Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Scientists are now absolutely certain that they don't know if Antarctic ice has increased or decreased, or why there is a problem with the method of determining this   (latimes.com) divider line 31
    More: Interesting, Antarctic sea ice, Antarctica, sea ice, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, sea ice growth, nature news, raw data, population growth rate  
•       •       •

1367 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jul 2014 at 11:42 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-25 09:44:42 AM  
FTFA:

The paradox of expanding Antarctic sea ice has troubled scientists for many years. Although climate models predict southern sea ice should shrink, it has stubbornly refused to do so. In fact, between the last two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which came out just seven years apart, the rate of Antarctic sea ice growth more than doubled.

If the model says the ice should shrink and it is expanding at either a large or small rate.  Maybe the model needs to be re-examined because it is obviously flawed.

I appreciate the irony of the related article from two months ago that says "OMG the glaciers are melting and collapsing due to climate change and it's irreversible!"  Make up your mind, is the ice shrinking or growing?

The problem in my mind is the scientists are making short term (200 year) predictions based on even shorter term data when weather and climate science is still in it's infancy and I don't believe we have all of the tools in place to collect enough data points to make a solid prediction.

/please note that I am not in any way denying that man has an impact on the climate.  We need to take care to ensure that we don't totally screw up the planet.  Even if the pollution in Beijing, Mumbai or Mexico City isn't changing the temperature 1/1000th of a degree, the quality of life and health of the citizens demands change.
 
2014-07-25 10:55:13 AM  
You can't argue with 400 ppm, and climbing.
 
2014-07-25 11:47:00 AM  
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-07-25 11:51:23 AM  
I'll get right on warming this up...

www.countrytimepartyrentals.com
 
2014-07-25 11:56:22 AM  

BizarreMan: I appreciate the irony of the related article from two months ago that says "OMG the glaciers are melting and collapsing due to climate change and it's irreversible!" Make up your mind, is the ice shrinking or growing?


The previous study might have been looking at Arctic sea ice:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
The data in the antarctic are, as you can see, much noisier than in the arctic. Overall, while we are seeing a high, Global sea ice extent during June is decreasing at an average rate of 0.7 percent per decade.

Should the models be refined? Sure.
 
2014-07-25 12:00:30 PM  

BizarreMan: "OMG the glaciers are melting and collapsing due to climate change and it's irreversible!" Make up your mind, is the ice shrinking or growing?



Glaciers and sea ice form in differnet ways, are in different places, and have a different effect on sea level when they melt.

Other than that, they're totally the same.
 
2014-07-25 12:11:35 PM  
Guys, it's an ice sheet. Not a penis. Tell the truth.

/and measure along the top of the shaft
 
2014-07-25 12:16:41 PM  
The data and processing models for Antarctic Sea Ice are rather messy.

It may be increasing or not - better science is needed.

However deniers latch onto this, and even if it is increasing it is vastly overshadowed by Antarctic Land Ice loss, which no scientists dispute other than how big it is.

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/antarctica_is_losing_ice_s he et.asp
icons.wxug.com
 
2014-07-25 12:22:55 PM  
Let's not examine the Arctic models and data, because they're behaving as expected.
 
2014-07-25 12:25:53 PM  

WelldeadLink: Let's not examine the Arctic models and data, because they're behaving as expected.


Something is working?  Well, there must be a problem with it!
 
2014-07-25 12:26:25 PM  
The real problem is that volume and/or area of antarctic ice is basically a calculation dealing with Euclidian geometry.

And when it comes to involving Antarctica, this brings in a bunch of non-Euclidian aspects.

/Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!
 
2014-07-25 12:29:28 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: The real problem is that volume and/or area of antarctic ice is basically a calculation dealing with Euclidian geometry.

And when it comes to involving Antarctica, this brings in a bunch of non-Euclidian aspects.

/Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!



The dice suck
axiscity.hexamon.net
 
2014-07-25 02:23:22 PM  
It's important to know your known unknowns.

//or are these the unknown unknowns?
 
