
Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles - matteuan
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
======
dzdt
Look at this graph of global sea ice extent for every year since 1978. It is
insane how much an outlier the last 9 months are. Like sesame street level
"one of these curves is not like the others" kind of outlier.

[https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-
ice-...](https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-
area/grf/nsidc_global_extent_byyear_b.png)

~~~
pfarnsworth
40 years is kind of nothing in terms of geological time.

It's definitely an outlier but trend following has two different schools, that
the trend will continue forever, or that the trend will revert to the mean.
I'm in the camp that things will revert to mean for things like this, just
like how California drought recovered so violently. I guess time will tell.

~~~
dzdt
You have a gut feeling it will revert. Okay, great. But the consequences are
on the scale of a significant fraction of the world's GDP as well as a
significant fraction of the world population. Should we maybe have someone
study it more carefully?

So say we find a bunch of smart people to think about the question. Give them
the biggest computers money can buy. Have multiple competing teams who double-
check each other and get rewarded if they find mistakes in others' work or
have new ideas to improve the study. Make it big -- it is important, right?
Global. Lots of smart people, lots of the biggest computers. Anything they
need to help their work.

And after years of their work, when they come back with a report [1], then
lets just ignore it and trust your gut instead, right?

[1]
[http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/mindex.shtml](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/mindex.shtml)

~~~
senorjazz
bravo (although you did make me spit coffee all over my laptop which I am not
happy about....)

------
ideonexus
In the DC area, we had two weeks of 70 degree weather in February. The cherry
trees blossomed because of it, and then they wilted off the trees because
temperatures dropped to normal.

I saw Fox News manage to put a anti-global warming spin on it by only
reporting that cold killed the cherry blossoms, leaving out the fact that they
normally blossom in April.

~~~
officelineback
I salute you for your commitment to watching Fox News. After Trump's election
I said I was going to consume more of the other-side-centric media because I
wanted to understand how this F'ing happened. I can't, though, it's too
painful. So I salute you.

------
Clanan
Already, the discussion here swings toward the climate change vs. "denialist"
debate. Instead of politicizing it, maybe read the article? According to those
interviewed, the trend until last year was to see more ice.

    
    
        > “It is tempting to say that the record low we are seeing this year is global warming finally catching up with Antarctica,” Meier said. “However, this might just be an extreme case of pushing the envelope of year-to-year variability. We’ll need to have several more years of data to be able to say there has been a significant change in the trend.”
    

Ironically, all those accusing others of being "denialists" are themselves
failing to look at this scientifically, and resorting to the rudely
unscientific tactic of name-calling.

~~~
scarmig
No. Implying a single piece of decontextualized evidence--sea levels not
rising--casts doubt on AGW is a classic denialist tactic. Multiple lines of
evidence provide compelling arguments for AGW. It's an intellectually
dishonest gambit to try to play a game of "gotcha" instead of trying to come
up with the most powerful explanation for a phenomenon, and toxic to
scientific discourse.

~~~
Clanan
I did not say what you think I said. In a topic as complex (and contentious)
as weather, climate, global warming, etc. I think we should focus on
understanding the science and employing civic discourse. I simply repeated
what the scientist said: no conclusions yet, need more data. And in response I
receive the blatant accusations of "classic denialist tactic[s]"? You think
that's not toxic to discourse?

(Disclosure to pre-empt the common accusation of ignorance: I'm scientifically
trained and work in renewable energy R&D.)

~~~
okreallywtf
Unfortunately I think the level of discourse is already at rock-bottom. I
would like to agree with you and I think people do need to be careful and not
jump the gun (and thereby provide fodder for the denialist camp) but at some
point we can't simply be academic about it all - the evidence for AGW (or ACC
preferably) is overwhelming at this point and while an objective academic is
preferable it can also be damaging to the goal of changing public opinion.

The denialist camp has a simple and effective strategy for disputing
anthropomorphic climate change: First, always call it global warming to make
it less understood and then if its cold [1], dispute GW and if any single
piece of information doesn't 100% fit with GW (ie, a single datapoint that
shows global temperatures cooling by ignoring ocean temperatures [2]).

However, if you are being 100% honest about any climate measurements you
cannot say anything other than "Well, this single measurement doesn't tell us
anything but it fits with the trend of rising temperatures globally and we
need more data and research.". This may be true, but its not winning the
argument. People will follow simple, easy narratives and will shy from complex
arguments whose consequences are also terrifying and potentially apocalyptic.
By sticking to our guns and taking the high road, we might be dooming
ourselves and by the time people really feel climate change it will be too
late. Is our high-minded discourse worth that? I'm not saying we rabidly jump
on every datapoint and say "SEE CLIMATE CHANGE", but until I see a lot more
credible information I think its time to stop taking such a passive stance.

[1] [http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-
snowball...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-
climate-change/) [2] [https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-
americans-c...](https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-
climate-change)

------
bamboozled
Ok, so this question has been asked before, but here goes!

What are we going to do about it?

I hear people say it's just too late to stop a catastrophe, but I find it hard
to believe.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
It's not too late to stop this. But if you try, some people who will be dead
before the worst happens and so won't suffer or pay for the consequences, and
who can profit in the short term by punting the problem into the long grass
will fight to prevent you from doing so.

In order to stop it, roughly $10 trillion dollars worth of fossil fuel assets
will need to be left in the ground. As a historical parallel, the economic
value (inflation adjusted) of the slaves in the southern US before the civil
war was $10 trillion dollars.

The people who owned those slaves opted to fight the most destructive war the
planet had seen at that time rather than give up their property.

Have you noticed that nearly all the big names pushing Brexit are climate
change denialists? That Trump claims it's a hoax and chose as his Secretary of
State the head of Exxon that discussed climate change on a seperate email
alias which the company then "lost" when asked to provide them in a court
case?

It's not looking good, but it's not a technical issue.

