Global Warming To Leave North Pole Ice-Free

cwolfsheep writes "Tonight, Yahoo & AFP news are reporting on a study, further backing up a previous report, that suggests the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by the next century. Oddly enough, they say the melting will not add to the sea-level of the ocean (since the ice is already in the ocean) and that the extra water will help absorb more greenhouse gases. Maybe we need to start using more aerosols."

Ice melting not the problem

[mabinogi]

I've never understood why the media has always gone on about polar ice melting causing the oceans to rise....

If anything's going to cause the oceans to rise, it would be the heat expansion of the water that's already there.....

Here, let me help

[rabtech]

Let me help clue some people in here. One of the wonderful properties of water (which helps to make earth more conductive to life I might add) is that it becomes less dense and expands when it freezes. It is one of the few natural materials that does so. Most things become more dense. (Hence, lakes don't freeze solid killing all the fish. The ice forms an insulating layer at the top because it is less dense than water and floats.)

As a result, the complete melting of the polar ice cap would result in, quite possibly, a slight reduction in sea levels, as the resultant water from the melting will take up less space than the ice did. However, since ice floats, some of it was above the waterline so it may end up a wash.

If the antartic melted, that would be very bad. You see, there is a land mass there. With ice frozen on top of it. If that ice melts, that is new water added to the ocean as a whole, NOT water replacing ice that was already in the ocean. A totally different animal.

As for all this? we knew that we were coming out of the last mini-iceage already. It doesn't shock me in the least to see what the ice is still receeding on the whole. Maybe if we warm things up slightly we won't see any more large-scale ice ages. As much as I delore some of the insane policies of the eastern ultra-liberal nutjobs, I have no desire to see New York covered in a glacial blanket.

a conflict?

[dontbgay]

anyone noticing a conflict in this report? "Because the ice cap is already in the water when it is melting, you are not adding any mass. Only precipitation, discharge from rivers and the melting of glaciers can cause the water to rise," he said. The bigger the ocean is, the more CO2 it will be able to absorb," Johannessen said. call me crazy but if the melting doesn't cause the ocean mass to expand.. then how is it going to cause the ocean to be bigger? eh, maybe i just nitpick?

Northwest passage...

[tinrobot]

Might not be good for the environment, but it will probably be good for all the shipping corporations. It'll cut a thousand miles off the commute.

I'm buying beachfront property in Point Barrow.

Don't Release More co2, Harvard Says It's Evil

[Pavan_Gupta]

That's a good point, and with that point taken into account, here's another interesting twist on the story that's come out...

They're saying that the ocean would thus absorb more co2, but this won't possibly make an impact if the surfaces of the ocean aren't greater.

In fact, Harvard Magazine says, "The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange. This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. However, once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, estimates Michael McElroy, Butler professor of environmental science" which seems to indicate that though we might be able to absorb a bit more co2, it won't make a difference.

The time constraints are very large, but moreover, the amount of co2 that contacts the ocean won't be high enough for somethign dramatic to happen before we destroy the precious things we already have.

Thus, I'd like to think that we should still be very careful about how we just arbitrarly throw co2 into the air.

Re:Penguins?

[slothman32]

Some penguins even live as far north as 0 degrees. That's right on the equator. 1 species of penguin live on the Galapagos Islands; which for your trivia pleasure lies at almost exactly 0N, 30W.

Re:Here, let me help

[jrumney]

Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway are land masses too, with lots of glaciers and permafrost. I don't think the North Pole is going to melt in isolation. A lot of "scientists" seem to lack the common sense to see the bigger picture.

Re:Isn't water denser than ice??

[EvilTwinSkippy]

You do get internet access, but why not just become a Taoist? All the enlightenment, none of the dogma.

In any case you are correct. There is a hell of a lot of ice on land that will be added to the seas. Just look at the melting permafrost and receeding glaciers of Alaska and Canada.

This report also glosses over the affect all that melted ice will have on the ocean's salinity. It is predicted that a slight change in ocean salinity is enough to turn the taps off on the Gulf stream. This would leave Europe pretty screwed. England's weather would start to be more like Nova Scotia's.

Re:Additional effect?

[Fungii]

I don't think you'll have to worry too much about that - water has such a high specific heat and conductivity it works pretty well as an energy buffer.

If you don't believe me look at the climate of island states compared to land locked states. For example I live in Ireland, and the annual temperature range is ~20 degrees celcius maximum. It can be *way* more than that even in places in continental europe at the same lattitude.

Re:Here, let me help

[BJH]

As is Greenland, I believe - one of the largest islands in the world.

Gulf stream stopping

[alistair]

You explain the Archimedes Principle very well, but the threat to the Gulf Stream, which is one of the most serious possible effects of global warming, has little to do with sea temperature reduction in Northern waters. It is a general trend to increasing quantities of fresh water of any temperature being produced as run off in Europe which could stop this salt pump / conveyor belt effect. This has happened at least twice before with the result of major temperature drops in Europe.

