Global Warming To Leave North Pole Ice-Free 664
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."
Penguins? (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers,
Alex
Re:Penguins? (Score:2)
OTOH, if Seattle gets submerged....
-
Re:Penguins? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Penguins? (Score:4, Funny)
Must be RedHot Penguins?
-
Re:Penguins? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Penguins? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2000, there were 9351 plants producing power levels of 604,514MW in the summer and 615,030MW in the winter. (I'll use the summer numbers since those are the lowest and arguably the most important.) Of those 9351 plants, 91 were nuclear, representing 0.97% of the power plants by number but producing 86,163MW in the summer -- about 14% of overall output.
Of the remaining, there were 1024 coal plants, 3007 petroleum (oil) plants, and 2068 gas (methane) plants, combining to produce 419,852MW. Taking the average output of 947MW per nuclear plant, it would take 444 plants to take up the slack, though I suspect plants being designed now are more powerful than that. Westinghouse believes their new AP1000 1000MW reactors can be built for $1400 per KW for the first few, and $1000 per KW starting around the seventh plant. The total construction cost is about $447 billion, which, if spaced over 20 years, is a bit more than $22 billion per year. In 2000, the US burned 995 million tons of coal, 195 million barrels of petroleum, and 6.2 billion MMBtu of gas. The costs of these fuels? In today's terms, it would be, at $25 per ton, $30 per barrel of undistilled petroleum, and $5 per MMBtu (all approximations, but close to current prices), $24.9 billion, $5.9 billion, and $31 billion, or a total of about $61.8 billion. The cost for those plants, spaced out, would be a little more than a third of what we pay for fuels as it is.
Aside from the virtual end of power plant-produced carbon dioxide emissions, and that some of these reactors could be breeder reactors, helping to make better use of nuclear fuel (of which we have centuries of supply in the United States alone), this would shut down much of the incredibly damaging coal mining in the country, drop natural gas prices to reasonable levels so that people can pay for their homes, and slash oil consumption drastically.
The construction of these plants would also create thousands of jobs at each site for two to three years, spurring the local economies. Even if there were only 1500 jobs created per site, that's 33,000 jobs if 23 plants were built at a time. There would probably be enough to offset job losses at conventional power plants, and my understanding is that nuclear construction work carries higher paychecks than standard construction work.
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 want a nuclear reactor in my backyard. I don't see why the fears about them are so prevalent. I almost wish the planes had hit a reactor instead of the WTC just so that people could see how they wouldn't crack, though part of me fears that it would heighten the fears of others attacking such plants.
Re:Penguins? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Penguins? (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen the details on nuclear plant saftey with the new post-3 Mile Island saftey designs. Does it include a 747? Yes. Actually, four seperate possibilities were detailed: 1) a 747 (cargo haul version, taken over by terrorists and carrying non-nuclear explosives in a fair portion of the cargo hold) 2) a fully laden B-52 with non-nuclear weapons, 3) a flight of F-15C Strike Eagles and 4) the worst combination of the three, specifically 2 and 3.
Why non-nuclear? Because if you drop a nuclear bomb on a nuclear plant, the bomb effects dwarf the nuclear plant effects. The result is almost the same as dropping a nuclear bomb on a coal plant.
The results with the new design in the worst case? The reactor shuts down and is entombed in a concrete/ lithium half-sphere. The underground shielding remained intact. Radiation leakage? The lithium allows only short-term low-effect leakage.
My backyard is fine with me and apart from the amount of space required, densely populated areas are safe.
Re:Penguins? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Penguins? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me or are we getting dumber and dumber? We used to have great leaders who led us to great achievements and great hights. Now we have these rich politicians who do not have enough balls to go against the will of their stupid voters.
How does their thinking go? "Hmmm.... the professors are telling me that we are damaging the environment and that I should tax gasoline heavily and ban SUVs. LOL! I wo
Re:Penguins? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please! If I were to point a gun at your head, would you wait for true solid evidence that it were loaded before you ducked? Of course not - the only truly solid evidence is your brains splattered on the wall, by which time it's too late. Same with global climate change.
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.
We don't have an "experimental Earth" and a "control Earth" to compare. There's only one, and we need it. We're fucking with the spaceship's life support system here. This is not intelligent survivial-oriented behavior.
