrinking antarctic ice volume and growing antarctic sea ice area. The new paper referenced in this article is possibly another factor: http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]

Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.

To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate

Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean

Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.

Examining how this change is spread over time (Figure 1) reveals that the ice sheet as a whole was not losing or gaining ice in the early 1990s. Since then ice loss has begun, and is clearly seen to have accelerated during that time:

Shepherd et al. 2012

Figure 1: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes (bottom) and regions within it (top) and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of several different measurement techniques (Shepherd and others, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).

The satellite mission that is best suited to measuring land ice mass change is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The GRACE satellites measure changes in Earth's gravity and these can be directly related to surface mass variations such as the Antarctic ice sheet. Recent GRACE estimates of mass change show the dramatic mass loss in West Antarctica and mass gain in East Antarctica (King and others, 2012):

King and others, 2012

Figure 2: a, GRACE estimate of ice-mass change (2002-2012), with ice drainage basins numbered (boldface italics where trends are statistically different to zero with 95% confidence). b, c, Basin-specific lower and upper bounds on ice-mass change, respectively, reflecting the potential systematic error in the basin estimates (King and others, 2012).

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over satellite period (Figures 1&2) but not enough to offset the other losses. It is not yet clear if the increase in mass in Antarctica is a short-term phenomena due to a particularly snowy period (Boening and others, 2012) or if it is a long-term trend. Increased snowfall in East Antarctica has long been predicted in a warming climate, so this is an important region to continue monitoring.

The land ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not due to surface melting, as the summer temperatures in Antarctica are generally always below freezing, and measured changes in precipitation cannot explain it either. Instead, the melting is occuring due to warm ocean water melting the land ice around its edges, resulting in a spreading of this ice loss inland:

Pritchard and others, 2012

Figure 3: Rates of lowering of land ice and its floating extensions in West Antarctica, 2003–2008 (Pritchard and others, 2012). Floating extensions of the land ice (ice shelves) that are labelled are Venable (V), Abbott (A), Cosgrove (C), Pine Island (PI), Thwaites (TH), Crosson (CR), Dotson (D), Getz (G), De Vicq (DV), Land (L), Nickerson (N) and Sulzberger (SZ). Arrows highlight areas of slow-flowing, grounded ice. Bathymetry landward of the continental-shelf break is in greyscale. The divide between floating and grounded ice is shown in white. The inset shows the location of the figure (green box) overlaid on the outline of Antarctica.

The influx in warm water onto the continental shelf in this region is not entirely understood but is probably at least partly linked to increased westerly winds that have occured as a result of reduced stratospheric ozone levels since the mid-20th Century (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

The Antarctic ice sheet plays an important role in the total contribution to sea level. That contribution is continuously and rapidly growing.

Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing

Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited as proof against global warming. However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.

Figure 3: Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean (top). Sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). (Zhang 2007)

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). An increase in melting of Antarctic land ice will also contribute to the increased sea ice production (Bintanga et al. 2013).

In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.

shocked to learn nature is full of balancing mecha (3, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about 7 months ago | (#47117217)

This is just another one of the many, many balancing mechanisms in nature. Another obvious one is that more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat. Mother nature I has thousands of such negative feedback cycles that tend to buffer against changes.

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#47117383)

There's no such beneficent entity as Mother Nature, keeping everything just so. Species go extinct often, because their environment changes.

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 7 months ago | (#47118299)

We're a species too.

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118473)

Exactly, and any climate changes caused by us are natural climate changes because they were caused by a naturally evolved species!

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (1)

niado (1650369) | about 7 months ago | (#47118519)

We're a species too.

And some scientists believe that we have been drawn much closer to extinction [wikipedia.org] that one might think. Our close relatives the Neanderthal [wikipedia.org] and Denisovan [wikipedia.org] were not so lucky.

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117675)

This. And the planet isn't even remotely as hot as it USED to be either. (not even talking the early days of lava pools and chaotic surface, I mean even only a good billion years back)

Are the scales going to break one day? Sure they will, but it ain't now.
They'll maybe break a good billion years from now. Possibly.
But for now, Earth is pretty damn stable. We ain't becoming Mars just yet.

