Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting 92
sciencehabit writes: Earth is rapidly being wired with fiber-optic cables — inexpensive, flexible strands of silicon dioxide that have revolutionized telecommunications. They've already crisscrossed the planet's oceans, linking every continent but one: Antarctica. Now, fiber optics has arrived at the continent, but to measure ice sheet temperatures rather than carry telecommunication signals. A team of scientists using an innovative fiber-optic cable–based technology has measured temperature changes within and below the ice over 14 months. This technology, they say, offers a powerful new tool to observe and quantify melting at the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Re: (Score:1)
move to Antarctica!
WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice, here I live in Seattle, just off of downtown, can't get fiber optics, but hey, whatever. fuckers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Why would that matter? We already have 18 years of no warming and the AWGers deny that, along with every other of their claims being wrong.
Re: WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (Score:2, Informative)
No
http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm
Re: (Score:2)
No http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Sorry but that article claims the heat is going into the ocean. However, NASA says NO it's not. http://science.nasa.gov/scienc... [nasa.gov] Again real science trumps.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have 18 years of no warming
The last 6 months were the warmest on record for the NOAA and the GISTEMP data sets [slate.com], so I think that the hiatus may have finished.
Throughout that time there was warming, it's just that the oceans [wordpress.com] and cryosphere [sciencemag.org] have seen more warming than the global mean surface temperature.
along with every other of their claims being wrong.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Sea level is rising?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The last 6 months were the warmest on record for the NOAA and the GISTEMP data sets, so I think that the hiatus may have finished.
NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.
And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record. Not the coldest ever, but right down there in the bottom 10.
Also, sea level is not rising. That is to
Re: (Score:3)
NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.
Land based measurements are much more directly related to temperature, than satellites, and don't have the problems of interpreting the MSU readings as temperature, orbital drift, the fact that there have been fewer than three instruments in orbit for much of the time making calibration guesswork, and correcting for what the satellite orbits are passing over.
I would be very surprised if NOAA every claimed that satellite derived near-surface temperatures were more accurate than met stations. Do you have a
Re: (Score:1)
The other is by a private company called Remote Sensing Systems. Their data looks like this. A very slight cooling, that I cannot believe would be "real cooling trend", if by real you mean statistically significant.
And of course that famous AGW alarmist Dr Roy Spencer is on records as thinking that there is something wrong with the RSS dataset.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't believe, try looking HERE [wordpress.com], and HERE [wordpress.com].
You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?
Do you think that would help?
What kind of luddite world are you posting from?
I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.
I suspect that this is bullshit.
The luddite blogs you linked to only discussed the USA for a reason: There is a time of observation bias that is in one direction in that data set. For the global data set the adjustments average nearly zero.
NOAA's cl
Re: (Score:2)
You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?
What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.
Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data. This is what allowed him (and others) to show the massive amount of manipulation that is done to data that comes out of NCDC, and GISS in particular [wattsupwiththat.com]. GISS has been widely criticized for questionable manipulation of its data sets, and in fact not long ago it was found (by who? your "ant
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"?
Because he's got no scientific research background [google.com], and he spreads the standard anti-science agenda, for the standard George C Marshall Institute-funded culprits. If someone has a scientific point, and isn't a charlatan, they usually publish in the scholarly literature so that the scientific community can vet what they write. Going straight to the public with ideas that aren't in the literature is a sign of anti-science.
Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data.
Then he's focussing on the USA data, because the global data's adjustment is about 0. T
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus [slashdot.org] for that link:
Re: (Score:2)
Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds.
Hmmm. Doesn't inspire confidence does it?
Since GISS's is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, googling "GISS" and "Goddard" gets a lot of hits. GISS and "Steve Goddard" gets a whole stack of denier blogs.
I'm going to call this Myth Busted on the 20 seconds claim alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were.
I will invite everyone to my complete writeup (which, unlike his comments, won't take others out of context or distort their statements... I promise a true accounting). T
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to call this Myth Busted on the 20 seconds claim alone.