RTFA. The melting of the ice cap won't cause ocean levels to rise, but it will mess with the Gulf Stream - very, very bad. And melting of glaciers will cause sea level rises; you don't think that if the polar ice melts, some glaciers will melt too? (Antarctic melting would also cause sea levels to rise.)
global warming *isn't* necessarily our fault (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also a global warming skeptic and that's the only argument I buy. Hedge on the side of assuming it's our fault, because by the time we're sure it's going to be way too late.
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.
Having studied this issue intensely, that is flat wrong. There are two effects going on. First, modeling climate is exceptionally difficult, and the most difficult aspect is predicting the activity of clouds. On one hand, they reflect light (cooling), but on the other hand, they act as a blanket (warming). Depending on the thickness and density of the clouds, these parameters are traded off. So scientists have to predict more than the levels of CO2 produced. And it ain't easy.
The second effect is the "grant effect." All grants are peer-reviewed - that is, when you apply for money, people in your field decide if your current and prior work makes you a valid candidate for getting $$$. Now, obviously, this gets very cliqueish, and if you consistently advocate a contrarian position (ie, global cooling or stasis), you will have a very hard time getting money. In other words, if you are a climatologist and you don't predict warming, have fun getting funding. In this way, the "answer" in the global warming debate is shaped by who can still get funding, and this is a very dogmatic, polarized field. And on this, the liberals are every bit as biased as the oil company asshats. The people I would listen to are the ones not blustering on either side, but who consider cooling/stasis to at least be a possibility. They're rare, but they exist.
So bottom line, there is very much debate as to the origins tot the current warming trend. Especially when you consider that a single decent volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than man does in a year. Like I said though, I'd rather not find out the hard way either.
Re:global warming *isn't* necessarily our fault (Score:5, Informative)
The temperature of the earth has been hotter then this before, and it has been colder. Yes, we may be in a time of man-made temperature increases, but we still don't know for sure. What all the global-warming zealots ignore is the fact that in the hundred thousand year global temperature cycle, we are IN A WARMING TREND. This is to be expected. If you look at the ice age cycles, they follow similar temperature trends. Yes we may be causing some of the temperature increase - but at the same time, a good deal of it is most likely normal, natural, and to be expected.
I wish people would stop looking at the last 50-100 years, and get it through their heads that to understand climate modeling, you need to look at eons. The ice ages do have some meaning - they weren't random events that happened due to man not burning fossil fuels.
Since nobody seems to be doing this, here are some pretty charts and discussions about why the current hype about global warming is, at minimum overrated, and at max completely bogus:
Ice ages and inter-glacial warming periods:
http://www.ocs.orst.edu/forum/BigPicture.htm
Thermodynamics coupled with solar radiation fluctuations:
http://64.21.37.2/~rhailey/archives/001402.htm
Temperatures since the last ice age:
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pb33/kihzhome/kihz0
While I don't claim that these are all 100% correct and relevant, they should at least get you to question the current global-warming mentality of "we did it and it's here now". Yes, we may be responsible for some global warming. But until we can tell for sure, THROUGH SCIENCE, people need to take a deep breath and calm down. Ask for the facts, ask for the numbers, look at the charts.
Few of you believe manufacturers when they claim speeds for things - you go look at benchmarks. Why would you then automatically accept claims of massive global warming, especially from groups with obvious agendas? Ask to see the data. Ask to see *all* of the data. Get angry that much of the "temperature increase of y degrees in the last x years" "data" came from limited readings in some of the coldest places on earth, because it showed the greatest change, instead of from a representative sample across the entire planet.
Yes, we should pollute less, and yes, we should take responsibility for our environment. However, we shouldn't run around screaming "the ice is melting, the ice is melting". If it is, then it very well might do that every so often, humans, fossil fuels, or not. But using junk or no science to promote a phenomenon which might or might not exist is just not cool...
Re:global warming *isn't* necessarily our fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I guess so, huh.
Re:global warming *isn't* necessarily our fault (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was a scientist and wanted to produce research that showed there was no global warming do you think I could get money from Shell or Mobil. Do you think I could get money from Rupert Murdoch? Do you think I could get money from the Cato institue or thosands of republican "think thanks"? DO you think I could get money form the hundreds of millionaires who stand to make a lot of money from burning oil, polluting or whatever?
