9 ms·

Arctic melting four times faster than rest of the planet, study says

66 points by WithinReason 4y ago

rejor121 4y ago
Well I would hope so. If the whole planet is melting, then where are the lava fields?
erwincoumans 4y ago
Here is a direct link to the study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3
gd1 4y ago
pcrh 4y ago
The real tragedy is that global warming was forecast decades ago. Even as far back as the 1912. https://i.imgur.com/qT7iBSt.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qT7iBSt.jpg
- vegai_ 4y ago
  I guess we could call it rather comedy than tragedy that there are still powerful people on this world who deny this in 2022.
  - rapnie 4y ago
    In general I hope there'll be more attention to the reasons why they deny this: not because they don't believe it, but because it is in their interest to deny since "business as usual" is where they thrive.
- rambojazz 4y ago
  "The effect may be considerable in a few centuries" So optimistic! We F'ed up way before that!
  - GLGirty 4y ago
    They underestimated the ability of new media to manufacture consent.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  1896: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/future-calculations https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/future... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
- NDizzle 4y ago
  Oh no! https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/8.png https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/8.png Let's raise taxes in the west, that'll stop China and India from rolling coal!
  - throwaway33175 4y ago
    Your superficial, what-about, reactionary response is a perfect display of how to ignore problems and go extinct over it.
infinite8s 4y ago
Do people on HN feel optimistic or pessimistic about the future (both near and far). It seems we are just starting to see the disastrous effects of the current levels of CO2, with no obvious attempts in the world to curb emissions (note the recent US bill just decelerates the amount being released, bit doesn't do anything to reverse the current amount).
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Optimistic in the sense that we already have all the tech we need to fix this and in the process make the world better and richer. Optimistic in the sense that, after a long uphill struggle through the investment phase when clean energy and the tech to use it was actually more expensive, and then more expensive if you ignore pollution, we're now in the it's just plain cheaper phase which puts the greedy and selfish on the other side of the issue. Pessimistic because we wasted 3 decades letting the problem worsen for no reason, so our chances of solving any other big "problem" (in quotes because the only real problem was that we ignored it for so long) seem low generally. Optimistic that the sudden switch from renewables being expensive to cheap might catch the far-right off guard and totally destroy them as a political force, though apparently some are already moving to eco-fascism instead, and they seem good at denying history so they'll just claim it never happened.
- helge9210 4y ago
  My colleagues eat in twilight (eating area didn't have windows) to lower the energy consumption and limit CO2 release. Yandex is burning 12000 liters of diesel to power their data center for an hour.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    I have not driven a car in 30 years, always walk, bike or use public transport. No longer fly. I cook and eat local food, as much vegetarian as possible. I don't own a smart phone or use any Big Tech services. Limit my work to what is ethical and sustainable as much as possible. Married later and chose to have one child and a smaller home. For the mostpart this lifestyle makes me 1) Poorer 2) Ostracised There is no reward structure that favours doing the right thing. For me, these positive lifestyle choices have to be their own reward. Unfortunately that makes me see my society, which rewards conspicuous greed and selfishness as beneath contempt, and that's not a nice feeling.
scld 4y ago
It's a serious situation for sure.....but I guess I'd expect the part of the world that IS ice to be melting faster than the parts of the world that aren't.
- rob74 4y ago
  Yeah, the original title "The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3, which another commenter mentioned) makes much more sense. You could actually compare the rates at which Arctic glaciers and glaciers in other parts of the world are receding, but I doubt it's four times faster?!
- defrost 4y ago
  Ice is a major buffer the keeps global mean tempreture in check. Once gone, things get very serious. The amount of energy that melts a tonne of ice at 0 C to a tonne of water at the same tempreture will raise that same tonne of water from 0 C to over 79 C. ie. Energy going to melting ice isn't going toward raising sea and air tempretures .. once there is no ice to melt that same energy will direct itself toward cooking things up. A lot.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    The geological temperature recording disagrees with you. Greenhouse climates (with no polar caps) were more stable than ice-house climate configurations with polar caps, with the latter leading to milankovitch cycles.
    - defrost 4y ago
      The "geological temperature recording" have zero effect on the latent and specific heat of water which form the basis of my comment. Furthermore Milankovitch cycles induce mild climate changes but climate changes don't "lead to milankovitch cycles" . . .
  - pcrh 4y ago
