6 ms·

I know I'm going to get downvoted, but may I quote Wikipedia: "An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosp

by sai_c 6y ago

I know I'm going to get downvoted, but may I quote Wikipedia: "An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed "glacial periods" (or, alternatively, "glacials", "glaciations", "glacial stages", "stadials", "stades", or colloquially, "ice ages"), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called "interglacials" or "interstadials", with both climatic pulses part of the Quaternary or other periods in Earth's history.[2]" Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age No matter the cause, no ice in the polar regions is actually the norm. Sure, bad consequences for humanity are real, but in the (very) long run, we would have to face them anyway (if humanity still exists).

gpm 6y ago
The concern isn't so much the fact the ice is melting as the rate that it is melting. If this happened at the normal geological timescales we would have plenty of time to adapt.
- eisbaar 6y ago
  Fair enough, but then such headlines are misleading or useless, as they don't tell us anything about the rate. They suggest melting ice in general is cause for concern, when really it is expected because of the ice age cycles. Not saying the rate is not concerning, but then they should write about the rate, not about extreme measurements.
  - gpm 6y ago
    They do tell us about the rate, because the rate should be so slow as to not be perceptible.
    - Udik 6y ago
      A lot of things that used to be imperceptible are now perceptible thanks to precise measurements and systematic, complete and reliable written records. For example, an average change in temperatures of 1 degree over one century used to be imperceptible, now it's not.
    - eisbaar 6y ago
      Even if imperceptible slow (to our human senses), there would eventually a point of "ice free in October". A simple report about that event doesn't tell me anything about the rate.
      - gpm 6y ago
        One datapoint out of the norm would be explainable via noise, which is why the article is not about a single datapoint but the trend of all the recent datapoints being far below the norm. You're dismissing the article as a "simple report of an ice free october" when that's not what the article is. It would not normally just be imperceptible slow to our human senses, it would normally be imperceptibly below the noise floor over our entire lifetimes.
        eisbaar 6y ago
        First of all I criticize the alarmist headline. As for the article, I know see data goes only back 41 years. Is that even a meaningful geological timeframe? Also there often seems to be the assumption that every year should be like average. In fact, average implies that some years should be below and some above. Not saying there is nothing going on, but I don't automatically believe we are all going to die just from that article. (We as in mankind, every individual will of course die, unless there is a major scientific breakthrough).
        gitrog 6y ago
        I find it absolutely incredible the mental gymnastics you're performing to conclude that your "common sense" take is a more accurate representation of reality than what these scientists are telling us. > but I don't automatically believe we are all going to die just from that article. Nowhere in the article does it say that. Nothing about this article is alarmist. The simple truth is you've already made up your mind about climate change in general, and now you're just looking for tiny crumbs of evidence that researchers are slipping up somewhere, and criticizing anything that doesn't fit your notion of how this should play out.
titzer 6y ago
The last time there were no ice caps, humanity didn't exist. That was 3 million years ago: https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/the-last-time-the-arctic-was-ice-free-in-summer-modern-humans-didn-t-exist.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/the-last-time-the-arcti... Earth has been cycling between glacial (90,000 years) and inter-glacial periods (10,000 years) every 100,000 years or so for the past million or so years. We were actually winding up an interglacial period and would likely be headed to another ice age...in a few thousand years. But our CO2 emissions completely changed that trajectory in two centuries. Our current emissions will change that trajectory even further in just a couple decades. Now we are headed for something...very different. And it's happening fast.

by sai_c 6y ago

gpm 6y ago

The concern isn't so much the fact the ice is melting as the rate that it is melting. If this happened at the normal geological timescales we would have plenty of time to adapt.

eisbaar 6y ago
Fair enough, but then such headlines are misleading or useless, as they don't tell us anything about the rate. They suggest melting ice in general is cause for concern, when really it is expected because of the ice age cycles. Not saying the rate is not concerning, but then they should write about the rate, not about extreme measurements.
- gpm 6y ago
  They do tell us about the rate, because the rate should be so slow as to not be perceptible.
  - Udik 6y ago
    A lot of things that used to be imperceptible are now perceptible thanks to precise measurements and systematic, complete and reliable written records. For example, an average change in temperatures of 1 degree over one century used to be imperceptible, now it's not.
  - eisbaar 6y ago
    Even if imperceptible slow (to our human senses), there would eventually a point of "ice free in October". A simple report about that event doesn't tell me anything about the rate.
    - gpm 6y ago
      One datapoint out of the norm would be explainable via noise, which is why the article is not about a single datapoint but the trend of all the recent datapoints being far below the norm. You're dismissing the article as a "simple report of an ice free october" when that's not what the article is. It would not normally just be imperceptible slow to our human senses, it would normally be imperceptibly below the noise floor over our entire lifetimes.
      - eisbaar 6y ago
        First of all I criticize the alarmist headline. As for the article, I know see data goes only back 41 years. Is that even a meaningful geological timeframe? Also there often seems to be the assumption that every year should be like average. In fact, average implies that some years should be below and some above. Not saying there is nothing going on, but I don't automatically believe we are all going to die just from that article. (We as in mankind, every individual will of course die, unless there is a major scientific breakthrough).
        gitrog 6y ago
        I find it absolutely incredible the mental gymnastics you're performing to conclude that your "common sense" take is a more accurate representation of reality than what these scientists are telling us. > but I don't automatically believe we are all going to die just from that article. Nowhere in the article does it say that. Nothing about this article is alarmist. The simple truth is you've already made up your mind about climate change in general, and now you're just looking for tiny crumbs of evidence that researchers are slipping up somewhere, and criticizing anything that doesn't fit your notion of how this should play out.

titzer 6y ago

The last time there were no ice caps, humanity didn't exist. That was 3 million years ago: https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/the-last-time-the-arctic-was-ice-free-in-summer-modern-humans-didn-t-exist.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/the-last-time-the-arcti... Earth has been cycling between glacial (90,000 years) and inter-glacial periods (10,000 years) every 100,000 years or so for the past million or so years. We were actually winding up an interglacial period and would likely be headed to another ice age...in a few thousand years. But our CO2 emissions completely changed that trajectory in two centuries. Our current emissions will change that trajectory even further in just a couple decades. Now we are headed for something...very different. And it's happening fast.