Huge Freshwater Bulge In Arctic Ocean

New submitter turkeyfish writes "UK scientists are reporting today in the journal Nature Geoscience that a huge bulge of freshwater is forming in the Western Arctic Ocean caused by a large gyre of freshwater. The gyre appears to indicate that the ice is becoming thin enough over the Arctic Ocean that the wind is beginning to affect the motion of water under the ice. A sudden release of this water or its emergence to the surface will greatly accelerate the melting of the remaining polar oceanic ice and likely alter oceanic circulation in the North Atlantic."

Comments

How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[LostCluster]

This is all going according to the long-term global warming forecast laid out by Al Gore in his book and movie "An Inconvenient Truth" where ice at the poles melting means more water and less ice in the ocean which leads to flooding in coastal areas... and it all goes downhill from there.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[lawpoop]

Will liberals stop at nothing to destroy the American Way of Life?

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[jhoegl]

Well, the sooner it happens the faster people will not be able to bitch because they have salt water in their mouth.
Seriously, the back and forth wares me out. Once it happens, at least people who are still alive can tell others. "Told you so".
Ironically, holding on to a floatation device....

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[mosb1000]

Melting sea ice won't lead to a significant increase in ocean levels, it's the land ice you have to worry about.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[NeutronCowboy]

Like the Greenland glaciers.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[hey!]

Well, not yet, and that's from somebody who thinks that anthropogenic climate change is probably a true hypothesis.

For one thing the thinning or melting of sea ice itself has no direct effect on sea level -- just like melting ice cubes don't change the level of water in a glass. The picture the article paints is far more complex. In a nutshell, thinning Arctic ice may allow winds to mix colder surface water with warmer deep water. This would cause more ice thinning faster than changes in the atmosphere (if any) could drive change. Any effect on sea level would be indirect.

What I'm much more concerned with is human responses to this development -- or rather *political* responses. Russia is making territorial claims in the Arctic Ocean based on some creative interpretation of international law, because they think that climate change may open the Arctic to resource exploration. If they find oil up there, there could be a polar conflict between Russia the US and strained relations between Canada and the US.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[eggstasy]

How much, in total, can ocean levels rise if all ice melts, including Antarctica and Greenland?
I've read more than one estimate, but no real authoritative source.

How much warmer does the atmosphere need to be?
Any idea on how longer it would take, worst-case-scenario? 100 years?

Thanks.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the fraction of the ice that is floating above the water is the volume it shrinks when it melts.

There's a second order effect due to higher density of the salt water, so there will be small net sea level rise,
and will also cause reduced atmospheric pressure due to less volume occupied which could bulge the surface,
but these effects won't flood your coast anytime soon.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Locutus]

I read that too but I think it'll be a big game changer if the water circulation pump in the Atlantic gets messed up. I'd already read that lots of fresh water were are already detected further south than ever before. Lots of fresh water further south changes the current layering of water due to different densities of fresh vs salty water and that's what could screw things up.

a change in those currents means a change in water temps and that means a change in weather patterns.

It sure does seem like lots of stuff is melting all over the place and faster than "expected".

LoB

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[rwa2]

Ice occupies more space than water. Melting of sea ice results in a drop in ocean levels, not an increase. only melting of land based ice results in a rise in sea levels.

But ice also floats on water. If you have ice floating in a glass of water, and the ice melts, the level of liquid stays the same.

But salty water is more buoyant than freshwater! So the icebergs would sit a tad lower as the salinity of the water decreases.

But TFA says it's mostly caused by the wind gyre that sucks everything up with a low pressure system. And the main effect has nothing to do with rise or fall of ocean levels, but with ocean currents that keep the North Atlantic relatively warm, but could plunge it into an ice age if the currents reversed (as was the case during the last ice age). Fun and amazing stuff.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[countach]

I think its about 100 metres, which means half the current land masses would be underwater. As I understand it, this would be likely to take a thousand years to play out.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[guruevi]

It won't affect glaciers on land. I don't see where you get that. The glaciers on land are melting too by the way. The glaciers on land melting will cause the sea levels to rise (Antarctica etc.).

The currents will never stand still however they will become a lot less active causing, as you said, the tropics to overheat and the north pole to freeze over. Yes, eventually nature will balance itself but this process will take a really, really long time while generations of people will either bake or freeze (depending on where they live) and the process will be violent.

Finally, it's indeed the CO2 from SUV's and coal plants that causes glaciers to melt but as the glaciers melt they also release the CO2 stored in/under them. Water acted as a sink to CO2 before the last ice age after which it froze and got captured in the ice. It's basically a positive feedback cycle which will only accelerate the process faster.

Climate change is real, global warming is real and the cause for this is real. This has been established by practically all scientists in the field. Denying it is as futile and idiotic as the few that still refute the theory of evolution based on their personal religious or political ideas.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, it's indeed the CO2 from SUV's and coal plants that causes glaciers to melt but as the glaciers melt they also release the CO2 stored in/under them.

