Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The melting of Antarctica

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#21

Post by skrowl »

jstalin wrote: post #13
skrowl wrote: post #9

(The parent I tied this to got flagkilled, so deleted / reposting as top level.) Yep. It's already been debunked multiple times, but they just keep rehashing it to sell newspapers. Here's a trend for those interested in the actual numbers: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarc... Source (for those that REALLY still want to believe in climate change): http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm Source…

Your first link is broken.

Looks like the space to %20 conversion blew up. Should be good now.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#22

Post by [deleted] »

skrowl wrote: post #9

(The parent I tied this to got flagkilled, so deleted / reposting as top level.) Yep. It's already been debunked multiple times, but they just keep rehashing it to sell newspapers. Here's a trend for those interested in the actual numbers: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarc... Source (for those that REALLY still want to believe in climate change): http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm Source…

[deleted]

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#23

Post by skrowl »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #17
skrowl wrote: post #9

(The parent I tied this to got flagkilled, so deleted / reposting as top level.) Yep. It's already been debunked multiple times, but they just keep rehashing it to sell newspapers. Here's a trend for those interested in the actual numbers: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarc... Source (for those that REALLY still want to believe in climate change): http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm Source…

That is ice area, most of it over water. The paper the article is referencing is about the thickness of grounded ice sheets and their stability, not the extent of sea ice.

Are you implying that the ground ice thickness natural trend can't possibly follow the total sea ice area natural trend?

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#24

Post by jessaustin »

rodgerd wrote: post #14
forrestthewoods wrote: post #7

Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think. Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone provide a clear answer? (edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)

> it's a legit and perfectly fair question. Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.

Actually I've heard this confusion more (i.e. on two separate occasions, IRL) from well-meaning environmental aficionados attempting to "prove" that global warming is real. I love "why are there still monkeys?", though. I think I'll be using that line sometime. b^)

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#25

Post by ekanes »

rodgerd wrote: post #14
forrestthewoods wrote: post #7

Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think. Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone provide a clear answer? (edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)

> it's a legit and perfectly fair question. Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.

Or, this kind of question is an opportunity to set the record straight for hundreds of people.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#26

Post by jnevill »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #7

Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think. Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone provide a clear answer? (edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)

Legit and perfectly fair questions can also be incredibly stupid. So... that's it. Your question is legit and perfect fair (whatever the hell that means), and it's also brain-numbingly stupid.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#27

Post by tomjen3 »

Karunamon wrote: post #8
[deleted] wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

This, right here, is representative of a problem. Given what the global scientific consensus is (AGW is real, ice is melting, humans are to blame), it is my first impression that your graph and stance is probably crap, but I don't know enough about climate science to make a reasonable argument one way or another (or even interpret the data for that matter). What's a layperson to do? You can learn basic Python in an a…

I haven't the first clue about climatology. It seems like magic to me that you can see the climate twenty years from now, but not e.g. whether it is going to rain next week.

Still other things like e.g anesthesia is also magic to me, but I know for a fact that it works.

What bugs me about GW research is lack of focus on mitigating GW, other than by cutting greenhouse gasses (ain't gonna happen) and especially things like this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climatega...

Lots of non-sceptics would tell me that some scientists would break ranks if they found an issue, but those emails suggests that such attempts would be prevented. Considering how much money is given to these scientists by the government and how much their funding would be cut if it was found out to be a none issue, I can't consider them impartial.

So it boils down to a lack of trusts in scientists and an inability to interprent the data.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#28

Post by lotsofmangos »

skrowl wrote: post #23
lotsofmangos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is ice area, most of it over water. The paper the article is referencing is about the thickness of grounded ice sheets and their stability, not the extent of sea ice.

Are you implying that the ground ice thickness natural trend can't possibly follow the total sea ice area natural trend?

I would not be at all surprised to find an inverse relationship.

As you warm the poles, the weather patterns become less tight, leading to a larger area that is below freezing.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#29

Post by Frondo »

Karunamon wrote: post #8
[deleted] wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

This, right here, is representative of a problem. Given what the global scientific consensus is (AGW is real, ice is melting, humans are to blame), it is my first impression that your graph and stance is probably crap, but I don't know enough about climate science to make a reasonable argument one way or another (or even interpret the data for that matter). What's a layperson to do? You can learn basic Python in an a…

You can learn basic climatology in an afternoon. The fiddly details scientists make careers out of? Probably not.

You can also learn the germ theory of disease in an afternoon. The fiddly biological bits of how antibiotics actually interact with germs? Probably not.

For the companies that rake in tons of cash selling fossil fuels, it's been an incredible bit of propaganda to lie about the details and get people to doubt scientists.

I guess if there were enough money to be made keeping people sick with bacterial infections (heh, Big Disease), we'd probably see the same thing, but with germ-theory deniers.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#30

Post by hackuser »

orik wrote: post #15

This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? edit: This post used to read as "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." It has since been changed.

> This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN?

It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing. It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the world.

Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S. IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?

Post reply on HN