    While it's true that the latent heat of ice to water is very high, it is not likely an important factor in global warming. Polar ice doesn't cool the world as an ice cube in a drink might. The much more important effect of losing polar ice is the albedo effect, that is how much solar radiation is reflected back into space by ice and snow vs how much is absorbed by exposed ground. Just in case: losing ice in the polar oceans also doesn't increase sea levels (since floating ice has less volume than the water it floats on), but losing ice that lies over land, such as in Greenland, directly contributes to rising sea levels. Losing the albedo of floating ice has the same effect on warming as does losing snow or ice on land.
Proven 4y ago
hsavit1 4y ago
An obvious thing to stop doing is participating in the cryptocurrency economy that is using an obscene amount of energy, see https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
- thelastgallon 4y ago
  Bitcoin funded by taxpayer money! Texas paid this company to mine bitcoin during an ongoing energy crisis. Meanwhile, Texans are paying 50% more in electricity costs compared to last year. [1] [1]https://www.pcgamer.com/texas-paid-this-company-to-mine-bitcoin-during-an-ongoing-energy-crisis/ https://www.pcgamer.com/texas-paid-this-company-to-mine-bitc...
- melling 4y ago
  Strange, for the past 40 years I thought the obvious thing was to stop using coal to generate electricity. 40% of the world’s electricity is generated from coal, and the amount is increasing. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reacti...
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The percentage of coal electricity is slightly falling globally. In non-percentage terms it's still rising as electricity demand rises, particularly in China. This (non percentage) rise is forecast to peak around 2028 in China (and therefore the rest of the world) currently.
  - eloff 4y ago
    I think future generations will look back and think we were morons for choosing coal over nuclear. The radiation from particulates released by burning coal actually kills more people each year than the radiation from nuclear accidents has ever killed. Plus we also made a nice little climate change disaster on our little space ship Earth that's hurling through the Milky Way.
roflc0ptic 4y ago
I can't read the article, but this headline is the worst. Pretty sure melting 4x faster than Arizona is still zero melting.
- rob74 4y ago
  It's a process with stages: melting (where ice is available) -> evaporating (if there is water) -> burning (of the dry forests when there is not enough water) -> desertification (of the barren land when water, forests and other vegetation are gone). But yeah, Arizona is mostly already in the final stage, and I guess you can't really compare the speed across all stages anyway.
- ankit219 4y ago
  The title of the study is "Arctic warming four times faster than rest of the earth". Warming is not the same as melting, but melting is more clickbaity. In accepted climate models, it was previously assumed that Arctic is warming twice as fast as rest of the earth, but this shows those models were insufficient. Another thing is that, this was conducted around Arctic circle. The rate of warming varies around different regions. Svalbard is warming up 7 times as fast (1.25 C per decade) compared to rest of the earth
tiahura 4y ago
So are sea levels rising faster then? One can find pictures by climate change skeptics showing old and recent photos of various piers that show no change. These are dismissed as poor evidence of the lack of change, but photos showing piers under water are elusive.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  A Youtube video talking about these skeptic claims and comparing with the actual science (spoiler, yes they are): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRlSGKddJE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRlSGKddJE
- shawabawa3 4y ago
  Sea levels have risen about 100mm since 1993, and the rate of increase is indeed increasing It's still quite slow, and we're probably still a hundred years off under water piers. It's currently rising at a rate of 3.7mm/year
  - heywoodlh 4y ago
    Seeing this comment got me wondering how sea level is actually measured. Found this article from NASA[1] that was really interesting! [1] https://climatekids.nasa.gov/sea-level/ https://climatekids.nasa.gov/sea-level/
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Has anyone done a study of climate denier media running headlines like this to enrage their audience? It might just be an emergent phenomena where things that enrage everybody get most clicks, but I'd be interested to see if numbers supported that theory. Since this is the Financial Times I'd also wonder whether you could demonstrate that their readers have lost money because the coverage of climate change is so divorced from reality, as it's not only one of the biggest catastrophes facing humankind but providing solutions to it is also one of the biggest business opportunities. edit: I'm actually struggling to find anything troubling they've published in the last couple of years, so they may have already made the switch to accepting reality. Similarly Sky News seems to have done a 180 degree switch in roughly the same time frame.
- rjsw 4y ago
