Slashdot Mirror
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."
Sure thing melting northern polar cap doesn't affect sea level, it's floating already.
;)
But melting Greenland ice will affect it. Probably also permafrost in Siberia and Canada would start melting, which will potentially release a lot of methane from the northern marshes.
And I have hard time believing that if northern ice cap melts, also southern ice cap won't get smaller (and that will rise sea level)...
Better watch out if you live by the sea... Lease the land for your new house for 50-100 years, don't buy it, and you should be fine
I'm just a backseat environmental scientist, but what is the effect of losing the temperature-buffer that is the ice-cap? I mean, while it's melting, it will retain a temperature of 0 degrees, at least if I recall my physics/chemistry correctly. That means the icecaps provide a nice energy buffer for rises and falls in temperature. If they MELT, they obviously no longer do that. So, will global temperatures rise faster when the icecaps are gone?
Boy howdy. Did you read the CNN Article?:
"...Johannessen works at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway. 'This will make it easier to explore for oil, it could open the Northern Sea Route (between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans)," he said of the report, dubbed the Arctic Ice Cover Simulation Experiment. '"
I dunno, its theoretically possible (though pretty improbable) that there's absolutely nothing to worry about when our polar ice caps melt completely, but I'm of the mind that when the article is more concerned about the new oil drilling prospects and trade routes than climate instability, cancer-causing UV rays, and so on, maybe its time to get a second opinion.
Saharan Africa may have had a more simple existence, based rather more on tribal rules and minor warfare, but everything was massively accelerated by colonialism. I don't think calling the people "dumb" is fair.
First of all, the introduction of "the one true" religion, mostly Christianity, but also Islam from the North, (never so good a cause of much bloodshed as religion through the ages). Then, the creation of arbitrary borders, to further separate tribes from their previous allies. Then, the pillage of most natural resources, agricultural practices, dams, etc. Further, the sale of arms and weapons to these tribes to further ruin their economies, and increase bloodshed further. Indeed a lot of war in Africa directly profits the arms trade, and leaves countries with a trade deficit in spite of all the tropical fruit they sell.
It's hard for me to understand just how the pot can call the kettle black in such circumstances as you describe. Primitive culture, perhaps, but it was adapted to its surroundings to an extent. Before colonialism I doubt there was much in the way of dictatorships, just chiefdoms, etc... although I'm sure Saharan Africa wasn't a peaceful nirvana or anything.
There is no doubt in my mind that the worst pillages of nature have all been initiated in the minds and by the greed of the western capitalist system, particularly this inexorable trend towards ever greater consumerism, which is what is really robbing the world of natural resources and causing a higher percentage of pollution than anything else.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
I think the scientific consensus these days is: "We don't know what's going to happen, it might go either way and in both cases we are fucked."
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Generally the cold (gas absorbing) waters of the poles, sink to the ocean floor carrying large amounts of CO2 and O2. This dissolved oxygen is critical in keeping aerobic conditions in the deep sea (several early mass extinctions have been attributed to anaerobic organisms flourishing in oxygen depleted waters) and the dissolved carbon dioxide is attributed to the lower than expected climatic changes from greenhouse gas emmissions.
Why are we not freaking out about this??
This is the great engine of Earth (forget Deep Thought). It is responsible for the majority of heat storage and transfer in our environment, allowing disparate areas to acheive a modicum of energy equilibrium.
Without this "smoothing" force to even out the bumps - storms will become more violent as the coriolis effect is reinforced by the increasing density of the atmosphere as you travel towards the poles - sea currents will alter drastically, causing mass extinctions - seasons will be more extreme hot or cold.
All in all, this issue in no way deserves the (more than usual) flippant, offhand and dismissive treatment it is receiving.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
No, I am not placing blame... anyone would run the AC at 116 degrees. The problem is that you had to... not that you did.
As our climate goes out of control, we expend more and more resources trying to maintain localized habitable spots. Which necessitates burning more fossil fuel, which exacerbates the situation.
I guess its moot in a way cause our generation won't have to worry about it. But in a way I feel partly responsible for the situations I am setting up for those coming later if I don't choose wisely. I am quite concerned over what I perceive to be a rather lackadaisical attitude over the consumption of our earthly resources... especially here in the United States, where it appears there is so much wealth that conservation is not only completely uncalled for, its actually discouraged so as to encourage economic growth based on production of frivolous things.
