Bye Bye North Pole Ice.

Heartlash

So many in the know are predicting that this summer all the ice in the North Pole will melt for the first time in 3,000,000 years (give or take). Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html

"We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is 'does the North Pole melt out this summer?' and it may well," said the center's senior research scientist Mark Serreze.

It's a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen last autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole, Serreze said.

The ice retreated to a record level in September when the Northwest Passage -- the sea route through the Arctic Ocean -- opened up briefly for the first time in recorded history.

"What we've seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up," Serreze said.

Specific weather patterns will determine whether the North Pole's ice cover melts completely this summer, he said.

Plus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd0cOULgx7M&feature=dir

Kind of a big deal? Your thoughts?

Shurakai

Now lets just hope all the ice on Greenland or Antarctica doesn't fall into the ocean.

Falx

We're all doomed if we have to rely on Kevin Costner to save us.

dgs095

I think last summer's melt was the more surprising and ominous. It will be symbolic when it melts though, its only a matter of time. Global warming gets harder to ignore when you have such massively visible signs.

Heartlash

Shurakai wrote: »

Now lets just hope all the ice on Greenland or Antarctica doesn't fall into the ocean.

If Greenland melts I'm pretty sure most of the East coast is supposed to go under (23 ft rise)

This would result in massive evacuation and serious serious fuckups.

saint2e

The key is that Canada controls the Northwest Passage, and the bloody Americans can keep their mitts off it.

dgs095

Heartlash wrote: »

Shurakai wrote: »

Now lets just hope all the ice on Greenland or Antarctica doesn't fall into the ocean.

If Greenland melts I'm pretty sure most of the East coast is supposed to go under (23 ft rise)

This would result in massive evacuation and serious serious fuckups.

A couple links:
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/projected-sea-level-rise-for-the-21st-century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
from the wikipedia:
"In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report predicted that by 2100, global warming will lead to a sea level rise of 9 to 88 cm."

I'm assuming these projections include only a small amount of melt-water from Greenland given:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-03.htm
"Its complete disappearance would raise the levels of the world's seas by 20 feet"

"Until now, scientists believed the ice cap would take 1,000 years to melt entirely, but Ian Howat, who is working with Professor Tulaczyk, says the new developments could "easily" cut this time "in half".
There is also a more immediate danger as the melting ice threatens to disrupt the Gulf Stream, responsible for Britain's mild climate."

and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4783199.stm
"If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet)."

Do indeed support that Greenland melting completely would be very bad and completely submerge a lot of coastline but aren't going to happen anytime soon. I think a lot of people are under the misguided notion that see level will rise a somewhere from a foot to a meter in the next hundred years and the worse of it will then be over. This is very far from the truth. The process will only accelerate more and more quickly.

Cojones

For clarity, isn't it true that there will be absolutely no effect on sea levels should any free-floating ice melt, and that it's only standing ice(ie that on the antarctic or greenland) that is of any concern whatsoever?

Isn't it also true that the ice on both of these locations is growing, rather than melting?

A friend was propagating both of these sentiments earlier today and I thought I'd ask for a second opinion.

FunkyWaltDogg

Cojones wrote: »

For clarity, isn't it true that there will be absolutely no effect on sea levels should any free-floating ice melt, and that it's only standing ice(ie that on the antarctic or greenland) that is of any concern whatsoever?

This is true

Isn't it also true that the ice on both of these locations is growing, rather than melting?

This is not true. While it's not a huge amount yet, there is noticeable melting of Greenland ice. Ice on the Antarctic land mass seems safe for now, but some of the ice shelves are starting to go, and since they are sometimes fixed to the land and not necessarily floating on the water, there is a small effect on sea levels there too.

Fellhand

I don't think it's anything to be really concerned about. Change occurs on this planet and we need to adapt to said change to survive.

amateurhour

Fellhand wrote: »

I don't think it's anything to be really concerned about. Change occurs on this planet and we need to adapt to said change to survive.

also, if it happens, FEMA will totally be there for us.

Aldo

It is a huge deal, not only for the climate, but also for the international community and world trade. When the ice melts the following become available to us:

• Huge oil fields
• Faster trading routes between Russia and the Americas
• New fishing grounds

Do you guys remember that edited movie of the Russians planting a flag on the bottom of the North Pole? They did that as a claim on the natural resources they expect to find there. Every country attached to the North Pole is scrambling to get as big a slice of the North Pole pie as possible. If not for the oil then for the rights to sail ships through it without having to go through another country's barriers.

For a more amusing version of this we now turn to Stephen Colbert:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=163836

electricitylikesme

So really what you're saying is global warming is in fact going to make us richer?

MrMister

Cojones wrote: »

For clarity, isn't it true that there will be absolutely no effect on sea levels should any free-floating ice melt, and that it's only standing ice(ie that on the antarctic or greenland) that is of any concern whatsoever?

Also of concern is that water expands when heated. If the oceans rise in temperature then the sea level will rise, regardless of ice melting.

sackofjoy

electricitylikesme wrote: »

So really what you're saying is global warming is in fact going to make us richer?

"Get rich or die trying" just got a new meaning

Aldo

electricitylikesme wrote: »

So really what you're saying is global warming is in fact going to make us richer?

Pretty much, yes.

Well, not Australia but Russia, Canada and the US.

Too bad about them polar bears, but wooooooh more oil to burn in the new Hummer, baby!

Mai-Kero

Doesn't this pretty much change life on the planet as we know it?

If the sea-level actually rises 10+ feet, won't the mass evacuations from the coast cause ridiculous food and water shortages and millions of deaths? Even in the midland, won't we, you know, kind of be fucked up majorly?

electricitylikesme

But dude, my house would be a water front!

Aldo

Mai-Kero wrote: »

Doesn't this pretty much change life on the planet as we know it?

If the sea-level actually rises 10+ feet, won't the mass evacuations from the coast cause ridiculous food and water shortages and millions of deaths? Even in the midland, won't we, you know, kind of be fucked up majorly?

Don't make such a drama out of it, with some dykes we can easily take on an extra 10 feet. As long as we build them properly and not like those cardboard dykes around New Orleans.

At least, we in the developed world can. Bangladesh is pretty much fucked. The sea-level won't rise 10 feet overnight, it will take many years, we will have plenty of time to move out of regions we have to give up and we will not lose a lot of important production areas.

<tangent>
Also note that Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist: he picked the most dramatic scenarios to get the point across that "hey maybe we shouldn't pollute our planet so much". If you read through the IPCC reports you'll notice that the scenarios Gore picked are only described as "if every possible thing goes wrong and then some".
</tangent>

Kilroy

It's also important to note that climate change is a natural event. There are two climate cycles that have been almost certainly confirmed by geological data, and a professor of mine hypothesized two more that have strong evidence for their existence. We are currently on the upswing of three of these, and at the peak of the fourth. So the questions we need to be asking are not "are we causing it?" but "are we speeding it up?" and "if so, how much?"

No matter what we do, sea levels are going to rise. At the height of an interglacial period (the warm period between ice ages) the sea level rises to the point where Atlanta would be the south-easternmost point of the United States. This won't happen for at least several millennia, however, so we'll have plenty of time to adapt, but we can do fuck-all to stop it. It's like trying to fight erosion: this is what the planet does.

4U2NV

sackofjoy wrote: »

electricitylikesme wrote: »

So really what you're saying is global warming is in fact going to make us richer?

"Get rich or die trying" just got a new meaning

You are awesome.

Aldo

Kilroy wrote: »

It's also important to note that climate change is a natural event. There are two climate cycles that have been almost certainly confirmed by geological data, and a professor of mine hypothesized two more that have strong evidence for their existence. We are currently on the upswing of three of these, and at the peak of the fourth. So the questions we need to be asking are not "are we causing it?" but "are we speeding it up?" and "if so, how much?"

No matter what we do, sea levels are going to rise. At the height of an interglacial period (the warm period between ice ages) the sea level rises to the point where Atlanta would be the south-easternmost point of the United States. This won't happen for at least several millennia, however, so we'll have plenty of time to adapt, but we can do fuck-all to stop it. It's like trying to fight erosion: this is what the planet does.

We're also up for another minor ice age, it all depends on what scale you're looking at.

The scientists aligned to the IPCC are all agreeing that yes we humans are adding to climate change and yes these effects are noticeable.

Qingu

Kilroy wrote: »

It's also important to note that climate change is a natural event. There are two climate cycles that have been almost certainly confirmed by geological data, and a professor of mine hypothesized two more that have strong evidence for their existence. We are currently on the upswing of three of these, and at the peak of the fourth. So the questions we need to be asking are not "are we causing it?" but "are we speeding it up?" and "if so, how much?"

No matter what we do, sea levels are going to rise. At the height of an interglacial period (the warm period between ice ages) the sea level rises to the point where Atlanta would be the south-easternmost point of the United States. This won't happen for at least several millennia, however, so we'll have plenty of time to adapt, but we can do fuck-all to stop it. It's like trying to fight erosion: this is what the planet does.

You are correct that there are natural cycles.

You are incorrect when you imply that because global warming happens naturally, we should take it in stride. The problem with current global warming isn't that the earth is getting warmer, it's that the earth is getting warmer at an unprecedented rate. Life and human societies adapt, but it takes time to do so.

The reason global warming is happening so fast is because of our carbon output. And there is a very real danger, especially with the melting of arctic sea ice, that we're going to start vicious cycles that result in runaway climate change: ice reflects much more light than water (for the same reason white t-shirts are cooler than black). If the arctic sea ice melts, it opens up more water surface area, which absorbs even more heat, thus accelerating the whole process of global warming.

MKR

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the ice comes back in the winter. I doubt it'll ever go away permanently. It will get a little smaller each winter (barring some unknown balancing variable our models haven't picked up yet), but will be there.

Kilroy

Qingu wrote: »

Kilroy wrote: »

It's also important to note that climate change is a natural event. There are two climate cycles that have been almost certainly confirmed by geological data, and a professor of mine hypothesized two more that have strong evidence for their existence. We are currently on the upswing of three of these, and at the peak of the fourth. So the questions we need to be asking are not "are we causing it?" but "are we speeding it up?" and "if so, how much?"

No matter what we do, sea levels are going to rise. At the height of an interglacial period (the warm period between ice ages) the sea level rises to the point where Atlanta would be the south-easternmost point of the United States. This won't happen for at least several millennia, however, so we'll have plenty of time to adapt, but we can do fuck-all to stop it. It's like trying to fight erosion: this is what the planet does.

You are correct that there are natural cycles.

You are incorrect when you imply that because global warming happens naturally, we should take it in stride. The problem with current global warming isn't that the earth is getting warmer, it's that the earth is getting warmer at an unprecedented rate. Life and human societies adapt, but it takes time to do so.

The reason global warming is happening so fast is because of our carbon output. And there is a very real danger, especially with the melting of arctic sea ice, that we're going to start vicious cycles that result in runaway climate change: ice reflects much more light than water (for the same reason white t-shirts are cooler than black). If the arctic sea ice melts, it opens up more water surface area, which absorbs even more heat, thus accelerating the whole process of global warming.

Yes, I believe I pointed out the the problem was that we are accelerating it. My point was not that we shouldn't be trying to do something about it, it was that there are still elements of society who believe it can be "stopped." It cannot be stopped. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be taking drastic steps to reduce carbon emissions and attempting to minimize our impact.

@Aldo: yes, we will be peaking and coming down from one of the shorter cycles within the next few decades or so. That's the problem with having (possibly) four different climate cycles: it's difficult to track data without looking at long term trends, because they cycles rarely, if ever, sync up.

Fellhand

Wouldn't the melting of polar ice be a good thing? I mean, most of an iceberg is located underwater, if said ice melts it occupys less space and less space of ice means more space for more water.

Chaos Theory

MKR wrote: »

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the ice comes back in the winter. I doubt it'll ever go away permanently. It will get a little smaller each winter (barring some unknown balancing variable our models haven't picked up yet), but will be there.

Yeah, but Santa will have to rebuild his workshop every year.

Salvius

Aldo wrote: »

It is a huge deal, not only for the climate, but also for the international community and world trade. When the ice melts the following become available to us:

• Huge oil fields
• Faster trading routes between Russia and the Americas
• New fishing grounds

Do you guys remember that edited movie of the Russians planting a flag on the bottom of the North Pole? They did that as a claim on the natural resources they expect to find there. Every country attached to the North Pole is scrambling to get as big a slice of the North Pole pie as possible. If not for the oil then for the rights to sail ships through it without having to go through another country's barriers.

For a more amusing version of this we now turn to Stephen Colbert:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=163836

Man, it's going to be really depressing if people's first response to massive global-warming induced ice melts is to use it as an opportunity to drill for more oil.

Quazar

Kilroy wrote: »

At the height of an interglacial period (the warm period between ice ages) the sea level rises to the point where Atlanta would be the south-easternmost point of the United States.

SCORE!

And the oil thing does make sense. Even if we find an alternate fuel source for mainstream automobiles, we'll still need oil for other things well into the future, and more supply isn't really a bad thing.

Aldo

Fellhand wrote: »

Wouldn't the melting of polar ice be a good thing? I mean, most of an iceberg is located underwater, if said ice melts it occupys less space and less space of ice means more space for more water.

Science at home!

Fill a glass half full with water and put a solid ice cube in it. Measure to where the water line comes. Let the ice cube melt and see to where the water line comes now.

