Ready for the next Ice Age? Winter is coming.

redrumloa said:
One of? You mean the largest one.
Click to expand...

Overall, if the ice is not increasing in total, the fact that the largest one is won't change that.

Not that it matters because (as you'll see in my now edited previous post) the Commentator article you posted is sensationalist nonsense; the research does not claim the Ross ice shelf is increasing in volume.
Go and read the National Geographic source article. It's already hyperlinked in your post.
 
Loss of Arctic sea ice has flipped the Barents Sea from acting as a buffer between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans to something closer to an arm of the Atlantic.

The researchers behind the new work say that this layered structure was "remarkably stable" from 1970 all the way through 2011. But change started coming to the area even as the layers persisted. The atmosphere over the Arctic has warmed faster than any other region on the planet. And, in part because of that, the amount of ice covering the Arctic Ocean began to decline dramatically. It reached what were then record lows in 2007 and 2008. As a result, the Barents Sea was relatively ice-free in the Arctic summer, decreasing the fresh water present in the surface layer.

Sea-ice drift into the Barents sea dropped enough so that the 2010-2015 average was 40 percent lower than the 1979-2009 mean. The researchers checked precipitation at some islands on the edge of the Barents Sea, and they confirmed that the loss of fresh water at the surface was due to the loss of ice rather than a change in weather patterns.

(For context, the Barents Sea is essentially ice-free at the moment, even though the melt season typically extends through September.)

The loss of ice also means that the surface water in this area is exchanging heat with the atmosphere and absorbing more sunlight during the long Arctic summer days. These two have combined to heat the top 100m of water dramatically. If the mean of its temperature from 1970-1999 is taken as a baseline, the temperatures from 2010-2016 are nearly four standard deviations higher. 2016—the most recent year we have validated data for—was 6.3 standard deviations higher.
 
Judge rules that sea-level rise doesn’t fall under public nuisance laws
Oakland and San Francisco won't get money to deal with sea-level rise.
PHOTO-SF-Embarcadero-waterfront-NOAA-063017-1120x534-LANDSCAPE-800x382.jpg

Infrastructure goes under water in San Francisco.
In March, a federal district court case led to an unexpected spectacle: a “tutorial” on climate science requested by the judge. Oakland and San Francisco had filed suit against several oil companies, alleging that they should help pay for the impacts of sea-level rise because they had intentionally misled the public about global warming. Judge William Alsup apparently wanted to make sure he understood the physics and chemistry of the situation before he weighed legal standards.

On Monday, Alsup granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case—a blow for Oakland, San Francisco, and other cities eyeing the outcome. “The issue is not over science,” Alsup writes in his decision, “All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so.”
Click to expand...


All parties? If only... :lol:

Instead, the decision turns on legal precedents and Alsup’s unwillingness to overstep what he views as the judicial branch’s role.
Click to expand...
 
Stray off climate and onto weather for a moment. After me moaning about one of the coldest springs on record earlier this year, Glasgow recorded it's warmest June day ever yesterday. 32C isn't particularly hot for most parts of the world but it's a new record here.
 
Robert said:
Stray off climate and onto weather for a moment. After me moaning about one of the coldest springs on record earlier this year, Glasgow recorded it's warmest June day ever yesterday. 32C isn't particularly hot for most parts of the world but it's a new record here.
Click to expand...

A lot of the same was here, too. For the Great Lakes, we largely went from winter straight to summer this year. Winter started very late, but then dragged really late. We were getting snowfalls that were sticking through Mid-April. Up until June, it was still way under temperature averages, and not really spring-like. But late-May / Early June we had a couple weeks of all rainfall, which should have been spread out across all of April. And now by late-June, we're soundly into August-style extreme heat and occasional thunderstorms. They're talking it should be 92F or so (~33C) again today. That's pretty normal for an August forecast, but that isn't supposed to be June.
 
ilwrath said:
A lot of the same was here, too. For the Great Lakes, we largely went from winter straight to summer this year. Winter started very late, but then dragged really late. We were getting snowfalls that were sticking through Mid-April. Up until June, it was still way under temperature averages, and not really spring-like. But late-May / Early June we had a couple weeks of all rainfall, which should have been spread out across all of April. And now by late-June, we're soundly into August-style extreme heat and occasional thunderstorms. They're talking it should be 92F or so (~33C) again today. That's pretty normal for an August forecast, but that isn't supposed to be June.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty similar; winter straight into summer without a proper spring. We had much-colder-than-usual March and April with sub-zero temperatures and snow lasting up until late April but from early May until now it's been warm and sunny with the exception of a couple of days here and there. It's also forecast to stay warm and sunny for at least another fortnight. Huzzah! :pint:

Anyone familiar with normal Glasgow weather will tell you how rare this is. It's 26C just now which is warmer than usual for this time of year but the 32C we had yesterday was as high as it ever gets, even in late July/August.
 