  Did the FT promote climate change denial in the past? Sky News is no longer owned by Rupert Murdoch.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Yeah, fairly certain they did. All media was pretty bad for a while, but I've just been looking up some stats and the happily the media generally has shifted, with only nationalist far-right media sticking with the old narrative. Glancing through their last few years of EV coverage for example, only reveals a couple of oddities, mostly written by the same US lobbyist. It is startling to glance though and see story after story about business investing in batteries and factories and EV rollout and net zero targets and then suddenly see headlines suggesting: Biden should support hybrids more (meaning support EVs less) or Switch to EVs will worsen inequality or EU emissions rules will prevent the middle class from driving or a couple of stories about EVs causing job losses or less union employment. It's a very noticeable shift in tone between the two sides but thankfully it's only a fraction of the coverage. I'd say the watershed for FT happened sometime around COP19, though they're still touting fossil fuels as cheap in 2020 > Climate negotiators are striving for a mutual impoverishment pact. It is hardly surprising that progress has stalled. While adding of course that they're not denying climate change. Just saying fossil fuels are the cheapest source of energy 5 years after the UK government had accepted and announced that wind power was the cheapest. They used to featur Bjorn Lomborg a lot, even positively reviewing his latest book in 2020, despite very well credentialled readers writing letters ripping him apart for his nonsense.
egberts1 4y ago
Arctic Ice Shelf now at largest coverage, NEXT! https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-sea-ice-second-highest-18-years-end-2021-rrc/ https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-sea-ice-... Latest news maintained by Arctic scientists, and not by silly climate change fanatics: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
- rob74 4y ago
  Did you read the whole article? Ok, 2021 has been better than the last 18 years, but still below the long-term average (https://www.severe-weather.eu/wp-content/gallery/cryosphere/Arctic-sea-ice-second-highest-18-years-end-2021-anomalies.jpg https://www.severe-weather.eu/wp-content/gallery/cryosphere/...), so "largest coverage" it is not - and also one good year doesn't mean that it will keep getting better.
- titzer 4y ago
  It turns out that there are three dimensions. Arctic sea ice volume keeps dropping, faster and faster. http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volum... > Arctic Ice Shelf now at largest coverage, NEXT! Funny definition of "now". Your linked article was from 8 months ago, you know, when it was winter. As for the real "now", if you care to look at a graph of the last few years and as well as inter-decile and median from 1981-2020, it's blatantly obvious that both volume and extent are well below average, and on a long, steady, downward trend. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
- mrpopo 4y ago
  https://zacklabe.com/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/ https://zacklabe.com/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/ If you don't see the decreasing trend in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s mean curves, I can't help you. Another thing missing from this measurement is this is the Arctic sea ice area. The Arctic sea ice volume is trending almost linearly towards 0. http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger... (source for the image above http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volum...)
hersko 4y ago
To be pedantic, the rest of the planet is not "melting" as it's not covered in ice. Also, this seems to be climate alarmists favorite headline: - New England shows it is warming faster than the rest of the world in new study [1] - Africa Warming More, Faster Than Other World Regions [2] - Climate: Europe warming faster than rest of world (IPCC) [3] - NOAA: Minnesota warming faster than other states [4] - Mexico is warming faster than the rest of the planet, they say [5] - New research shows the South Pole is warming faster than the rest of the world [6] Etc.. [1] https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/12/new-england-shows-it-is-warming-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world-in-new-study.html https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/12/new-england-shows-it-i... [2] https://www.voanews.com/a/africa-warming-more-faster-than-other-world-regions/6277177.html https://www.voanews.com/a/africa-warming-more-faster-than-ot... [3] https://unric.org/en/climate-europe-warming-faster-than-rest-of-world-ipcc/ https://unric.org/en/climate-europe-warming-faster-than-rest... [4] https://www.kare11.com/article/weather/mn-warming-faster-than-other-states/89-6d941682-16ff-4b4e-94f5-e582c0e9ccc0 https://www.kare11.com/article/weather/mn-warming-faster-tha... [5] https://www.sandiegored.com/en/news/200115/Mexico-is-warming-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-planet-they-say https://www.sandiegored.com/en/news/200115/Mexico-is-warming... [6] https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2006/S00218/new-research-shows-the-south-pole-is-warming-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world.htm https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2006/S00218/new-research-s...
- infinite8s 4y ago
  Are you using climate alarmists pejoratively? The headlines are basically saying that our scientific models have been systematically underestimating the feedback effects of warming, which suggests we have less time than ever to mitigate the continuing effects. At which point for you does it stop being 'alarmist' and start being 'realistic'? After it's too late?

