Arctic sea ice extent second lowest on record

[LogicalFallacy]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/arctic-sea-ice-had-second-worst-year-record 

 

Quote

Earlier this month—on 17 March—the extent of Arctic sea ice peaked at nearly 15 million square kilometers, covering an area roughly twice the size of Australia. That may seem like a lot of ice, but this year’s peak is the second lowest on record, according to the National Snow & Ice Data Center. Scientists have used satellites to measure the extent of Arctic sea ice for the past 39 years. As it stands, 2017 had the lowest amount of Arctic sea ice on record, followed by 2018, 2016, and 2015. 

 

[Joshpantera]

Meanwhile Antartica has had more gains than losses of sheet ice: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

 

One might look towards the Arctic for this other source I suppose. 

[pantheory]

8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/arctic-sea-ice-had-second-worst-year-record 

 

 

 

Try to sell global warming this past winter to the north-central and north-eastern U.S. , to northern Europe, northern China, etc., or even to South Islanders in New Zealand.  They are/ were freezing their asses off. One of the coldest winters in decades.

 

Kidding aside, global warming is probably real but the debate is how much is man's contribution to it?  Antarctica has more ice than ever before, but supposedly not enough to offset the measured warming of the Arctic. Although maybe 95% of scientists in the field agree with global warming in general, maybe 5% of scientists in that field have a contrary opinion.

 

https://principia-scientific.org/drop-sunspot-activity-warning-global-cooling/

 

"A Swelling Volume Of Scientific Papers Now Forecasting Global Cooling In The Coming Decades"

 

[LogicalFallacy]

49 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Kidding aside, global warming is probably real but the debate is how much is man's contribution to it?  Antarctica has more ice than ever before, but supposedly not enough to offset the measured warming of the Arctic. Although maybe 95% of scientists in the field agree with global warming in general, maybe 5% of scientists in that field have a contrary opinion.

 

Intuitively, quite a lot I'd say. It's not just all the pollution we are emitting, it the forests we are destroying.

 

Of course for science intuition doesn't work so you actually have to measure stuff. Current papers do overall show a link between CO2 and warming, and we can measure how much humans are contributing to CO2.

 

The hard bit is quantifying what percentage of rise this is responsible for. Is it 10%, 20%? 70%? We know the earth has been warming from the last glaciation for 1000's of years, but the argument is human activity is accelerating that increase.

 

Regarding the coming solar minimum. Research I had read suggested that this will slow down warming, but may not necessarily reverse it, and when the next maximum starts the warming will pick up substantially if emission's haven't stabilised. (I am very briefly giving a synopsis there... I need to go back over the research to make sure my understanding is correct)

 

@Joshpantera I'll have to research again, but my understanding is that the gain in Antarctica is due to increased snowfall as a result of deep water warming. That was from a NASA article I posted some time ago.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Intuitively, quite a lot I'd say. It's not just all the pollution we are emitting, it the forests we are destroying.

 

Of course for science intuition doesn't work so you actually have to measure stuff. Current papers do overall show a link between CO2 and warming, and we can measure how much humans are contributing to CO2.

 

The hard bit is quantifying what percentage of rise this is responsible for. Is it 10%, 20%? 70%? We know the earth has been warming from the last glaciation for 1000's of years, but the argument is human activity is accelerating that increase.

 

Regarding the coming solar minimum. Research I had read suggested that this will slow down warming, but may not necessarily reverse it, and when the next maximum starts the warming will pick up substantially if emission's haven't stabilised. (I am very briefly giving a synopsis there... I need to go back over the research to make sure my understanding is correct)

 

@Joshpantera I'll have to research again, but my understanding is that the gain in Antarctica is due to increased snowfall as a result of deep water warming. That was from a NASA article I posted some time ago.

 

Industrial pollution for humans and animals is not so good, but for plants its great. Pollution seeds clouds to produce more rainfall in the areas of pollution.  Increased CO₂  is great for plants. Along freeways here in Los Angeles plants are greener and grow faster than just one block away from the increased CO₂ produced by cars. The increased growth of plants results in the increased uptake of CO₂  so there is some natural regulation to the carbon dioxide - oxygen cycle. 

 

Man's contribution to CO₂ in the atmosphere can be measured, but it is just an estimate concerning how much this adds to global warming. Because CO₂ goes up by, let's say 25% does not mean that we can properly estimate what this will do concerning global warming, all things considered. It may be a benefit to mankind considering how many peoples of the world live in colder climates. Global warming could be a boon to Canadian, Russian, Manchurian agriculture, for instance. Global warming would also produce more ocean evaporation and more rainfall for some areas, change wind currents which would bring drought to other areas. I think it depends upon where you live whether global warming would be a good thing for an individual. Conservatively speaking, any change in conditions has the possibility of being bad for the individual. 