There is an excellent summary here [cf.ac.uk]. One interesting quote "[the gulf stream] carries over 3 trillion KW of heat to Europe - roughly 100 times the world's consumption of energy"

What about europe

[tanveer1979]

This summer Europe is reeling under a severe heat wave which has killed several people and also led to cattle deaths.

In case of temparature rising further, people may start using air conditioning but I guess the natural wild life as we know it will be extinct and we will have the tropics movin northwards. Already Mosquitos and flies have started showing up in various places where they were never seen before

Also think about the tropical diseases to which the north folks have absolutely no immunity, epidemics anyone? The article is extremely shallow or too ironic for me to figure out. The possibility of new diseases, epidemics and extensive wildlife destruction is looming and the authors are concerned about maritime shipping routes!!

still in an ice age chaps

[cassidyc]

Well melting ice caps are all well and good, but I've yet to see real evidence that it is related to "global warming" in the sense that the warming is caused by pollution, and not say, the fact that we are still emerging from an ice age??

Historically (geologically speaking) we are not in an ice age when there is, essentially, no ice!

There are many reason purported to the rise in global temperatures, from greenhouse gasses, to sunspot activity to to earths position relative to the sun (Milankovitch cyclical variations) etc.

Also with the removeal of bulk of the ice glaciers, much of the land that was under the weight of the ice is actually rising.

So I've yet to be convinced that we are in any real trouble that we have brought upon ourselves.

CJC

Re:Melting Ice wont raise the water level??

[vidarh]

The North pole melting won't add to sea levels, because all the ice is already in the water, however if the South pole starts melting, it most certainly will raise the water levels due to the simple fact that there is land underneath most of it.

Re:Sea level...

[rikkus-x]

Release of large quantities of methane could cause interesting effects, but I'm not sure exactly what effects they would be.

Some methane rises to the stratosphere and becomes CO2 and water vapour. Is the amount of methane likely to be released under such a scenario going to have significant effect on these?

Some methane oxidises in the troposphere, removing oxygen. That water vapour in the stratosphere eventually gives oxygen back, so should we expect a net gain or loss of oxygen? I'm guessing a loss, but would this be balanced by other effects?

Rik

Some images...

[cruachan]

Did these some time ago using global DCW data. Shows effects of progressive sealevel rises on England. 6 Metres (West Antartic & Greenland ice caps collapse) is drastic but still reconisably the same world. However if the East Antartic cap goes we're living in a completely different planet.

Global Warming and the End of England [geomantics.com]

Re:Here, let me help

[Eric Ass Raymond]

Maybe if we warm things up slightly we won't see any more large-scale ice ages.

Well, since I am a self-confessed ultra-liberal I'd like to take this opportunity to say that it never ceases to amaze me how you ultra-conservatives fail to see the big picture.

Global warming does not mean that you'd get increased temperature everywhere on the globe. It means more extreme weather locally. Somewhere you'll get extremely hot weather (like we're now witnessing in Spain, Italy, UK and France) while somewhere else the temperatures stay well below the yearly average. The change in temperature affects the wind patterns and rain and thus the entire local climate will change.

Yeah fine, but...

[ralphclark]

With the northern ice cap gone, the Earth's overall albedo will be lower, hence the planet absorbs more heat from the sun, the temperature goes up, Antarctica starts to melt, the Ross ice shelf slips down into the sea, then sea level DOES rise, then with the southern polar cap gone, the albedo falls even further... I think you see where this is going.

Pass me the sun cream.

Besserwisser-facts:

[Sloshed_dot]

The observation of decreasing ice-covered area does not mean that the ice *volume* has decreased. In fact, more ice-free areas *enhance* ice formation because there is more open sea that can freeze. The ice acts as an insulator that prevents new ice to form. The ice volume does not depend so much on ice-covered area, but more on the type of ice (if it has lots of ridges - that extends deep underneath the surface, or if it is a thin, even ice-cover).
As yet there is no reliable way to obtain ice-type from satellite pictures.
Also, we in Scandinavia are already freezing so we're totally *pro* global warming!

Is the Earth getting ready for a shift?

[ratfynk]

If we examine the climate records we are due for another southern centered ice age. Perhaps the climate cycle of the Earth coincides with polar magnetic shifts at known intervals. We are at the end of such an interval. Will the spin alignment of the Earth change? Some scientists have speculated that the Earth could change its polarity very rapidly if the spin direction undergoes a radical change. This could be due to the change in relative position to ionic particle streams from the Sun. Give the Earth enough of a Sun spot burst and bingo it flips polarity and relative spin. This would explain the polarity differences in rocks.

