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."
Penguins live on the other side of the earth -- they probably won't care too much about this.
Cheers,
Alex
*Holding precious copy of Water World*. You mean Kevin Costner LIED to us?! But this was such a good movie!
I for one welcome our new polar bear overlords!
I've never understood why the media has always gone on about polar ice melting causing the oceans to rise....
If anything's going to cause the oceans to rise, it would be the heat expansion of the water that's already there.....
Advanced users are users too!
Santa on a houseboat?
I guess santa's gonna have to trade that big red suit and sleigh in for a tank top and a suv
Let me help clue some people in here. One of the wonderful properties of water (which helps to make earth more conductive to life I might add) is that it becomes less dense and expands when it freezes. It is one of the few natural materials that does so. Most things become more dense. (Hence, lakes don't freeze solid killing all the fish. The ice forms an insulating layer at the top because it is less dense than water and floats.)
As a result, the complete melting of the polar ice cap would result in, quite possibly, a slight reduction in sea levels, as the resultant water from the melting will take up less space than the ice did. However, since ice floats, some of it was above the waterline so it may end up a wash.
If the antartic melted, that would be very bad. You see, there is a land mass there. With ice frozen on top of it. If that ice melts, that is new water added to the ocean as a whole, NOT water replacing ice that was already in the ocean. A totally different animal.
As for all this? we knew that we were coming out of the last mini-iceage already. It doesn't shock me in the least to see what the ice is still receeding on the whole. Maybe if we warm things up slightly we won't see any more large-scale ice ages. As much as I delore some of the insane policies of the eastern ultra-liberal nutjobs, I have no desire to see New York covered in a glacial blanket.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
No, the ice displaces an amount of water equal to it's on weight, and that's why some of it sticks out above the water.
So if there's no North Pole where will Santa live. And all the elves, and the reindeer! They'll drown!!!
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
Except a lot of ice (ex : much of Antarctica) is on land in the form of glaciers. If you melt the North Pole, you'll surely melt these glaciers too, and then we'll all be fucked. Well, not me, I'll become a Tibetian Monk. They have internet access, right ? I saw it in an IBM commercial.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Might not be good for the environment, but it will probably be good for all the shipping corporations. It'll cut a thousand miles off the commute.
I'm buying beachfront property in Point Barrow.
how at one point africa was a very fertile land. Was it because there was more or less ice at the poles. I cant remember but over a millenium or two wasnt egypt and the surrounding areas (including ethiopia and ethrate) the bread basket of the world? Would the melting of the ice caps help or hurt the countries in africa?
later,
epic
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
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).
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
That's a good point, and with that point taken into account, here's another interesting twist on the story that's come out...
They're saying that the ocean would thus absorb more co2, but this won't possibly make an impact if the surfaces of the ocean aren't greater.
In fact, Harvard Magazine says, "The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange. This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. However, once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, estimates Michael McElroy, Butler professor of environmental science" which seems to indicate that though we might be able to absorb a bit more co2, it won't make a difference.
The time constraints are very large, but moreover, the amount of co2 that contacts the ocean won't be high enough for somethign dramatic to happen before we destroy the precious things we already have.
Thus, I'd like to think that we should still be very careful about how we just arbitrarly throw co2 into the air.
Mod me down as a troll if you like but I declare cwolfsheep the stupidest Slashdot article submitter EVER and he needs to know it!
"Let's climb mt Everest because it exists. Let's also melt the north pole because it exists."
I wonder if he considerer one second about what happens to the Antarctic and Greenland (and let's not forget all the ice covered mountain regions around the world, can you say "mud slide") while he is busy spraying CFC in the air (yeah, aerosols no longer contain CFC's, so he was wrong about that too).
Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
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.
From the article:
the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap would benefit maritime transport as it would create a new northern shipping route along Russia's northern coast that could save some 10 days in journey time between Europe and Japan.
I guess every dark cloud really does have a silver lining. And to think I was worried. Don't I feel foolish
----
Squirrel
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
Todays sea ice maps: http://www.seaice.de
But where the hell is santa gunna live if his homeland is melted??