I mostly agree with what you said except for bits about SUV's etc. This is more a smokescreen diversion from the real problems. For instance buy local products instead of imported cheap crap. The link at the bottom indicates that running one particularly large cargo ship supposedly pollutes as much as 50 million cars each year (likely a gross exaggeration but still worth considering)

http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[ArcherB]

Climate change is real, global warming is real and the cause for this is real. This has been established by practically all scientists in the field. Denying it is as futile and idiotic as the few that still refute the theory of evolution based on their personal religious or political ideas.

Just curious... Can you tell me how many of these scientists predicted a fresh water plume, stirred by iceberg moved by high winds, would cause more ice to melt? I can't seem to find that prediction anywhere. I did, however find that high winds will cause the water to cool quicker via evaporation, which should have fixed that pesky iceberg problem, made the water saltier, thereby fixing that overabundance of fresh water problem that started this whole discussion. That was on the Wiki page for Thermohaline circulation. It says, "Wind moving over the water also produces a great deal of evaporation, leading to a decrease in temperature, called evaporative cooling. Evaporation removes only water molecules, resulting in an increase in the salinity of the seawater left behind, and thus an increase in the density of the water mass. In the Norwegian Sea evaporative cooling is predominant, and the sinking water mass, the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW), fills the basin and spills southwards through crevasses in the submarine sills that connect Greenland, Iceland and Great Britain. It then flows very slowly into the deep abyssal plains of the Atlantic, always in a southerly direction."

Also, is CO2 the only gas stored under glaciers? I mean, if the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time the glaciers formed was so high that releasing a fraction of that gas would be enough to heat the world... wouldn't the planet have been too hot to form these glaciers in the first place?

I'm not trying to be smart ass, but if you don't question, you never learn. And you never EVER give up your freedom of the word of someone else without at least asking a few questions and pointing out gaping logical holes.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[SomeKDEUser]

The fact that there was someone there to look at the formation of the plume means that it is not entirely unexpected, as in "someone got their project funded, and thus made a reasonable case for it".

Of course this would be found/discussed in fairly technical papers. If you trust journalists to do science reporting right, I have a bridge on the Moon to sell.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0924796395000062 for example dates from 16 years ago.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2001.530504.x/abstract is from 11
  years ago and directly related. Hint: sciencedirect or google scholar are a better way to get scientific information/papers than plain google.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[riverat1]

Think plate tectonics. The land surface of the Earth does not stay in one place. Heck, there are some areas on the California coast that were once attached to Antarctica.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[riverat1]

Except Gore never lied about inventing the internet. Some weenies on the other side just took his words and twisted them so it sounds like he did. From the Wikipedia article on Al Gore and information technology:

Of Gore's involvement in the then-developing Internet while in Congress, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that,

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high-speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[ColdWetDog]

You aren't making a whole lot of sense here. You take a couple of statements, toss a few observations around, complain you don't 'get it' and you really think anyone is going to take you seriously? I'm sorry, this stuff is difficult. It isn't a couple of sound bites and a snarky comment. To understand it requires a fairly concerted effort to read and digest multidisciplinary topics.

So if you're serious, get out of Troll Mode and try to actually learn something.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Baloroth]

His use of "irony" was ironic, though. Gotta give him points for that.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[guruevi]

I would start by picking up an average textbook on climate. You don't seem to understand the difference in time scales and energy between balanced weather/climate events and the unbalanced forces that create climate change. Again, feedback loops. It's not only the CO2 stored in the frozen water, it's the CO2 trapped in the frozen water + the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses WE HUMANS are adding.

Also, the last time there was such massive climate change there was a significant event that caused it (meteorite impact), now we humans are the significant event.

The effect will be even worse once the antarctic starts melting more significantly than it already does because not only will it release the CO2 trapped but also any matter that has been frozen (plants, microbes, animals, humans) or the life that cannot survive the change will start releasing methane and other greenhouse gasses common to rotting.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[steelfood]

Predictions are rarely that specific. They're not going to tell you that's there's a fresh water "plume" as TFA so indicates. What predictions do is give you trends, and the effect of these trends on the overall system. The predicted effects are also not specific, but instead the prediction of more trends.

Reality is a little different. There's a lot of noise in the system. The variances of what happens and is expected to happen can be extreme. But the average--the predicted trend--will remain barring unaccounted for variables that may make things much worse or much better. This plume may be a part of the trend. Or it may be one such deviation from the system. Or it could be an unaccounted for variable that's about to accelerate the glacial melt timeline significantly.

Only time will tell whether the initial predictions still hold after this. And if the data doesn't support it, it will be revised. But I can't imagine that 20+ years worth of data supporting the predicted trend will be outright reversed by one event. To even fancy such a notion so would be wishful thinking indeed. More likely, things will either get a little better, or a little worse.

Of course, there actually is a point of no return that we are quickly approaching, and even if things go better than expected for us and the predictions are on the high side, we'll still end up there if we don't change our lifestyles. There's a huge amount of methane stored in the Siberian tundra. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. It's a missile compared to the bullet that the trapped CO2 in glacial ice would be. As the tundra begins to defrost, methane gets released into the atmosphere. When the climate reaches the point where the permafrost is no longer permanent, no amount of CO2 emissions cuts will be able to prevent the sudden release of greenhouse gas into the environment. And at that point, everyone might as well start staking their turf on high ground.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[sonicmerlin]

Yes you moron, we DO need to get the government, our representative, to do something about these ocean currents- namely cutting down on pollution. Will you let your irrational hate blind you until the west coast is underwater?

