This is a graph of total global sea ice. The red line is this year | Hacker News Reader

This is a graph of total global sea ice. The red line is this year

twitter.com

76 pointsCarolineW23 comments

Open articleView on HN

Google image search found this post as the source of the graph:

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html

Edit: the post gives image credit to Wipneus from https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.msg942...

here is the og source

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.1000.h...

Better source about the same phenomena (from 2nd Nov 2016):

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-growt...

Key points:

- Analyses only the Arctic (as seems to be best practice)

- Provides context by analyzing sea surface temperatures and atmospheric circulation

Weather Underground analysis: https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/crazy-cryosphe...

“There are weather and climate records, and then there are truly exceptional events that leave all others in the dust. Such has been the case across Earth’s high latitudes during this last quarter of 2016, on track to be the planet’s warmest year on record. Sea ice extent and area have both plummeted to record lows for this time of year in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Such dramatic losses rarely occur at the same time, which means that the global total of sea ice coverage is phenomenally low for this time of year. The weirdness extends to midlatitudes: North America as well as the Arctic have been bathed in unusual mildness over the last several weeks, while Eurasia deals with a vast zone of above-average snowfall and below-average temperatures.”

First question that came to my mind is how is this measured. I found the answer here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent

Which begs the next question: Are there other independent measurements that confirm this?

Interesting how soon the discussion turned retard. So, somehow wind turbines should be at fault? Jesus.

I was left speechless. Probably one reason I don't participate on public non-moderated discussion boards.

The Twitter account that posted the image appears to discuss wind turbines frequently. It comes across as a jab at that, perhaps related to an inside joke between the two, rather than some commment based in what someone believes is reality.

The thing about the internet is that every comment is assumed to be facetious/sarcastic unless otherwise specified.

It's probably a joke at the expense of people like Congressman Joe Barton from Texas, who famously said that wind was a finite resource and that harnessing it would cause the world to be warmer.

a)Where are these data from? Why does this gentleman that defines himself as an environmentalist (possible conflict of interest?) not post the original source? I'm not saying these are false but it would be nice to know the source. The image reads NSIDC, where's the relevant link, and the relevant analysis from them? What's the chance of error?

b)What does this mean? Will we get some super-storm or something similar? A graph without the scientific theory that leads to an explanation is just an opinion at best.

Again I'm not trying to say that this is not happening but the way this is posted, to me seems to only grab attention, click-bait style.

A graph without the scientific theory that leads to an explanation is just an opinion at best

Erm, the graphs just shows facts, no? Whether there's an explanation already or not doesn't change anything about the observation. You are basically saying 'ok so an apple always falls down from a tree, but I cannot explain it, so it's just an opinion that it falls down instead of up'

As for a): the data likely comes from http://nsidc.org

No, because if you read the twitter post it says: "Something is very very wrong." Where is that derived from? What the scientific theory that predicts that such a drop in the global ice sheet is very wrong? I'm not saying that something could not be wrong, but giving a graph and claiming that something is wrong is not very scientific. For all we know this could be very wrong, mildy wrong, no wrong, good etc

EDIT: For a) I took a quick look at the site but couldn't locate the graph. Again I'm not saying it's falsified, but pointing to the original source is always nice. If nothing more we could get some additional details.

Ah I missed the part where it says 'something is very wrong'. Yes that makes not much sense (or is very vague), based on just this graph.

I think the nsidc site just provides raw data, creating graphs is up to the downloader of the data

It is not just opinion, all the models agree that once albedo drops enough, we enter a self reinforcing new climate mode, and all the measurements eg. ice cores from aeons past indicate that our 15'000 years "human civilization" and progress rode a freak very much not normal occurence of very stable climate.

Re posting this from my comment at a higher level:

> "b) what does this mean?"

See here for an explanation of what is happening and why: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-growt...

Thanks for this!

You're welcome =)

Also see this FAQ item to understand how "ice extent" is measured:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent

If only someone had warned us! We would have prevented this!

Seriously though, interesting that climate change has been in the news a lot since Trump got elected. As if anything useful was being done beforehand. As if we previously had some kind of plan which was scuppered.

There is no plan, there never was. And there is no hope.

I don't disagree. But there was a plan, however inadequate:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

I'm not a big follower of the climate change debate. So what exactly does this mean? I see a decent sized gap in a time-series that goes back 40 years. There were points during this year that had higher ice levels than other years. How bad is this? Why? Is it unprecedented?

I wasn't aware there was a debate.

> So what exactly does this mean?

We get a northwest passage. [1]

> How bad is this?

Northwest passage is pretty sweet.

> Why?

faster shipping between east and west coast, not as far as going around south america.

> Is it unprecedented?

yes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

Is there any lag in accurate measurement? What did the graph look like this time last year?

Hmmm... What's a good word to describe my feelings on this? Oh, there it is:

Fuck. We're fucked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com