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
The radioactive waste means you dont need lights any more, and the mutants chase off the terrorists!
What more can you ask for?
think about the children (TM)!
In any case you are correct. There is a hell of a lot of ice on land that will be added to the seas. Just look at the melting permafrost and receeding glaciers of Alaska and Canada.
This report also glosses over the affect all that melted ice will have on the ocean's salinity. It is predicted that a slight change in ocean salinity is enough to turn the taps off on the Gulf stream. This would leave Europe pretty screwed. England's weather would start to be more like Nova Scotia's.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Even if the Gulf stream stays intact, Europe will still be screwed. I mean, here I am, living in Amsterdam, with my head just above the water level if I stand on my toes. A dike is a much too thin line between a productive life and extinction if you ask me. My computer is on the second floor though, so I guess I'll still be allright if I have to start using boats to get anywhere...
You explain the Archimedes Principle very well, but the threat to the Gulf Stream, which is one of the most serious possible effects of global warming, has little to do with sea temperature reduction in Northern waters. It is a general trend to increasing quantities of fresh water of any temperature being produced as run off in Europe which could stop this salt pump / conveyor belt effect. This has happened at least twice before with the result of major temperature drops in Europe.
There is an excellent summary here. One interesting quote "[the gulf stream] carries over 3 trillion KW of heat to Europe - roughly 100 times the world's consumption of energy"
The point is that when the water is in the form of ice it won't absorb the CO2, whereas in water form it will.
So, I hope that answers your question.
How do they figure melting ice won't raise sea levels? even if the glacier is 20 feet above water, won't the excess buoyant pieces of ice melt down into the ocean?
Actually no. Water is more dense than ice (this is why it floats above the water in the first place). So so far this theory seems ok.
What they don't account for, and what makes this bunk is that it doesn't account for the huge amount of landlocked glaciers (The south pole, Greenland, etc.).
Someone kindly explain how you propose to melt just the floating ice and not the rest of it?
This crap is posted just to further the official slashdot agenda of:
"I'll do whatever the hell I want to and I'm sure it'll have no consequences whatsoever on the environment. And if it has, it's my lazy worthless childrens problem!
You'll pry the steering wheel of my SUV from my cold dead fingers, commie-boy!"
Now go ahead and label me a crazy environazi, if you like.
It doesn't make my point any less valid.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
In case of temparature rising further, people may start using air conditioning but I guess the natural wild life as we know it will be extinct and we will have the tropics movin northwards. Already Mosquitos and flies have started showing up in various places where they were never seen before
Also think about the tropical diseases to which the north folks have absolutely no immunity, epidemics anyone? The article is extremely shallow or too ironic for me to figure out. The possibility of new diseases, epidemics and extensive wildlife destruction is looming and the authors are concerned about maritime shipping routes!!
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I grew up in Florida, have lived most of my life here, and will probably be here for years to come. And I hate hot weather, so I'm totally against this warming trend.
I'm in favor of a good old-fashioned nuclear winter to cool things down. As a bonus, I'm hoping it would decrease the tourist trade.
The only thing I hate more than hot weather is yankees.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm#L_07 03
Well melting ice caps are all well and good, but I've yet to see real evidence that it is related to "global warming" in the sense that the warming is caused by pollution, and not say, the fact that we are still emerging from an ice age??
Historically (geologically speaking) we are not in an ice age when there is, essentially, no ice!
There are many reason purported to the rise in global temperatures, from greenhouse gasses, to sunspot activity to to earths position relative to the sun (Milankovitch cyclical variations) etc.
Also with the removeal of bulk of the ice glaciers, much of the land that was under the weight of the ice is actually rising.
So I've yet to be convinced that we are in any real trouble that we have brought upon ourselves.
CJC
The North pole melting won't add to sea levels, because all the ice is already in the water, however if the South pole starts melting, it most certainly will raise the water levels due to the simple fact that there is land underneath most of it.
Maybe we need to start using more aerosols.
See the _main_ problem is the graffetti undertaken by the polar bears. Some of it is really good - the trouble is they can only get their paws on white, cfc based, spray paint.
Jaj
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
Maybe we need to start using more aerosols.