And just to throw this out here, humans actually HELPED make the climate MORE stable on average.
And that was through the killing of billions of animals over thousands of years, the stable controlled burning of forests to prevent total meltdown in hot times, and create huge hot spots around the world (cities) that made the weather more variable.
Our whole carbon increase is still less than all of that combined.
Undo human history and we'd likely be in a chaotic society of wildfires out of control, dangerous levels of radiation breaking through the heavy cloud layers when they can, if not an ice age outright. Another ice age is coming sooner or later, we just don't know the exact time.
We know that ice ages come about when the weather gets out of control, but we still have some distance left before we hit the chaotic bouncing between hot and colds before the eventual collapse of ocean streams that carry most of the heat through convection to the north and south.
Right now this is baby steps at best between summer and winters chaos. It is going to get MUCH more worse over the coming decades.
Coastal areas are going to get smashed so hard. Even mines when it is relatively safe behind a huge chunk of land that mostly protects it from the Atlantic.

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118033)

This. And the planet isn't even remotely as hot as it USED to be either. (not even talking the early days of lava pools and chaotic surface, I mean even only a good billion years back)

That doesn't help us toady. Nor any other species alive.

Are the scales going to break one day? Sure they will, but it ain't now.

This is wrong. The scales have broken. Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn [theguardian.com] .

But for now, Earth is pretty damn stable

This is also wrong. It is unstable [rma.ac.be] .

We ain't becoming Mars just yet.

We are, however becoming an earth with continuous sea level rise for the foreseeable future, and acidifying oceans.

And just to throw this out here, humans actually HELPED make the climate MORE stable on average.

WTF? According to science the big greenhouse effect you see since the industrial revolution [wordpress.com] is caused by greenhouse emissions. Particularly CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels.

the stable controlled burning of forests to prevent total meltdown in hot times

Deforestation doesn't make it cooler if you burn the wood. It releases the greenhouse gas CO2.

Another ice age is coming sooner or later, we just don't know the exact time.

We were quite happily in an Ice Age, which means that there are significant ice sheets in both hemispheres. We may well be coming out of the ice age, and that means 15-80 metres of sea level rise over time. (Depending on whether the East Antarctic Ice sheet goes too or not.)

We know that ice ages come about when the weather gets out of control, but we still have some distance left before we hit the chaotic bouncing between hot and colds before the eventual collapse of ocean streams that carry most of the heat through convection to the north and south.

WTF?

Right now this is baby steps at best between summer and winters chaos. It is going to get MUCH more worse over the coming decades.

There are going to be more weather extremes. But the mean difference between summer and winter is reducing.

Coastal areas are going to get smashed so hard.

Yes. Sea level rise+warmer ocean surface, does smash coastal areas.

Even mines when it is relatively safe behind a huge chunk of land that mostly protects it from the Atlantic.

Huh?

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118119)

"this", as a meme, is dead.

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (4, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | about 7 months ago | (#47117723)

more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat.

There is no such balancing effect. Clouds can reduce or can increase heating, both, depending on local climate and time-of-day.

Furthermore, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. You don't want more of it!

"Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a 'positive feedback' that amplifies the original warming."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

"On balance, scientists arenâ(TM)t entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly."

http://www.earthobservatory.na... [nasa.gov]

"Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming effect. However, the effect varies daily and annually"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Go outside. San Francisco underwater by 2010? (2, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about 7 months ago | (#47118587)

> On balance, scientists aren't entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly.

That sentence lumps professional alarmists in with actual scientists. Never been outside on a cloudy day? Those "scientists" (alarmists) who say clouds make it hot are the same ones who you said San Francisco would be underwater by the year 2010. Don't let their silly pseudo-science make you doubt the obvious facts of your experience. You know that when it's cloudy, it's cooler.

What you may not know not know is that islands near San Francisco have recently re-appeared after having been underwater for the last 60 years, the exact opposite of what the alarmists claimed. There is some important science around climate change. Earth HAS warmed a bit more in the last 100 years than the other planets have. There's also a metric ton of snake oil being sold by alarmists whose pseudoscience is nothing more than patter for their act. Confusing one with the other ends up getting you confused and making you look silly. You end up believing things like "it gets hot when it's cloudy", which is of course ridiculous.

