Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences

OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post. First there is an article about a study indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction. The article quotes an environmentalist: "This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." And the polar melting is opening new shipping lanes. The second article details a trip late in October through the Northwest Passage by a Canadian icebreaker. Never before in history could this trip have been accomplished so late in the year; ice would have choked off the passage. Estimates of when the passage might be navigable by commercial shipping range from 2020 to the end of the century. The indigeneous people are not looking forward to this development.

Comments

This gives the phrase...

[thewiz]

"Baked Alaska" a whole new meaning.

Political Bullshit

[chill]

On both sides.

This has been presented before, and debunked before. This study shows that while ice is thinning in some parts of the arctic, it is thickening in others and the temperature change isn't uniform.

It also shows that the majority of polar bear populations are steady, with an equal number on the increase and decrease.

That shipping lane has been there before, and guess what -- there were polar bears around back then. Amazingly enough, polar bears aren't the hot-house flowers these people are making them out to be.

The climate is changing, that is for certain. The only thing more certain is that politicos and people who want gov't grants are going to exaggerate and hype every little anomaly beyond belief in order to garner attention and eventually money. What they hell ever happened to science for the sake of actual knowledge?

Re:Political Bullshit

[uncadonna]

> What they hell ever happened to science for the sake of actual knowledge?

How do you tell science and political bullshit apart, other than by whether you like the result?

It happens that the "report" you quote is scientifically incoherent. I don't know much about polar bears, but I am very familiar with sea ice trends.

Arctic sea ice summer extent minima are rapidly retreating, and the best evidence is that perennial ice has shrunk by 40% ion the last forty years. It is reasonable to expect that all the perennial Arctic sea ice will go away in this century, both by extrapolation and by careful consideration of the thermodynamics and radiation budgets involved.

Real scientists talk about one issue at a time, and their opinions have a logical consistency rather than a political one. No one who is an expert on polar bears is an expert on sea ice mechanics.

The statement about Antarctica is a particlar howler.

"Moreover, while sea ice has decreased in the Arctic, it has remained relatively constant (or even increased slightly) in the Antarctic since 1978."

It's true enough but completely irrelevant. Have a glance at a globe. It might be worth considering that Antarctic sea ice has completely different origins than Arctic sea ice. If Antarctica melts, what happens to southern summer sea ice extent?

And why should polar bears care about the Antarctic anyway?

The paper you quote comes from a group that invariably highlights evidence against global warming and minimizes evidence supporting it. I don't know who funds it, but I have run into it before. I promise you it is not considered a scientific source; but go ahead an check the citation index and prove me wrong.

So, as someone who knows some of the scientists, who seem to me to be very serious people, I would say you have your bullshit and your science swapped.

I'm sure you won't take my word for it, but consider this. How, exactly, would you know?

Re: How dare they!

[transporter_ii]

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-09-13 -hottest-summer_x.htm

The USA sweated this year through its hottest summer in 70 years, with temperatures not seen since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, according to a government report.

From June 1 to Aug. 31, as summer is defined by the National Climatic Data Center, the continental USA had an average temperature of 74.5 degrees, based on readings from hundreds of weather stations nationwide. It was the second-hottest summer temperature the government has recorded since it started keeping track in 1895. The only one warmer -- by about two-tenths of a degree -- was in 1936.

Ok, seriously, what made it so hot back in 1936? Was it just a natural occurrence, or was it man made way back then?

Transporter_ii

Re:Polar bears

[Hebbinator]

A bear from the Smokey Mountains and a bear from the Arctic are dropped into the water. Which one dissolves first? The one in the arctic, because it is POLAR

Re:Welcome to the world of tomorrow, Fry!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>increased the fuel econemy rating for a good portion of vehicles on the road.

Why not raise it across the board? Googling for "CAFE mpg 2000" and "CAFE mpg 2006" is revealing.

>The fact is that bush hasn't run away from environmental issues at all.

Correct. The "Healthy Forests Initiative" is hardly running away from an issue. Neither is the "Clear Skies Act", which if Wikipedia has their facts straight

        * Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
        * Weakens controls on mercury pollution levels compared to what would be achieved by enforcing the Clean Air Act stringently.
        * Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68 % more NOx pollution.
        * Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
        * Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.
        * Exempts major stationary emissions sources from installing modern pollution control as required under New Source Review when making major capacity upgrades or renovations.

The endless attempts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge are not "running away", either.

November 2004, changed the standard for allowing sewage to be dumped without complete treatment from "emergency" to any time it rains.

May 2002, tore up existing standards to allow Appalachian coal miners to bury mountain streams in waste.

Bush is not running away from the environment, he's making a frontal attack on it.