CFCs from aerosols deplete the ozone layer, allowing through more UV rays, causing more skin cancer.
Global warming is caused mainly by CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
The two are pretty distinct, but often get confused.
Global Warming and the End of England
Global warming is a liberal myth. There is no evidence the world is warming up. The complete melting of the polar ice caps this summer is just anecdotal evidence.
In particular it would probably mean the disappearence of snow from the alps and possibly some other mountain ranges, possibly including the resorts in the US and Canada. Essentially, it means if I want to ski, then I had better do it on water!!!
Seriously, there are many alpine valleys which do not make enough from farming, so instead they rely on an influx of winter sports enthusiasts. The summer hikers don't seem to come in the same quantities and many don't spend as much.
See my journal, I write things there
With the northern ice cap gone, the Earth's overall albedo will be lower, hence the planet absorbs more heat from the sun, the temperature goes up, Antarctica starts to melt, the Ross ice shelf slips down into the sea, then sea level DOES rise, then with the southern polar cap gone, the albedo falls even further... I think you see where this is going.
Pass me the sun cream.
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.
To understand that we do not yet understand climatic change and radical environmental change is key. Put all that aside and look for explinations of the geo-magnetic and climate record. It is possible that after a melting of the North pole might come the oceanic expansion of the south pole which would then assume the polarity of North. Not the Earth flipping on it's axis but a polarity change caused by the magnetic effects of increased ion streams on the Van Allen belt. Move the Van Allen belt around and you move the magnetic poles. This could be the start of a major 100,000 year cycle. If this is so then what is now the Sahara and all the deserts will bloom and become a watered land. Sorry Austrailia you will become a frozen desert again. Central North America, Europe, and North Central Asia will become deserts. This all could happen within 1000 years,if there are major Solar cycles that can effect the Earths polarity. This would also explain much about the geo-magnetic record and the climatic record. The now frozen North would then become a very attractive land again. As would the equatorial regions, and the southern temperate zones, Cape Town might become almost like Helsinki, and Southern Africa like Northern Europe. Time to write a Sci Fi novel.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
"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).
England's weather would start to be more like Nova Scotia's.
I apologize for the obvious joke, but wouldn't that really be an improvement?
Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
This was a jornal entry I made two months back that relates to this topic.
I saw a story on CNN this morning about Greenpeace saying the polar ice caps have melted and that the water levels in the oceans have risen 2.5 - 2.75 inches in the last 25 years. This is supposedly beyond normal and clear evidence that the polar ice caps are melting.
I had two "seemingly absurd" at first glance explanations for water, or tide levels rising, but possibly peaking right about now. (Now being the year 2000+)
First, what sort of water displacement has occurred due to cruise ships, barges, subs, oil tankers, oil rigs, and other man made water craft? I know the ocean is huge and it's not like my bathtub, but it HAS to be at least a minute amount!
Second, if the theory of plate techtonics is true, couldn't our land masses have shifted/grown substantially (in the case of Hawaii) also causing significant water displacement?
Third, hasn't some sediment/diatomation/oceanic (organic/volcanic) growth also occurred & also caused water displacement
I have seen a Canadian study (forget where) that there's more ice in the upper regions of the country than ever. So rather than the poles melting, is ice just shifting a little? As glaciers move and "ice masses" float, won't they melt anyway?
In a way, this relates to my earlier "statistics, shmatistics" post below. It just really annoys me for business's and especially charity/non profits to use "Beyond FUD" to scare up money.
Whether global warming or erosion of the atmosphere is happening or not, conservation and world health organizations should be worried about just that and focusing their funds on research rather than paying for stupid studies to be run in the liberal media. The study about tides rising cost 15 million dollars to Greenpeace! Do you know how much that would have advanced solar energy research or subsidized solar home construction? Or how many wind mill and turbine powered generators that could have built?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
First of all, Sahara was at one time reasonably fertile. Or at least parts of it were. In a similar way, we could point out that the America's Midwest is potentially a desert: those are sand dunes we're farming on, and we'd better take care of it if we want to keep on farming it.