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (0)

argStyopa (232550) | about 7 months ago | (#47117891)

As any review of the last million years of temperature history would show anyone, we've had (relatively) sharp temperature surges followed by even sharper declines.
It's happened pretty much like clockwork, every 120,000 years or so.
It's almost like there's a feedback mechanism.

Re:shocked to learn nature is full of balancing me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117943)

This is just another one of the many, many balancing mechanisms in nature.

No, it's not. Ice albedo feedback is strongly positive. In fact the west Antarctic ice sheet is over the tipping point and will collapse [theguardian.com]
.

Another obvious one is that more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat.

No it doesn't.

The largest feedback from evaporation is water vapour feedback which is very strongly positive.

But observations show that cloud-feedback is small or positive [skepticalscience.com] .

Negative feedback (-1, Troll)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 7 months ago | (#47117239)

What our panic driven media (and too many so-called scientists) willfully ignore: Climate systems are dominated by negative feedback, or else the Earth would long since have turning into an ice ball or another Venus. The computer models showing catastrophe inevitably include positive feedback cycles, because otherwise there is no catastrophe.

The advance and retreat of Antarctic ice turns out to have negative feedback cycles, tied to waves and weather around the Antarctic. So, in fact, we aren't all going to die next week. Who would have guessed?

The continual attempts to get media attention through panic-inducing science are tiresome. The fact that the MSM plays naively along shows just how poorly the MSM itself understands science, or perhaps that headlines are more important than reliable content. No, the planet isn't going to cook in its own juices, nor are increasing sea levels going to drown us all. Negative feedback means that changes will be slow, gradual and contained within certain boundaries. Boring but true...

Armchair scientist (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117349)

Actually I've never seen a single model assume that there's a positive feedback cycle and no negative feedback cycle. All published climate models have assumed that climate is a complicated system that is stable in some conditions (implying negative feedback) and unstable in others. That's the thing about systems, they change depending on the conditions. Interestingly none of them have suggested we are all going to die next week either.

So thanks for confirming for us something that we already know, that armchair scientists aren't worth the time of day and don't really understand shit.

Re:Armchair scientist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117709)

Speaking of a lack of understanding:

Stability does not imply negative feedback. Systems that have positive feedback below one are also stable. In fact the strong warming predictions are due to assumed positive feedback (which is still less than one).

Re:Armchair scientist (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118259)

"Unstable in others" means "a miracle happens."

Re:Negative feedback (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117397)

Wooah there. Lets not forget that the ice mass is decreasing as it thins, even as the expanse increases. The glaciers and Ice-sheets are becoming unstuck from the land as it thins and this allows more warm sea water under the glaciers which increases the thinning and pushes the glaciers upwards (Ice floats remember) causing the seawater to ingress further under the ice sheet. This positive feedback mechanism is now in operation and will lead to irreversible collapse of the glaciers within 200 years. On a geological timescale this is very fast- human timescales are not an appropriate yardstick to benchmark this stuff.

Climate systems are dominated by negative feedback, or else the Earth would long since have turning into an ice ball or another Venus

Thats a complete non-sequitur The earth could have positive feedback systems that make climate unstable and oscillate between extremes. We have good evidence that it has oscillated in the past on a regular basis (the climate change is natural crowd are saying this all the time).

Also clouds- Clouds don't just cool the planet they also warm it. They have a cooling effect during the day when they reflect sunlight and a warming effect at night when they trap radiation. It's complicated- that is no excuse to pick and choose the few effects that back up the hypothesis you are clearly desperate to believe and ignore the rest.

Negative feedback means that changes will be slow, gradual and contained within certain boundaries. Boring but true...

Conclusion not supported by more than hope, prayer and wishful thinking.

Are you paid to post this crap?

Re:Negative feedback (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117559)

dont think he is but i suspect you are?

mr mann???

Re:Negative feedback (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 7 months ago | (#47118333)

Negative feedback cycles can still end up stabilizing at a different set-point, if the negative feedback is in the rate of change rather than the absolute value.

Great, more variables... (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#47117269)

... and poorly recorded ones at that.

Look... if its relevant then its relevant... its just inconvenient to have yet more variables complicating the calculations.

