Antarctic sea ice has been GROWING?

[Gumby]

Seems like all the "conventional wisdom" we take for granted is being challenged these days.

Here's another one I just came across...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... er-record/

"Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing."
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... er-record/

Of course, neither is probably "normal" but if it's true, it's news to me.

[MediumTex]

I hope this doesn't get the world out of balance and cause it to start wobbling. 

[dualstow]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... er-record/

I saw that url and thought a new James Taylor record was coming out.
Well, those polar bears in the pic really look like they're celebrating the new ice!

[Pointedstick]

I posted this to my Facebook and received the following response from a very smart friend:

This was a predicted result of observed warming:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4136.1

Keep in mind the difference between extent and volume:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo694.html (sorry, behind a paywall, you'll have to trust the abstract)

Also, look at the data from: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Note Arctic anomaly is -2.582 million km^2 while the Antarctic anomaly is only +1.097 million km^2, so the article's implication of balance between shrinking Arctic ice and growing Antarctic ice doesn't work.

Also, snow melting has been observed farther inland and at higher altitudes in Antarctica:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... wmelt.html

[MachineGhost]

Of course, neither is probably "normal" but if it's true, it's news to me.

What an inconvenient truth!

[dualstow]

What about this?

EDIT: I'll leave in the link but never mind. I see that the shrinking Arctic ice has already been covered.

PBS Newshour

[doodle]

To all skeptics left I recommend reading the responses here to most common denier arguments: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

The writer does a good job at debunking global warming skeptics arguments presented by great scientific minds such as Steve Forbes and Sean Hannity.

I'm convinced however that we do not have the political will to solve this issue and it is my guess that we will experience many years of coastal flooding and other climate induced extreme weather events before we come to the ultimate solution which will be artificially altering our atmosphere by shooting particle matter (akin to a volcanic eruption) up towards the heavens.

Either way, the present model of rushing headlong into a tunnel with our eyes closed when 99 percent of the scientific community is warning of the dangers seems like a bad course of action. We have a portfolio that guards against the future being unknowable and protects us against "black swan events". If most scientists are correct "climate change" has the potential to severely disrupt our life on this planet yet people (in America) are very quick to call it hogwash. If it turns out to be bunk...great! Unfortunately, the risks of taking no steps to guard against or attempt to avert this danger could be quite catastrophic for our species. The world needs some "climate change" gold.  

[doodle]

Here is what the above website had to say about this antartic ice expansion:

Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn’t be happening if global warming were real.

Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.

But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent results from NASA’s GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.

Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees — say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C — would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn’t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic — around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland’s melting.

[Xan]

We have a portfolio that guards against the future being unknowable and protects us against "black swan events". If most scientists are correct "climate change" has the potential to severely disrupt our life on this planet yet people (in America) are very quick to call it hogwash.

We also have a portfolio that demonstrates that an entire field of highly educated professionals can, collectively, get things completely wrong.  It's a result of assuming their conclusions, of entry filters (that is, only people who think a certain way end up in the field), and of taking the path of least resistance, that is, following the herd.

We've also seen this in the conventional wisdom of "saturated fat is evil, eat more margarine and carbs" which has been the norm for the past several decades and is only now beginning to change.

So, forgive me if I don't squander all the freedom and opportunity we've inherited on chasing this particular windmill at the moment.

[doodle]

Xan,

I'm afraid no amount of scientific evidence can sway you, but what if there were a 25% chance that the science was correct?

Are you sooooooo sure that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening that you are willing to totally discount and ignore any attempt to stem the tremendous effects this could have on the human species? Your attitude is pure hubris. If your perspective towards global warming were an investment strategy you would be 100% in one asset....it certainly wouldn't be a PP.

[Pointedstick]

Xan,

I'm afraid no amount of scientific evidence can sway you, but what if there were a 25% chance that the science was correct?

Are you sooooooo sure that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening that you are willing to totally discount and ignore any attempt to stem the tremendous effects this could have on the human species? Your attitude is pure hubris. If your perspective towards global warming were an investment strategy you would be 100% in one asset....it certainly wouldn't be a PP.

I am sympathetic to your position, but this line of argument reminds me uncomfortably of Pascal's Wager.