And yes, political strife makes it so people, desperate to eat today, don't take care of tomorrow. And the Saharan region *did* go through political strife: the conquest by Islam. [and no, not all religions are equal, or as you seem to think, equally bad. Some shed more blood, some less. Some have peaceful periods, some don't.]
You're also wrong that there were no dictatorships. Some of the dunes have completely covered old Roman forts. Rome was definitely a dictatorship.
But I don't think it was politics or religion that did the Sahara in. I think it was the introduction of grazing animals. You see, the earlier (Christian) and primitive (animist) cultures that existed in the region before that were mostly farmers. But grazing animals represented wealth to the incoming Islamic "missionaries". So they brought that in with them (but not because of their religion; just because of their culture.)
The grazing animals overgrazed the land, and destroyed the plant life, freeing up the dunes.
Further, plants tend to regulate the water; so the Sahara then had no further regulation.
But no, this also isn't Western capitalism that did it. This is an extension, if you will, of the Mongol invasion, and the imposition of a new culture upon a region that was not suited to it.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Good news. This will provide an ample new area for whale hunting.
an ill wind that blows no good
It's not the right time to be sober
Now the idiots have taken over
Spreading like a social cancer, is there an answer?
Mensa membership receeding
Tell me why and how are all the stupid people breeding
Watson, it's really elementary
The industrial revolution
Has flipped the bitch on evolution
The benevolent and wise are being cornered, ostracized, what a bummer
The world keeps getting dumber
Insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason
Darwin's rollin over in his coffin
The fittest are surviving much less often
Now everything seems to be reversing, and it's worsening
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool
Now angry mob mentality's no longer the exception, it's the rule
And I'm startin to feel a lot like charlton heston
Stranded on a primate planet
Apes and orangutans that ran it to the ground
With generals and the armies that obeyed them
Followers following fables
Philosophies that enable them to rule without regard
There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated
Political scientists think the same one vote that some monkeys are inbred
Majority rule, don't work in mental institutions
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
What are we left with?
A nation of god-fearing pregnant nationalists
Who feel it's their duty to populate the homeland
Pass on traditions
How to get ahead religions
And prosperity be a symbol to culture
The idiots are takin over
-NOFX
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
The issue of what will happen when land covered by ice sees a melting is curious. Most people assume that water/ice sitting on land will raise ocean levels when it runs into the ocean. This is not so. The reason has to do with the exact same reason for which the land sticks above the ocean. Frankly it is floating just as the ICE in the water. When the ice or water on land runs off into the ocean, the land it was on rises in a process called isostatic rebound. This makes more room for the water in the ocean and as such makes the net effect zero.
The reasons for which large land masses rise or fall below the ocean has to do with effects in the Crust and Mantle of the earth. Clearly these effects are beyond any human control. The Isostatic rebound is pretty profound. In areas where glaciers have recently melted off, land masses have risen as much as 200 or 300 feet. These have been observed in the past 100 years.
The complete melting of Ice off of Greenland for example would reveal a land mass which at this time is below sea level most of it. The land would rise serveral thousand feet by best estimates revealing mountains as high possibly as the Smoky Mountains or higher in places.
The science we have regards this is revealed in sattelite orbits. This mapping measures the density as by deviations in orbits. It reveals that this particular set of data is fact. It would be best to assume that land like Ice is floating and subject to all the same rules of displacement. Undersea land is sunk for the same reasons.
The melting of the polar regions is driven by cycles way too long to have been affected by any human intervention. The heat to melt the polar ice is part of a ocean current cycle that has over 20,000 years of lead time on our current events. The salt water currents cycle is massive and is global. It is controlled by an inventory of water that is estimated to take over 20,000 years to cycle through. If and it appears so that the Polar Caps are melting, The heat that is driving this melt fell to earth some 20,000 years ago.
For those of us who live in the eastern USA our mountains have massive cliffs cut by deep rivers of ice. These glaciers had north America looking like the south polar regions do today. The warming that took out those glaciers is probably echoing back on us right now.