Do we have a proxy value for these waves yet? Some correlating calculation like the orbits of the planets/moon/oscillation of the earth somehow boiling down to wave heights in location X? Because that would be useful. Short of that, we're back got square one with our historic calculations and we need to put some buoys out around Antarctica to build up a data set.

area is one thing, volume is another (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117319)

let's say the ice is thinning in shedding a lot of frigid water... that stuff may make new ice at the edges which makes it look bigger in terms of area, but volume has been lost. It's the loss of volume that translates into rising sea levels.

Re:area is one thing, volume is another (3, Informative)

jkflying (2190798) | about 7 months ago | (#47118347)

Volume loss of sea ice doesn't affect sea levels, since it was displacing sea water to begin with. Volume of land ice on the other hand, even if it migrates to an equal volume of sea ice, will cause rising sea levels.

"and climate change deniers tout that" (2, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | about 7 months ago | (#47117365)

On any other topic this name calling is derided as an ad hominen attack.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117435)

You can't reason a man out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.

The "climate change deniers" hold the position they do as an article of faith or wishful thinking. Scientifically the debate was over decades ago. So a collective noun to describe them like "creationists" for the anti-evolution crowd is entirely appropriate.

If this collective noun has negative connotations then that is entirely appropriate for a group of people trying to hold back society from addressing a very serious issue.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117705)

You can't reason a man out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.

Blind faith doesn't exist, there is always reasoning no matter how shallow it is. Thinking that someone didn't reason is just another way of dehumanizing him.
Everyone can be reasoned out of a position, you just can't do it by calling him an idiot.
Claiming that someone is following blind faith when your argument is referring to authority is also not a good choice. If I don't know the climatologist refereed to and believe in him then there is just as much blind faith in that argument as there would be if you referred to a priest.
You have to listen to the other persons point of view and argue from that context. It takes a lot of time but I have occasionally done it.
Having a whiteboard available helps tremendously but you also need to understand why the person reasons as he does and where he made an incorrect conclusion.
Also, if you patronize him for just a moment you might just as well give up for the day, you are never going to convince anyone that way.

Personally I think that the environmental movement have taken the wrong approach to global warming.
If you want to shut down coal power plants and make people switch to electric vehicles it would be a lot easier to argue about the health benefits of not having the emissions.
There are plenty of studies about the subject and it is a lot more tangible for people to see the difference between how often you have to clean the windows in a city compared to a rural area and it is not hard to imagine the difference that does on your lungs.

It also doesn't help that a lot of environmentalists are more concerned about fighting the opposition rather than to convince them.

Re: "and climate change deniers tout that" (1, Insightful)

AgNO3 (878843) | about 7 months ago | (#47117865)

Yeah deniers. Round em up and put them all in one place where the are concentrated. The can have their own camps and stop ruining our society. Yeah thats worked in the past. SIGH

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (5, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118387)

What if you just refuse to see the reasoning that lead them there?

Creationism would be a reasonable position if there were significant evidence of a creator (there isn't). AGW "denial" would be reasonable if there were an argument that the amount of CO2 we have put and are putting into the atmosphere won't cause a feedback loop.

And there is, if you would put pen to paper and make the calculations yourself, assuming you understand a little physical chemistry. CO2 has a very thin IR spectrum chart that integrates to a very low number, meaning it is shit at absorbing heat. Water vapor has a gigantic broad "peak" that swamps most other signals to the point that you can't even tell when other stuff is present with highly sophisticated equipment that only looks at the IR spectrum.

Of note, the other product of combustion is water vapor. Irrigation forces more water vapor into the air. Paving forces more water vapor into the air. Even the cooling towers of nuclear power plants force more water vapor into the air. These things happen on a continuous basis, so the world is on average more humid by perhaps 1% than it was 100 years ago. Which would be more than enough to account for ALL observed warming.

What are the implications for this? It means that most of the wild scenarios dreamed up by the AGW people that lead to mass death and starvation or extinction are unlikely. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years on average, where water vapor falls out in a few days. This tight equilibrium means that we can self correct easily, as economic deterioration due to climate change will decrease the amount of water vapor we push into the air by a mechanism of tearing up unused roads (seen in recently in Detroit), reducing combustion, less irrigation, etc.