You call it wrong. If all you did was Google "GISS" and "Goddard", that's a pretty obvious fail. You look pretty silly basing any call on that.
You know, it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change").
Hmmmm.... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know h
Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score:2)
Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:
Re: (Score:2)
Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:
In a particular, very specific context, which you have not bothered to explain here.
No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy.
No, it hasn't. It has been "khayman80 shown to violate something... I'm not sure what. But you "scientifically" show squat... you didn't even use the appropriate equations for the context of the problem under discussion.
I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your o
Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score:2)
Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power". Sinc
Re: (Score:2)
You call it wrong.
Prove it.
If you can find it in 20 seconds, you could have settled it to much better satisfaction by providing the link.
I'm also going to call this myth busted on failure on your part to find it as well as failure on my part to find it.
If all you did was Google "GISS" and "Goddard", that's a pretty obvious fail.
From the post to which you are replying:
GISS and "Steve Goddard" gets a whole stack of denier blogs.
You know, it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change").
It's certainly one of my interests.
Hmmmm.... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot?
The Userids are sequential, n00b.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power".
I haven't "confused" anything. I understand perfectly well how you think your own erroneous "solution" to the problem worked... or more accurately, didn't work.
I am very definitely not the party here who is confused.
Or maybe Jane could listen to Prof. Brian Cox. Jane/Lonny Eachus likes Prof. Brian Cox and is very bothered by the fact that Prof. Cox agrees with mainstream physics.
No, once again you've put words in my mouth that I never actually stated. Why have you kept doing that? Are you allergic to simply telling the truth?
The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spenc
Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score:2)
Once again [slashdot.org], how bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, how bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:
I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. Which is no surprise to me at all. And it is equally of no interest to me, except where you distort my meaning by using my words out of context.
In other words: bok bok bok BOKKKKK. That's what I thought. Jane/Lonny Eachus is chicken.
Hahah
Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score:2)
No, I found a principle called "conservation of energy" which states that power in = power out through a bo
Re: (Score:2)
No, I found a principle called "conservation of energy" which states that power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside is changing.
I am familiar with the principle and I made use of it in my calculations.
If you want me to ask him instead, then I'll send him this tweet:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls. Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Hahaha. You slay me. (Pun intended.) First, you asked me to make him a BET, but you're not willing to do it yourself? Second, you honestly expect a tweet to describe the actual conditions of the experiment? It took us something like 2 days to even agree on that, with hundreds of lines of messages back and forth.
I do not take such things very seriously. Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want t
Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, I never asked you to make him a bet. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
Well, pardon me for not reading it carefully. But that's because you've conducted yourself in a way that is impossible to take seriously.
It's bizarre that Jane now insists that this disagreement requires hundreds of lines. Just yesterday, Jane said:
I have the pages and pages of exchanges we had over agreeing on the initial conditions of the experiment. Denying that won't make them disappear.
... If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to
It *IS* a pretty straightforward radiation problem. I didn't claim it was complex, I stated that it took a while to be sure we were agreeing on what the initial conditions are.
Once again you display your talent for distorting
Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score:2)
That's because it doesn't matter whether the walls are actively cooled. Their temperature affects electrical heating power regardless.
It doesn't matter if electrical heating power is cons
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is not usually measured in periods of less than 30 years, so either you haven't got a clue, or are trying to create a reality which simply doesn't exist. You do this every time, though, so it's not surprising. You frequently get confused between sea ice and ice on the land, and use the extent of the sea ice as some sort of argument that the land ice is doing fine, when in fact the opposite is usually the case.
Please grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, I require science, something you don't seem to have a firm grasp of as of yet. Try taking a few classes, looking at and actually understanding the massive amounts of data available, and after that coming back in a year or three when you actually have a chance at understanding the difference between long and short term trends.
But, if you actually have data proving climate change wrong, for the love of $DIETY publish it in a peer reviewed journal, you will become famous... I won't hold my breath though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (Score:4, Interesting)
King Canute's lesson to his court over how political will cannot command nature is very apt. You can shout from the rooftops that nothing is happening but there is some reason why last month was the hottest September in more than a century. Putting on a blindfold is not going to help.