Also one other factor is driving events. In the early part of the 1900's the sun got about 1.5% brighter than it was over the previous 5,000 years. It has remained so since. It does appear in the past 5 to 7 years that this trend has reversed. I sincerely doubt that we humans have any influence on the brightness of the sun.
The whole "Global Warming" argument is actually a political argument by Europeans and Asians to hobble the Americna Economy. Their economic beliefs generally assume the success of one person is the result of him having advantage over his competition. This is why we see such dangers to the world economy at this time. Such ideas do not allow adaptation. They rely on conquest.
The Irony of this is that while the these Asian and Europeans are using massively higher amounts of coal, much of which is mined in the USA, they are telling Americans not to burn it! While US Coal consumption has dropped steadily since the early 1900's Hampton Roads, Virginia and Mobile, Alabama have become the worlds largest energy exporting ports. No it is not oil. It is COAL. The total tonnage is about 1 Billion Tons of coal from these two ports a year. The energy value of this is more than equal to 300 billion barrels of oil/year. This means that the USA exports the equal to the entire Saudi Oil Inventory in the ground about every 10 years. Total world production of oil is about 65 Billion Barrels of oil a year.
While everyone was not watching China raised their consumption of coal to a total of about 2 Billion Tons a year. India did about 1.5 Billion tons a year increase as well. This means that the total US Consumption and Export of Coal of about
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Since the ice at the north pole is floating, it's melting won't affect sea level, but what about the glaciers covering Greenland, or Antarctica? That water will flow off land, and into the ocean, raising sea level.
Eat at Joe's.
Peter Malin, the designer of the Mars Surveyor camera, said at his Denver lecture last night that three years of photography have observed the Martian polar ice caps are melting away. Each year they are smaller. This suggests there could be a solar component to global warming if it affects two planets.
While it may well be that the ice in the arctic ocean will melt, I find this study highly suspect.
First, it assumes that a rise in temperatures since 1978's constitute a trend. There has only been two and a half decades since, 2.5 datapoints, that is not enough to establish a trend IMHO.
Second, it makes a direct correlation of rise in temperature to CO2 emissions. But to the best of my knowledge we don't know for certain that CO2 indeed plays a direct role in Earth's temperature, and I think that to assume that human population can single-handedly affect amount of CO2 being emitted on the planet, much less have any control over climate is incorrect.
I think the main thing about studies such as this, is not to "freak-out" as someone suggested. The scientists are working on learning more about our planet, and that is a good thing. The the press and politicians signle out studies that can help them push their agenda and publish them as if it's the absolute truth, and that's a bad thing.
Why is it, for example, that any climate change is percieved as something to be fearful of? What if it's only going to be for the better?
I also wish that the environmental powers that be focused more on pollution in large metropolitan areas. More and more people are sick because of terrible air and water quality as well as improper disposal of all kinds of waste, especially in countries with weaker economies (e.g. eastern europe), but because it is not something of global proportions, we don't get to hear about it.
grisha.org
Why arent I freaking out? I think the human effects might be large, but the earth is a dynamic thing. Climates changed abruptly and dramatically WAY before we showed up, and they will continue to do so well alfer we are gone. I'm not worried about temperature changes or sea levels, I'm worried about straight-up toxic pollution, because that's what'll end up being our demise. Already fertility rates are down and indicative diseases of long-term toxicity are up (obesity, cancer, and diabetes anyone?). If the sea levels go up we can move inland or adapt, if it gets got or cold we can move more indoors. If the rains burn the soil and make it so plants can't grow and the ocean is devoid of all but jellyfish bacause we filled it with poison, we're really done for!
Seriously, this global warming shit is a distraction from the real enemy, it's something we CAN'T do anything about in the long term; WE might stop our part, but the earth will make it's own rules. Meanwhile, why we all sit around trying to figure out how to burn coal without putting up 'greenhouse gasses' the farms are dumping tons of poisons into our GROUNDWATER!
I'm not saying we should all drive SUVs and leave the lights on, but there's only so much we can do about the climate. Trying to keep everything the way it is would be the most expensive, destructive, and futile effort mankind has ever assumed. Do your part to live 'green', but not to prevent global warming, do it to reduce the poisons you put into the earth and to help us be less energy-dependant.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
I have to wonder, what about all the studies showing that the ice cap is getting thicker?