But by all means, paint everyone who doesn't blindly agree with the god "Science" (rather than following the scientific method) with the same brush. It's not like your nonsensical belief will change physics in your "favor". One can only hope that those of you who continue to cling to AGW theory are rightfully marginalized, and removed from your priest-like positions in government, as those guys can and do do REAL damage based off of bad theory.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#47117445)

No avenue of anti-science earns respect.
Deniers of the earth being millions of years old.
Deniers of man being a species of ape.
Deniers of evolution.
Deniers of tobacco being a carcinogen.
Deniers of the moon landings.

When you put your politics, religion or paranoia ahead science, you deserve to be marginalised.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117813)

Deniers of the Earth being flat?

When people say, "don't question it!" -- it immediately makes me curious as to why ....

What percentage of the global warming predictions have come true? Less than 5%?

If your predictions are that far off, don't play the "Science, comrades, science!" card. (Animal Farm reference).

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (1)

Splab (574204) | about 7 months ago | (#47118253)

And you just showed your ignorance in a marvelous combo.

It's a misconception that people thought the world was flat - we have known it to be round since the ancient greeks.

And predictions coming true? Well you are sort of correct, they aren't exactly coming true as actual events tend to happen a whole lot quicker and worse than IPCC predicts.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118451)

What percentage of the global warming predictions have come true? Less than 5%?

Now I use the word "skill" advisedly: Models are not right or wrong; they're always wrong. They're always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells you more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it's skillful. This is the impact of the ozone hole on sea level pressure, so low pressure, high pressures, around the southern oceans, around Antarctica. This is observed data. This is modeled data. There's a good match because we understand the physics that controls the temperatures in the stratosphere and what that does to the winds around the southern oceans.

7:09 We can look at other examples. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 put an enormous amount of aerosols, small particles, into the stratosphere. That changed the radiation balance of the whole planet. There was less energy coming in than there was before, so that cooled the planet, and those red lines and those green lines, those are the differences between what we expected and what actually happened. The models are skillful, not just in the global mean, but also in the regional patterns.

7:38 I could go through a dozen more examples: the skill associated with solar cycles, changing the ozone in the stratosphere; the skill associated with orbital changes over 6,000 years. We can look at that too, and the models are skillful. The models are skillful in response to the ice sheets 20,000 years ago. The models are skillful when it comes to the 20th-century trends over the decades. Models are successful at modeling lake outbursts into the North Atlantic 8,000 years ago. And we can get a good match to the data.
  Gavin Schmidt: The emergent patterns of climate change [ted.com]

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117815)

No. You and people like you are just assholes.

I long for the day we return to real science rather than this fucked-up politicized bullshit.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (4, Insightful)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 7 months ago | (#47118051)

By all means, less likely views should be marginalized, but they should be marginalized as a side effect of their having only a marginal chance of being correct, not because you've built up some vicious characterization of their adherents. It's interesting that in the reasons you list for your opposition -- politics, religion, mental illness (?) -- you forgot to include anything about their explanations of the observed phenomena being less satisfactory.

My first problem with this attitude is, who decides when the best response is simply treating the adherents as unworthy neanderthals and making sure that no legitimate scientific criticisms get swept in? Will that be you? I don't trust that this is always going to work out. I do, however, always trust in a dispassioned comparison of evidence, or at least, there's nothing I trust more.

My second problem is that it much more difficult to reason with people when you start your arguments by giving them a bloody nose. At that point they're just in it to retaliate for the bloody nose, assuming they don't stop reading entirely. IMHO you are making it ten times more difficult to actually stamp out these bad thinkings just so you can have the satisfication of wielding a few insults. What does referring to anyone snidely actual accomplish in the scientific discourse?

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (4, Informative)

tbannist (230135) | about 7 months ago | (#47118361)

I do, however, always trust in a dispassioned comparison of evidence, or at least, there's nothing I trust more.

Unfortunately, that comparison is rarely disappassionate. In fact, some recent studies have found that the "just the facts" approach to education on controversial topics tends to backfire [skepdic.com] . Among the general populace, there a high tendency to acknowledge only the facts that support a pre-existing position and the ignore the facts that contradict it.

Frankly, that's why there is an entire cottage industry built around denying something that 97% of the people researching it [iop.org] have concluded is true. However, that 97% may actually be low-balling the consensus, since James Powell [jamespowell.org] says he's reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reveiwed journals mentioning global warming and climate change since 1991 and only 26 of them reject the anthropogenic cause. That's would be a disagreement rate of about 0.1%.