You bet your ass I can. Look at anybody who has written a book arguing against global warming. Even shoddyly researched non peer reviewed shit like the "Skeptical Environmentalist" sold like hotcakes and made the author a celebirty amongst the right wing talk show circuit. That man is a hero now to every republican.
Re:global warming *isn't* necessarily our fault (Score:3)
You wrote, "If I was a scientist and wanted to produce research that showed..."
If you were a scientist you would produce research to test your hypothesis (there is no global warming). You don't necessarily get the results you "wanted to produce" and every scientist knows this and is willing to go with what the evidence shows.
So the idea that a scientist will go t
You are talking out of your arse (Score:3, Interesting)
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 gas
Re:global warming *isn't* necessarily our fault (Score:4, Insightful)
To begin with, you confuse two different questions. The first is whether the globe is warming up. This is, almost certainly, the case. It is complicated by the fact, however, that different regions have different climate trends. For example, large parts of Canada are actually cooling. This research is based not on modeling of future events but on currently available climate data from all over the globe. If you want to assault the theory of global warming, this is not the place to do it.
There is much more uncertainty regarding the role of human influence in global climate change. The preponderance of evidence shows that humans are having some impact on the global climate, but the magnitude of that influence is indeed difficult to measure. One point that suggests greater human influence is the precipitous rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years or so. We have never seen a change in global temperatures quite this rapid, going back thousands of years. Presumably, the frequency of things like volcanic eruptions (which incidentally tend to cool the globe more than warm it because of particulates releasd) hasn't changed that much. The time frame is too short and the change too quick for global cycles like the Milankovich cycle to have much of an impact. This is not to say that humans are the only influence on this rapid climate change, but we certainly have to look very closely at the role of humans in climate change.
Regarding the so-called grant effect: the reasoning behind this theory is questionable at best. First, most of the grants used for academic research on global warming come from government organizations (NASA, NSF, etc.) that tend to be fairly unbiased in their funding. Indeed it seems that, given it's position, the current administration would be more than happy to fund research that could cast doubts on global warming. In addition, you sell a lot of the researchers short in terms of their lack of bias. Many researchers that I know, including my advisor, have published works that show little or no trend in various signals that, theoretically, could be tied to global climate change. In addition, most researcher done on climate change doesn't address the whole scope of the problem directly. You don't apply for a grant to fund research denying global warming. Instead, a whole bunch of different researchers study smaller aspects of climate change at various scales. If human-induced global warming weren't a distinct possibility, it never would have emerged from the research in the first place. Whatever the case may be, calling global warming some kind of a liberal conspiracy theory insults both the integrity and intelligence of the thousands of researchers world-wide who study it.
So is global warming happening? Almost certainly.
Do humans play a role in this? Probably, but how much is still a big question.
Are you right to say that we should take steps to ameliorate potential impacts before it's too late? In my opinion, yes.
Re:Penguins? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
*cries* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*cries* (Score:5, Funny)
Such an extremely high quality actor in such an extremely high quality film couldn't possibly be lying! You scientists! With all of your science (pardon my French, but it had to be said)! What could you possibly know that hollywood doesn't? Can you make movies? I didn't think so. Next you'll be saying that you can't make a world where computers use people for energy!
When the smokers come to take over MY atoll, I'll be ready! I'm trying to grow gills even as we speak.
Is that so.. (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't water denser than ice?? (Score:2)
-
Re:Isn't water denser than ice?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't water denser than ice?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't water denser than ice?? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Isn't water denser than ice?? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Isn't water denser than ice?? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bulk of the earths water not contained in the oceans is hold up in the glaciers. Antartica's being the bigest by far, with the greenland ice sheet still being substantial.
These glaciers would substantially add to the earth's sea levels but are more stable than the sea ice. Current projections give the greenland glaciers around 300 years before they become totally unstable, whilst the model simulations suggest that the antartic sheets will remain stable (and my even grow abit, due to increased percipitation). Cryosphere (ice) models are perhaps the lest well understood, and these projections may well change as our models improve.
Ice melting not the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything's going to cause the oceans to rise, it would be the heat expansion of the water that's already there.....
Re:Ice melting not the problem (Score:2)
The first is thermal expansion, and the second is the melting of ice which sits on top of land.
Re:Ice melting not the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ice melting not the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Did anyone else think... (Score:5, Funny)
I guess (Score:4, Funny)
Here, let me help (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Don't Release More co2, Harvard Says It's Evil (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Here, let me help (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here, let me help (Score:5, Informative)
When the ice melts, its density becomes 1 therefore its mass = its displacement (1kg of water will displace the volume of water which weighs 1kg).