Check out an article on Greenland and on the ice pack itself. There are others about the antarctic ice thickening too. Can't we, the /. community, perform a basic reality check before spreading chicken little stories? ( I also found it funny/sad that google is prejudiced against the idea that the pole ice is thickening. )
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
There is no way to prove global warming exists, or if it doesn't exist. Certain factors such as solar radiation AND the impact of different types of clouds have yet to be accurately modeled.
One of my good friends is a masters student in meterology at the University of Oklahoma (the best in the country for meterology.) We were discussing this the other day. All models used to prove or disprove global warming completely ignore the impact that different cloud formations have on climate change. This is just one of many hundreds (or even thousands) of variables that cannot even be measured let alone modeled.
I take this global warming with a grain fo salt. Remember the Ice Age and the "Little Ice Age"? Those were natural phenomena. This warming (if it even is warming) could also be natural.
Scientists have only kept decent records of temperature for the last 100 to 150 years. Accurate studies of other factors (sea surface temperature, solar radiation, etc) have been taken for even less time. There just is not enough data to draw any conclusion about these so-called "drastic climate changes",
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
Like George Carlin said...
"The Earth is going to be fine. It's the people who are fucked."
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
So get used to temps going up and down... After all, the polar regions were pratically jungles at one point in time. It'll happen again eventually.
The increasing temperatures around the world are caused by something very simple: The Earth's orbit.
The Earth does not go in a circle around the sun. It goes in an elliptical orbit. This ellipse does not maintain its major and minor axes over time: It slowly but surely changes. Over many thousands of years, the ellipse becomes more like a circle, bringing the Earth closer to the sun for longer periods throughout the year, and then for a few thousands of years more, the orbit gets increasingly elliptical again, taking the Earth farther away from the sun for much of the year. This is quite natural and nothing you do with aerosol cans is going to change that.
Want to fight air pollution? Then just say that you want to breathe clean air and not a bunch of smoky grime. That's simple enough. But don't go around saying, "The water on the Earth is going to cover all the land and we're all gonna DIE!!!" That just makes you look like a wacko.
And if you really want to clean air pollution, then instead of going after something small and insignificant like an aerosol can, go after something big and polluting, like eliminating the use of fossil fuels to power cars, trucks, airplanes, trains and everything else out there. There MUST be another way to power these things and someone is gonna find it. But don't go around complaining about aerosol cans. Because by eliminating all the fossil fuels, you'll make a 95% difference (so that all other air pollution becomes insignificant enough that it can be completely ignored) but by eliminating all the aerosols in the world, you'll make less than 1% difference in the overall scheme of things.
And remember, it has been much less than a century that we have had the technology to actually spend significant time at the North Pole studying the area. The first known human expedition to the North Pole was in 1909. Even today, getting there and spending enough time to gather a lot of data is very hard. No one has ever spent an entire year there, so we really don't know what the long-term behavior of the polar ice cap is.
Read some of the research and you'll find that one degree is an awful lot for just a single century. And in terms of half of that degree being before humans could have contributed to it, I suggest you look at US History, specifically the Industrial Revolution, which took place prior to the beginning of the last century. Many of the industries during that period contributed greatly to the atmosphere in terms of what we now know are greenhouse gases.
The second effect is the "grant effect." [...] n other words, if you are a climatologist and you don't predict warming, have fun getting funding.
You might also find difficulty finding funding to research cold fusion from your peers if you are a physicist. That does not mean that cold fusion is correct. Please argue on the basis of evidence, not on throwing unsubstantiated allegations of scientific corruption.
Especially when you consider that a single decent volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than man does in a year
If you had indeed "studied this issue intensely", you would have discovered that this is a myth. CO2 released through human activity dwarfs that released through volcanoes (see here for example).
Please, in the future, don't talk bollocks, don't throw baseless accusations, research your claims, and don't claim to be an authority on something you clearly know little about.