The people most qualified to evaluate the evidence seem to be in a near universal agreement that is rarely accurately represented [youtube.com] by the media.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 7 months ago | (#47118207)

...until the moment that science proves something that contradicts your political beliefs. Then suddenly, science is relative and biased. Just look into intelligence research or research into intersex relations.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (0)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118417)

Hmmm, so if I say that the Earth is likely 4.54 BILLION years old, I'm a denier too?

You had better be GOD DAMN SURE you have your facts straight before you start labeling people like that.

Your last sentence is precisely correct. But will you ever apply such reasoning to your own self?

Poor victim! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117459)

Obviously this proves that the climate change deniers must be correct!

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (4, Insightful)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 7 months ago | (#47117573)

On any other topic this name calling is derided as an ad hominen attack.

I'm not convinced that that is true. For one thing, it pre-supposes there is debate, which would require an exchange of ideas, which requires at least two sides to present axioms they consider to be true with some foundational reasons why we should think that those ideas are true. That is not what is happening here. It is not clear, for a start, that many denialists think of their arguments as factual - merely as a position that they hold because they self identify with a group of people who hold that as a position - a political/tribal 'view' if you like. They expect a debate on this in much the way that two opposing political ideologies might debate for the sake of finding a common ground. So they will repeatedly make the same debunked claims, e.g. Ice mass in the Antarctic is increasing! because even though this statement is debunked by observation they expect to negotiate from some middle ground. Whether the statement is factual or not is irrelevant - what matters is that an opposing view is stated, regardless of how extreme, because after that, we try to compromise on a position that is mutually satisfactory. That is how the world works, right?

Wrong.

Reality is more powerful than ideology. Reality will always win. Doesn't matter if you reject gravity, gravity still acts. You can't negotiate for, say, acceleration due to gravity to be 4.5 m/s/s. You can't negotiate with Global Warming either. It is, and will continue to be.

People who deny it, like people who deny gravity, or a terminal cancer diagnosis after a biopsy, are in denial. Thus the term "denialist" or "denier". It describes a mental condition. It doesn't preclude debate, as an ad hominem would. It's just coincident with tthe fact that there is no debate, just a group of people reporting on observations, and another group of people stating a position absent observation or factual grounding.

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117677)

What many skeptics "deny" is that global warming is likely to be big problem. They agree that global warming exists at some level. Why should we take someone like you seriously who argues against strawmen?

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (2)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 7 months ago | (#47117805)

What many skeptics "deny" is that global warming is likely to be big problem. They agree that global warming exists at some level.

Agreed - they believe several fundamentally contradictory things at once. This is yet more evidence that their position has no basis in fact.

Why should we take someone like you seriously who argues against strawmen?

You are begging the question by assuming that it matters whether you take the facts seriously, either to me or to anyone else.

Re: "and climate change deniers tout that" (1)

AgNO3 (878843) | about 7 months ago | (#47117933)

There are scientists of note that do not agree with the consensus. I dont know what they believe or why but when their studies are exclude I see all the other times the consensus was wrong. Im not in the club I dont know what their opposing science is but it's not just religious people that have a view contrary to the group. Is this Richard Lendzen MIT dude not at all respectable?

Re: "and climate change deniers tout that" (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 7 months ago | (#47118307)

So, the gist of your argument is that you don't know and can't describe what is wrong with the science?

That is not what I would call a convincing argument.

Re: "and climate change deniers tout that" (2, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | about 7 months ago | (#47118487)

Is this Richard Lendzen MIT dude not at all respectable?

Would that be the Richard Lindzen [rationalwiki.org] who has been funded by Exxon and OPEC, who actually does accept the basics of anthropogenic global warming, but disagrees with exactly how high the earth's climate sensistivity is (ie the amount of temperature increase you'll see from a doubling of CO2 levels). The man who been a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute [theguardian.com] , who writes opinion pieces for the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Stree Journal, and who recently joined the Cato Institute [cato.org] ?

Not so much, no. [skepticalscience.com]

Re:"and climate change deniers tout that" (0)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118441)

A large group of people believe different things, therefore they should ALL be ignored.

Stop defending your use of logical fallacies.

That's it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117373)

We're in for a new ice age...

Re:That's it (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#47118057)

Great! I like that crazy little prehistoric squirrel!