So there is no "approximately cancel each other out." As the parent stated the net change in sea level will be exactly zero. Excepting for minor changes due to temperature or evaporation. Ice currently sitting on a land mass will change the sea level since it is not displacing more or less water.
Re:Here, let me help (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here, let me help (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here, let me help (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here, let me help (Score:5, Informative)
1 Ice floating in water displaces as much water as it mass. So when it melts the volume will not change.
2 The interesting thing is that water shrinks when you heat it from 0C to 4C so in that traject it will take up less space. Continue heating above 4C it it starts expanding again.
Warmer oceans will mean higher sea level because warmer water is less dense.
Nyh
Re:Here, let me help (Score:2)
Sure, that's possible. We don't really want to bet coastal cities on it though.
Re:Here, let me help (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Me so smart.
come off it dude.
Better than throwing about your half understandings as truth, you could actually look at your notes from first year physics and understand the wonder of Archimedes' principle for yourself, THEN try to explain it.
[everything2.com]
href="http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Arch
As others have noted, if you melt the north pole, you're probably melting Greenland & co. as well, which does add to sea-level rise++. Also your ice melted becuase the oceans are a little warmer (latent heat of liquification, yea, yea. it still gets warmer after the ice is all gone) thus the oceans are less dense, and expand (ie upwards).
The bit about all the added fresh water being less dense is interesting, but doesn't make up for the "it isn't just the sea ice melting" problem.
The bit that really scares me: Antarctica. The ice in the center is several miles thick. Around the edges along the coast you have sea ice.
The sea ice melts quite fast due to the thermal conductivity of the ocean water around it. That melting is going on now (eg the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed last year to the shock & awe of many ice-ologists). If you remove those buttresses, the center collapses outwards to the sea. This could happen over the course of a few hundred years(!!!). That's where the vast majority of land-locked water is, and that's what'll do the serious 75' rise if it happens.
It is estimated that a 100 year storm on the East Coast of the US (read NYC) will be a 3-5 year storm in 50 years. Add to that the east coast is natuarally sinking (the continental plate), and you really don't want any extra sea level rise if you can help it. And we can help it, we're just being selfish lazy fucks. Don't deny it.
Even if things are warming up naturally, we shouldn't help it along to make it go faster.
We aren't fucking the planet, it'll survive, were fucking ourselves. All but a few of the world's major cities lie along the coast. ALL of the great port cities..
Santa?? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Santa?? (Score:5, Funny)
Sea level... (Score:5, Insightful)
But melting Greenland ice will affect it. Probably also permafrost in Siberia and Canada would start melting, which will potentially release a lot of methane from the northern marshes.
And I have hard time believing that if northern ice cap melts, also southern ice cap won't get smaller (and that will rise sea level)...
Better watch out if you live by the sea... Lease the land for your new house for 50-100 years, don't buy it, and you should be fine
Re:Sea level... (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Sea level... (Score:5, Informative)
one other big factor that dosn't seem to have been mentioned yet is that ice is very good at reflecting light and water is not so good. If the planet is covered in ice it gets very cold if the ice melts it takes less energy to heat it up. Take a look at the snowball earth theory [uwsp.edu].
Northwest passage... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm buying beachfront property in Point Barrow.
Re:Northwest passage... (Score:5, Insightful)
I need someone to explain... (Score:4, Insightful)
later,
epic
Re:I need someone to explain... (Score:5, Informative)
The rub is, Desert begets desert. As the land becomes arid, it heats up the surrounding land, causing the desert to spread.
Now one thing not helping the situation is Man. Certain agricultural practices accellerate desertification.
Indeed, start looking for deserts to form in Brazil. Rain forests don't really build good soil, and when you slash and burn the rainforest down to form farmland you only get a few good years out of it before the soil breaks down. Rain Forests generate their own weather patterns, and with no forest, no rain.
Re:I need someone to explain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Saharan Africa may have had a more simple existence, based rather more on tribal rules and minor warfare, but everything was massively accelerated by colonialism. I don't think calling the people "dumb" is fair.