[doodle]

Yes, a bit like Pascal's wager except we are acting based on scientific evidence.

I find it stunning that people act shocked when someone suggests that a creature can impact its environment. It has happened time and again throughout history. We humans are capable (if we were to chose to do so) of cutting down every last tree and killing every last animal on this planet. We are also perfectly capable of changing the composition of our atmosphere. Is there anyone that argues with the fact that C02 and other greenhouse gas levels have been climbing steadily? Does the composition of our atmosphere have any effect on the temperature of our planet?

Where is the sticking point on this issue for most people? Is it the cognitive dissonance of realizing that our present lifestyles are potentially harmful to the environment which sustains us? I just don't get it....

[moda0306]

I think there needs to be the question asked, what level of proof do we need before the government should legitimately take action?  I don't know what this is, but to act like it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt seems a bit extreme.

Further, since this is a global phenominon, without giving up our sovereignty to a huge degree, it's going to involve massive treaties with other huge countries.  I think working it into our trade policies (higher tarriffs for countries that choose not to comply) would be a good idea to put some teeth into it (well, we can only put teeth into a policy after we've done something ourselves).

The last point.... should countries that have caused most of the CO2 and other greenhouse pollution over the last 50-70 years be the ones to foot a larger percentage of the bill.  On a moral and functional level, almost certainly, yes, because we wouldn't have a problem today if it wasn't for the stuff ALREADY in the atmosphere.

I strongly believe that managing externalities is a very legitimate role of gov't.  It ties right in with their recognition & defense of private property, though the same processes don't work (sorry Ron Paul, but having billions of citizens of Earth sue billions of citizens of Earth for harming "their" property (air) simply will not work).  

[Pointedstick]

doodle, I think what you run up against is people's reflexive desire to want to disclaim responsibility for their externalities. It doesn't seem fair to be held responsible and blamed for something that you may not have even known you were doing, or something that it's nearly impossible not to do given the structure of the society you live in.

There's also the perceived hypocrisy angle. Even people concerned about global warming usually drive cars, live in houses with poor thermal design, consume electricity, and use interior climate-control technology. That makes it easy for people who are already defensive to say, "well, clearly even YOU don't care enough to make the changes to your lifestyle that would demonstrate you really care, so what business do you have telling ME what I should do?"

Finally, there's the futility angle. i.e. What can I personally do about it if it's a collective problem? And not only a collective of individuals in my town, state, or nation, but all over the world? What can I do if my government imposes restrictions on my and my neighbors' global-warming-contributing behavior, but China and India don't follow suit? It would feel like we hurt ourselves for no real gain.

Those are the biggest sticking points, in my experience.

[doodle]

PointedStick,

I agree entirely with what you say, which is why I take a pesimisstic perspective on this issue. I think (if scientific consensus is true) we will reach crisis before anything happens. Humans unfortunately still have a very bad habit of discounting the future.

I'm pretty sure the solution will involve an attempt to alter warming by shooting particle matter into atmosphere coupled with more stringent and intelligent buidling codes (in other words returning to intelligent architectual design and city planning at a human walkable scale) higher energy effeciency standards and a larger share of global energy being generated using renewable sources.

[MachineGhost]

Still waiting for the smoking gun evidence that it is humans causing global warming.  I don't care about opinions, assholes or consensus.  I want unbiased, quantifable proof.  If it doesn't exist in medicine, how can we expect it to exist in this field?

That's not to say global warming isn't happening, its just a matter of who to blame.  If humans are at fault, it gives a lot of power to watermelons.

[doodle]

Here is an interesting TED talk about climate shaping: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_ ... hange.html

[Pointedstick]

I'm pretty sure the solution will involve an attempt to alter warming by shooting particle matter into atmosphere coupled with more stringent and intelligent buidling codes (in other words returning to intelligent architectual design and city planning at a human walkable scale) higher energy effeciency standards and a larger share of global energy being generated using renewable sources.