2014-07-25 02:45:34 PM  
I like how even Fark doesn't care anymore.  These threads make me imagine two grumpy old men feuding in the south during the Summer.  Both sides are just kind of sprawled out in the heat and lazily lift one arm to flip each other the bird occasionally.
 
2014-07-25 03:04:37 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: I like how even Fark doesn't care anymore.  These threads make me imagine two grumpy old men feuding in the south during the Summer.  Both sides are just kind of sprawled out in the heat and lazily lift one arm to flip each other the bird occasionally.


I rather like that allusion.
 
2014-07-25 03:30:25 PM  
Its all about length not girth, right?
 
2014-07-25 03:32:40 PM  
"Ted Scambos, a sea ice expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, agrees: "I don't think this lets us off the hook of explaining how Antarctica's sea ice is expanding in a warming world," he told Nature. "

Look at this bastard, trying to be evenhanded and apply scientific rigor to a climate change discussion.  Screw him, someone cut his funding!  This is no time for balance and reason!  We have an agenda people!

(goes for both sides)
 
2014-07-25 03:38:26 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: I like how even Fark doesn't care anymore.  These threads make me imagine two grumpy old men feuding in the south during the Summer.  Both sides are just kind of sprawled out in the heat and lazily lift one arm to flip each other the bird occasionally.


Tends to happen when one side has overwhelming evidence.  It's like when you see people arguing evolution versus YEC.  Eventually, they realize that denialists and YECs are just brick walls and say, "screw it."
 
2014-07-25 04:39:52 PM  
Land Ice which is made up of fresh water, is melting and dumping into the surrounding ocean which is salt water.

Sea water freezes at a lower temp than fresh water.

When sea water is diluted with fresh water, it's freezing temp rises, thus creating more ice...

It's really not that hard, we did that experiment in 7th grade science...
 
2014-07-25 04:49:20 PM  

CeroX: Land Ice which is made up of fresh water, is melting and dumping into the surrounding ocean which is salt water.

Sea water freezes at a lower temp than fresh water.

When sea water is diluted with fresh water, it's freezing temp rises, thus creating more ice...

It's really not that hard, we did that experiment in 7th grade science...


Don't expect science journalists to understand science.
 
2014-07-25 05:55:46 PM  
kill off all the humans, wait 50,000 years and see what happens!
btw, the next ice age is behind schedule!
 
2014-07-25 06:04:48 PM  

BizarreMan: FTFA:

The paradox of expanding Antarctic sea ice has troubled scientists for many years. Although climate models predict southern sea ice should shrink, it has stubbornly refused to do so. In fact, between the last two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which came out just seven years apart, the rate of Antarctic sea ice growth more than doubled.

If the model says the ice should shrink and it is expanding at either a large or small rate.  Maybe the model needs to be re-examined because it is obviously flawed.

I appreciate the irony of the related article from two months ago that says "OMG the glaciers are melting and collapsing due to climate change and it's irreversible!"  Make up your mind, is the ice shrinking or growing?

The problem in my mind is the scientists are making short term (200 year) predictions based on even shorter term data when weather and climate science is still in it's infancy and I don't believe we have all of the tools in place to collect enough data points to make a solid prediction.

/please note that I am not in any way denying that man has an impact on the climate.  We need to take care to ensure that we don't totally screw up the planet.  Even if the pollution in Beijing, Mumbai or Mexico City isn't changing the temperature 1/1000th of a degree, the quality of life and health of the citizens demands change.


They aren't just using short term data. Things like tree rings and ice core samples give climate data that can go back thousands of years. And they can use that data to double check questionable observations.
 
2014-07-25 06:25:39 PM  
This biggest issue is squarely in the "who gives a shiat" department.

The natural consequence of better technology, medicine, transportation, and communications is an increase in global population.  The obvious consequence of more people is more consumption by those people trying to improve their lives.

Ultimately the Earth will self-correct and billions will die.  Just go along for the ride and make sure you have a good enough job to pay for more expensive goods in the process.