To understand that we do not yet understand climatic change and radical environmental change is key. Put all that aside and look for explinations of the geo-magnetic and climate record. It is possible that after a melting of the North pole might come the oceanic expansion of the south pole which would then assume the polarity of North. Not the Earth flipping on it's axis but a polarity change caused by the magnetic effects of increased ion streams on the Van Allen belt. Move the Van Allen belt around and you move the magnetic poles. This could be the start of a major 100,000 year cycle. If this is so then what is now the Sahara and all the deserts will bloom and become a watered land. Sorry Austrailia you will become a frozen desert again. Central North America, Europe, and North Central Asia will become deserts. This all could happen within 1000 years,if there are major Solar cycles that can effect the Earths polarity. This would also explain much about the geo-magnetic record and the climatic record. The now frozen North would then become a very attractive land again. As would the equatorial regions, and the southern temperate zones, Cape Town might become almost like Helsinki, and Southern Africa like Northern Europe. Time to write a Sci Fi novel.

Re:Here, let me help

[jarran]

Good explanation. Just one thing, I'm not an expert on these things, but it seems pretty unlikely that all the ice at one pole could melt without a significant amount of ice at the other pole melting as well. (Admittedly possibly in different seasons.)

And as you say, that WOULD be bad, because antarctic ice is on top of land, so will cause higher sea levels if it melts.

Incidentally, it will only take a pretty small rise in sea levels for much of the city I live in to disappear (along with much of Englands SW peninsula.)

Re:Penguins?

[Transcendent]

If Seatlle gets submerged then maybe the US will finally realize that they have a responsibility to the environment just as all the other nations in the world.

So when the SOUTH POLE melts, then they'll worry. The north pole melting won't add any to the global sea level.

Re:Penguins?

[japhmi]

The scientific consensus is strong. Perfect, no, but outside of right-wing talk show hosts and oil company shills, there is no real doubt that human activity is altering the climate.

Well, actually, while there is no debate that human activity alters the climate, there is a lot of debate on how much. (after all, Chaos Theory would say that butterfly activity has a huge effect on global climate too). This [ncpa.org] image shows a good graph on world temperatures based on boreholes. We also have learned in the last few years (after Global Warming because a huge issue) that one of the big assumptions made by many global warming people is that the sun is a constant brightness and it's not [nationalcenter.org].

No, I believe that we should do our best to reduce green house gasses. I'm a very strong environmentalist. But, I think we should be scientifically honest in doing so.

Re:Penguins?

[Ed_Moyse]

Nuclear reactors are fairly close to terrorist-proof. In California, they've survived earthquakes, and they're designed to handle most airliners crashing straight into them. Their common dome housings also would help to deflect anything larger than they were designed for, and the lessons learned from Three Mile Island have gone a long way in improving responses and designs I was told that about UK reactors too. The immediate question I have is does that include 747s? (I don't think so). And does that include two planes, three planes etc? I think that, post september 11, I would not be blase about the dangers posed by terrorists and nuclear plants and I *CERTAINLY* don't think it's a good idea to have one in back yard, or in any densely populated areas.

You are talking out of your arse

[Pentagram]

The second effect is the "grant effect." [...] n other words, if you are a climatologist and you don't predict warming, have fun getting funding.

You might also find difficulty finding funding to research cold fusion from your peers if you are a physicist. That does not mean that cold fusion is correct. Please argue on the basis of evidence, not on throwing unsubstantiated allegations of scientific corruption.

Especially when you consider that a single decent volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than man does in a year

If you had indeed "studied this issue intensely", you would have discovered that this is a myth. CO2 released through human activity dwarfs that released through volcanoes (see here for example [freeserve.co.uk]).

Please, in the future, don't talk bollocks, don't throw baseless accusations, research your claims, and don't claim to be an authority on something you clearly know little about.

Re:slow down...

[Nilmat]

And I guess I'm just tired of having people tell me they "don't believe" in global warming every time I mention my research.

I also want to make clear: I have no problem with skepticism regarding human induced global warming. If you couldn't tell, I'm (if not skeptical) then at least willing to listen to well-thought-out arguments against human-induced warming made by scientists who aren't paid by oil companies (yes, there are some, in my department in fact). What I don't appreciate are the arguments of those who want to avoid the policy impications of potential warming because those implications could hurt their pocket books in the short term. I realize that this is an understandable reaction, but it's also one that I profoundly disagree with.

So from a policy perspective, I guess I am far more frustrated than from a scientific perspective. Personally, I would be happy to see funding given legitimate researchers whose past publications have cast doubt on human induced global warming. However, to continue to ignore the implications of potential warming on policy questions seems very short-sighted to me. As you said.

Back to the scientific questions: From my perspective, the extreme warming in the last 150 years seems pretty watertight. We have solid climate proxy records from multiple sources (ice cores, lake sediment cores (pollen and choronomids), tree rings, deep ocean cores, peat cores, etc.) at least back to near the end of the last glaciation (lets say 12000 years bp as a conservative estimate). That would be 80 150-year periods. If our current period has the most extreme temperature change of any of those 150-year sections (even considering the precipitous drop and rise assocaited with the younger dryas), as much research suggests, then I have heard few good arguments regarding other possible causes of warming. If you have other reasonable hypotheses, I would love to hear them. (Incidentally, your comments are so much more well-though-out than is usual on slashdot. thanks.)