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[riverat1]

If all of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica (and other lesser ice caps) were to melt it would cause a bit over 200 feet (~65 meters) of sea level rise. However, it would take thousands of years for all of that ice to melt The ice on Antarctica averages ~7,000 feet in depth and it's up to ~12,000 feet in places so it won't melt that fast at any temperature that still supports humans living on the Earth. Current estimates for sea level rise by 2100 are in the 3-6 foot range. 20 feet above the current level isn't inconceivable in 2200.

Regarding what it would take to melt all of it, a paper out recently said that the big ice sheets started to form when CO2 levels dropped below 700 ppmv maybe 30 million years ago. We are currently at ~390 ppmv, up from 280 ppmv in 1830 and ~320 in 1960. At the current rate we would hit 700 ppmv in less than 200 years.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[ukemike]

First, if the ocean currents cease because there is no ice at the poles and poles freeze over, won't that cause the currents to start back up again. See, the currents are caused by freezing water, not frozen water. When salt water freezes, it loses its salt, making the rest of the unfrozen water saltier. That water falls and has nowhere to go but toward the equator. These currents help balance the climate, keeping the tropics from overheating and keeping the northern latitudes from freezing over too much. Which brings me back to my main point; if the poles freeze over due to no current, won't that kick start the currents again? And to YOUR point, glaciers melting over land will have little to no impact on ocean currents, because, as has been previously, stated, GreenLAND is LAND.

This paragraph broke the world record for highest density of inaccuracies, misconceptions, and stoner logic. But by far the best sentence in the whole spiel is:

And to YOUR point, glaciers melting over land will have little to no impact on ocean currents, because, as has been previously, stated, GreenLAND is LAND.

Where does this loon think that the melting ice will go? Heaven forbid it might flow downstream and eventually into the ocean! OMG! I think the fact that this entry was modded up to a 4 is proof that /. has jumped the shark.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Luckyo]

Not to be a total dick, but they weren't telling you that "sky is falling" as you are pretending. At least not the credible sources.

They were telling you, and everyone else who listened that this is a self-feeding accelerating process with a known effect in the end however. So when you see evidence that supports the claim like the OP, it gets harder and harder to claim ignorance. Other then by using strawman argument, like you did.

Of course, given the modern trend of "give me everything now, fuck the future", who really cares?

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Luckyo]

No, that will just let him blame the government for failing to save West Coast and insist that corporations could have done better.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Jeremi]

Except Gore never lied about inventing the internet.

You're right, of course -- but the denialist side wins the argument anyway, because now we're no longer discussing global warming, we're discussing a politician's history and alleged misdeeds instead. Any discussion that ends up on a completely different topic counts as a tie, and ties count as a win for the status quo.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[turkeyfish]

No, Azolla deposits from the Azolla Event during the Middle Miocene are believed to contain huge amounts of crushed plant material that would likely make it rich oil and gas strata. The problem will be, however, the anthropogenic reverse Azolla event that will likely speed the thawing of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets should this material be extracted and burned.

Actually, the earth was warmer in the Eocene than it was now. The clincher is that it took tens of millions of years to get that way and reverse after the Azolla Event. Human induced carbon dioxide pollution is forcing the system at a rate of 100-1000 times the natural rate. If you throw in the release of 90 GT of methane from clathrates on the arctic ocean floor and methane in from the melting of the permafrost, perhaps you add another 900 GT of methane, more or less all at once, which eventually becomes C02 as methane degrades in about 30 years, such as occurred during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum then we may see as much as 6 C increase in global warming in a very short period of time. This has some scientists worried that we may soon pass or that we may have already passed a tipping point toward runaway heating.

To put that into perspective that means sea temperatures could rapidly return to mid-Eocene levels at the North Pole, about 55 F. Unless you are Santa, it would probably be much warmer at your house. Needless to say, growing food in much of the US or perhaps almost anywhere would be no easy task, especially since much of the mid-west will likely again be underwater.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[turkeyfish]

At least among all the politicians out there Al Gore was the one who first saw the potential of the internet and was a leading advocate in Congress pushing for it to be funded in a very dramatic way. He was successful in that effort, so I guess in a sense he has every right to claim credit for helping to invent the internet. Keep in mind he was doing this in the 1970's, long before many of us were using computers.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[an unsound mind]

Have you LOOKED at the state of the ice caps?

Turns out that global environmental change doesn't happen in a day. Who knew? Other than the people who have been warning people about it for decades and anyone with half a brain, that is.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[trevelyon]

I'm not a climatologist so take this with a grain of salt. First off the models are VERY complex and there are subtle interactions arising here and there that weren't predicted in any of them. Then again you don't need to know your skin will brown in the oven to figure out that staying in it just might be bad. The data is in and the consensus is rather clear from what I've read. Exactly how things will happen is still being debated but we can already see the effects: extreme famine in Africa, increase in severity of storms in the southern U.S. and Caribbean, high heat summers in Europe (that kill a fair number of people). Personally, I see it in a simple way:

1. Climate change will be as bad or worse than predicted and we do nothing - basically we create our own nasty future and the next generations get our mess dropped in their lap and who knows we just might even wipe out our own species but hey at least we got that new ipad.