We have more than enough things to go around, but we arrange things so that no-one has time to spend with family.. I became an engineer in the hopes that I could contribute to the demise of the mandatory two-incomes needed to maintain today's social status... and I have spent near my whole life and have not made a dent. We spend our lives in a hurried rush burning our environment and making junk. I'm sad to be so cynical, but from my seat, I perceive humanity as behaving like so many rats, eating and defecating over their environment, until its spent, then there will be the day of large quantities of rotting rat when the system is exhausted. I am just hoping we are smart enough to control our demands on our support physics to avoid that scenario.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
The bulk of the earths water not contained in the oceans is hold up in the glaciers. Antartica's being the bigest by far, with the greenland ice sheet still being substantial.
These glaciers would substantially add to the earth's sea levels but are more stable than the sea ice. Current projections give the greenland glaciers around 300 years before they become totally unstable, whilst the model simulations suggest that the antartic sheets will remain stable (and my even grow abit, due to increased percipitation). Cryosphere (ice) models are perhaps the lest well understood, and these projections may well change as our models improve.
Let me help clue some people in here.
i me des'+principle
Because Me so smart.
come off it dude.
Better than throwing about your half understandings as truth, you could actually look at your notes from first year physics and understand the wonder of Archimedes' principle for yourself, THEN try to explain it.
href="http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Arch
As others have noted, if you melt the north pole, you're probably melting Greenland & co. as well, which does add to sea-level rise++. Also your ice melted becuase the oceans are a little warmer (latent heat of liquification, yea, yea. it still gets warmer after the ice is all gone) thus the oceans are less dense, and expand (ie upwards).
The bit about all the added fresh water being less dense is interesting, but doesn't make up for the "it isn't just the sea ice melting" problem.
The bit that really scares me: Antarctica. The ice in the center is several miles thick. Around the edges along the coast you have sea ice.
The sea ice melts quite fast due to the thermal conductivity of the ocean water around it. That melting is going on now (eg the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed last year to the shock & awe of many ice-ologists). If you remove those buttresses, the center collapses outwards to the sea. This could happen over the course of a few hundred years(!!!). That's where the vast majority of land-locked water is, and that's what'll do the serious 75' rise if it happens.
It is estimated that a 100 year storm on the East Coast of the US (read NYC) will be a 3-5 year storm in 50 years. Add to that the east coast is natuarally sinking (the continental plate), and you really don't want any extra sea level rise if you can help it. And we can help it, we're just being selfish lazy fucks. Don't deny it.
Even if things are warming up naturally, we shouldn't help it along to make it go faster.
We aren't fucking the planet, it'll survive, were fucking ourselves. All but a few of the world's major cities lie along the coast. ALL of the great port cities..
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
"Here in the Uk (where ia m living at the mo) we just had the hottest day on record"
And the coldest day on record in the UK was in 1995. Therefore we must have had Global Cooling, like they were warning us about in the 70s. Right?
Hint: localised temperatures tell you nothing about global trends, and the global trend since 1979 as measured by the satellites is tiny. Not to mention that the theory predicts that most of the warming will occur at the poles, since the CO2 bands are already pretty much saturated in warmer areas. But I'm sure you know that, right?
"and 6 of the hottest years have been in then 90s."
A lot of which is due to bogus measurements and urban warming: Britain, particularly the south-east, is so densely populated that little of it escapes such warming effects, but they're nothing to do with CO2 or global changes.
I was reading, for example, a news article about a >38C temperature record at... Heathrow Airport (not the official record, which was in Kent, and is probably less bogus). Hmm, an airport, with 747s taking off every couple of minutes, with huge amounts of concrete to reflect heat around, with vast numbers of cars, taxis and buses driving in and out stuck in often stationary traffic. Yes, I'm sure that's really representative of Global Warming temperature changes!
I'd also add that, having had the misfortune to live through the 70s in the UK, that while the current year may have broken the odd record, some of the warm summers in the 70s were much worse than this. And that was when Global Cooling was going to kill us with a new Ice Age!
"Many people died"
Yeah, it's awful. A while back I was reading about more than a dozen people dying of summer heat about twenty miles from where I live in the UK.
_In the 1840s_.
This is nothing new: the only reason people think it's new is because it's something _they_ haven't experienced before.
"Even tar on the road melted because of the heat"
You mean you've never noticed tar melting before because of the heat? I remember it happening regularly in the summer when I was a kid walking to school: maybe people should try walking sometime, they might actually notice these things.
"This is to avoid the overheated rail tracks to bend and causing the trains to crash."
Again, that's because British railways suck and are designed to only run at 3pm one Thursday in March each year while being out of spec the rest of the time, it's no evidence of Global Warming(tm).
Oh please! If I were to point a gun at your head, would you wait for true solid evidence that it were loaded before you ducked? Of course not - the only truly solid evidence is your brains splattered on the wall, by which time it's too late. Same with global climate change.