66 points by WithinReason 4y ago

Well I would hope so. If the whole planet is melting, then where are the lava fields?

Here is a direct link to the study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3

gd1 4y ago

pcrh 4y ago

The real tragedy is that global warming was forecast decades ago. Even as far back as the 1912. https://i.imgur.com/qT7iBSt.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qT7iBSt.jpg

vegai_ 4y ago
I guess we could call it rather comedy than tragedy that there are still powerful people on this world who deny this in 2022.
- rapnie 4y ago
  In general I hope there'll be more attention to the reasons why they deny this: not because they don't believe it, but because it is in their interest to deny since "business as usual" is where they thrive.
rambojazz 4y ago
"The effect may be considerable in a few centuries" So optimistic! We F'ed up way before that!
- GLGirty 4y ago
  They underestimated the ability of new media to manufacture consent.
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
1896: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/future-calculations https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/future... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
NDizzle 4y ago
Oh no! https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/8.png https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/8.png Let's raise taxes in the west, that'll stop China and India from rolling coal!
- throwaway33175 4y ago
  Your superficial, what-about, reactionary response is a perfect display of how to ignore problems and go extinct over it.

infinite8s 4y ago

Do people on HN feel optimistic or pessimistic about the future (both near and far). It seems we are just starting to see the disastrous effects of the current levels of CO2, with no obvious attempts in the world to curb emissions (note the recent US bill just decelerates the amount being released, bit doesn't do anything to reverse the current amount).

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Optimistic in the sense that we already have all the tech we need to fix this and in the process make the world better and richer. Optimistic in the sense that, after a long uphill struggle through the investment phase when clean energy and the tech to use it was actually more expensive, and then more expensive if you ignore pollution, we're now in the it's just plain cheaper phase which puts the greedy and selfish on the other side of the issue. Pessimistic because we wasted 3 decades letting the problem worsen for no reason, so our chances of solving any other big "problem" (in quotes because the only real problem was that we ignored it for so long) seem low generally. Optimistic that the sudden switch from renewables being expensive to cheap might catch the far-right off guard and totally destroy them as a political force, though apparently some are already moving to eco-fascism instead, and they seem good at denying history so they'll just claim it never happened.
helge9210 4y ago
My colleagues eat in twilight (eating area didn't have windows) to lower the energy consumption and limit CO2 release. Yandex is burning 12000 liters of diesel to power their data center for an hour.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  I have not driven a car in 30 years, always walk, bike or use public transport. No longer fly. I cook and eat local food, as much vegetarian as possible. I don't own a smart phone or use any Big Tech services. Limit my work to what is ethical and sustainable as much as possible. Married later and chose to have one child and a smaller home. For the mostpart this lifestyle makes me 1) Poorer 2) Ostracised There is no reward structure that favours doing the right thing. For me, these positive lifestyle choices have to be their own reward. Unfortunately that makes me see my society, which rewards conspicuous greed and selfishness as beneath contempt, and that's not a nice feeling.

scld 4y ago

It's a serious situation for sure.....but I guess I'd expect the part of the world that IS ice to be melting faster than the parts of the world that aren't.

rob74 4y ago
Yeah, the original title "The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3, which another commenter mentioned) makes much more sense. You could actually compare the rates at which Arctic glaciers and glaciers in other parts of the world are receding, but I doubt it's four times faster?!
defrost 4y ago
Ice is a major buffer the keeps global mean tempreture in check. Once gone, things get very serious. The amount of energy that melts a tonne of ice at 0 C to a tonne of water at the same tempreture will raise that same tonne of water from 0 C to over 79 C. ie. Energy going to melting ice isn't going toward raising sea and air tempretures .. once there is no ice to melt that same energy will direct itself toward cooking things up. A lot.
- blueflow 4y ago
  The geological temperature recording disagrees with you. Greenhouse climates (with no polar caps) were more stable than ice-house climate configurations with polar caps, with the latter leading to milankovitch cycles.
  - defrost 4y ago
    The "geological temperature recording" have zero effect on the latent and specific heat of water which form the basis of my comment. Furthermore Milankovitch cycles induce mild climate changes but climate changes don't "lead to milankovitch cycles" . . .
- pcrh 4y ago
  While it's true that the latent heat of ice to water is very high, it is not likely an important factor in global warming. Polar ice doesn't cool the world as an ice cube in a drink might. The much more important effect of losing polar ice is the albedo effect, that is how much solar radiation is reflected back into space by ice and snow vs how much is absorbed by exposed ground. Just in case: losing ice in the polar oceans also doesn't increase sea levels (since floating ice has less volume than the water it floats on), but losing ice that lies over land, such as in Greenland, directly contributes to rising sea levels. Losing the albedo of floating ice has the same effect on warming as does losing snow or ice on land.

