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!
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
Omnis amans amens
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.
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.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
Todays sea ice maps: http://www.seaice.de
Everyone knows that REAL Santa lives at Korvatunturi in Finnih Lappland. Just ask any Finn. :)
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
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)!
Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway are land masses too, with lots of glaciers and permafrost. I don't think the North Pole is going to melt in isolation. A lot of "scientists" seem to lack the common sense to see the bigger picture.
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
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
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"
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."
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 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.
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
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
Global Warming and the End of England
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.
The interesting bit here is that the normal state of the earth is to be completely ice-free, which means that the sea level would be some 250 feet higher than it currently is. We're presently still in an ice age, which was probably caused by the American continents blocking off equatorial sea currents, and the transfer of heat to the colder parts of the globe. One exception is the Gulf Stream, which is responsible for the very mild climate in much of northern Europe.
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
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.
I'm not really sure where your physics comes from, but the principle isn't all that complicated. Anything that floats on water displaces a volume of water where the mass of the water displaced is the same as the mass of whatever is floating.
When the ice melts, its density becomes 1 therefore its mass = its displacement (1kg of water will displace the volume of water which weighs 1kg).
So there is no "approximately cancel each other out." As the parent stated the net change in sea level will be exactly zero. Excepting for minor changes due to temperature or evaporation. Ice currently sitting on a land mass will change the sea level since it is not displacing more or less water.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
"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).
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