The rate of change is what scares me the most - I'm only 32 years old, yet I can easily see how our environment has degraded since I was a child. I remember swimming at local beaches without fear of infection or worse. Now most beaches are presumed closed all summer. I remember all the time I used to spend walking through the meadows and exploring the creeks at my grandfather's house, just on the perimeter of the city (he used to be a farmer, so most of his fields were already sold off by then). Now, this tract of land is commercial property, mostly concrete, lawn and sprinklers. Ironically, his house is now a local lawncare/pesticide/herbicide retail outlet.
It's easy to blame large corporations for their greed - they continue to destroy the ecosystem in their quest for coal/oil/trees/development all in the name of profit.
However, we have to start looking within as the source of the problem - our collective greed, apathy and ignorance is what feeds the profits of these large corporations. We buy the new houses in the developments that were once native meadows/wetlands/woodlands. In turn, we transform our properties from a diverse ecosystem to a non-native, monocultural lawn that requires excessive care, water, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides because it is beaten into our skulls by lawncare companies that a flawless, green lawn is the only acceptable look for our yards. Then we bitch and complain that the summers are hotter and muggier every year and that our hydro and water bills are rising. Meanwhile, we crank up our air conditioners and install wasteful irrigation systems in a vain effort to keep ourselves cool and our grass green.
Wake up! Trees keep you cool - plant some. Grow some gardens (preferably using native plants/trees/shrubs and grasses) instead of a monocultural lawn. Not only is it beneficial to the environment, but it is actually less time consuming once established. You won't need to join the local lawnmowers club every Saturday morning. Did you know that your lawnmower provides more pollution in one hour than your car does in a week? You can turn off your water sprinklers (native plants thrived where you live before you can along and installed an irrigation system). They need no fertilizers or pesticides (native plants are naturally resistent to pests and disease. The birds and other critters that will return once you provide them a habitat will also help keep the ecosystem in check.
We criticize countries such as Brazil for clearcutting their forests. Did you know that Canada has eliminated a larger percentage of it's natural environment through land development, most of which has been converted to either concrete, asphalt or lawn (the worst of the three because of the water and chemicals it feeds on to stay alive). Add to this all the forests that have been clearcut by the companies that feed such development.
As consumers, we can make the biggest difference. Make smarter and less selfish purchases. Make your next car a gas-saver or even a gas/electric hybrid instead of a V8 gas guzzling SUV. Adjust your thermostat a couple of degrees to save either on hydro or gas/oil. Most importantly, I strongly urge you to consider replacing your lawn and restoring all or part of your property with native plants. Help restore a small part of what used to be there before your environment was cut down, bulldozed and sodded.
Please, go to Google and do some research on Naturalized lawns or gardens. Check out some books by some well-known authors on the subject:
"Noah's Garden" and "Planting Noah's Garden" by Sara Stein are excellent, as are "Ontario Naturalized Garden" and "Grow Wild! Native Plant Gardening in Canada" by Lorraine Johnson.
Here, I'll even throw in a couple of interesting links:
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (remember Alvin the sub?) has done lots of studies on the ocean circulation system, dubbed the "The Great Ocean Conveyor".
t topics/ abruptclimate_joyce_keigwin.html
:(
They claim that as the oceans salt level decreases (via the ice packs melting), the heat exchange via the "The Great Ocean Conveyor" will dramatically change the Earths weather climate.
Read about it here:
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/curren
It's a sobering read.
*The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971) The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968) *I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969) *In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970) Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976) *This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976 There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975) *This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976 *If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970) Since 1978, the ice cap has shrunk by nearly three or four percent per decade. At the turn of the century there will be no more ice at the North Pole in summer," Ola Johannessen (2003)
The upper Great Lakes will be OK, since the Chicago river has already been turned around, draining Lake Michigan into the Illinois River. The Erie Canal might be used for draining Lake Ontario, so only relatively minor adjustments are needed.
At least until the glaciers start advancing.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Geez, where to begin. First of all, IWAGP (I was a geophysicist), so I'm not purely talking out my behind here. Yes, you are correct, land DOES rebound after glaciers recede... after about 10^5 years. Formerly glaciated parts of North America and Europe are STILL rebounding from the last glacial period. If Greenland got de-glaciated tomorrow, I've got news for you... the sea level would rise, well, tomorrow, and the land under the former ice sheet wouldn't rebound for many, many years, and in the meantime, coastal areas would be inundated.