2. Climate change is not as bad as we think and we over-react in moving to a more localized and carbon neutral economy - this MAY create a short to medium term financial constriction for the time we are doing it but when the change has been made it most likely will increase the productive capacity since there will be less waste and more efficient energy usage as a result.

I really have a hard time seeing terrible fallout from this in the long term unless of course you happen to be an oil company.

You mention that you are giving up your freedoms to the government to battle climate change. What freedom exactly are you giving up? To be honest I've seen a lot of freedoms in the U.S. given up to "keep us safe from terrorism" which seems a side effect of the U.S. middle east policy. It sure seems to me that if we didn't need oil from the middle east tensions would most likely decrease there and maybe, just maybe we can get some freedoms back (say like the freedom to go through an airport with dignity in tact and without your wife/mother/daughter getting molested or the freedom to not be arrested without warrant and tossed in some foreign prison, you know things like that). Climate change would most likely be battled through regulation on energy/transportation/other energy consuming industries. How exactly will that impinge your basic freedoms or do you have a right to cheap foreign goods?

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[tgd]

Isn't it odd that there would be oil anywhere near the poles? It would mean that area had to have had a massive amount of plant and animal life there at some point in the past. Exactly how hot was the Earth back then?!

Two reasons -- one, land masses move. The physical rock under the poles are part of the contentinental plates that used to be near the equator, which is why there's so much oil sands in Canada. Secondly, there are two "normal" states for the Earth -- frozen (30-40% ice coverage) and hot, with conditions like you see in equatorial regions today everywhere, with no permanent ice. The reason we have ice at the poles and warm everywhere else is because right now we're in an interglacial period *in an ice age*. It is a *weird* condition, historically. Now, its entirely plausable that the "global warming" is working to keep us from slipping out of the interglacial period -- we're already significantly beyond the point where most of them appear to have ended in the past. So that's arguably a potentially good thing. Humanity spent most of its existence during the glacial periods, but the planet sure can't support 7 billion people that way.

A bigger concern is if global warming was to tip us *out* of the existing ice age. Humanity *hasn't* lived through a warm period on the Earth. In fact, large mammals in general haven't. No one is particularly sure if the planet can support *any* people that way.

But in either case, there's oil at the poles because that land was near the equator when the deposits that turned into oil were layed down.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[DRJlaw]

Having lived in the Midwest for quite a long time, I'm rather comfortable in saying that places that are 500-700ft AMSL are in no danger of inundation by the sea. Although an increase in rainfall can cause river flooding, "much of the mid-west [sic]" would not likely again be underwater. Frankly, current Midwest flooding issues have to do with poor flood control measures (levies crammed right up against the rivers instead of back within the flood plain) and poor infrastructure development (residential developments crammed right up against the rivers).

Rank hyperbole only serves to make all the other information you've provided highly suspect. Congratulate yourself for poisoning you're own argument.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Attila Dimedici]

Because Al Gore destroyed the credibility of their argument. There were many "credible sources" who acclaimed Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" even though it was full of misleading information and outright untruths, who, now that it is known that Al Gore was lying, don't want to be lumped in with him. Sorry, you were willing to sell your integrity to someone who was using your cause for political and financial gain when you thought it would advance your cause, now that they have been revealed you want me to judge your position separately from them, not going to happen.
Once you have compromised your integrity for short term gain, it's a tough row to get it back. There is no more referring to generic "credible sources", give me specific names and we will judge them on their merits and whether or not they distanced themselves from the Alarmists before the Alarmists were revealed as self serving liars.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[1u3hr]

The link at the bottom indicates that running one particularly large cargo ship supposedly pollutes as much as 50 million cars each year (likely a gross exaggeration but still worth considering) http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

Read what you link to. That article is about dirty bunker oil producing sulphur oxides and other nasty stuff. Obviously burning that produce much more poison than low-sulphur oils, or relatively clean gasoline. Which all has very little relation to the amount of CO2, which is what we're talking about. Cargo ships could burn cleaner fuels if they were compelled to -- near most ports they are.

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[Luckyo]

So, just to get the facts straight:

Al Gore is bad because, while generally attracting attention to worthy cause, he spun it to make a profit on it.
Denialists are much better, because they have much better visibility, are completely off scale in terms of self-delusion, and are also making a huge profit.

Hmmm...

Re:How "An Inconvenient Truth" can it get

[mcgrew]

In the 60s and 70s they were predicting a new ice age.

Scientists weren't. That dumbass that predicted global famine by 2000 wasn't a scientist, either. And neither was the idiot who wrote those books about space-alien spacecraft visiting ancient human civilizations.