First of all, the introduction of "the one true" religion, mostly Christianity, but also Islam from the North, (never so good a cause of much bloodshed as religion through the ages). Then, the creation of arbitrary borders, to further separate tribes from their previous allies. Then, the pillage of most natural resources, agricultural practices, dams, etc. Further, the sale of arms and weapons to these tribes to further ruin their economies, and increase bloodshed further. Indeed a lot of war in Africa directly profits the arms trade, and leaves countries with a trade deficit in spite of all the tropical fruit they sell.
It's hard for me to understand just how the pot can call the kettle black in such circumstances as you describe. Primitive culture, perhaps, but it was adapted to its surroundings to an extent. Before colonialism I doubt there was much in the way of dictatorships, just chiefdoms, etc... although I'm sure Saharan Africa wasn't a peaceful nirvana or anything.
There is no doubt in my mind that the worst pillages of nature have all been initiated in the minds and by the greed of the western capitalist system, particularly this inexorable trend towards ever greater consumerism, which is what is really robbing the world of natural resources and causing a higher percentage of pollution than anything else.
I think you're wrong about the causes. (Score:4, Informative)
And yes, political strife makes it so people, desperate to eat today, don't take care of tomorrow. And the Saharan region *did* go through political strife: the conquest by Islam. [and no, not all religions are equal, or as you seem to think, equally bad. Some shed more blood, some less. Some have peaceful periods, some don't.]
You're also wrong that there were no dictatorships. Some of the dunes have completely covered old Roman forts. Rome was definitely a dictatorship.
But I don't think it was politics or religion that did the Sahara in. I think it was the introduction of grazing animals. You see, the earlier (Christian) and primitive (animist) cultures that existed in the region before that were mostly farmers. But grazing animals represented wealth to the incoming Islamic "missionaries". So they brought that in with them (but not because of their religion; just because of their culture.)
The grazing animals overgrazed the land, and destroyed the plant life, freeing up the dunes.
Further, plants tend to regulate the water; so the Sahara then had no further regulation.
But no, this also isn't Western capitalism that did it. This is an extension, if you will, of the Mongol invasion, and the imposition of a new culture upon a region that was not suited to it.
Archimedes Principle (Score:5, Informative)
Anything floating in water displaces a volume of water EXACTLY equivalent to its own weight. If ice melts, the part that was above the water is exactly equal to the reduction in volume, and there is exactly no change in the water level.
On the other hand, if the non-floating ice on Antarctica or Greenland melts, since it wasn't displacing any water, the ocean levels will rise. And there is a LOT of ice on Antarctica.
The melting of floating ice makes little difference to sea temperature since it is water at close to 0 degrees, but melting glacial ice generally runs off into warmer water, causing sea temperature reduction with potentially catastrophic effects (e.g. stopping of the Gulf Stream).
Gulf stream stopping (Score:5, Interesting)
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"
Re:Archimedes Principle (Score:3, Insightful)
1: greenland isn't likely to stay as icy if the north pole doesn't.
2: northern canada
3: alaska
4: siberia
5: scandinavia
I'll stop there but you get the picture.
Re:Archimedes Principle (Score:3, Insightful)
Already in the water? (Score:2)
No, BUT... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually no. Water is more dense than ice (this is why it floats above the water in the first place). So so far this theory seems ok.
What they don't account for, and what makes this bunk is that it doesn't account for the huge amount of landlocked glaciers (The south pole, Greenland, etc.).
Someone kindly explain how you propose to melt just the floating ice and not the rest of it?
This crap is posted just to further the official slashdot agenda of:
"I'll do whatever the hell I want to and I'm sure it'll have no consequences whatsoever on the environment. And if it has, it's my lazy worthless childrens problem!
You'll pry the steering wheel of my SUV from my cold dead fingers, commie-boy!"
Now go ahead and label me a crazy environazi, if you like.
It doesn't make my point any less valid.
Stupidest submitter EVER! (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod me down as a troll if you like but I declare cwolfsheep the stupidest Slashdot article submitter EVER and he needs to know it!
"Let's climb mt Everest because it exists. Let's also melt the north pole because it exists."
I wonder if he considerer one second about what happens to the Antarctic and Greenland (and let's not forget all the ice covered mountain regions around the world, can you say "mud slide") while he is busy spraying CFC in the air (yeah, aerosols no longer contain CFC's, so he was wrong about that too).
Additional effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Additional effect? (Score:2)
Re:Additional effect? (Score:2)
I'm growing a beard, and I'll be ready for Vikings 2005 - Rape, Pillage, Surf and Hack.
Re:Additional effect? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
More Oil! (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy howdy. Did you read the CNN Article [cnn.com]?:
"...Johannessen works at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway. 'This will make it easier to explore for oil, it could open the Northern Sea Route (between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans)," he said of the report, dubbed the Arctic Ice Cover Simulation Experiment. '"
I dunno, its theoretically possible (though pretty improbable) that there's absolutely nothing to worry about when our polar ice caps melt completely, but I'm of the mind that when the article is more concerned about the new oil drilling prospects and trade routes than climate instability, cancer-causing UV rays, and so on, maybe its time to get a second opinion.
Too funny (Score:3, Funny)
the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap would benefit maritime transport as it would create a new northern shipping route along Russia's northern coast that could save some 10 days in journey time between Europe and Japan.
I guess every dark cloud really does have a silver lining. And to think I was worried. Don't I feel foolish
Rapid climate change (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
Todays sea ice maps: http://www.seaice.de
But wait ... (Score:3, Funny)
But where the hell is santa gunna live if his homeland is melted??
Penguins (Score:2)
pollution isnt a problem, it's a solution (Score:4, Funny)
What more can you ask for?
think about the children (TM)!
Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2, Informative)
What about europe (Score:4, Interesting)
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!!
Melting Ice wont raise the water level?? (Score:2)
Hmm, this article has got me thinkin
Re:Melting Ice wont raise the water level?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anti-Warming (Score:4, Funny)
I'm in favor of a good old-fashioned nuclear winter to cool things down. As a bonus, I'm hoping it would decrease the tourist trade.
The only thing I hate more than hot weather is yankees.
still in an ice age chaps (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Global Conveyor Belt (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally the cold (gas absorbing) waters of the poles, sink to the ocean floor carrying large amounts of CO2 and O2. This dissolved oxygen is critical in keeping aerobic conditions in the deep sea (several early mass extinctions have been attributed to anaerobic organisms flourishing in oxygen depleted waters) and the dissolved carbon dioxide is attributed to the lower than expected climatic changes from greenhouse gas emmissions.
Why are we not freaking out about this??
This is the great engine of Earth (forget Deep Thought). It is responsible for the majority of heat storage and transfer in our environment, allowing disparate areas to acheive a modicum of energy equilibrium.
Without this "smoothing" force to even out the bumps - storms will become more violent as the coriolis effect is reinforced by the increasing density of the atmosphere as you travel towards the poles - sea currents will alter drastically, causing mass extinctions - seasons will be more extreme hot or cold.
All in all, this issue in no way deserves the (more than usual) flippant, offhand and dismissive treatment it is receiving.
Q.
Here's why I'm not freaking out: (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, this global warming shit is a distraction from the real enemy, it's something we CAN'T do anything about in the long term; WE might stop our part, but the earth will make it's own rules. Meanwhile, why we all sit around trying to figure out how to burn coal without putting up 'greenhouse gasses' the farms are dumping tons of poisons into our GROUNDWATER!
I'm not saying we should all drive SUVs and leave the lights on, but there's only so much we can do about the climate. Trying to keep everything the way it is would be the most expensive, destructive, and futile effort mankind has ever assumed. Do your part to live 'green', but not to prevent global warming, do it to reduce the poisons you put into the earth and to help us be less energy-dependant.
Some images... (Score:5, Interesting)
Global Warming and the End of England [geomantics.com]
There is no global warming (Score:3, Funny)
Global warming is a liberal myth. There is no evidence the world is warming up. The complete melting of the polar ice caps this summer is just anecdotal evidence.
Uh oh, there go my skiing holidays (Score:3, Insightful)
In particular it would probably mean the disappearence of snow from the alps and possibly some other mountain ranges, possibly including the resorts in the US and Canada. Essentially, it means if I want to ski, then I had better do it on water!!!
Seriously, there are many alpine valleys which do not make enough from farming, so instead they rely on an influx of winter sports enthusiasts. The summer hikers don't seem to come in the same quantities and many don't spend as much.
Yeah fine, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pass me the sun cream.
Is the Earth getting ready for a shift? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
An absurd but thought provoking notion on oceans (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw a story on CNN this morning about Greenpeace saying the polar ice caps have melted and that the water levels in the oceans have risen 2.5 - 2.75 inches in the last 25 years. This is supposedly beyond normal and clear evidence that the polar ice caps are melting.
I had two "seemingly absurd" at first glance explanations for water, or tide levels rising, but possibly peaking right about now. (Now being the year 2000+)
First, what sort of water displacement has occurred due to cruise ships, barges, subs, oil tankers, oil rigs, and other man made water craft? I know the ocean is huge and it's not like my bathtub, but it HAS to be at least a minute amount!
Second, if the theory of plate techtonics is true, couldn't our land masses have shifted/grown substantially (in the case of Hawaii) also causing significant water displacement?
Third, hasn't some sediment/diatomation/oceanic (organic/volcanic) growth also occurred & also caused water displacement
I have seen a Canadian study (forget where) that there's more ice in the upper regions of the country than ever. So rather than the poles melting, is ice just shifting a little? As glaciers move and "ice masses" float, won't they melt anyway?
In a way, this relates to my earlier "statistics, shmatistics" post below. It just really annoys me for business's and especially charity/non profits to use "Beyond FUD" to scare up money.
Whether global warming or erosion of the atmosphere is happening or not, conservation and world health organizations should be worried about just that and focusing their funds on research rather than paying for stupid studies to be run in the liberal media. The study about tides rising cost 15 million dollars to Greenpeace! Do you know how much that would have advanced solar energy research or subsidized solar home construction? Or how many wind mill and turbine powered generators that could have built?
Mars losing its polar ice too (Score:3, Informative)
CO2 Emission (Score:4, Insightful)
First, it assumes that a rise in temperatures since 1978's constitute a trend. There has only been two and a half decades since, 2.5 datapoints, that is not enough to establish a trend IMHO.
Second, it makes a direct correlation of rise in temperature to CO2 emissions. But to the best of my knowledge we don't know for certain that CO2 indeed plays a direct role in Earth's temperature, and I think that to assume that human population can single-handedly affect amount of CO2 being emitted on the planet, much less have any control over climate is incorrect.
I think the main thing about studies such as this, is not to "freak-out" as someone suggested. The scientists are working on learning more about our planet, and that is a good thing. The the press and politicians signle out studies that can help them push their agenda and publish them as if it's the absolute truth, and that's a bad thing.
Why is it, for example, that any climate change is percieved as something to be fearful of? What if it's only going to be for the better?
I also wish that the environmental powers that be focused more on pollution in large metropolitan areas. More and more people are sick because of terrible air and water quality as well as improper disposal of all kinds of waste, especially in countries with weaker economies (e.g. eastern europe), but because it is not something of global proportions, we don't get to hear about it.
Just remember.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"The Earth is going to be fine. It's the people who are fucked."
Fix the important problem, not the aerosol. (Score:3, Insightful)
The increasing temperatures around the world are caused by something very simple: The Earth's orbit.
The Earth does not go in a circle around the sun. It goes in an elliptical orbit. This ellipse does not maintain its major and minor axes over time: It slowly but surely changes. Over many thousands of years, the ellipse becomes more like a circle, bringing the Earth closer to the sun for longer periods throughout the year, and then for a few thousands of years more, the orbit gets increasingly elliptical again, taking the Earth farther away from the sun for much of the year. This is quite natural and nothing you do with aerosol cans is going to change that.
Want to fight air pollution? Then just say that you want to breathe clean air and not a bunch of smoky grime. That's simple enough. But don't go around saying, "The water on the Earth is going to cover all the land and we're all gonna DIE!!!" That just makes you look like a wacko.
And if you really want to clean air pollution, then instead of going after something small and insignificant like an aerosol can, go after something big and polluting, like eliminating the use of fossil fuels to power cars, trucks, airplanes, trains and everything else out there. There MUST be another way to power these things and someone is gonna find it. But don't go around complaining about aerosol cans. Because by eliminating all the fossil fuels, you'll make a 95% difference (so that all other air pollution becomes insignificant enough that it can be completely ignored) but by eliminating all the aerosols in the world, you'll make less than 1% difference in the overall scheme of things.
I can't believe no one noticed this... (Score:4, Informative)
Um, how do I say this... aerosols, by which I assume you mean CFC-based aerosols, float to the upper atmosphere and catalyze the very thin layer of ozone that sort of floats like a skin over the whole planet. This causes sporadic thinning of the ozone layer, which is usually not a big deal, since ozone regenerates. But the CFC's float about for a while, and do persistent damage until they disappate.