~~~
madaxe_again
I'm just back from Antarctica, and chatted with a number of scientists from
McMurdo & Vernadsky stations - while stood outside wearing shorts and a shirt
(apparently this is not normal Antarctic apparel, but it was _hot_ ), and
their outlook is dour. They're not talking in terms of prevention or reversal,
rather, mitigation - how can human life survive in a vastly changed biosphere?

Animal behaviour was all sorts of weird too - Orca and humpbacks in abnormally
large groupings (hundreds of individuals), salps flourishing in the water just
below the rotted away feet of glaciers, penguins nesting and mating at exactly
the wrong time of year.

The only way to lessen the disaster will be to subvert existing systems to the
purpose - make it financially rewarding to leave oil in the ground, to use
renewables, to not burn down forests for short-lived ranch-land. Doing this on
a global scale can only be achieved through capitalism - it's the one constant
across borders, as its increasingly clear governments either cannot or will
not respond to this crisis. Don't ask me for specifics - I haven't figured
that much out yet, but it seems to be the only viable pathway.

~~~
_red
I have a friend who works for Exxon material science division. His goal in
life is to find "the next oil", obviously Exxon is willing to hedge its bets
and fund some alternative energy research so they can position themselves if a
new breakthrough is discovered.

Here is the problem: Oil is currently the most energy packed material that
humans _easily_ have access to. And its not even really close, wind / solar /
etc are not just 40% less efficient, more like orders of magnitude.

I think the demonization of oil may be causing more total CO2 than just
burning it. A craze starts which convinces everyone to buy electric cars -
except those rare earth materials for the batteries are really hard to find.
They require millions of tons of mining to gather enough a usable quantity for
one electric vehicle.

How does all that mining get accomplished? Certainly not in a CO2 friendly
manner. Where does the electricity come from to charge those batteries?

Many reasonable people in the energy industry are eager to find a "better oil"
but realize that rushing off into hysterical tulip manias is probably doing
more harm to the enviroment than just using the 'cheap / easy' oil that we
have.

~~~
macawfish
The viable alternatives aren't so simple as replacing one product with another
that's just as energy dense. They involve things like biking instead of
driving, not making frequent trips across the country, spending less time
doing busy work and more time taking care (cooking, mending, gardening,
walking, studying, adapting).

The global economic norms are predicated on a simplified models of humans, in
which we are needy, pathetic little hungry creatures who must be managed and
trained, sorted and extracted.

But really, we are 8 billion capable, creative individuals who, free of our
doubts and demons, could really make the world more livable for ourselves and
each other. Do you realize how many capable hands are among us? I see it
clearly on a good day. _We_ need to realize it, and I believe we will, but
probably not without some fire.

------
grimmdude
One thing I've always found interesting is that technically, by definition,
we're currently in an ice age:

    
    
      "By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice 
      age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, 
      because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist."
    

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age)

------
Cerium
Watched "Chasing Ice", 2012, last night with my wife. It was her homework
assignment. What a film! Great watch for anyone here who has not seen it. Its
half climate change documented via changes in ice, and half behind the scenes
look at how they made those. How to mount a camera in the arctic.

------
nojvek
Thinking about the Fermi paradox and the great filter, I think due to humans
being too selfish we will may be someday end up not making it through.

Earth is the only habitable planet by a long shot and we are still treating
global warming like a mad man's story.

The current trump administration gives a strong vibe that they'll exploit the
planet for their full term and leave the bigger problems for the next
president to sort out.

------
harwoodleon
Personally tired of hearing the word 'record'. It's pretty obvious that every
year is going to deliver new records. Why don't we/NASA start reporting on the
effects. Then the denialist argument becomes moot. Perhaps the human effects
too. Perhaps that will make this more real to the idiots who question the
science.

------
batushka
Comments about climate are so censored here. Bottom is full of flagged out
comments with replies. It's like reading CIA doc with half page black.

~~~
mrspeaker
Only one user's comments are flagged, and it's a new account with no other
comments.

~~~
JshWright
And their comment was based on a false premise (that melting sea ice causes an
increase in sea levels... it does not).