Don't believe everything you read. Lots and lots of books are written by ignorant morons. If a book about any of the sciences doesn't have a bibliography pointing to real studies, throw it away, it's worthless and will only make you dumber.

Don't panic.

[Loopy]

Note the large, friendly letters.

Question seems to be, has this ever happened before? If it has, how would we know?

Re:Don't panic.

[artor3]

Important addendum to the question:

Has this ever happened before? If so, what were the effects?

You seem to be implying that this might not be a problem because it could have happened before without us noticing. Maybe you're right. Or maybe it happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and caused some massive flooding that wasn't necessarily significant in an uncivilized world, but would be bad news for places like NYC.

I agree it would be foolish to panic, but we should investigate what the effects of this might be, and how to best mitigate them if they are unpleasant.

Re:Don't panic.

[sincewhen]

No, that is not the question.

The question is, what could happen, how likely is it, and how would it affect us.

I don't know if you are being a denier, but I'm now getting more tired of hearing from the "I don't have to care if it's Nature" crowd as I am from the "Oh no we are hurting Gaia, humans deserve to die out" crowd.

Why can't we all agree that shit is happening and we should investigate what to do about it?

Re:Don't panic.

[sdguero]

Or maybe it happened in 2001, since the only started monitoring this in 2002 when the new satellite went online.

Re:Don't panic.

[artor3]

I don't even need to read the article to recognize the flaw in your thinking.

Wind blows water in the parts of the ocean not covered by ice. That water pushes on other water, which is under ice. Tada! Wind affects water under the ice, no magic required!

Re:Don't panic.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Why can't we all agree that shit is happening and we should investigate what to do about it?

Because it has become an article of nigh-religious faith among a large number of otherwise rational people to insist that it's not happening, or if it happening it's not our fault, or even if it is happening and it's our fault there's nothing we can do about it. Sometimes all three at once. As the saying goes, "You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Re:Don't panic.

[Tenebrousedge]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37ÂC, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecteÂd.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

The numbers here are likely to be more accurate:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-15-magnitudes-of.html

The complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a contribution to sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m, respectively [Working Group I Fourth Assessment 6.4, 10.7; Working Group II Fourth Assessment 19.3].

Yet another source: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_level.html

Antarctica and Greenland, the world's largest ice sheets, make up the vast majority of the Earth's ice. If these ice sheets melted entirely, sea level would rise by more than 70 meters.

Your move. Let's see what asshole you pulled this "not more than a foot" number from.

Re:Don't panic.

[crutchy]

to prevent climate change once and for all, simply turn off all the electricity around the world

think of how much heat is generated from voltage down stepping

also, without electricity mass de-urbanization would occur due to lack of refrigeration (people would be forced to move near to where produce is grown) so atmospheric inversion would gradually dissipate, along with reduction of introduction of new vehicles and precision equipment

life expectancy would probably increase due to reduction in stress from lifestyle simplification, healthier diets (more basic vegetables and unprocessed foods) and increased exercise due to reduction in availability of petroleum products for vehicles

world dominance would gradually shift from modern centers of civilization to the third world due to their reduced dependence on electricity

there would be wide scale civil unrest in large centers of population dependent on electricity, and starvation, murder and suicide would be rampant until a sustainable population density is reached

the world would become a much bigger place again

Re:Don't panic.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Thanks for providing me with Exhibit A for my argument, Coward -- although in keeping with ukemike's observation, you're probably not one of the ones who's rational under normal circumstances.

Re:Don't panic.

[burnetd]

Great, where is it? I'll advise all the coastal refugees to move there.

Re:Rubbish from alarmists!!!

[Forty Two Tenfold]

The fresh water can freeze faster than the salt water, so it will freeze back in a few months.

Yeah. Especially that it's winter now. And for the rest of the year the Arctic is going to get warmer if anything.

Mistake

[Tablizer]

Earth is a "he". Who knew?

Re:Rubbish from alarmists!!!

[halfEvilTech]

The freezing point of seawater is about 28.4F (-2C), instead of the 32F (0C) freezing point of ordinary water.
http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/water/temp3.htm

Crap. I'm running behind......

[dbreeze]

I'm way behind schedule on my plans to gather everything up and git my ass to the mountains before it all goes to hell. Anyone interested in swapping some land up the hill a ways for some coastal Carolina soon to be beachfront property?

Thermohaline

[Anonymous Coward]

Read more about the thermo-haline cycle on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation.

Yeah, but.

[The Askylist]

I'll only start worrying if this gyre starts to gimble in the wabe.

Re:Yeah, but.

[Frequency Domain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky

Blame Russia

[WillAffleckUW]

According to recent research, a large quantity of Russian rivers that flow North are dumping unusually high amounts of fresh water into the Arctic Ocean.

Either that or Dick Cheney cause it's all due to Global Warming.

Level is not the danger

[tizan]

It is the breaking of the well established currents.
More water in the system will destroy some of the well established ocean currents that drives the weather on the planet and have caused some stability for the last 15000 years or so.