Can we trust climate models? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117375)

"Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction".
But apparently any climate model that shows warming/change is completely reliable and the science is settled. /s

salty seawater vs melt ? (4, Interesting)

GNious (953874) | about 7 months ago | (#47117471)

Wasn't the increase in ice-area attributed to the melt from inland not being salty, and thus having a higher freezing-point?

Re:salty seawater vs melt ? (2, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 7 months ago | (#47117795)

It's seasonal, and one of the reasons for the increase is increased precipitation (caused by, you guessed it, global warming).
The sea there is actually warmer, and the land ice is shrinking.
In short, this is only interesting if you need facts with superficial interpretations that can "refute" global warming to the uninformed masses.

http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]

p.s. - I notice in another skepticalscience link that gw deniers have joined evolution deniers in invoking the second law of thermodynamics as "proof that it couldn't happen". As if scientists are ignorant of the 2LoT.

Re:salty seawater vs melt ? (1, Troll)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118485)

Replace all references to the monolithic concept of "global warming" with "an angry god", and something interesting happens.

PHLOGISTON!

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117475)

What do you say to that then. Idiot!

The newest savior to keep global warming at bay! (0)

Much Video Dan (3668521) | about 7 months ago | (#47117497)

The moon! Of course!

Nonsense Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117507)

This is why climate change deniers are so strong. Of course we are facing climate change, but this scientific community does not help when "may" is cited as fact. You see a war of two industries, in one hand, companies and government destroying the planet, on the hand, university students, professors and politicians trying to profit from climate change.

Every day a new paper is put out on climate change. Speculation after speculation, that would never get you a serious job for a real employers.

Re:Nonsense Theory (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#47117823)

Well if there is any consolation, its that government command-and-control slamming the brakes on the economy as a"solution" (which would, by process of inaction slowing down development, be far worse for humanity than moving back from the sea over 300 years) is dead in the water.

Other compensatory adaptations will occur instead.

And good. I'd rather live in 200 years with higher seas and 2214-level tech than slightly lower seas and year 2114-level tech.

Proof: How stupid would our ancestors in 1814 have been to grind the economy to a halt to "help" us, leaving us with 1914-level tech to day and peachy-keen seas.

"climate change deniers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117545)

What is a "climate change denier"? Who is denying that the climate is changing?
Oh, you mean "catastrophic man-made global warming deniers". Why didn't you say so?

www.climatedepot.com

Re:"climate change deniers" (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 7 months ago | (#47117803)

Actually lots of idiots are in total denial.
Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".

Re:"climate change deniers" (1)

fygment (444210) | about 7 months ago | (#47118131)

Actually a lot of those 'idiots' are simply looking at the models, the stats, the actual _knowledge_ science has about the Earth and it's climate processes, and the _long_ view of history. If you do that, there is a lot of reason to doubt and question.

The real idiots are those who would buy wholesale what the media promotes or who trust to their own observation (which the long history of 'eyewitness' testimony in the courts will tell you is likely very very flawed).

Best Regards,
An Idiot (who took the time to read the papers, look at the models, and study the stats)

Re:"climate change deniers" (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 7 months ago | (#47118375)

Actually a lot of those 'idiots' are simply looking at the models, the stats, the actual _knowledge_ science has about the Earth and it's climate processes, and the _long_ view of history. If you do that, there is a lot of reason to doubt and question.

Yet, apparently you can't articulate what the actual problem with theory is, and thus, stick to blustering generalities.

Repeatedly shouting "It's Wrong! It's Wrong" is not going to convince anybody.

Re:"climate change deniers" (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118509)

Lumping everyone together, then painting everyone in your granfalloon with the beliefs of the 99th percentile is pretty fucking assholish there, asshole.

In the industry, we call them "strawmen".

Nagging thorn in side of climatologists (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117637)

...is that dire predictions aren't as bad as they wish they would be? Really? Or is the "thorn in side" that the panic over climate change is overblown and now it's coming to bear? Should we be more worried that the climate is changing or that people who are so damn sure that they can predict the effects really can't?

Sea ice is direct result of collapsing glacier (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117693)

1. Sea ice is thin and temporary and has no effect on sea level. It grows and shrinks according to SHORT TERM weather.
2. The collapsing glacier is massive and land-based so its melting will raise sea level. It is melting because of LONG TERM climate change.
3. The collapse of the ONCE-PERMANENT glacier is cooling the surrounding water, causing a TEMPORARY increase in surface ice.

