all 26 comments

[–]Oyveygoyim 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The global warming hoax has been rebranded as climate change

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Also in the news: COVID is a deadly illness.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Antarctic sea ice has been more resilient than arctic sea ice in the past.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

In summer? In a warm summer when there's a volcano under the ice too? This is my shocked face.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

In summer?

I'm not sure that you can attribute the lowest level ever to summer, since summer happens every year.

In a warm summer

Yes. Global warming is certainly a factor at this stage.

when there's a volcano under the ice too

Under the sea ice?

Where?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

Reference to the annual summer melt. A single data point does not indicate a major change in the same way a rainy day doesn't indicate a monsoon.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

This one data point is the first time the antarctic sea ice has dropped below 2 million km2, as it seemed to be holding its own until about a decade ago.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Although in recent previous years, the winter ice growth had been increasing in volume year on year. If we'd only just discovered that growth and hadn't got a carbon tax driven science community, we'd probably be hearing about a coming ice age.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Although in recent previous years, the winter ice growth had been increasing in volume year on year.

The sea ice? I don't think so. That's the extent not the volume.

Or are you talking about the ice sheet. That's harder to measure, and papers vary. But the central estimate is significant loss in both hemispheres.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It's probably for the best. We'd not survive another global ice age.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Other way around. We've been in a global ice age for the existence of every species there is.

There will be many that won't survive coming out of it.

And the cost of moving infrastructure will reduce the money available for other things. Losing the ice sheets will be 80 metres of sea level rise.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, we are in the late stage of an ice age, but this is isolated at the poles, it isn't global and hasn't been global for about 12,000 years. Humans, and life in general, can and has survived in warmer climates. It is more likely that humans would survive a few degrees increase in the next few hundred years than a full global ice age which would decimate the entire infrastructure, food production and habitation. It's ridiculous of the climate emergency folk to think we can control the global climate to avoid such extremes either way 🤷 it will go one way or another and people will probably die, nothing we can do to change it.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yes, we are in the late stage of an ice age,

Is suppose the ice sheets are doomed.

The point is we shouldn't be coming out of the ice age. That put extinction pressure on many ecosystems.

it isn't global and hasn't been global for about 12,000 years.

It's both hemispheres. It's been like that for 2,500,000 years.

It is more likely that humans would survive a few degrees increase in the next few hundred years than a full global ice age which would decimate the entire infrastructure, food production and habitation.

Other way around. The loss of the ice age will decimate infrastructure, food production, ocean productivity, and crash many ecosystems.

It's ridiculous of the climate emergency folk to think we can control the global climate

The greenhouse effect is increasing because of the extra greenhouse gasses we've put in the atmosphere. If you call that "control", we're controlling it. All this control is way out of control though.

to avoid such extremes either way 🤷

Either way? There's only one way. Increasing the greenhouse gas concentration doesn't decrease the greenhouse effect.

nothing we can do to change it.

Every tonne of fossil fuels that we leaving in the ground will reduce the impacts.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So all above sea level?

They would be directly contributing to the loss of sea ice, would they?

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The sea ice doesn't cover up to the south shetland islands in summer.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So, your answer is yes.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm saying there's no volcanoes under the Antarctic sea ice at the moment.

The record melting is more related to climate change.

[–]RandumbZer0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Make more fossil fuel vehicles, assholes. Bring back the water engine, fuckers.