Current Events > Arctic sea ice suffering fastest decline in 1,500 years

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/12/16767152/arctic-sea-ice-extent-chart

Arctic sea ice extent has been measured by satellites since the 1970s. And scientists can sample ice cores, permafrost records, and tree rings to make some assumptions about the sea ice extent going back 1,500 years. And when you put that all on a chart, well, it looks a little scary.

In December, NOAA released its latest annual Arctic Report Card, which analyzes the state of the frozen ocean at the top of our world. Overall, its not good.

The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history, Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAAs Arctic research program, said at a press conference. This years observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago.

The report, which you can read in full here, compiles trends that scientists have been seeing for years. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. And 2017 saw a new record low for the maximum sea ice extent (i.e., how much of the Arctic ocean freezes in the coldest depths of winter).

That huge drop-off at the end? Thats the largest magnitude decline in sea ice, and the greatest sustained rate in sea ice decline in that 1,500-year record, said Emily Osborne, the NOAA scientist who compiled the data for the chart.

There is some natural variability, and a fairly wide range of error in these assumptions, she said. But even accounting for that, its clear were living through something unprecedented. And it seems to be getting worse very quickly: This was the third straight year of a record low winter maximum, the report concludes.

Its not yet clear how 2018 will fare, but it doesnt look good: On February 6, the National Snow & Ice Data Center reported that Arctic sea-ice extent for the month of January was at a record low.

And right now, the planet has the least amount of sea ice since satellite record-keeping began in the 1970s. As meteorologist Eric Holthaus explains, February is usually the month where the combined sea ice at both poles bottoms out for the year.

---

Pfft a chinese hoax
---

There is literally no polar cap on the north pole anymore. Its just an ocean now
---

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.
---

Quicksilver posted...

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.

Im not an expert but I dont think it works like that lol.
---

Good. Down with this filthy species.
---

MrDrMan posted...

Quicksilver posted...

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.

Im not an expert but I dont think it works like that lol.

It does in the arctic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

So just to play devil's advocate but why is it not possible that this is a natural temperature shift like the little ice age?
---

Quicksilver posted...

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.

I'm gonna give this the benefit of the doubt as being satirical
---

Good.
---

:thonking:


---

Thanks trump
---

spudger posted...

Thanks trump

No, this started around the time of James Monroe.

Questionmarktarius posted...

MrDrMan posted...

Quicksilver posted...

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.

Im not an expert but I dont think it works like that lol.

It does in the arctic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

There are two sides to everything. When I said I dont think it works like that I meant there has to be a downside.
---

apolloooo posted...

Good. Down with this filthy species.

Reported to the proper authorities.

MrDrMan posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

MrDrMan posted...

Quicksilver posted...

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.

Im not an expert but I dont think it works like that lol.

It does in the arctic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

There are two sides to everything. When I said I dont think it works like that I meant there has to be a downside.

MANY SIDES
---

Fishy posted...

So just to play devil's advocate but why is it not possible that this is a natural temperature shift like the little ice age?

The temperature is rising magnitudes faster than it has in hundreds of thousands of years, maybe it's not natural. Also nature doesn't have the time to adapt like it does to natural gradual changes.

Fishy posted...

So just to play devil's advocate but why is it not possible that this is a natural temperature shift like the little ice age?

Possible, but believed to be unlikely because the shift is 15 times as sharp in a tenth of the time
---

we'll all be underwater by the time were dead

huh
---

Im sure its declined faster and in a shorter period of time at other points during the earths 4.5 Billion years of existence.

but... there are profits to be made by the top percent sitting and doing nothing with their money >:|
---

why ruin that
---

gamer167 posted...

Im sure its declined faster and in a shorter period of time at other points during the earths 4.5 Billion years of existence.

Exactly, yes
---

gamer167 posted...

Im sure its declined faster and in a shorter period of time at other points during the earths 4.5 Billion years of existence.

Well, we've only been looking for about 40 or 50 years, and guessing at about the other 1450.

gamer167 posted...

Im sure its declined faster and in a shorter period of time at other points during the earths 4.5 Billion years of existence.

https://xkcd.com/1732/
---

gamer167 posted...

Im sure its declined faster and in a shorter period of time at other points during the earths 4.5 Billion years of existence.