Re:Level is not the danger

[Surt]

They may have thrived during those times. The concern now is that there are too many people living along the coasts to be accommodated inland. When those people are displaced, there seems to be no choice but to have a major die back event. This was not true in the Medieval Warming Period. Nor, as far as I've heard, did the warming period then last long enough to cause the sea level rise that is expected now.

Re:Level is not the danger

[d3ac0n]

Of course there is. It's readily available for those who look. Start here and then spend some time over at wattsupwiththat.com. More scientific evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at.

Most of it shows that most of the globe was warmer about 700 years ago, and it was pretty damn awesome. More arable land everywhere (warmer AND wetter climate) generally milder weather patterns, and an extended growing season allowed civilization to flourish. Good times.

Unfortunately, it's looking like we are actually heading into an extended cooling period until roughly 2068 or thereabouts. In a way, I almost wish that AGW was true. I'd have more hope for our future. If things progress the way that the evidence shows, pack a parka. You'll need it.

Re:Level is not the danger

[Jeremi]

I guess you have never seen west Texas... And for that matter, lots of other places currently not very nice to live in that will be much nicer in a warmer and wetter world.

Perhaps the climate will be nicer in those places... but that pleasantness will be largely cancelled out by the presence of all the desperate refugees with no more houses to live in or food to eat.

It takes a lot of time and money to (re)build a coastal city, and it's not like you can just pick up the city's buildings and move them all whenever the coastline moves.

Re:Level is not the danger

[TapeCutter]

I really wish people would stop panicking over what amounts to very little.

And I really wish people would stop digging up the rotting corpses of long dead talking points.

Re:Level is not the danger

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, scientific evidence. You seem to forget that not everything that is posted or linked to on WattsUpWithThat originated with Anthony Watts. They post some very good information by reputable scientists, among them Prof. WibjÃrn Karlén, who collaborated with the folks at CRU on at least 4 papers that I know of, and probably more. (One paper was on tree-ring proxies, for example.) He knows his stuff.

Karlén, and very definitely others, have a fine reputation in the science world, thank you very much. If you don't think so, then you must believe the people at CRU are themselves idiots, to collaborate on a climate paper with some kind of fool, eh?

And yet Karlén, among other people, have found some very severe faults with the data that was cherry-picked for IPCC reports, for example. Watts himself, with a collaborator, was responsible for finding flaws in the statistical methods used by the Hadley Centre, CRU, and Mann in their research. Flaws that have been continued to be questioned by every body that has investigated their operations to date.

Yeah, there's science there, all right. Real science.

Re:Level is not the danger

[dkf]

I guess you have never seen west Texas... And for that matter, lots of other places currently not very nice to live in that will be much nicer in a warmer and wetter world.

Do you want to bet the farm (literally) on that? We don't know what will happen in specific locations as global average temperatures rise (though it's a reasonably good bet that arctic areas will get warmer). If an area that currently supports many people gets a lot less hospitable — unreasonable to assume that this wouldn't happen somewhere, though not necessarily where we expect — there will have to be mass migrations (and/or mass deaths). That would likely involve at least one war. Or maybe a part of the world that currently produces a lot of food would suddenly become less able to do so. That would also be very bad. Will these things happen? Who knows, but the stakes are mind-bogglingly high.

Climate scientists are kicking up a fuss over global warming not because they hate big business (though some do) but rather because they are, as a group, very scared of the consequences of what they've discovered. They'd love for this to be not true, they'd love for it to go away, but they're too honest to pretend that it will without action.

Re:OK, I believe, but where do I put my money?

[gatkinso]

Wealth will be measured using much different metrics.

Like how many canoes you own.

Re:OK, I believe, but where do I put my money?

[anubi]

Into yourself.

Acquire knowledge and tools.

Re:Day After Tomorrow

[wierd_w]

What happened in that movie was that the resulting super hurricane created an enormous low pressure cell which pulled extremely low temperature upper atmospheric air down to the surface.

This does not seem to contradict some observed "fossil" data, which shows mammoths frozen solid with food in their mouths. (Sorry, can't find a suitable citation. Most reports of this finding are from old field journals in the 1600s to 1800s.)

(Word 'fossil' in quotes, since subjects are not actually fossils, but chryopreserved corpses.)

I don't know if a reversal of the north atlantic current would do what was depicted in that movie, but there is evidence of previous cataclysmic and sudden climatological events in earth's history.

Personally, I prefer to think that if anthopogenic co2 is not responsible, it certainly can't be helping things any given what we do know. Eg, if you are genetically type 1 diabetic, eating super fatty foods and becoming obiese doesn't help you very much, and can compound the problem. (Because then you get type 2 on top of the type 1.)

We can control the amount of co2 that mankind releases, and not so much what nature releases with volcanism, etc. As such, if we are to try to mitigate the problem, anthropogenic sources are the first target of interest regardless of ideological position on the matter. (Unless you choose to ignore over a century's worth of scientific inquiry into the greenhouse gas nature of that particular compound.....) limiting and attempting marked reductions in such emissions would undeniably be a good thing, in terms of postponing a hypothetical carbon dioxide cascade scenario from occuring. (The arguments over source just limits how effective such measures might prove to be. If most of the problem is anthropogenic, such reduction could postpone indefinately, and if the bulk is natural, we might just stave if off a few decades. Something to consider when chosing to blame nature for this problem, as the implication is far more dire in the long term. Regardlss, limiting the rate using the variable we *can* control is simply a good idea, given the currently available information.)