Re: (Score:3)
That's obviously false, as evidenced by the fact that the sun rises earlier when daylight saving time is in effect. If that isn't political will commanding nature, then what is? (In fact, they had to end the trial early in Arizona way back in WWII when they discovered the extra hour of sunlight was scorching the grass.)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's a good idea to let scientists take a look at it to understand what is going on instead of attempting to trump reality by some sort of political fiat.
Indeed. Whether you are worried about climate change or think many scientists are clueless fearmongers, you should still favor this. Anything that collects data and improves our understanding is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?
Is it melting due to geothermal effects? Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?
You understand how your assertions are your responsibility to prove - right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay. Since you can't be bothered to google it yourself, I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
I think you may have linked to the wrong paper.
The one you linked to [nih.gov] doesn't have the word "geothermal" in it, and the science daily [sciencedaily.com] write up about the paper didn't mention this either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The actual paper (which cites the one you linked to) says geothermal activity is responsible for part of the melting, not all of it. I'm getting used to you either lying or being confused by abstracts. It explains your ridiculous position which flies in the face of evidence.
Pardon me... do you see anywhere here where I claimed it was responsible for "all" the melting?
Attributing words to me that I didn't write is the only lie here. Why did you do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon me... do you see anywhere here where I claimed it was responsible for "all" the melting?
So what is the cause of the rest of the melting?
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the cause of the rest of the melting?
Why the hell are you asking me? I simply pointed to a paper about volcanic activity under the Western ice sheet. Did you see me anywhere here claiming I was an expert about it?
My suggestion would be to go find someone who is loudly proclaiming their vast knowledge of the subject... then ask someone else, and you are probably more likely to get the truth.
But I specifically deny expertise about the Western ice sheet. Maybe I'll go learn about it.
Re: (Score:2)
But I specifically deny expertise about the Western ice sheet. Maybe I'll go learn about it.
I suggest you do.
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay. Since you can't be bothered to google it yourself,
That's right.
I'll help GP a bit and show you one. [pnas.org]
Did you link to the right article? The article you linked makes no mention of geothermal effects being responsible for the shrinking of the west antarctic ice sheet.
I guess you weren't as helpful as you initially hoped?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, here is a link to one paper. [sciencedirect.com] It isn't the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The assertion you claimed was supported by scientific papers: I'll help GP a bit and show you [ a paper detailing geothermal activity as the cause of the observed melting of the west antarctic ice shelf ].
That is very far from what I actually stated. GP claimed not to have seen any papers about geothermal activity. I supplied one. End of story. I did not claim it was any kind of proof of what anybody else said.
Don't try to put words in my mouth, unless you want to make an instant enemy. That's not ethical.
Re: (Score:2)
That is very far from what I actually stated. GP claimed not to have seen any papers about geothermal activity.
The GP said this: Is that the [west antarctic ice shelf] that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?
I asked for proof of this alleged causation, in the usual form of a scientific paper detailing the causation.
You, for some reason, butted in and said: I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
There is no logical explanation for this, except that you claiming the associated papers were proof of causation. Further i later explicitly described your attempts as an attempt to demonstrate causation:
Did you li
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?
I pointed you to a peer-reviewed article that details warming due to geothermal effects. I provided a reasonable reply to the question. If that good enough for your taste, too bad.
I asked for proof of this alleged causation, in the usual form of a scientific paper detailing the causation.
You asked the question I quoted above, verbatim. That was the question I was responding to.
You, for some reason, butted in and said: I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
I "butted in" because I am sick and fucking tired of people who can't spend 2 minutes on Google and look something up, and incessantly demand somebody else do it for them.
There is no logical explanation for this, except that you claiming the associated papers were proof of causation.
Then you h
Re: (Score:2)
I was responding specifically to this question of yours: Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?
You mean my question about the causal effects of the melting ice shelf. Unless you are claiming to know better than I what I meant?
