Global Warming To Leave North Pole Ice-Free

cwolfsheep writes "Tonight, Yahoo & AFP news are reporting on a study, further backing up a previous report, that suggests the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by the next century. Oddly enough, they say the melting will not add to the sea-level of the ocean (since the ice is already in the ocean) and that the extra water will help absorb more greenhouse gases. Maybe we need to start using more aerosols."

Comments

Archimedes Principle

[panurge]

If he is capable of reading some of these posts, Archimedes must be revolving in his grave.

Anything floating in water displaces a volume of water EXACTLY equivalent to its own weight. If ice melts, the part that was above the water is exactly equal to the reduction in volume, and there is exactly no change in the water level.

On the other hand, if the non-floating ice on Antarctica or Greenland melts, since it wasn't displacing any water, the ocean levels will rise. And there is a LOT of ice on Antarctica.

The melting of floating ice makes little difference to sea temperature since it is water at close to 0 degrees, but melting glacial ice generally runs off into warmer water, causing sea temperature reduction with potentially catastrophic effects (e.g. stopping of the Gulf Stream).

Re:Ice melting not the problem

[danormsby]

Unlike the North Pole where the ice floats on the sea Antartica is a big land mass with lots of ice on top. If the Antartic ice melts, sea levels will rise.

Re:I need someone to explain...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Desertification is what destroyed North Africa. The area that is now the Sahara was once a fertile plain. As the soil dries out, it destroys a fungus that actually helps bind it together and retain moisture.

The rub is, Desert begets desert. As the land becomes arid, it heats up the surrounding land, causing the desert to spread.

Now one thing not helping the situation is Man. Certain agricultural practices accellerate desertification.

Indeed, start looking for deserts to form in Brazil. Rain forests don't really build good soil, and when you slash and burn the rainforest down to form farmland you only get a few good years out of it before the soil breaks down. Rain Forests generate their own weather patterns, and with no forest, no rain.

Rapid climate change

[halfseaice]

Only within the past decade have researchers warmed to the possibility of abrupt shifts in Earth's climate. Sometimes, it takes a while to see what one is not prepared to look for:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html

Todays sea ice maps: http://www.seaice.de

Re:Here, let me help

[Nyh]

Two things:

1 Ice floating in water displaces as much water as it mass. So when it melts the volume will not change.

2 The interesting thing is that water shrinks when you heat it from 0C to 4C so in that traject it will take up less space. Continue heating above 4C it it starts expanding again.

Warmer oceans will mean higher sea level because warmer water is less dense.

Nyh

Re:global warming *isn't* necessarily our fault

[apoc.famine]

Exactly. I had one professor who claimed you could link the increasing effects of global warming with "research" groups fighting for funding in congress. He even had charts. ;)

The temperature of the earth has been hotter then this before, and it has been colder. Yes, we may be in a time of man-made temperature increases, but we still don't know for sure. What all the global-warming zealots ignore is the fact that in the hundred thousand year global temperature cycle, we are IN A WARMING TREND. This is to be expected. If you look at the ice age cycles, they follow similar temperature trends. Yes we may be causing some of the temperature increase - but at the same time, a good deal of it is most likely normal, natural, and to be expected.

I wish people would stop looking at the last 50-100 years, and get it through their heads that to understand climate modeling, you need to look at eons. The ice ages do have some meaning - they weren't random events that happened due to man not burning fossil fuels.

Since nobody seems to be doing this, here are some pretty charts and discussions about why the current hype about global warming is, at minimum overrated, and at max completely bogus:

Ice ages and inter-glacial warming periods:

http://www.ocs.orst.edu/forum/BigPicture.htm

Thermodynamics coupled with solar radiation fluctuations:

http://64.21.37.2/~rhailey/archives/001402.htm

Temperatures since the last ice age:

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pb33/kihzhome/kihz01 /fig2_en.html

While I don't claim that these are all 100% correct and relevant, they should at least get you to question the current global-warming mentality of "we did it and it's here now". Yes, we may be responsible for some global warming. But until we can tell for sure, THROUGH SCIENCE, people need to take a deep breath and calm down. Ask for the facts, ask for the numbers, look at the charts.

Few of you believe manufacturers when they claim speeds for things - you go look at benchmarks. Why would you then automatically accept claims of massive global warming, especially from groups with obvious agendas? Ask to see the data. Ask to see *all* of the data. Get angry that much of the "temperature increase of y degrees in the last x years" "data" came from limited readings in some of the coldest places on earth, because it showed the greatest change, instead of from a representative sample across the entire planet.

Yes, we should pollute less, and yes, we should take responsibility for our environment. However, we shouldn't run around screaming "the ice is melting, the ice is melting". If it is, then it very well might do that every so often, humans, fossil fuels, or not. But using junk or no science to promote a phenomenon which might or might not exist is just not cool...