I can't think of any other potential driving factor for such extreme climate changes without including major greenhouse gasses, such as co2, methane, and water vapor.

The cessation of the north atlantic current would deffinately change the weather in europe and north america, since warm, moisture rich air wouldn't get pushed to europe (europe would get much colder and drier) and cold, nutrient rich north ocean water wouldn't make its way into the caribbean, greatly impacting the food chain in that region, among other things.

The impact on climate, though, is dependant upon how long the current is suspended, the outcomes of snowfall in suddenly much chillier areas altering wind patterns, and the amount of water vapor staying in the atmosphere from equatorial regions taking over/enhancing the effects of co2 levels.

I don't know if the cessation of the NA Current would initiate a chain reaction or not, but it certainly would decimate many human industries, ranging from fishing to farming. That alone makes it a "bad thing" worth worrying about.

doh.

[unity100]

Right. The Greenland glaciers melting may be bad. Now, would you so kindly tell me how a fresh water plume will affect glaciers ON LAND?

noone would need to tell you what will result when that happens - if you had used your brain to think this more than just 2-3 seconds.

freshwater plume forming means that there is some source that is supplying that freshwater. freshwater, therefore, will grow unless the current trend changes. and when it grows, it is going to affect EVERYthing in that ecosystem. especially arctic is populated and dependent on endless plankton that would not take the transition from salt water to fresh water well. ALL of these creatures and the higher ones are parts of the climate there with their activity and byproducts. and when the sea gets affected with that ecosystem change, it will also affect the land microclimate.

Finally, I thought it was CO2 from our SUV's and coal fired plants causing glaciers to melt. Now it's fresh water?

so, in light of the above, just stop posing funky statements without thinking for a few seconds.

there is no easily detectable dynamic of CLIMATE CHANGE. the climate, will change with average global warming. other than the measurable average global warming of a mere 1-3 degrees - which is so pathetic a difference in daily life that you would not feel it by the way - it is a totally chaotic system ; because the average 1-3 degrees worldwide is the result of all temperature averages averaged worldwide - from minus 50s to high 50s.

there is no telling what will happen to your microclimate in your locale as the globe warms up on average. you may remain unaffected, or get hit by freak weather or conditions.

Re:doh.

[ArcherB]

noone would need to tell you what will result when that happens - if you had used your brain to think this more than just 2-3 seconds.

freshwater plume forming means that there is some source that is supplying that freshwater. freshwater, therefore, will grow unless the current trend changes.

If you spent less time telling me to thing and more time... you know, reading the F'in article, you would fine the following:

This fresh water is coming in large part from the rivers running off the Eurasian (Russian) side of the Arctic basin.

Winds and currents have transported this fresh water around the ocean until it has been pulled into the gyre. The volume currently held in the circulation probably represents about 10% of all the fresh water in the Arctic.

Note that TFA says NOTHING about global warming or an increase in the amount of water entering the Arctic. What it DOES say is that WIND is bringing more of the water to the area, and the rotating nature of the winds is holding it there.

there is no telling what will happen to your microclimate in your locale as the globe warms up on average. you may remain unaffected, or get hit by freak weather or conditions.

Well, my "microclimate", meaning the southern half of the United States, just spent a summer with temperatures several degrees warmer than usual and we got no more freakish weather than usual. The winter before that was a few degrees colder than normal, and still no hurricanes over land. So, in a single year, I've seen periods warmer than usual and cooler than usual with no freakish behavior. I think we'll be OK with a 1.6 degree increase over the next 100 years.

Re:doh.

[SomeKDEUser]

Maybe. Or maybe there'll be another mass extinction event. Who knows, right? Pretty serious people, whose job it is to study climate, are pretty worried. Maybe you should be, too. Odds are, they know better.

This is in fact not an argument from authority, it is more akin to realising that you can either trust some scientist who has devoted his life to the question, or you can trust the oil industry. It would be better if you could become a climatologist, but specialisation in society means we must trust other people to do the research for us. When someone tells me something which is thermodynamically reasonable, is backed by evidence, is supported by a well established Theory, I tend to believe them.

And so should you.

Re:doh.

[vik]

And strangely enough, who share the same planet with YOU.

Don't be silly. The experts in the field have found the problem. You're one of the people who denies the problem, and so are not actually in a position to even bother to understand what the problem is.

You too should be worried. Because something bigger than you feel comfortable thinking about may well be about to happen. I have given up trying to change people's minds, and I'm now putting my effort into being able to survive the consequences of the actions of people who think like you. Whatever the possibilities, I think mine is the more prudent course of action.

Re:doh.

[viperidaenz]

I'm not denying anything. I just think a little scepticism isn't always a bad thing. I don't blindly believe something just because someone else tells me its true.

Re:doh.