The scientific consensus is strong. Perfect, no, but outside of right-wing talk show hosts and oil company shills, there is no real doubt that human activity is altering the climate.
We don't have an "experimental Earth" and a "control Earth" to compare. There's only one, and we need it. We're fucking with the spaceship's life support system here. This is not intelligent survivial-oriented behavior.
RTFA. The melting of the ice cap won't cause ocean levels to rise, but it will mess with the Gulf Stream - very, very bad. And melting of glaciers will cause sea level rises; you don't think that if the polar ice melts, some glaciers will melt too? (Antarctic melting would also cause sea levels to rise.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Solution: Build more nuclear plants.
In 2000, there were 9351 plants producing power levels of 604,514MW in the summer and 615,030MW in the winter. (I'll use the summer numbers since those are the lowest and arguably the most important.) Of those 9351 plants, 91 were nuclear, representing 0.97% of the power plants by number but producing 86,163MW in the summer -- about 14% of overall output.
Of the remaining, there were 1024 coal plants, 3007 petroleum (oil) plants, and 2068 gas (methane) plants, combining to produce 419,852MW. Taking the average output of 947MW per nuclear plant, it would take 444 plants to take up the slack, though I suspect plants being designed now are more powerful than that. Westinghouse believes their new AP1000 1000MW reactors can be built for $1400 per KW for the first few, and $1000 per KW starting around the seventh plant. The total construction cost is about $447 billion, which, if spaced over 20 years, is a bit more than $22 billion per year. In 2000, the US burned 995 million tons of coal, 195 million barrels of petroleum, and 6.2 billion MMBtu of gas. The costs of these fuels? In today's terms, it would be, at $25 per ton, $30 per barrel of undistilled petroleum, and $5 per MMBtu (all approximations, but close to current prices), $24.9 billion, $5.9 billion, and $31 billion, or a total of about $61.8 billion. The cost for those plants, spaced out, would be a little more than a third of what we pay for fuels as it is.
Aside from the virtual end of power plant-produced carbon dioxide emissions, and that some of these reactors could be breeder reactors, helping to make better use of nuclear fuel (of which we have centuries of supply in the United States alone), this would shut down much of the incredibly damaging coal mining in the country, drop natural gas prices to reasonable levels so that people can pay for their homes, and slash oil consumption drastically.
The construction of these plants would also create thousands of jobs at each site for two to three years, spurring the local economies. Even if there were only 1500 jobs created per site, that's 33,000 jobs if 23 plants were built at a time. There would probably be enough to offset job losses at conventional power plants, and my understanding is that nuclear construction work carries higher paychecks than standard construction work.
Nuclear reactors are fairly close to terrorist-proof. In California, they've survived earthquakes, and they're designed to handle most airliners crashing straight into them. Their common dome housings also would help to deflect anything larger than they were designed for, and the lessons learned from Three Mile Island have gone a long way in improving responses and designs.
I want a nuclear reactor in my backyard. I don't see why the fears about them are so prevalent. I almost wish the planes had hit a reactor instead of the WTC just so that people could see how they wouldn't crack, though part of me fears that it would heighten the fears of others attacking such plants.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I'm also a global warming skeptic and that's the only argument I buy. Hedge on the side of assuming it's our fault, because by the time we're sure it's going to be way too late.
The scientific consensus is strong. Perfect, no, but outside of right-wing talk show hosts and oil company shills, there is no real doubt that human activity is altering the climate.
Having studied this issue intensely, that is flat wrong. There are two effects going on. First, modeling climate is exceptionally difficult, and the most difficult aspect is predicting the activity of clouds. On one hand, they reflect light (cooling), but on the other hand, they act as a blanket (warming). Depending on the thickness and density of the clouds, these parameters are traded off. So scientists have to predict more than the levels of CO2 produced. And it ain't easy.
The second effect is the "grant effect." All grants are peer-reviewed - that is, when you apply for money, people in your field decide if your current and prior work makes you a valid candidate for getting $$$. Now, obviously, this gets very cliqueish, and if you consistently advocate a contrarian position (ie, global cooling or stasis), you will have a very hard time getting money. In other words, if you are a climatologist and you don't predict warming, have fun getting funding. In this way, the "answer" in the global warming debate is shaped by who can still get funding, and this is a very dogmatic, polarized field. And on this, the liberals are every bit as biased as the oil company asshats. The people I would listen to are the ones not blustering on either side, but who consider cooling/stasis to at least be a possibility. They're rare, but they exist.
So bottom line, there is very much debate as to the origins tot the current warming trend. Especially when you consider that a single decent volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than man does in a year. Like I said though, I'd rather not find out the hard way either.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat