Slashdot Mirror


Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low

Titus Andronicus writes "Angela Fritz and Jeff Masters of Weather Underground analyze this year's record ongoing Arctic ice melt. Arctic sea ice extent, area, and volume are all at record lows for the post-1979 satellite era. The ice is expected to continue melting for perhaps another couple of weeks. Extreme sea ice melting might help cause greater numbers of more powerful Arctic storms, help to accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and help to accelerate global warming itself, due to the increased absorption of solar energy into the ocean."

5 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Anthropogenic Global Warming by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Uh...based on 33 years worth of data.

    Based on ice cores and seabed cores going back thousands of years.

    Okay there, I guess the next time a severe winter storm comes up ...

    This wasn't caused by one storm. There are nearly two million square kilometers of open water where there was sea ice a few decades ago, and that understates the problem because the ice is getting thinner by a bigger percentage than the extent is shrinking.

  2. It affects our weather by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As the Arctic Ocean summer ice declines there is developing evidence it is having an effect on the northern polar jet stream, slowing it down and causing the meanders to get larger. This has the effect of bringing colder weather further south and warmer weather further north and slowing down the speed at which the weather moves through. That would explain why a few years ago when Florida was having freezing weather Greenland was practically balmy.

  3. Re:Wow. by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Humans could have no greater nor swifter impact on the CO2 balance than the evolution of white-rot fungus. That fungus ended the carboniferous era by evolving a species that could metabolize cellulose. Before then dead trees just sat until they could become coal. When this fungus evolved though, it quickly encompassed the Earth and consumed all of the cellulose available to the depths it could reach, releasing untold billions of tons of C02 and methane into the air before it ran out of readily available cellulose to consume. And that's why coal seams have well-defined borders. White-rot fungus is also why there will be no more coal. Life has found a way to prevent it.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  4. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Skeptics or no skeptics, harm is still done by human activity. It's just that talk and speculation here is pointless. We can't really do much about it, when CO2 emissions exceed even pessimistic estimates, governmental decisions increase CO2 emissions, nuclear power is removed and replaced with coal power plants. In my mind, the race to limit CO2 emissions is lost, now someone had better figure out how to remove it from the atmosphere...

    Take a look at this article about Germany's electricity situation. This is a country where greens have had good success with getting rid of nuclear power, and riding the Fukushima wave. They are starting 25 new coal power plants that are even hyped as "clean" (because they have "high" electrical energy efficiency of 43%).

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/08/31/germany-insane-or-just-plain-stupid/

    "We usually give the Germans credit for being rational, but this coal plant will emit over one million times more carbon this year than all of their nuclear plants would have over the next 20 years, and cost over twice as much to run as any one of the them."

    There is also some speculation what this rise in the cost of electricity will do to the renewable-support...

  5. Re:Wow. by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well great. We can assume that human beings can't affect the environment any worse than a fungus that altered that altered the ecosphere beyond all recognition. Hey, that makes me feel a lot better.

    BTW, my Googling about WRF (I do thank you for telling me about it) gives me a rather more ambiguous picture than the one you offer. Most science stories describe it as "an interesting theory" but not yet universally accepted. I admit that it's a really plausible theory, but not one you can cite with such religious certainty.