/Time started way before we were born, and will go on way after we die--it's cute how humans often think we can control everything.
 
2014-07-25 08:11:18 PM  

BizarreMan: If the model says the ice should shrink and it is expanding at either a large or small rate.  Maybe the model needs to be re-examined because it is obviously flawed.


Sure. On the other hand, it's important to be clear whether or not:

1. The supposedly contradictory event is actually occurring.
2. The supposedly contradictory event is actually contradictory to expectations when considering a full rather than subset of factors.
3. The supposedly contradictory event makes somehow compromises the model's ability to be useful.
4. The supposedly contradictory event somehow challenges the fundamental theoretical underpinnings of the model.

For this, the only one of these that is remotely safe to say is 1.

Yes, we expect Antarctic sea ice to decline overall as we warm the planet. But we also recognize that there is significant natural variability superimposed on the underlying, anthropogenic influence. It is not at all clear that Antarctic sea ice behavior is outside the models' range of natural variability (Polvani and Smith, 2013) given the short timescale under discussion and the questionable magnitude of the increase (the findings in TFA). We can look at reconstructions of pre-satellite Antarctic sea ice and see that there has been an overall decline despite the more recent increase (of questionable magnitude).

Further, we know that there are confounding processes not fully accounted for in the modeling that make little difference to their longterm usefulness that can also be a factor. Anthropogenic ozone depletion (in addition to our increase in GHGs) appears to be affecting the dominant mode of Antarctic variability known as the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). But our understanding of how and why is incomplete. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, the issue of ODSs is less important over time. So while we're still trying to suss out what's going on, if the ODS-SAM-sea ice relationship is indeed a factor, the failure of the models to capture doesn't mean much for the future as ODSs become less and less of an issue.

Finally, Antarctic sea ice behavior in no way challenges our understanding of the fundamental physics involved with anthropogenic warming, which is basically an issue of planetary energy balance. It may or may not have an impact on the precise value of climate sensitivity to increasing GHGs, but it may not, and the difference it would make is miniscule relative to the emissions trajectories- (BAU) or emissions stabilization- we have to choose between.

There are a number of things that- unlike this- we know are unquestionably are wrong with AOGCMs (e.g. the double ITCZ problem), but we don't throw the models out because the particular errors/unrealistic behavior have a negligible relevance to the questions we're trying to answer with the models.
 
2014-07-25 08:14:39 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: You can't argue with 400 ppm, and climbing.


In other words, currently there are 4 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
A hundred years ago there were only 3 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
Clearly, there is nothing to argue about
 
2014-07-25 09:20:34 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Marcus Aurelius: You can't argue with 400 ppm, and climbing.

In other words, currently there are 4 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
A hundred years ago there were only 3 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
Clearly, there is nothing to argue about


So you wouldn't mind a ppm of lead in your body? That's even less than CO2 in the atmosphere!
 
2014-07-25 09:26:24 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: DesertDemonWY: Marcus Aurelius: You can't argue with 400 ppm, and climbing.

In other words, currently there are 4 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
A hundred years ago there were only 3 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
Clearly, there is nothing to argue about

So you wouldn't mind a ppm of lead in your body? That's even less than CO2 in the atmosphere!


Yes, I would mind. But lead is not essential for all life on the planet
Did you know that you exhale 40,000 ppm of CO2 every breath?
//apples and oranges, don't compare them
 
2014-07-25 09:35:50 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Shakin_Haitian: DesertDemonWY: Marcus Aurelius: You can't argue with 400 ppm, and climbing.

In other words, currently there are 4 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
A hundred years ago there were only 3 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
Clearly, there is nothing to argue about

So you wouldn't mind a ppm of lead in your body? That's even less than CO2 in the atmosphere!

Yes, I would mind. But lead is not essential for all life on the planet
Did you know that you exhale 40,000 ppm of CO2 every breath?
//apples and oranges, don't compare them


What is the carbon cycle? Just curious if you understand some very, very basic stuff here.
 
2014-07-26 12:03:11 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Shakin_Haitian: DesertDemonWY: Marcus Aurelius: You can't argue with 400 ppm, and climbing.