[LogicalFallacy]

20 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Industrial pollution for humans and animals is not so good, but for plants its great. Pollution seeds clouds to produce more rainfall in the areas of pollution.  Increased CO₂  is great for plants. Along freeways here in Los Angeles plants are greener and grow faster than just one block away from the increased CO₂ produced by cars. The increased growth of plants results in the increased uptake of CO₂  so there is some natural regulation to the carbon dioxide - oxygen cycle. 

 

Man's contribution to CO₂ in the atmosphere can be measured, but it is just an estimate concerning how much this adds to global warming. Because CO₂ goes up by, let's say 25% does not mean that we can properly estimate what this will do concerning global warming, all things considered. It may be a benefit to mankind considering how many peoples of the world live in colder climates. Global warming could be a boon to Canadian, Russian, Manchurian agriculture, for instance. Global warming would also produce more ocean evaporation and more rainfall for some areas, change wind currents which would bring drought to other areas. I think it depends upon where you live whether global warming would be a good thing for an individual. Conservatively speaking, any change in conditions has the possibility of being bad for the individual. 

 

I read two reports about the effect of CO2 on plants.

 

One was it increased growth, and two was that this increased growth was less nutritious for humans and animals. So the result was yay we can grow plants faster and bigger, damn they are not as healthy to eat. I think this is an area more research is needed.

 

Re effects, yes certainly some areas will benefit, some areas won't. I think the main concern is that if the sea level rises enough entire coastline cities will feel the impact, and that severity of weather events will get worse - so you might get more rainfall, but this gets dumped in storms which causes flooding and erosion etc.

 

Personally I don't think warming itself is the biggest threat - its the sheer amount of increasing pollution. We as a species really need to sort our stuff out regarding pollution. Acid rain, plastic island, ocean life dying due to plastic waste is just the tip.

[pantheory]

8 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I read two reports about the effect of CO2 on plants.

 

One was it increased growth, and two was that this increased growth was less nutritious for humans and animals. So the result was yay we can grow plants faster and bigger, damn they are not as healthy to eat. I think this is an area more research is needed.

 

Re effects, yes certainly some areas will benefit, some areas won't. I think the main concern is that if the sea level rises enough entire coastline cities will feel the impact, and that severity of weather events will get worse - so you might get more rainfall, but this gets dumped in storms which causes flooding and erosion etc.

 

Personally I don't think warming itself is the biggest threat - its the sheer amount of increasing pollution. We as a species really need to sort our stuff out regarding pollution. Acid rain, plastic island, ocean life dying due to plastic waste is just the tip.

 

yes, I agree. Particulate air pollution is not a good thing for human health. Plastic pollution is not good for ocean life and ecology. Some plastic pollutants can take hundreds of years to degrade.

[disillusioned]

See also: ocean acidification. That's some scary shit.

[Joshpantera]

Pollution is a real concern. Guys, the Floridan Aquifer is supposed to be the largest underground complexes on earth. I spend as much time at our natural springs as I do the ocean. And I see a lot of pollution in both. And you know what the glaring problem has been? 

 

ECO Tourism! 

 

Fucking assholes canoeing and kayaking down the spring runs throwing trash out into crystal clear water with no regard. It's become big business renting canoes and kayaks and sending people down stream by the droves. And it's resulting in shitting many a place up. There's volunteers around that try and clean up the rivers but they can't keep up with it. And it's so simple. It boils down to simply throwing your picnic trash into your cooler, not leaving it in the vessel where it can fall out or whatever. And yet tourist's don't seem to care. 

 

Up in the mountains, same thing. I'm out fly fishing and I see trash literally thrown out behind trailers on the river, running down the embankment. WTF? Some one needs to slap the shit out people. What's it going to take to simply stop throwing trash out of your boats or house into the natural water supplies? People are stupid, really fucking stupid a lot of the time....

[disillusioned]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Pollution is a real concern. Guys, the Floridan Aquifer is supposed to be the largest underground complexes on earth. I spend as much time at our natural springs as I do the ocean. And I see a lot of pollution in both. And you know what the glaring problem has been? 

 

ECO Tourism! 

 

Fucking assholes canoeing and kayaking down the spring runs throwing trash out into crystal clear water with no regard. It's become big business renting canoes and kayaks and sending people down stream by the droves. And it's resulting in shitting many a place up. There's volunteers around that try and clean up the rivers but they can't keep up with it. And it's so simple. It boils down to simply throwing your picnic trash into your cooler, not leaving it in the vessel where it can fall out or whatever. And yet tourist's don't seem to care. 

 

Up in the mountains, same thing. I'm out fly fishing and I see trash literally thrown out behind trailers on the river, running down the embankment. WTF? Some one needs to slap the shit out people. What's it going to take to simply stop throwing trash out of your boats or house into the natural water supplies? People are stupid, really fucking stupid a lot of the time....