In case you're really at a loss: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae389.cfm

Qingu

Salvius wrote: »

Aldo wrote: »

It is a huge deal, not only for the climate, but also for the international community and world trade. When the ice melts the following become available to us:

• Huge oil fields
• Faster trading routes between Russia and the Americas
• New fishing grounds

Do you guys remember that edited movie of the Russians planting a flag on the bottom of the North Pole? They did that as a claim on the natural resources they expect to find there. Every country attached to the North Pole is scrambling to get as big a slice of the North Pole pie as possible. If not for the oil then for the rights to sail ships through it without having to go through another country's barriers.

For a more amusing version of this we now turn to Stephen Colbert:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=163836

Man, it's going to be really depressing if people's first response to massive global-warming induced ice melts is to use it as an opportunity to drill for more oil.

We might also get to unlock a brand new continent to explore.

It's like getting to Disc 3 of a Final Fantasy game. After the mid-game cataclysm, you get all the mages to cast Firaga at the same time and then all the ice on the foreboding Southern Continent melts, exposing an ambiguously gendered villain's secret castle.

Fellhand

Aldo wrote: »

Fellhand wrote: »

Wouldn't the melting of polar ice be a good thing? I mean, most of an iceberg is located underwater, if said ice melts it occupys less space and less space of ice means more space for more water.

Science at home!

Fill a glass half full with water and put a solid ice cube in it. Measure to where the water line comes. Let the ice cube melt and see to where the water line comes now.

In case you're really at a loss: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae389.cfm

Science!

Aldo

Qingu wrote: »

We might also get to unlock a brand new continent to explore.

It's like getting to Disc 3 of a Final Fantasy game. After the mid-game cataclysm, you get all the mages to cast Firaga at the same time and then all the ice on the foreboding Southern Continent melts, exposing an ambiguously gendered villain's secret castle.

Exactly what continent are you talking about here?

--

Oh also! Did I tell you guys what happens when the Tundras of Siberia melt? Billions of tonnes of methane in the atmosphere. So yeah, there's a few nice things going to happen as it gets warmer on earth but on the grand scale of things it will probably suck donkeyballs.

Midshipman

MrMister wrote: »

Also of concern is that water expands when heated. If the oceans rise in temperature then the sea level will rise, regardless of ice melting.

Water density (or more appropriately, the specific volume) changes very little with temperature. At just above freezing, a gram of water will occupy basicaly 1 cubic centimeter of space. At just below boiling, it only expands to about 1.04 cubic centimeters. Salt water has slightly different values, but the percent change should be very similar.

Incenjucar

When people yammer about this being a natural cycle and we just have to adapt I feel the urge to remind people of the frigging dinosaurs and their personal encounters with natural cycles.

I don't want to have to turn into a goddamn parrot.

GungHo

Fucking people watched too much Voltron and not enough Mr. Wizard.

AbsoluteZero

I'll be worried when the ice sitting on land dumps into the ocean.

Though, the more ocean faring ice that melts, the more ocean surface is exposed to the sun, which absorbs a hell of a lot more energy than ice does... that could be a problem.

Zek

Fellhand wrote: »

I don't think it's anything to be really concerned about. Change occurs on this planet and we need to adapt to said change to survive.

See, the thing is, in order to adapt we first need to be concerned about it.

chasm

Aldo wrote: »

Exactly what continent are you talking about here?

Atlantis. Duh. That said, my permanent move back to Austin can't come soon enough. Fuck living on the Gulf Coast (for a variety of reasons).

redx

AbsoluteZero wrote: »

I'll be worried when the ice sitting on land dumps into the ocean.

Though, the more ocean faring ice that melts, the more ocean surface is exposed to the sun, which absorbs a hell of a lot more energy than ice does... that could be a problem.

right, the albedo of ice is about .9 the albedo of deep water is about .1, IIRC. It's a massive diffrence.




So, do we have any idea what is going to happen to all the fisheries up there? There is some sort of current thing, which brings up a crap tonne of nutrients from the deep sea to some sort of shelf there. I wonder what the effects of a massive amount of fairly cold fresh(I think, fresher at least, I believe) water running though that will be. The massive diffrence in energy ending up in the poles, could wreak havoc with those currents.

Even if it doesn't have massive climatic effects, a fairly massive amount of damage to some pretty valuable natural resources seems possible.

dlinfiniti

Chaos Theory wrote: »

MKR wrote: »

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the ice comes back in the winter. I doubt it'll ever go away permanently. It will get a little smaller each winter (barring some unknown balancing variable our models haven't picked up yet), but will be there.

Yeah, but Santa will have to rebuild his workshop every year.

yeah but he'll be able to layoff his reindeer and come deliver presents in his new speedboat thus cutting costs significantly resulting in much better gifts for all of us