In other words, currently there are 4 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
A hundred years ago there were only 3 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
Clearly, there is nothing to argue about

So you wouldn't mind a ppm of lead in your body? That's even less than CO2 in the atmosphere!

Yes, I would mind. But lead is not essential for all life on the planet
Did you know that you exhale 40,000 ppm of CO2 every breath?
//apples and oranges, don't compare them


It's so weird that you're cognizant of the fact that seemingly small amounts of substances can have significant negative effects but CO2 is "something you breathe out so what's the big deal." It's apples and apples man. A ton of feathers dropped on your head is just as deadly as a ton of bricks. Just because you "intuit" that one substance is innocuous doesn't make it so.

I picture a fat guy eating an M&M and saying "it's only like 10 kcal, I can't be hurt by this" and dying of a heart attack after eating 50 lbs of M&Ms a day. Scale and long term effects matter. Sheesh.
 
2014-07-26 01:58:48 AM  

Frederf: DesertDemonWY: Shakin_Haitian: DesertDemonWY: Marcus Aurelius: You can't argue with 400 ppm, and climbing.

In other words, currently there are 4 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
A hundred years ago there were only 3 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
Clearly, there is nothing to argue about

So you wouldn't mind a ppm of lead in your body? That's even less than CO2 in the atmosphere!

Yes, I would mind. But lead is not essential for all life on the planet
Did you know that you exhale 40,000 ppm of CO2 every breath?
//apples and oranges, don't compare them

It's so weird that you're cognizant of the fact that seemingly small amounts of substances can have significant negative effects but CO2 is "something you breathe out so what's the big deal." It's apples and apples man. A ton of feathers dropped on your head is just as deadly as a ton of bricks. Just because you "intuit" that one substance is innocuous doesn't make it so.

I picture a fat guy eating an M&M and saying "it's only like 10 kcal, I can't be hurt by this" and dying of a heart attack after eating 50 lbs of M&Ms a day. Scale and long term effects matter. Sheesh.


You're really going to compare a fat guy eating 50 pounds of M&Ms a day to the addition of 1:10,000 of plant food over a hundred years?
This is why rational people don't believe you anymore
 
2014-07-26 03:12:11 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Frederf: DesertDemonWY: Shakin_Haitian: DesertDemonWY: Marcus Aurelius: You can't argue with 400 ppm, and climbing.

In other words, currently there are 4 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
A hundred years ago there were only 3 molecules of plant food for every 10,000 molecules of air.
Clearly, there is nothing to argue about

So you wouldn't mind a ppm of lead in your body? That's even less than CO2 in the atmosphere!

Yes, I would mind. But lead is not essential for all life on the planet
Did you know that you exhale 40,000 ppm of CO2 every breath?
//apples and oranges, don't compare them

It's so weird that you're cognizant of the fact that seemingly small amounts of substances can have significant negative effects but CO2 is "something you breathe out so what's the big deal." It's apples and apples man. A ton of feathers dropped on your head is just as deadly as a ton of bricks. Just because you "intuit" that one substance is innocuous doesn't make it so.

I picture a fat guy eating an M&M and saying "it's only like 10 kcal, I can't be hurt by this" and dying of a heart attack after eating 50 lbs of M&Ms a day. Scale and long term effects matter. Sheesh.

You're really going to compare a fat guy eating 50 pounds of M&Ms a day to the addition of 1:10,000 of plant food over a hundred years?
This is why rational people don't believe you anymore



You've missed the point. The idea that people are trying to get you to understand is that something that is ubiquitous can have negative effects at higher levels, whether one's intake of M&Ms, or carbon dioxide. That something is "food" (among many effects) does not mean that it cannot have negative effects when increased. As frederf said, scale and long term effects matter. Maybe an analogous saying more familiar to you would be "the dose makes the poison".

That aside, simply expressing incredulity about the effects of something does not hold much weight. Arguing from a position of willful ignorance isn't all that effective regardless of the topic.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report