I pointed you to a peer-reviewed article that details warming due to geothermal effects. I provided a reasonable reply to the question. If that good enough for your taste, too bad.
You admit you posted some irrelevant cites. We are still waiting for a relevant cite btw.
I "butted in" because I am sick and fuc -
Nope. Don't care.
I refer you again to the question I quoted above. If I misunderstood your question, perhaps you should have stated it more clearly.
Entry criteria is a basic grasp of english comprehension. Your failure is not my problem.
You must think we all share your self professed ignorance.
I professed no ignorance;
So you DO know what is causing the west antarctic ice shelf to melt? What is this cause?
I'll put YOUR words into your mouth anytime it pleases me to do so.
Then why don't you try actually doing so, rather than the distorted versions you did print?
You deny saying : I'll help GP a bit and show you?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?
I suspect not primarily, but it is contributing. The source I saw was 100-200mW per square metre from geothermal effects. The average warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect is about 900mW per square metre.
Of course glaciers tend to have high albedo, so the total effect might be closer. On the other hand Antarctica has low absolute humidity, so the CO2 greenhouse effect is stronger there (since there is a large overlap between CO2 and H2O absorbance), and the ice-albedo effect is also very strong th
Re: (Score:1)
The record breaking cold of this July, the coldest July on record for the south pole, had temperatures as low as -135.4. That explains the largest amount of sea ice Antarctica experienced this winter ever since they kept track of it with satellites in the 1970s. Amidst record breaking cold, it is therefore impossible for the globe to be "hotter than its ever been before." The only way to detect the climate is to measure daily temperatures and there simply is no other way to do so. It is also ridiculous
Re: (Score:2)
formak data set, in Latex format
That sounds like word salad. Why would anybody format a data set using a typesetting language? netCDF is far more common for this sort of thing.
Irrelevant (Score:2)
The area of the ice is irrelevant. It affects albedo, but that is insufficient to cancel out the influence of contaminants like excessive CO2. What we care about is the mass of the ice, and we covered here fairly recently how that has decreased sufficiently to measure gravitationally.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is +4 informative? Seriously?
For those who can't be bothered to read the summary, this is not about FO communications. Some guys are using the properties of fiber optics and light to figure out the temperature along a length of cable they dropped down a bore shaft to the ocean.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Marking a funny post as funny doesn't get the poster any "points" so many times funny posts get marked informative. That or the average /. moderator is a total idiot.
I'll let you decide what is more likely.
Re: (Score:2)
They are using technology developed for fiber optic communications. I expect the fiber they are using is standard single-mode G.652 fiber, and the device they are using to measure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] is an OTDR, which we use in telecom to measure fiber quality and locate defects/breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Fiber optics in Antarctica sounds extravagant and silly,
You realize that it's not being used for telecommunication, right? It's being used to measure the temperature of the ice.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like the right's hysteria over Ebola. Less than 5K deaths on the entire planet and they panic, completely ignoring the 50K+ deaths from flu or the 30K+ roadway deaths which occur in this country every year.
Gramling Says What? (Score:2)
Re: This is not science (Score:5, Informative)
So in your world testing a hypothesis isn't science?
Strictly speaking, testing a hypothesis is the opposite, it's trying to prove the hypothesis false. The more you fail at disproving, the more likely it is to be correct.
Re: (Score:2)
They're starting with an assumption then trying to prove it.
What assumption are they starting with?
They're measuring the temperature of the ice. Making good measurements is science.
Now this pisses me off (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because that will be there for permanent - 1 day.
Re: (Score:2)
Over a decade ago I submitted a project to carry data in Antarctica by a 1500km fiber for a large project. It was shut down by the Americans because according to the Antarctic Treaty you cannot leave anything in Antarctica permanently.
I think that they pull it back up when they're done, as they did last year:
Although Tyler’s team pulled its instruments out of the borehole in January 2013, the mooring that held the cable in place remains frozen into the ice shelf, he says—and the team hopes they can get back to it for a longer term monitoring project.