Name one place where this has happened. Provide references.
Yeah, over a timescale of about 10,000 years. A great comfort to our families whose houses may be flooding 50 years from now.
And?
The warming is echoing back on us? WTF does that mean?
Geez, what can I say. Watch out for black helicopters.
Sean
Anthropogenic Global Warming proponents have originated in the US. It is not solely a European/Asian phenomena.
Do you have sources (links etc) to back up your COAL EXPORTS stats?
I got so wound up before that I forgot the most important point. Say Greenland's icecap does melt, and the land rebounds due to isostatic adjustment. This does not compensate in any way for the additional volume of water in the ocean. This is because Greenland's crustal mass held down by the ice sheet isn't spread out underwater... it's down in the mantle. The volume of rock that displaces water won't change significantly as a result of the isostatic rebound... hence, once the sea level goes up from melting ice sheets over land, it stays up.
Sean
We should use more aerosols?
Um, how do I say this... aerosols, by which I assume you mean CFC-based aerosols, float to the upper atmosphere and catalyze the very thin layer of ozone that sort of floats like a skin over the whole planet. This causes sporadic thinning of the ozone layer, which is usually not a big deal, since ozone regenerates. But the CFC's float about for a while, and do persistent damage until they disappate.
Ozone depletion is a different problem than the greenhouse effect, which is caused by increased amounts of CO2 in the lower atmosphere caused by burning fossil fuels and of all things, flatulence of our herd animals.
The confusion of CFC pollution which causes ozone depletion and the global warming engendered by CO2 seems to widespread everywhere. I can't count the times I've seen intelligent people mix this up.
Floating arctic ice in general have lower salinity than the ocean. Iceburgs come from salt-free snow and glaciers. The ocean is salty, so the iceburgs will float higher than when in fresh water. In otherwords, iceburgs displace less volume than the volume of itself melted when floating in salty water. Hence, if all the iceburgs melted, *the sea level will actually rise*. I also RTFA and there were no mention of sea level not rising. As many others have pointed out, the point of whether or not the melting of iceburgs will directly cause sea level to rise is irrelevant anyway.
I also want to make clear: I have no problem with skepticism regarding human induced global warming. If you couldn't tell, I'm (if not skeptical) then at least willing to listen to well-thought-out arguments against human-induced warming made by scientists who aren't paid by oil companies (yes, there are some, in my department in fact). What I don't appreciate are the arguments of those who want to avoid the policy impications of potential warming because those implications could hurt their pocket books in the short term. I realize that this is an understandable reaction, but it's also one that I profoundly disagree with.
So from a policy perspective, I guess I am far more frustrated than from a scientific perspective. Personally, I would be happy to see funding given legitimate researchers whose past publications have cast doubt on human induced global warming. However, to continue to ignore the implications of potential warming on policy questions seems very short-sighted to me. As you said.
Back to the scientific questions: From my perspective, the extreme warming in the last 150 years seems pretty watertight. We have solid climate proxy records from multiple sources (ice cores, lake sediment cores (pollen and choronomids), tree rings, deep ocean cores, peat cores, etc.) at least back to near the end of the last glaciation (lets say 12000 years bp as a conservative estimate). That would be 80 150-year periods. If our current period has the most extreme temperature change of any of those 150-year sections (even considering the precipitous drop and rise assocaited with the younger dryas), as much research suggests, then I have heard few good arguments regarding other possible causes of warming. If you have other reasonable hypotheses, I would love to hear them. (Incidentally, your comments are so much more well-though-out than is usual on slashdot. thanks.)
Maybe we (as humanity) stop thinking individually and start thinking globally. We need a Borg-like mentality to survive. If we don't, its bye bye human race.
Maybe we can one day forget religions and political differences and start behaving as we really should, i.e. as passengers on a spaceship with limited resources.
By the way, 3000 people died in France from the heat. Almost as many as they died on 9/11/01. My condolences to anyone that lost a relative.