Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Dekortage writes in with a new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggesting that the North Pole may be clear of ice in summer as soon as 2040, decades earlier than previously thought. From the article: "'As the ice retreats, the ocean transports more heat to the Arctic and the open water absorbs more sunlight, further accelerating the rate of warming and leading to the loss of more ice,' Holland said in the statement. 'This is a positive feedback loop with dramatic implications for the entire Arctic.'"
Ever notice how people that are skiing wear sunglasses?
That's because ice reflects sunlight.
Take all the energy that the polar regions reflect because of sunlight, and instead add it to the ocean in polar regions.
That's the math they're saying they did, and the answer they came up with is : the polar cap melts fast!
If you don't want to buy it, do a counter study. As is, their results seem fairly clear and robust. Not saying that they're exactly right, but a counter argument needs to be more then you saying "NOOOOOOO".
So you would also be skeptical of the claim that I may be a billionaire by 2040?
What does that have to do with it?
If I'm bleeding to death, the fact that the knife wounds are bleeding out faster than the gunshot wounds, and the fact that in the past I've gotten nosebleeds, so its not unusual for blood to be coming out of my body isn't really all that important. Dealing with the blood loss is.
Because not all of the ice is floating. There is a significant amount of ice in the Greenland Ice Cap. Melting of this will cause the sea level to rise. Interestingly, it will also cause Greenland itself to rise by a small amount due to the release from the weight of the ice. There is also non-floating ice on the Canadian Shield islands. In addition, if you assume that melting of the Arctic ice cap will be accompanied by at least some melting of the Antarctic cap, there could be a sea level rise of from a few meters to several meters. This is enough to cause a severe disruption of human populations.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
If the North Pole melts alone... Then no.
But Chances are that Greenland will almost melt in the process.
Therefore we will notice an increase in sea level if the Arctic ice melts but it will be due to Greenland ice melting.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
You are buying into the Corporate PR machine that is actually keeping the focus on debating how real global warmimg may or may not be so they can continue to delay the costly adjustments that they will eventually need to make to protect the environment. The problem is that the continued delay as we continue to spend time rebuffing their continual denials and half truths about global warming will make it less and less likely that we can do anything about it.
Global warming is real, and the only reason anyone expends energy denying it is because they don't want to pay to fix it. Do you think all these scientists from all these different countries are making up all this data just so they can stick it to the corporations? They have better things to do!
Keep passing the open windows...
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
j r.html [space.com])
This is why we use proxies to determine the temperature back then. There multiple datasets ranging from ice cores (we match the variations in atmospheric concentrations in more recent periods, and use the cores as a proxy to earlier dates), and tree ring data and so on. We generally don't use temperature records from early 1900s for precisely the above reason.
If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
But its different kinds of radiation. Magnetic fields affect charged particles only - aka solar wind and the aurora, and these have negligible energy input, especially relative to normal EM radiation which GW is about. Now, additionally, we have good data recently on the trends in both solar radiance and temperature forcing, and numerous papers have concluded that the sun itself can explain at most 30% of the observed trend. (Google scholar for the relevant papers)
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_
Check out the time frames! The dates given are 1998 - about 10 years.
Now, what do you think the orbital period of Jupiter around the sun is? Wikipedia has an answer 4333 days = 12 years. So, how interesting it is that we are seeing changes on the same time frame as Jupiter's passage around the sun, a passage that of course is not perfectly circular, in fact getting closer and further from the sun as time goes on...
What's more, there's another major factor - Jupiter's colour. Huge tracts of Jupiter's surface are in different colours, and as these vortices move about, obviously that is going to change its irradiance. Fortunately, Earth is not one big hurricane.
5. This is similar to Jupiter. Mars has an orbital period of 2 years, and has much greater eccentricity than Earth in its orbit. The temperature trend we have is over 3 years, a 1.5 cycles, something like between winter this year and summer next year. How mysterious that there would be a warming trend.
Additionally, there are dust storm factors as well: See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
6. That source doesn't say that. Go read it again. Methane is more powerful per volume, and agriculture as a whole takes up more than transport. But transport isn't everything and the total volume of methane is small. Campaigners focus on transport, because transport is easier to cut than agriculture without killing bazillions of people.
Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?
They aren't. They happened over thousands of years and can be explained by a variety of other factors, whilst the current change is happening over decades and there is no other observed factor that can explain it.
No, you haven't. You are a liar. You've been listening to ultra-rightwing propaganda lies and you're happy to parrot them blindly and unreflectedly. That's a difference.
Many have pointed out the utter absurdity of your gibberish. Here's a couple more examples:
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's)Shackleton recorded the annual extent of sea ice around Antarctica. We've been doing this for close to 100 years now. This IS a measurement of global temperatures.
Every harbor in the world keeps a record of the annual high-water mark at least since the British Empire. Every harbor in the world has seen the ocean levels rising for at least the last 100 years. This IS a measurement of global temperatures.
Weather related damages to the US agriculture (floods, droughts, hurricanes) have been tracked since Jefferson's time. This IS a measurement of global climate.
I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields.You might want to call Joe's Diploma Emporium and ask for your money back: magnetic force (and thus acceleration) is always perpendicular to the velocity of a charge. No amount of magnetic fields can increase or decrease the speed of a charged particle (and certainly not an uncharged one).
Jupitor [...]In all your thorough research, you've never come across the name of this planet in printed form? Even once?
Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 yearsWait - didn't you just tell us not to believe any temperature indicators that are 100 years old?
Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now,You are so utterly mentally retarded that it hurts my teeth to read your drivel. NEVER in the history of the earth has anything happened that was even a tiny fraction of what we are seeing today. Not only were the ice ages NOT "more extreme", they were peanuts compared to what we see today. We have a pretty decent record of global temperatures for several hundred thousand years and there is no indication anywhere of global temperatures changing on the time-scales of decades or even centuries. Nothing like what we're seeing right now can be found anywhere in the earth's climate record.
I recommend that you refrain from posting about issues you do not have the shimmer of a clue about.
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.