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?
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
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
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"
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'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