Arctic Ice Holds Much CO2

scottie2shoes writes "The Edmonton Journal is reporting fascinating research on the role of arctic ice in absorbing carbon dioxide. It seems that (contrary to what was previously thought) arctic ice actually absorbs significant quantites of CO2 and is thus a key player in the 'greenhouse gas game'. So melting the ice caps won't just flood thousands of square miles of land and wipe out thousands of species, now it is is starting to sound serious..."

Comments

Circular

[cybermancer]

So greenhouse gases cause global warming which melt the ice caps and then releases greenhouse gases?

Re:Circular

[Random832]

Ice is not water. [PP was saying that] it's possible that cold open water works better than ice and would offset the warm water elsewhere

Re:Circular

[fluffy666]

Of all the years the Earth has been around (4.5 billion?), why would a run-away process happen now?

Over the very long term, the history of the earth's climate has been a case of the sun getting gradually hotter, and CO2 levels dropping in compensation. This system nearly broke down around 800 million to 600 million years ago, leaving the earth almost entirely frozen over.

75 million years ago, temperatures were extremely high by today's standards; there is a lot of leeway within the long term equlibrium. As an aside, Ice caps as we know them are quite rare throughout history.

The mechanism is simple; high temperatures lead to faster chemical erosion and CO2 drawdown. Low temperatures have the opposite effect. This does take a long time (in human terms) to work.

In about 1 billion years, CO2 levels will have nowhere left to drop, and runaway warming will indeed cook anything left on the planet.

This kind of run away heating will not happen as a result of human induced global warming; however, a return to conditions seen in the Oligocene, circa 15 million years ago, is within the realms of possability. This would cause significant economic disruption, esecially (as seems likely from the evidence) if it were rapid.

Re:Buoyancy please....

[crow]

I wasn going to post and say the same thing. I remember reading how Arctic ice (which is floating) obviously won't alter sea levels if it melts, and there was an explanation of why Greenland ice melting wouldn't make a big difference. The big concern in one section of Antarctica.

But that isn't all exactly true, because the Earth is spinning. As ice melts at the North Pole, the Earth will become slightly less spherical, resulting in higher sea levels at the equator, and possibly making a slight difference in the need for leap seconds.

Now whether that effect is significant or not, I have no idea.

nice theory, but --

[sdedeo]

As printed in the article:

Here is where today's science becomes guesswork, however. Less ice could actually be better. Scientists still know very little about how the Arctic Ocean processes carbon, and a competing theory holds that open water could actually pick up more greenhouse gases.

If human activity is turning "much of the Arctic into a polynya (a body of water that doesn't freeze in winter), then the Arctic or polar seas may become much more effective at removing the atmospheric carbon than they currently are," Papakyriakou said.

The poster of this article (and those discussing the potential positive feedback mechanism that kicks in if ice is a greater sink than open water) are really smudging the issue here, and smudging it for political effect without regard either for the necessarily tentative nature of science at the margins (here, the untested margins of modelling an entire planetary ecosystem) or for the consequences of making scientists look like ridiculous Chicken Littles.

I ride a bicycle to work, take the train, and am generally supportive of environmentally friendly living and governance. But, as a scientist, I am severely disappointed when other scientists (let alone journalists or Greenpeace) take an unfinished scientific debate and use it to propose sweeping changes in our lives -- changes that woud plunge a huge number of people into poverty (I live an environmentally sustainable life, but it does cost a lot more and I wouldn't demand that a single mother of two do it as well -- hey, you driving that pickup! shell out $50,000 for an electric car.)

This is turning into a bit of a rant, but if you want to learn what other enivronmentalists -- who are also scientists -- think about the current fights over the greenhouse effect, GMOs, etc, you should read Patrick Moore's recent article (Moore was the cofounder of Greenpeace.)

Re:More Info?

[jgardn]

You'll find any study that espouses global warming to be light on the details and any empirical numbers.

No one ever compares the actual amounts of energy or chemicals, nor do they estimate the CO2 sinks in the world that are natural.

It's kind of like the traffic studies that say "If we build another lane, people will just fill it up, so why do it?" rather than "Building one more lane will increase traffic flow by X0 and decrease travel time by X1, which is estimated to increase the economy by Y, and it will cost Z to build it."

Re:Where does it go?

[jgardn]

The earth is a tremendously complicated system and anyone that pretends to understand it completely is lying. We only understand very small bits of it, and we're like the blind men trying to ascertain what an elephant is. Some see a small part of it and get worried that we're turning the planet into an ice world. Others worry about a water world. Others say we are going to turn it into a tropical paradise. There were people running around in the 70's claiming that the world would be so full of people that there wouldn't be enough food in 2000!

If you look around, you will find plenty of examples of CO2 "sinks". One popular example is limestone deposits at the bottom of the ocean. A little research will turn up several others.

But otherwise, pay these "prophets" no mind. They are out there to stir up controversy and profit from it.