• Hosted by Branzone
  • PayPal Donate

Early explorer logbooks reveal Antarctic sea ice has barely changed in 100 years

Submitted by: Odio @ 08:46 AM | Friday, November 25, 2016 | (url: http://www.scienc...)

Logbooks from the likes of Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton - key figures in the 'Heroic Age' of Antarctic exploration - have revealed that sea ice levels in Antarctica have barely changed over the past century, despite global temperatures hitting record highs year after year.

That finding might seem counterintuitive, especially given that sea ice in the Arctic has never been so depleted. But it might actually help us explain one of the biggest mysteries surrounding climate change: how Antarctica appears to be thriving - and sometimes even expanding - despite all odds.

"The missions of Scott and Shackleton are remembered in history as heroic failures, yet the data collected by these and other explorers could profoundly change the way we view the ebb and flow of Antarctic sea ice," says lead researcher Jonathan Day from the University of Reading in the UK.

Day and his team examined observations of sea ice recorded in the official logbooks from 11 voyages that took place between 1897 and 1917, including three missions led by Captain Scott, two by Shackleton, and sea-ice records from French, German, and Belgian explorers.

These logbooks include observations of many environmental and meteorological phenomena, recorded several times a day throughout each mission by the explorers and their crew.

Many of the logbooks had been recently digitised as part of the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set initiative, but others were digitised especially for this study, and the information within was collated into a dataset of 191 observations of sea ice positions spanning two decades.

These observations were then compared to satellite data from 1989 to 2014, and other than the sea ice edge in the Weddell Sea declining by about 14 percent over the past century, the team found that ice conditions during the golden age of exploration were surprisingly similar to those in Antarctica today.

11-26-16 - 10:08 AM
is there a difference between Antarctic sea ice vs land ice?
11-26-16 - 10:18 AM
there could be bears in land ice
11-26-16 - 11:12 AM
the sea ice helps calm Cthulhu
11-26-16 - 12:21 PM
Originally posted by WarBuddha  
Oil was suppose to run out in 2030 too right, yet they just found the biggest deposit ever in Texas.


Keep funding those alternate energy resources though, maybe if we cover the entire country in solar panels we can power one football stadium.

Oil is a completely different subject. It is a finite resource and will run out at some point, and finding large deposits are not as big a deal now since our oil use grows expediently each year, with the USA alone using over 7 billion barrels of it last year, this new Texas deposit is only about 20 billion.
11-26-16 - 12:51 PM
oil growth is flat rammamadingdong
we'll probably hit peak usage in 2030
11-26-16 - 02:52 PM
help me understand why you believe in 'climate change'

what convinced you?
11-26-16 - 02:56 PM
ur mom is flat, goshin
11-26-16 - 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Goshin  
oil growth is flat rammamadingdong
we'll probably hit peak usage in 2030

What do you mean "oil growth"?
11-26-16 - 03:15 PM
he is talking about all the new oil being generated by geologic processes
11-26-16 - 03:19 PM
Such as?
11-26-16 - 03:40 PM
The big issue I have regarding global warming being a myth is the science. You guys have a great argument against it, and I'm largely in line with it but from a different stance - use other nations resources to destroy their environment (but not so much we are completely dependent) and with our cheap energy, expand it on technologies to make us long term completely energy self sufficient with a respect for localities and the resources it has. Build a dam if there is a good spot. Cover Texas in photovoltaic cells. Use oil from areas abundant in it. Use ethanol in wheat country. Use what you have locally, and augment from other regions incase a dam dries up, no wind, etc to make maintain energy stability.

But by and large the earth is getting warmer. I don't see it as big of an issue as the environmental nuts, some places will lose some places will gain. We have the classic issue in the UN where small countries who are projected to lose outweigh the countries that will either gain or are large enough to have a net neutral effect. Also I mean earth is largely a closed system and you stick a shit ton of co2 in the atmosphere where is it gonna go? That's why curbing energy usage to me is actually dangerous as we need technology to scrub the atmosphere, and cheap energy is strongly related to strong economies...and thus strong technology growth as people have money to spend.

The only thing that would convince me warming isn't happening if the methodology is wrong. Which one big hit against it is the ever increasing amount of pavement being laid down. It magnifies actual heat. The one thing I've noticed on the maps of global warming is by and large unpopulated areas areally not changing at as flagrant of a rate. Need to figure out why that is.

In the end we can hardly figure out the 3 day forecast rather than the huge task of accounting for the billions of variables that go into climate change, and not the hippie kind but the kind that is always going on and how they were growing wine in new foundland 1k years ago. Our scientists are egotists. They can figure out anything and everything they believe. Consensus has flip flopped every 20 years on this subject that shows they just follow what each other say as outside opinions are dangerous - especially for when they go against the financers and as painfully evidenced by the echo chamber effect manufactured by soros and podesta for this previous election, people live in a bubble and it's actually brutally depressing the more I think about it. Then their bubble comes up against independent thinkers and either absorbs or attempts to crush via weight. Some coach said it's more dangerous to win unconventially then lose conventionally. Smart people will do what's best for their survival and that means going with the party line, especially now that tenure is a thing of the past.
11-26-16 - 03:44 PM
Fracking us now has massive supply of oil why so you think he price of oil dropped

We aren't dependent on Saudi or open at all now
11-26-16 - 03:59 PM
Originally posted by KittyCat  
Fracking us now has massive supply of oil why so you think he price of oil dropped

We aren't dependent on Saudi or *opec* at all now

Which is an overall positive. I think it's wiser tho:

1) exploit a bit, predominately in areas with low job growth as our people need jobs and those where even full scale exploitation would mean 50+ years until depletion.
2) bleed the shit countries in the middle east dry by constantly raising the club of our energy independence over their head while not potentially damaging what we have. that means being unified and not having hippies making it politically non-viable so that those countries think that potential isn't just a bluff. Unification of the left & right ideologies as the real battle is the (globalist) 1% vs the 99% (who should be nationalist but sadly aren't due to these divisions and corruption of the word's meaning)
3) Keep what we have a reserve as much as possible but be able to rapidly exploit, thereby also minimizing catastrophes like the town with gas coming out of their tap water. In the end tho, if the town would have collapsed without natural resource exploitation, it wouldn't have mattered anyways.

that's where strong border security is important as letting those idiots flood our country will undo our work by taking their dregs or worse, taking their smart people and leaving them without coherent leadership in science and political fields thereby creating more a greater push away from their borders as they flee to us for opportunity. You don't pick the family you're born to, or your country. Work within your tribe.
11-26-16 - 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Torks  
What i don't understand in this whole discussion is, even if we are not a 100% sure if climate change is man made, the responsible thing is not to to nothing. You do something because we cannot rule out that we are the cause.

the problem with this is what should be done?

we need less people -------yet we encourage the subsidization and even importation of more at any and all cost (you even get tax breaks for this)

we need to consume less stuff --------- yet our consumer based economy demands endless amounts of "service sector" consumption and cash 4 clunkers actually seems like a good idea to our government.

if i told you we had to spend to get out of debt. fuck our way out of population issues. consume more to stop being wasteful.


you might laugh as hard as the rest of us are at this highly dishonest conversation.
11-26-16 - 04:19 PM

this is how i see the global warming issue

and i'm being told that if we all took a few less breaths, maybe bought a more efficient phone booth, that we might be able to squeeze a few more people inside and save our environment soon.

i'm just not buying that sales pitch

switching away from incandescent light bulbs isn't going to save us here
Login to comment.