 

Yeah, that's just not cool. At least make an effort...

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

There is a patch of plastic in the Pacific which is twice the size of Texas, and you think Eco Tourism is the big problem? 

 

It is in Florida. 

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Antarctica doesn't have more ice than ever before, more data has come out from NASA demonstrating that it is melting faster than previously thought and that the western portion in particular is deteriorating due to its geographical shape and of course caused by increased sea level temperatures.  

 

https://www.irinsider.org/environment-1/2018/3/21/antarctic-melting-at-faster-rate-than-previously-thought

 

There is quite a variation from year to year but in 2014 Antarctica's sea ice reached a new record maximum during its winter.

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

[pantheory]

22 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

And the East coast is getting hammered by the cold, which is why we call it Anthropogenic Climate Change so as to not confuse people who expect universal warming.  The global temperature is indeed increasing, but that does impact the climate in ways that creates cold sinks in certain regions of the globe for periods of the year. If global sea temperatures continue to rise, as all projections note they will, then I wouldn't bet on Antarctica to maintain its Ice Sheets.  It simply will deteriorate more rapidly once the mechanisms of warming really kick into gear, such as the acidification of the ocean through absorption of CO2.  Don't miss the forest for the trees, the big picture has to be taken account of and running to a single region without the global picture is not how to study the climate.

 

Yes global warming could be real, and if so as you said, Antarctica will not be immune to that warming process.

[disillusioned]

23 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

There is a patch of plastic in the Pacific which is twice the size of Texas, and you think Eco Tourism is the big problem? 

 

TS,

 

You've got a lot of good things to say, but let's not get carried away. If ecotourists are throwing trash into crystal clear rivers and lakes, then they are a part of the problem. They just are. This is not a case where "us vs them" is going to help anybody. The big problem is an amalgamation of a lot of little problems. That's why it's such a big fucking problem.

[♦ nivek ♦]

On 3/27/2018 at 3:10 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Acid rain, plastic island, ocean life dying due to plastic waste is just the tip.

 

Dammed plastic that has been made into a very permanent part of the oceans, hell almost any waterway is more bothersome to my thinking than all of the warming/cooling cycle changes combined.

 

Humanity has managed to pollute damn near everything water wise now adding in N. Pacific radiation from Japan. 

No one seems to know or guess longer term effects of radioactive elements into food chain. suspect that  might be in part to reduce alarm among those proles eating fresh or processed seafoods.

 

Demands for the quick 'n easy life, rip off packaging use product, toss all when done. That tossed wrapping is useless in post consumer waste. Value near zero even in tons of weight. 

Listening to something on TV blaring in other room,caught my ear that an average grocery store bags life was 12 minutes from time of fill to thrown away. 

 

Makes for a lot of flying debris around here in wind country and far too much landfill bait.

 

kL

[Joshpantera]

On 3/29/2018 at 6:44 PM, SkipNChurch said:

 

Dammed plastic that has been made into a very permanent part of the oceans, hell almost any waterway is more bothersome to my thinking than all of the warming/cooling cycle changes combined.

 

Humanity has managed to pollute damn near everything water wise now adding in N. Pacific radiation from Japan. 

No one seems to know or guess longer term effects of radioactive elements into food chain. suspect that  might be in part to reduce alarm among those proles eating fresh or processed seafoods.

 

Demands for the quick 'n easy life, rip off packaging use product, toss all when done. That tossed wrapping is useless in post consumer waste. Value near zero even in tons of weight. 

Listening to something on TV blaring in other room,caught my ear that an average grocery store bags life was 12 minutes from time of fill to thrown away. 

 

Makes for a lot of flying debris around here in wind country and far too much landfill bait.

 

kL

 

This is really fucked up. The guys in Cali and Hawaii aren't going to up and stop surfing. As radiation makes it's way around the prevailing currents we're probably going to start seeing a lot of negative results in the surfing community. Southern California was already fucked up before hand. I've come down puking sick just from surfing around Venice and Santa Monica. All the rain run off shit's up the ocean. I was surfing Venice Florida on one of the last cold fronts and the red tide (from farm land fertilizer runoff) was pretty bad. I was coughing for hours and my eyes were on fire the whole time. I surfed as long as I could stand it and then dipped.

 

Here in central Florida we mine phosphate out of the ground, from ancient reefs now covered by land mass. Mosaic is the main contender. The phosphate goes into fertilizer. The fertilizer goes out onto the surface land mass. The land mass runs off into tributaries. The tributaries flow into rivers. The rivers all find there way to the coasts. And then we get bad red tides up and down the gulf coast very regularly when rain fall is heavy. But that's small potatoes compared to what the guys and Cali and Hawaii will be up against with radiation.....