If you look at the diagram that they used to describe the collapse of the glaciers, you will see why. http://gph.is/1mWdkPK Warm water at the ocean floor melts the permanent glacier. As the water cools, it rises to the surface, causing it to lower the temperature of the surface water, increasing the amount of surface ice.

In effect, the PERMANENT, LAND-BASED glacier is quickly becoming TEMPORARY, SEA-BASED ice. Even if this sea-based ice remains or even expands, it will have already raised sea-levels.

Re:Sea ice is direct result of collapsing glacier (1)

apcullen (2504324) | about 7 months ago | (#47118269)

I was confused. I don't ever remember reading about there being LESS ice in antarctica, Parent explained it for me. Thank you.

Re:Sea ice is direct result of collapsing glacier (0)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#47118523)

[Citation needed]

science and other so called experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117729)

why can not anyone admit that they clearly do not completely understand or know what is going on or what is going to happen. the planet earth like it or not, good or bad is in a state of changing, the whole universe is changing. everything we do or do not do affects everything else. our efforts might be more valuable if applying them on how to survive these changes rather than there cause.. by the time someone figures out what is going on and tries to convince everyone else it will probably be to late.

What are the ants blathering about now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47117759)

Your all ants. This giant rock moving through space at great speed does not care in the least that you exist. It produces CO2 all by itself and does not even notice the scurrying ant.

What are the ants blathering about now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118475)

You are no an ant
You are a sloth

Seen it (2, Interesting)

dargaud (518470) | about 7 months ago | (#47117955)

As someone who's seen sea-ice breakups in Antarctica, they don't happen when the temperature warms up, but when there's a storm in certain directions, usually from the north, leading to waves breaking and carrying away the ice quickly. Emperor penguin chicks pay a heavy tribute to those every few years.

Re:Seen it (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 7 months ago | (#47118567)

but when there's a storm in certain directions, usually from the north

In Antarctica, isn't every storm from the north?

Yes Yes (-1, Flamebait)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#47117995)

we all know your climate models have consistently been wrong and we all know climatologists are always looking for ways to justify why they should continue using something that has never produced accurate results. Much like a child consistently touching a hot stove, getting burnt and looking for anything other than the stove to blame. Idiots.

It's not the area of ice that matters ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118063)

It's the volume. If the area is larger but the volume is less, climate-wise, that's bad. Who the hell writes this shit?

Re:It's not the area of ice that matters ... (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 7 months ago | (#47118601)

Area is possibly more important than volume as changes in area affect planetary albedo. Larger summer ice area means more sunlight is reflected back into space whereas smaller summer ice area means that more energy is absorbed.

Republicans laugh at Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118077)

"Even though the world is warming"

No it isn't. See, that's exactly as much proof as you have.

Inreasing or Decreasing - which is it ?! (0)

fygment (444210) | about 7 months ago | (#47118085)

Within the past 3 months we've heard both.

Conclusion: it's all _theory_ on both sides of the climate debate. There are enough examples and counter-examples on both sides that leads to the conclusion that no one knows for sure, and both sides have a vested monetary interest in being seen as 'right'.

Action Required: stay the course, keep doing what we're doing, and adapt when we _have_ to.

Re:Inreasing or Decreasing - which is it ?! (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#47118345)

Within the past 3 months we've heard both.

What you have heard within the past three months is that the extent of the ice is increasing, and that the mass of the ice is decreasing. Both of these things can be true at once.

Careful (1)

paysonwelch (2505012) | about 7 months ago | (#47118219)

Nobody make a splash..

Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47118281)

Yay! Fire up the Hummer! It's my constitutional right.
--
roman_mir

Summary misses an important point (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 7 months ago | (#47118403)

The summary misses an important point, while at the same time mentioning it: " Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction" The entire idea of AGW is based on climate models, yet these models have repeatedly failed to actually explain certain, specific observed phenomena. This leads people to question basing policy that will cost a large amount of money and freedom on those models. When you want to give bureaucrats authority to determine what I can and cannot do based on models which have with significant frequency failed to predict real-world phenomena, I am going to question the wisdom of such actions.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?