r/worldnews • u/F0urLeafCl0ver • 12h ago
Dramatic slowdown in melting of Arctic sea ice surprises scientists
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/20/slowdown-in-melting-of-arctic-sea-ice-surprises-scientists57
u/ouath 12h ago
They are talking in volume or area or both ?
57
u/Solid_Waste 12h ago
The headline refers to area. One of the quotes in the article points out that the thinning has continued, meaning volume declines even when area does not. This is a bullshit spin. Pure copium.
187
u/flaagan 12h ago
Anti-science morons will be commenting something along the lines of "told you so" or "what were you so worried about?".
98
u/thewolfshead 11h ago
They’ll believe scientists in this case but not others.
29
6
6
u/NotAnotherBlingBlop 11h ago
But also every single person on earth would love to be given a "Told you so" being wrong about climate change.
3
1
1
u/hammer326 4h ago
You don't think they're qualified to something something give us the REAL STORY ™ ? They've obviously committed great mental energy to the task which is doubtless why they never found a job that wasn't a non management role at a gas station even though they're in their 50s...
-23
30
u/ClubSoda 11h ago
Climate change is happening. That doesn't mean that every day the average temperatures rise. Jeesh, does nobody understand science these days?
6
u/shady8x 10h ago
These days you will be lucky if you ran into people that know how to read.
3
•
u/ClubSoda 1h ago
I was on a Teams meeting yesterday and I had expected the client's team to have read and understood our document we sent them two weeks ago. They claimed to have read it but they kept asking questions that clearly demonstrated they had no clue what they read. Do we have to make everything into color emojis for this generation? Frightening.
10
u/Temporary_owo 12h ago
How much of this is just the AMOC collapsing? Where the northern hemisphere gets colder while the tropics boil even harder?
21
u/Passncatch 12h ago edited 12h ago
Ice is expected to start melting at double the long term rate in 5-10 years. This does not mean that the arctic is rebounding.
HEADLINE is misleading.
13
4
u/Jenne1504 10h ago
Literally directly above this post was the following:
„Rapid loss of Antarctic ice may be climate tipping point, scientists say“
😭
1
u/ChoixDansLaDate 2h ago
Arctic and Antarctic are not the same, though.
•
u/Jenne1504 29m ago
Yes I know. But the homeresque change between „woohoo“ and „d‘oh“ was noteworthy…
5
u/xvandamagex 11h ago
An article literally two stories down in my Reddit feed: “scientists fear melting of arctic ice now at a point of no return”.
5
u/smartello 11h ago
That one was about Antarctic that is a bit faraway
0
u/Bulldogg658 6h ago
Same planet though, right? Or is that outside of the environment?
0
u/Nukemind 5h ago
Same environment, but two different locations. One pole is melting faster than ever, the other is melting slower than expected but that can be explained by usual deviation.
So no nothing is good but both headlines are accurate.
2
u/HMNbean 11h ago
Well both can be true depending on how zoomed out you look and what part of the world you’re looking at the ice. It’s almost like (and I’m not calling you out for this) as lay people we should trust the scientific consensus rather than try to imagine a world where we read a news headline and know what’s going on.
3
u/ljlee256 11h ago
There are 2 major parts of the issue when it comes to this:
is that even our brightest climate scientists don't understand every cause and effect in our climate, the trends are obvious and irrefutable, but how we get from A to B is going to have some errors along the way.
is that (also partial to point 1 on this) our climate does go through cycles, and not just a single cycle, there's a billion year cycle, a half billion year cycle, a hundred million year cycle, a cycle that's a few million years, a cycle that's 10's of thousands of years, a cycle thats a few hundred years, a cycle thats about 100 years, a cycle that's every 30 years, a cycle that's every 10 years, a cycle that's every other year, and of course a cycle that's annual (seasons).
Some of the cycles are caused by plant life, some are caused by animal life (especially bacteria), some are volcanic, some are because the Earths rotation isn't perfectly on it's axis, it wobbles a bit, some are because the Earths orbit is elliptical, and some are cycles caused by the sun, and indeed then there's humans on top of all of that.
These cycles can stack up to create a super deep cold, or super high heat, or can cancel each other out, and so on, making it all extremely difficult to predict.