Proven 4y ago

hsavit1 4y ago

An obvious thing to stop doing is participating in the cryptocurrency economy that is using an obscene amount of energy, see https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

thelastgallon 4y ago
Bitcoin funded by taxpayer money! Texas paid this company to mine bitcoin during an ongoing energy crisis. Meanwhile, Texans are paying 50% more in electricity costs compared to last year. [1] [1]https://www.pcgamer.com/texas-paid-this-company-to-mine-bitcoin-during-an-ongoing-energy-crisis/ https://www.pcgamer.com/texas-paid-this-company-to-mine-bitc...
melling 4y ago
Strange, for the past 40 years I thought the obvious thing was to stop using coal to generate electricity. 40% of the world’s electricity is generated from coal, and the amount is increasing. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reacti...
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The percentage of coal electricity is slightly falling globally. In non-percentage terms it's still rising as electricity demand rises, particularly in China. This (non percentage) rise is forecast to peak around 2028 in China (and therefore the rest of the world) currently.
- eloff 4y ago
  I think future generations will look back and think we were morons for choosing coal over nuclear. The radiation from particulates released by burning coal actually kills more people each year than the radiation from nuclear accidents has ever killed. Plus we also made a nice little climate change disaster on our little space ship Earth that's hurling through the Milky Way.

roflc0ptic 4y ago

I can't read the article, but this headline is the worst. Pretty sure melting 4x faster than Arizona is still zero melting.

rob74 4y ago
It's a process with stages: melting (where ice is available) -> evaporating (if there is water) -> burning (of the dry forests when there is not enough water) -> desertification (of the barren land when water, forests and other vegetation are gone). But yeah, Arizona is mostly already in the final stage, and I guess you can't really compare the speed across all stages anyway.
ankit219 4y ago
The title of the study is "Arctic warming four times faster than rest of the earth". Warming is not the same as melting, but melting is more clickbaity. In accepted climate models, it was previously assumed that Arctic is warming twice as fast as rest of the earth, but this shows those models were insufficient. Another thing is that, this was conducted around Arctic circle. The rate of warming varies around different regions. Svalbard is warming up 7 times as fast (1.25 C per decade) compared to rest of the earth

tiahura 4y ago

So are sea levels rising faster then? One can find pictures by climate change skeptics showing old and recent photos of various piers that show no change. These are dismissed as poor evidence of the lack of change, but photos showing piers under water are elusive.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
A Youtube video talking about these skeptic claims and comparing with the actual science (spoiler, yes they are): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRlSGKddJE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRlSGKddJE
shawabawa3 4y ago
Sea levels have risen about 100mm since 1993, and the rate of increase is indeed increasing It's still quite slow, and we're probably still a hundred years off under water piers. It's currently rising at a rate of 3.7mm/year
- heywoodlh 4y ago
  Seeing this comment got me wondering how sea level is actually measured. Found this article from NASA[1] that was really interesting! [1] https://climatekids.nasa.gov/sea-level/ https://climatekids.nasa.gov/sea-level/

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Has anyone done a study of climate denier media running headlines like this to enrage their audience? It might just be an emergent phenomena where things that enrage everybody get most clicks, but I'd be interested to see if numbers supported that theory. Since this is the Financial Times I'd also wonder whether you could demonstrate that their readers have lost money because the coverage of climate change is so divorced from reality, as it's not only one of the biggest catastrophes facing humankind but providing solutions to it is also one of the biggest business opportunities. edit: I'm actually struggling to find anything troubling they've published in the last couple of years, so they may have already made the switch to accepting reality. Similarly Sky News seems to have done a 180 degree switch in roughly the same time frame.