[Jeremi]

Pretty serious people, whose livelyhood depends on grants given to those who have the ability to make others worry, are pretty worried

I understand you can also make a pretty good livelihood getting grants from those who want the idea of global warming to go away. In fact, I think it's safe to say the Chevrons and Exxons of the world will pay your hypothetical opportunistic scientist a lot more than the average University could -- after all, oil companies make a lot more profit, and a lot more to lose if people start taking the issue seriously.

Re:doh.

[TapeCutter]

Pretty serious people, whose livelyhood depends on grants given to those who have the ability to make others worry, are pretty worried.
I'm not denying anything. I just think a little scepticism isn't always a bad thing.

That's not "scepticism", that's hubris. You're either a parrot or you're simply projecting your lack of morals onto others.

Re:doh.

[TapeCutter]

Chaotic systems can and do have stable statistics. Kick the system and it will find a new "dynamic equilibrium" with a new set of stable statistics. For example it's trivial to determine how long it will take a particular volume of water to reach boiling point (climate), it's impossible to predict when and where the first bubble will appear (weather).

Re:doh.

[tbannist]

Well, my "microclimate", meaning the southern half of the United States, just spent a summer with temperatures several degrees warmer than usual and we got no more freakish weather than usual. The winter before that was a few degrees colder than normal, and still no hurricanes over land. So, in a single year, I've seen periods warmer than usual and cooler than usual with no freakish behavior. I think we'll be OK with a 1.6 degree increase over the next 100 years.

Actually, no. There was a lot of freakish behaviour, I don't know how you are able to ignore it*. More than half of the continental United States was affected by either drought or flood last year, a record level of both. In particular, Texas had the worst drought since they started keeping temperature records. On the flooding side, I saw an article indicating that Atlanta had an estimated 500 year high flood, if a one in 500 years event isn't unusual, I'm not sure what qualified for you. Maybe your community escaped the freakish weather, but there was plenty to go around.

It's not just the U.S. either, for the first time in it's history, most of Canada had a green Christmas. Australia had record setting flooding. In fact there was so much rain and flooding this past year that the evaporation that fuelled the flooding actually lowered the sea level slightly.

* Although my guess would be a combination of Fox News, confirmation bias, and ignorance.

Re:doh.

[pixelpusher220]

Believe me, there's literally BILLIONS of dollars just waiting for anyone who can produce results disproving global warming. The oil/coal companies would make said person very very wealthy overnight.

The problem is there isn't any solid evidence disproving it. Hell even scientists do try to disprove it...it's why in the 70s they were worried about global cooling but after more study they determined warming was much more likely. They see new data and adapt too it. As opposed to the climate change deniers who question everything that produced the data when they can't disprove the data itself. Then they go after the people who produced it...

It's called denial for a reason.

Too bad we can't capture all that freshwater

[ToiletBomber]

Then we could solve all our water needs... but we don't have any sort of storage/transportation system to do that sort of thing, let alone one large enough to capture a reasonable portion. Unless you had millions of people at a time flock to the place with water bottles and pitchers.

Re:Day After Tomorrow

[wierd_w]

Iirc, the incidence of the reports suggested whole herds preserved this way. This kinds rules out "omg, I has cngestive heart failure cuz iz so fat!" As the cause.

Re:Day After Tomorrow

[wierd_w]

Indeed. But I question the intensity of cold needed to freeze a blubber insulated, and wooly adult mammoth solid, while it is actively grazing.

Even a dead mammoth, put in a commerical freezer, would take several hours to freeze to such a state.

The cold would have had to have been sufficient to kill said mammoth quite quickly. Mammoth species had evolved pretty clever biology to prevent such an outcome. (Mutant hemoglobin, thick blubber layer, excessive secretion of sebum and thick, wooly body hair, just to name a few.) Humans, by comparison, are simply "ready to freeze" meat popsicles.

IPCC3 says 68m

[Namarrgon]

(Undoing moderation to post this)

IPCC 3 WGI Chap 11 Table 11.3 estimates a 61m sea-level rise if all of Antarctica melts, and 7m from Greenland. This could take 1500 years, though other factors like lubrication might speed this.

It's also worth noting that sea levels have already risen 120m since the last glacial maximum.

Re:Day After Tomorrow

[lightknight]

"Even a dead mammoth, put in a commerical freezer, would take several hours to freeze to such a state." -> So would a human being. Ask me how I know. ;-)

"The cold would have had to have been sufficient to kill said mammoth quite quickly. Mammoth species had evolved pretty clever biology to prevent such an outcome. (Mutant hemoglobin, thick blubber layer, excessive secretion of sebum and thick, wooly body hair, just to name a few.) Humans, by comparison, are simply "ready to freeze" meat popsicles." -> Indeed. However, just as four-wheel drive vehicle does not grant immunity from the effects of ice / snow on the road, neither do the Woolly Mammoth's evolved advantages. 99% of the time, I'm sure, it's not an issue; but that 1% of the time...well, if you were a large mammal whose instincts were not tuned to detect that kind of danger (temperature drops a little too low, etc.), it's possible for it to creep up on you.

In all the animals I know, the effects of hypothermia is a b*tch. And even for Arctic-based animals, there is something known as "too cold."