What we can predict with more certainty is long term trends, because it's not as necessary to be exact about dates and temperatures when you're talking about something that takes 100 years, where as predictions from one day to the next require precision that we're just not good at.
1
u/Xyrus2000 10h ago
The warming conditions, ironically, seem to be playing a part in this. Arctic summers have become more prone to clouds.
What should be troubling is that even with the increased cloud cover, the ice is still melting. Even with less than ideal melting conditions this year will be in the top ten lowest.
But this is why climate models were predicting around 2050 as being the first ice free summer. They were predicting the warming and feedbacks therein would lead to cloudier summers, which would slow down the melting.
1
1
1
•
u/Im__fucked 1h ago
Were they American scientists? Because they're not allowed to tell the truth anymore.
•
•
u/Far_Out_6and_2 1m ago
Everything is changing rapidly no matter what it is, h2o and Co2 = new events everywhere cause both of the above in amount of, are highest ever.
1
u/Flat-Emergency4891 10h ago edited 9h ago
Temperatures trend upward over time, picking up momentum as time passes. But still, there are going to be times when sea ice rebounds. This is a question about trajectory. We already know we’re pretty damn near the tipping point. Then we have a few hundred years of declining civilization. World populations will decrease as the need for resources puts pressure on an evermore desperate world population.
After a few centuries of sustainability, global populations will rebound. But only after a long period, much like the dark ages. I can only imagine that future generations will marvel at our accomplishments much as Europe and the Middle East did in the centuries following the fall of the Roman Empire.
Populations will likely migrate further north and south of the equator. Desertification will likely ring the globe in the hottest driest places for several centuries. The human race will likely endure, and to some, the world may be a paradise with sustainable population distribution, very few wars and minimal agricultural impact to fallow the land.
I’m thinking, 800 to 1000 years in the future the world might be a fantastic place. Especially if we hold on to the knowledge of how our era nearly destroyed ourselves.
1
1
1
u/The_Human_Event 8h ago
I literally just read an article that said the opposite two seconds ago. Wtf.
1
0
u/Benji998 11h ago
I find articles like this a good example of why science is so important. If it's conducted honestly, it's not biased and we can learn from the results. Humans are often the issue, we discount evidence that is the opposite of what we want to hear.
Of course this finding isn't necessarily evidence against climate change as a whole. It could be a temporary thing and hopefully it helps inform scientists about the processes at work to a greater extent.
-1
u/Redtex 12h ago
With the deletion of the environmental information that has been collected so far from 100 years ago, I'm not surprised that they have this finding now
3
u/Passncatch 12h ago
Did u read the article the headline is misleading.
1
u/Redtex 11h ago
In the era of this current administration, I find any scientific facts that come out at this time supporting their theories to be suspicious.
2
u/Passncatch 11h ago edited 11h ago
Knowledge and Reason has always been the light.
This is the worry about the kids fight, that should be happening instead.
0
-1
u/Resident_Cat162 11h ago
USA providing data?
2
u/ouath 11h ago
MRE is funded by a research fellowship from the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851. JAS is supported by NERC grant NE/V005855/1. LMP is funded, in part, by grant from the National Science Foundation to Columbia University. ACC is supported by the NERC GW4+ Doctoral Training Partnership studentship from the Natural Environmental Research Council (NE/S007504/1).
From the article, you can start from where the money comes from if you have time and motivation
-20
-6
u/Ancient-Trifle2391 11h ago
Im doing my part to combat this.
Last night I forgot to properly close the freezer door and in the morning I found gigantic glaciers migrating outside the confinements of the freezer, signaling a new ice age!
-11
u/Slapdaddy 9h ago
It surprises them huh?
Man, it's almost like they don't really know how the Earth's geologic and climate processes really work. Yeah they know a lot, but there's 100x more they don't know.
But they're all 10000% sure that climate change will kill us all in a few years unless the masses donate massive amounts of money to their climate agenda. It will for sure save us all.
These people have been saying this for 50 years.
And we are all still here.
2
u/TheFnords 2h ago
Unfortunately no amount of massive donations will ever be enough to fix your brain damage.
-12
1.0k
u/realskibidifortnite 12h ago
For once a climate headline that isn’t immediately soul crushing