South Florida is oppressively hot and humid as it is almost completely 24/7/365.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Click to expand...

I'm about a 3rd the way through and I see major issues with this guy's argument. The most striking is probably that global output of the sun has been declining for 40 years while the temperatures are supposedly rising. You are not going to see an immediate reaction, certainly not on a global scale. The the northern hemisphere the summer solstice is June 21st, the hottest days are roughly 2 months later. On a solar scale? Decades or longer makes the most sense just from a smell test.

Winter is coming.
 
redrumloa said:
I'm about a 3rd the way through and I see major issues with this guy's argument. The most striking is probably that global output of the sun has been declining for 40 years while the temperatures are supposedly rising. You are not going to see an immediate reaction, certainly not on a global scale. The the northern hemisphere the summer solstice is June 21st, the hottest days are roughly 2 months later. On a solar scale? Decades or longer makes the most sense just from a smell test.

Winter is coming.
Click to expand...

I'm almost through this video. I will say that he is trying to make his argument, but is still wrong for obvious reasons.
 
redrumloa said:
I'm almost through this video. I will say that he is trying to make his argument, but is still wrong for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe he makes his argument in other videos. Here he is just pointing out the flaws in the nay sides points.

Case in point:

If the sun is driving the temperature increase over the last century, how does it do that when solar output is steady to declining over that time?

For each of the other objections he also makes an argument as to why it is wrong. This is not the video in which he argues specifically for anthropogenic climate warming - though he clearly mentions it - but it is not the focus of this video.
 
redrumloa said:
Click to expand...
Well.... he's clearly an asshole.

The questioner asking whether the atmosphere is changing to CO2 is out of touch with the science.
The a-hole responding to the question mixes up his thousands with his millions. The earth was in a glacial period 55,000 years ago. 55 MILLION years ago it was much much hotter than today due, it seems, to a natural disaster that caused green house gases to rise significantly, and lead to mass extinctions.
He also can't tell the difference between the age of the earth and the age of the universe.
As to the idea that banks wouldn't invest in things if global warming were true - I guess he didn't notice how banks were clearly interested in making loans to people who could not possibly pay them back in the lead up to 2008. Banks are run by people who can make huge amounts of money by lending money that isn't theirs or doesn't even exist. It's not about whether the bets are good, it's about how much money you can shovel into your own pockets by being the bookie.
The "argumentum ad angry guy" is mildly entertaining but not very convincing. Just as with the Flat Earthers and Creationists, yelling "it makes no sense" and "it's a con" or "conspiracy" carries less weight than the work of thousands of people over hundreds of years. He may not like it, it may raise his blood pressure when people mention it, but the evidence is against him. Global CO2 is measurably rising, we are (measurably) why and the earth is getting warmer as it SHOULD according to physics when the CO2 rises.
The fact that global temperature has changed over time naturally is not in doubt - but that doesn't mean we can be so cavalier. 55 million years ago the world was much hotter, but there were also no people. The temperature has gone up and down but life has muddled through - but most of the species that have ever existed did not make it. Life can adapt to a lot of change but not in a short time. If the planet warms a few degrees over the next century we will be in big trouble. On that time scale it will be impossible for humans to physically adapt to that change so some areas of the earth will have to be abandoned (which means hello immigrants even if you manage to shoot 80% of them as they try to enter). It means crop failures on a huge scale and it means famine and war and death to huge numbers of people - and that could even have unfortunate effects on our ability to maintain our life support infrastructures, being as they are, highly technical systems requiring large numbers of educated people to run.
But the guy giving the answer is probably going to die of age before he dies of climate change so why should he care?
 
The problem with Anthopogenic Global Warming is that there is so much evidence. It's too much for people to take in and put together, as with evolution and, to a certain extent, the spherical earth. It's just so much easier to say "No it isn't" and then go back to sleep. Humans are mortal, we are all going to die at some point, but we find it difficult to cope with or contemplate unless it's actually happening. There is a good reason not to think too much about your own death and to assume it just happens to other people - it lets you live - but the urge to look away also means that people are more likely to indulge in bad behaviours we all know shortens the lives of those other people - like smoking or eating sugar or sitting for most of the day.
But the basics are simple, the signals are strong - ignoring it won't end well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top