rjsw 4y ago
Did the FT promote climate change denial in the past? Sky News is no longer owned by Rupert Murdoch.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Yeah, fairly certain they did. All media was pretty bad for a while, but I've just been looking up some stats and the happily the media generally has shifted, with only nationalist far-right media sticking with the old narrative. Glancing through their last few years of EV coverage for example, only reveals a couple of oddities, mostly written by the same US lobbyist. It is startling to glance though and see story after story about business investing in batteries and factories and EV rollout and net zero targets and then suddenly see headlines suggesting: Biden should support hybrids more (meaning support EVs less) or Switch to EVs will worsen inequality or EU emissions rules will prevent the middle class from driving or a couple of stories about EVs causing job losses or less union employment. It's a very noticeable shift in tone between the two sides but thankfully it's only a fraction of the coverage. I'd say the watershed for FT happened sometime around COP19, though they're still touting fossil fuels as cheap in 2020 > Climate negotiators are striving for a mutual impoverishment pact. It is hardly surprising that progress has stalled. While adding of course that they're not denying climate change. Just saying fossil fuels are the cheapest source of energy 5 years after the UK government had accepted and announced that wind power was the cheapest. They used to featur Bjorn Lomborg a lot, even positively reviewing his latest book in 2020, despite very well credentialled readers writing letters ripping him apart for his nonsense.

egberts1 4y ago

Arctic Ice Shelf now at largest coverage, NEXT! https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-sea-ice-second-highest-18-years-end-2021-rrc/ https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-sea-ice-... Latest news maintained by Arctic scientists, and not by silly climate change fanatics: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

rob74 4y ago
Did you read the whole article? Ok, 2021 has been better than the last 18 years, but still below the long-term average (https://www.severe-weather.eu/wp-content/gallery/cryosphere/Arctic-sea-ice-second-highest-18-years-end-2021-anomalies.jpg https://www.severe-weather.eu/wp-content/gallery/cryosphere/...), so "largest coverage" it is not - and also one good year doesn't mean that it will keep getting better.
titzer 4y ago
It turns out that there are three dimensions. Arctic sea ice volume keeps dropping, faster and faster. http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volum... > Arctic Ice Shelf now at largest coverage, NEXT! Funny definition of "now". Your linked article was from 8 months ago, you know, when it was winter. As for the real "now", if you care to look at a graph of the last few years and as well as inter-decile and median from 1981-2020, it's blatantly obvious that both volume and extent are well below average, and on a long, steady, downward trend. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
mrpopo 4y ago
https://zacklabe.com/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/ https://zacklabe.com/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/ If you don't see the decreasing trend in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s mean curves, I can't help you. Another thing missing from this measurement is this is the Arctic sea ice area. The Arctic sea ice volume is trending almost linearly towards 0. http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger... (source for the image above http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volum...)

hersko 4y ago

To be pedantic, the rest of the planet is not "melting" as it's not covered in ice. Also, this seems to be climate alarmists favorite headline: - New England shows it is warming faster than the rest of the world in new study [1] - Africa Warming More, Faster Than Other World Regions [2] - Climate: Europe warming faster than rest of world (IPCC) [3] - NOAA: Minnesota warming faster than other states [4] - Mexico is warming faster than the rest of the planet, they say [5] - New research shows the South Pole is warming faster than the rest of the world [6] Etc.. [1] https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/12/new-england-shows-it-is-warming-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world-in-new-study.html https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/12/new-england-shows-it-i... [2] https://www.voanews.com/a/africa-warming-more-faster-than-other-world-regions/6277177.html https://www.voanews.com/a/africa-warming-more-faster-than-ot... [3] https://unric.org/en/climate-europe-warming-faster-than-rest-of-world-ipcc/ https://unric.org/en/climate-europe-warming-faster-than-rest... [4] https://www.kare11.com/article/weather/mn-warming-faster-than-other-states/89-6d941682-16ff-4b4e-94f5-e582c0e9ccc0 https://www.kare11.com/article/weather/mn-warming-faster-tha... [5] https://www.sandiegored.com/en/news/200115/Mexico-is-warming-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-planet-they-say https://www.sandiegored.com/en/news/200115/Mexico-is-warming... [6] https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2006/S00218/new-research-shows-the-south-pole-is-warming-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world.htm https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2006/S00218/new-research-s...

infinite8s 4y ago
Are you using climate alarmists pejoratively? The headlines are basically saying that our scientific models have been systematically underestimating the feedback effects of warming, which suggests we have less time than ever to mitigate the continuing effects. At which point for you does it stop being 'alarmist' and start being 'realistic'? After it's too late?