Ozone depletion is a different problem than the greenhouse effect, which is caused by increased amounts of CO2 in the lower atmosphere caused by burning fossil fuels and of all things, flatulence of our herd animals.
The confusion of CFC pollution which causes ozone depletion and the global warming engendered by CO2 seems to widespread everywhere. I can't count the times I've seen intelligent people mix this up.
Maybe this global change is good for us (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we can one day forget religions and political differences and start behaving as we really should, i.e. as passengers on a spaceship with limited resources.
By the way, 3000 people died in France from the heat. Almost as many as they died on 9/11/01. My condolences to anyone that lost a relative.
Re:a conflict? (Score:2)
I'm just guessing here, but could it be that in order to absorb CO2 effectively, water has to be in a liquid for since in a liquid for it effecively provides more surface area for absorbing gasses. Other point could be that generally warmer a solutionscan absorb other su
Re:a conflict? (Score:2, Informative)
So, I hope that answers your question.
Re:Wheew (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I am not placing blame... anyone would run the AC at 116 degrees. The problem is that you had to... not that you did.
As our climate goes out of control, we expend more and more resources trying to maintain localized habitable spots. Which necessitates burning more fossil fuel, which exacerbates the situation.
I guess its moot in a way cause our generation won't have to worry about it. But in a way I feel partly responsible for the situations I am setting up for those coming later if I don't choose wisely. I am quite concerned over what I perceive to be a rather lackadaisical attitude over the consumption of our earthly resources... especially here in the United States, where it appears there is so much wealth that conservation is not only completely uncalled for, its actually discouraged so as to encourage economic growth based on production of frivolous things.
We have more than enough things to go around, but we arrange things so that no-one has time to spend with family.. I became an engineer in the hopes that I could contribute to the demise of the mandatory two-incomes needed to maintain today's social status... and I have spent near my whole life and have not made a dent. We spend our lives in a hurried rush burning our environment and making junk. I'm sad to be so cynical, but from my seat, I perceive humanity as behaving like so many rats, eating and defecating over their environment, until its spent, then there will be the day of large quantities of rotting rat when the system is exhausted. I am just hoping we are smart enough to control our demands on our support physics to avoid that scenario.
Re:Kyoto (Score:5, Insightful)
And the coldest day on record in the UK was in 1995. Therefore we must have had Global Cooling, like they were warning us about in the 70s. Right?
Hint: localised temperatures tell you nothing about global trends, and the global trend since 1979 as measured by the satellites is tiny. Not to mention that the theory predicts that most of the warming will occur at the poles, since the CO2 bands are already pretty much saturated in warmer areas. But I'm sure you know that, right?
"and 6 of the hottest years have been in then 90s."
A lot of which is due to bogus measurements and urban warming: Britain, particularly the south-east, is so densely populated that little of it escapes such warming effects, but they're nothing to do with CO2 or global changes.
I was reading, for example, a news article about a >38C temperature record at... Heathrow Airport (not the official record, which was in Kent, and is probably less bogus). Hmm, an airport, with 747s taking off every couple of minutes, with huge amounts of concrete to reflect heat around, with vast numbers of cars, taxis and buses driving in and out stuck in often stationary traffic. Yes, I'm sure that's really representative of Global Warming temperature changes!
I'd also add that, having had the misfortune to live through the 70s in the UK, that while the current year may have broken the odd record, some of the warm summers in the 70s were much worse than this. And that was when Global Cooling was going to kill us with a new Ice Age!
Re:UK and Europe's heatwave (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's awful. A while back I was reading about more than a dozen people dying of summer heat about twenty miles from where I live in the UK.
_In the 1840s_.
This is nothing new: the only reason people think it's new is because it's something _they_ haven't experienced before.
"Even tar on the road melted because of the heat"
You mean you've never noticed tar melting before because of the heat? I remember it happening regularly in the summer when I was a kid walking to school: maybe people should try walking sometime, they might actually notice these things.
"This is to avoid the overheated rail tracks to bend and causing the trains to crash."
Again, that's because British railways suck and are designed to only run at 3pm one Thursday in March each year while being out of spec the rest of the time, it's no evidence of Global Warming(tm).
Re:Thermohaline Circulation (Score:3, Insightful)
At least until the glaciers start advancing.