Slashdot Mirror
Study Links Human Actions To Specific Arctic Ice Melt (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: Since at least the 1960s, the shrinkage of the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean has advanced in lockstep with the amount of greenhouse gases humans have sent into the atmosphere, according to a study published this week in Science. Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice -- a simple and direct observational link that has been sitting under scientists' noses. If current emission trends hold, the study suggests the Arctic will be ice free by 2045 -- far sooner than some climate models predict. The study suggests that those models are underestimating how warm the Arctic has already become and how fast that melting will proceed. And it gives the public and policymakers a concrete illustration of the consequences of burning fossil fuels. For instance, a U.S. family of four would claim nearly 200 square meters of sea ice, based on U.S. emissions in 2013. Over 3 decades, that family would be responsible for destroying more than an American football field's worth of ice.
"The polar ice caps will be completely melted in 10 years."
--Al Gore, 11 years ago
Try telling a Green that Nuclear Power is a vastly superior and cleaner alternative.
Actually, the "Greens" have been telling us that very thing:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/en...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Misquoting Al Gore is "funny" not "informative".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Um. Any one else see a problem with using surface area to describe a volumetric substance?
Yes, it's misleading. Since the 1960's, 40-50% of the ice has melted when measured by surface area, but 70-80% of has melted when measured by volume. The volume measurements come from the US navy who declassified historical ice thickness data from it's nuclear submarine fleet about a decade ago. More recent data comes from satellite measurements.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Sure, but they aren't describing a volumetric substance; they're describing a parameter -- sea ice extent. Sea ice volume is a different parameter.
These two parameters are of course correlated, but not in a simple way. For example wind can blow ice away from regions of ice formation, resulting in much greater extent and volume, but less volume/extent (e.g. thinner ice). This by the way is why sometimes Antarctic ice extent increases as temperatures increase -- because winds can also increase.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...there is no intrinsic necessity that the arctic be iced over.
You are absolutely correct. Just like there is no intrinsic necessity that New Orleans, New York, and Miami are above water.
This is what is happening to the arctic sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
the line is noisy so predicting the next year is always a crapshoot, but the one thing that isn't going to happen is that the trend will change.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The Jurassic period. [...]
Yawn.
Stephan