Actually, what's interesting is that if you talk to any of the real pioneers of green building such as Michael Reynolds or Owen Geiger, they hate building codes and strongly believe that they were a part of the problem. From a recent interview:

I research and write about all aspects of sustainable building, and am involved with projects worldwide. My passion is super low cost housing (typically small houses under a few thousands dollars) made with locally available materials such as earth, straw, small diameter poles, etc. Using materials like this there’s no reason why everyone can’t have a decent home, assuming you move to a rural area with few or no building codes. Building codes may have started with good intentions (well, actually they were written by the timber, steel, brick and concrete industries, so no, their intention from the beginning was to gain control and maximize profit over the construction industry). Building codes can turn a simple $5,000 cabin into a $100,000 project. That’s great news for bankers, big business, realtors and insurance folks; terrible news for the rest of us just trying to get by. I’ve come to accept it all as a big scam and have decided to move on instead of trying to change the system. There are still quite a few rural areas with minimal building codes, so why get stressed out fighting what may very well be a futile battle? See this blog post for more details: http://naturalbuildingblog.com/counties ... ing-codes/ It’s our #1 all time most popular blog post. That speaks volumes about what people are concerned about. People are looking for affordable housing and a way out of the mess society is in. That’s my take on it, anyway.

http://www.livelymag.com/owen-geiger/

IMHO, the solution is to stop forcing people to build inefficient stick-framed houses, not to force them to stick more insulation inside the walls of their inefficient stick-framed houses. The real green houses are made of earth and straw, but most codes all but prohibit them. A housing revolution will require freedom to build what we want, not more central control dictating how many nails go in which board and how far apart they have to be.

[moda0306]

Still waiting for the smoking gun evidence that it is humans causing global warming.  I don't care about opinions, assholes or consensus.  I want unbiased, quantifable proof.  If it doesn't exist in medicine, how can we expect it to exist in this field?

That's not to say global warming isn't happening, its just a matter of who to blame.  If humans are at fault, it gives a lot of power to watermelons.

MG,

Is that to say that you think we should wait for said degree of proof before having our governments act on global warming (taxing externalities, etc, etc)?  If so, I'd ask for the same degree of proof that land is naturally private property and is therefore subject to legitimate deeding and enforcement by government .

[doodle]

Once again, I'm going to put a plug in for this website. I think it does a great job at taking on the most frequent attacks against Climate Change.

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

There is no surety in life, but there is risk / benefit analysis. The fact is that the changes to our lifestyles needed to avert anthropogenic climate change are rather minimal. The potential risks of doing absolutely nothing could be devastating.

I'm surprised that more people here don't find the idea of hedging our bets for the future an intelligent path to take.

[doodle]

Pointedstick,

I agree with you regarding building codes. I looked into building a new house in a neighborhood into an earth berm with an earthern roof to cut down significantly on heating and cooling needs. Forget about it! Impossibly difficult to get clearance. I was looking at making something like this:

http://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html

[Pointedstick]

Pointedstick,

I agree with you regarding building codes. I looked into building a new house in a neighborhood into an earth berm with an earthern roof to cut down significantly on heating and cooling needs. Forget about it! Impossibly difficult to get clearance. I was looking at making something like this:

http://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html

Crazy, isn't it? People who want to make a difference in their own small way are legally prohibited from doing it. What state are you in? Some are better than others; New Mexico and Arizona are especially friendly toward earthen architecture. If you already own property, you can usually build whatever you want as long as it's under a certain square footage; for example near here, you can build anything under 120 sqft. Maybe you could build a little earthen workshop or office?

[dualstow]

From a friend- lots of resources here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

[Benko]

Doode,

If you say that warming of the globe is bad (assuuming humans can cause this which is unlikely), than what is the ideal temperature?  What the globe is now?  5 degtrees cooler?  5 degrees warmer?  how did you decide this?

Hubris seems to be a common sin amount those who would impose their will on us all.

[doodle]

Dualstow,

Will do some reading there, thanks.

Benko,

Objection: The earth has had much warmer climates in the past. What’s so special about the current climate? Anyway, it seems like a generally warmer world will be better.

Answer: I don’t know if there is a meaningful way to define an “optimum”? average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it’s even better with no ice caps anywhere.

It doesn’t matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before — that sounds reassuring, right?

Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes — up or down or sideways — are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. That, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.