That's a very qualified guess you're making :)
---

Quicksilver posted...

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.

Because all that melted ice has to go somewhere.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Quicksilver posted...

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.

Because all that melted ice has to go somewhere.

I should note, as the article does, that sea ice melting won't raise sea levels. The greater concern is that water will be able to absorb more heat, threatening the glacier ice of nearby Greenland (and screwing with weather patterns besides).
---

Antifar posted...

I should note, as the article does, that sea ice melting won't raise sea levels.

How does that work, when the sea level has been shown to have actually risen?

scar the 1 posted...

gamer167 posted...

Im sure its declined faster and in a shorter period of time at other points during the earths 4.5 Billion years of existence.

That's a very qualified guess you're making :)

He might not be wrong, however those "other points" may be "a supervolcano erupted throwing the world into a prolonged period of cooling" or "a giant comet impacted the earth throwing the world into a prolonged period of cooling"
---

anth0ny posted...

but... there are profits to be made by the top percent sitting and doing nothing with their money >:|

The top 1% isn't doing nothing with their money. If some jackass did win the superlottery, he'll be surpassed in no time by people who invest.

I don't know where this idea that superwealthies keep their money in a cookie jar comes from. Maybe people just don't realize that investing means that the money they invest is doing stuff in someone else's hands.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

gamer167 posted...

Im sure its declined faster and in a shorter period of time at other points during the earths 4.5 Billion years of existence.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

How accurate is this? Asking as a genuine question, not a challenge.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Antifar posted...

I should note, as the article does, that sea ice melting won't raise sea levels.

How does that work, when the sea level has been shown to have actually risen?

Yeah I forgot >_>

It's sea ice so it's already on the water, meaning it has already displaced its equivalent amount of water.

It's the on-land glaciers like Greenland and Antarctica melting that raises sea levels as that ice is not in the water.
---

SomeonesAlt posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

gamer167 posted...

Im sure its declined faster and in a shorter period of time at other points during the earths 4.5 Billion years of existence.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

How accurate is this? Asking as a genuine question, not a challenge.

The XKCD guy is usually on the ball with science stuff.
The only probable flaw is using the "hockey stick" graph as a basis, which is has been questioned quite a bit.

im not cleaning up my argument, but when the planet's environment is changing at a disastrous and alarming rate, yes, investing in most anything else is wasting it on bullshit
---

Bio1590 posted...

It's the on-land glaciers like Greenland and Antarctica melting that raises sea levels as that ice is not in the water.

Ah.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Antifar posted...

I should note, as the article does, that sea ice melting won't raise sea levels.

How does that work, when the sea level has been shown to have actually risen?

Because that's not sea ice melting. That's ice from land melting and pouring into the sea. More water -> higher ocean level.
---

Oh I'm blind and slow, sorry m8
---

anth0ny posted...

im not cleaning up my argument, but when the planet's environment is changing at a disastrous and alarming rate, yes, investing in most anything else is wasting it on bullshit

There is not a person on the planet that has the money to singlehandedly stop climate change.

Good luck getting the 1% to work together on a decent cause though.
---

MrDrMan posted...

There is not a person on the planet that has the money to singlehandedly stop climate change.

The technology doesn't even really exist yet, apart from nuclear power.

Quicksilver posted...

So whats the big deal the ice melts it opens new shipping lanes and gives us access to more natural resources sounds like a win win situation.

And more ocean = more wildlife in the ocean. So conservatives get to burn coal, and liberals get to save the whales. Everyone wins.
---

this is exactly why i need to be God-emporor of earth. you shitters just aren't responsible enough to look after yourselves. I'll let certain Europeans keep their sovereignty tho
---

Need to declare war on the sun before it melts everything

Pitlord_Special posted...

Need to declare war on the sun before it melts everything

Spoiler: the Sun wins.

I will have these shitters find a better sun anyway
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Pitlord_Special posted...

Need to declare war on the sun before it melts everything

Spoiler: the Sun wins.

Praise the Sun

Questionmarktarius posted...

Antifar posted...

I should note, as the article does, that sea ice melting won't raise sea levels.

How does that work, when the sea level has been shown to have actually risen?

Land ice melting raises sea levels. Sea ice is already displacing an equivalent amount of water
---