North Pole is melting faster than predicted

[DanishDynamite]

Just read a Danish article in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten which states that:

New measurements of the ice coverage around the globe's most northern point from yesterday, sunday, show that the ice coverage right now is around 2.5 million square kilometers less than the average it was in the period 1978-2000. The ice has shrunk some 40-45 %, an area the size of Western Europe.

My translation.

The article goes on to say that climate models had only predicted that the Artic would become ice-free in some 30-40 years, but that if this unexpectedly faster trend continues, the Artic could be ice-free in as little as 15-20 years.

Scary stuff.

 

[Iamme]

Just read a Danish article in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten which states that:
My translation.

The article goes on to say that climate models had only predicted that the Artic would become ice-free in some 30-40 years, but that if this unexpectedly faster trend continues, the Artic could be ice-free in as little as 15-20 years.

Scary stuff.

Scary if you live in Brazil or other equatorial parts of the world. But for us living in Wisconsin, USA?; can't wait for the day palm trees will start growing here and we can start fishing for Flounder.

And am I hearing right or are some scientists morons who think that ice melting over water will raise the sea level? (Think of a glass of ice water filled to the brim. Does the melted ice then cause the glass to overflow?..duh?)

 

[ConspiRaider]

Scary if you live in Brazil or other equatorial parts of the world. But for us living in Wisconsin, USA?; can't wait for the day palm trees will start growing here and we can start fishing for Flounder.

And am I hearing right or are some scientists morons who think that ice melting over water will raise the sea level? (Think of a glass of ice water filled to the brim. Does the melted ice then cause the glass to overflow?..duh?)

It's the ice sitting on top of land - islands for example - that when melting will of course raise sea level. And in fact new islands are being uncovered by the melting ice. If Greenland melts, that will have a direct effect on ocean levels.

Sea level rise is also caused by warming of the ocean. Warmer water - expanded volume. Bye-bye Manhattan Island.

The danger of the cap melting in summer is the loss of sunlight reflection, and therefore increased heat absorption.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Scary if you live in Brazil or other equatorial parts of the world. But for us living in Wisconsin, USA?; can't wait for the day palm trees will start growing here and we can start fishing for Flounder.

Scary in the sense that Global Warming, and all the associated changes this causes, may be occuring even faster than predicted.

And am I hearing right or are some scientists morons who think that ice melting over water will raise the sea level? (Think of a glass of ice water filled to the brim. Does the melted ice then cause the glass to overflow?..duh?)

No. Or rather yes, only a moron would think so.

 

[GT/CS]

Why would they compare it to the average from 1978-2000? I always get a little skeptical when people make such comparisons since it can mean that they are "cooking the books".

 

[DanishDynamite]

Why would they compare it to the average from 1978-2000? I always get a little skeptical when people make such comparisons since it can mean that they are "cooking the books".

Presumably because they started to amass reliable data on the coverage around 1978.

Satellites and stuff, you know. And no ice core drillings possible, you know.

 

[Iamme]

Wouldn't a real nice warm Earth feel wonderful? If the ocean levels rise significantly we can employ people who would earn money and stimulate the economy by having to take counter-active measures, such as dredging the sea so holes can be made to let the water into. If we play our cards right, we could utilize hydrogen energy to conduct the work so that we are not using up organic fuels for this project. The by-product would be more steamy vapor. This may lead to a tropics type climate. And it would rain more. But then we'd be able to grow more food, because of it! (The Lord thought of everything!)

Maybe I'm being a little silly...maybe... on what I just said. But suppose we allow SOME global warming to occur just to make it where life is more hosPITable in some of the more northerly and southerly lattitudes...and THEN try to halt it. Wouldn't that be a good compromise?

I live 'up north' where I saw some weeks of 45 below zero to even 54 below zero, and also there was an extra amount of snow. A double whammy. What a nightmare. My aunt and uncle managing a resort there moved to Arkansas! That kind of climate was unfit for a human being! I am just a few miles south of where that occured back in the late 60's-early 70's and now the winters here have been much warmer and tolerable. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. 15 below only! Ahhhhhh (never thougth I'd think THAT!)

 

[DanishDynamite]

Wouldn't a real nice warm Earth feel wonderful? If the ocean levels rise significantly we can employ people who would earn money and stimulate the economy by having to take counter-active measures, such as dredging the sea so holes can be made to let the water into. If we play our cards right, we could utilize hydrogen energy to conduct the work so that we are not using up organic fuels for this project. The by-product would be more steamy vapor. This may lead to a tropics type climate. And it would rain more. But then we'd be able to grow more food, because of it! (The Lord thought of everything!)

Maybe I'm being a little silly...maybe... on what I just said. But suppose we allow SOME global warming to occur just to make it where life is more hosPITable in some of the more northerly and southerly lattitudes...and THEN try to halt it. Wouldn't that be a good compromise?

I live 'up north' where I saw some weeks of 45 below zero to even 54 below zero, and also there was an extra amount of snow. A double whammy. What a nightmare. My aunt and uncle managing a resort there moved to Arkansas! That kind of climate was unfit for a human being! I am just a few miles south of where that occured back in the late 60's-early 70's and now the winters here have been much warmer and tolerable. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. 15 below only! Ahhhhhh (never thougth I'd think THAT!)

Indeed. How bad was Katrina, afterall?

 

[The Atheist]

Maybe I'm being a little silly...maybe... on what I just said. But suppose we allow SOME global warming to occur just to make it where life is more hosPITable in some of the more northerly and southerly lattitudes...and THEN try to halt it. Wouldn't that be a good compromise?

Yeah, what an outstanding idea! We design our houses, cars, roads and buildings for comfort - why the hell not increase comfort for us all and have a designer EARTH!?!? Give it an average three degrees warmer and even parts of Canada would become habitable!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

J
The article goes on to say that climate models had only predicted that the Artic would become ice-free in some 30-40 years, but that if this unexpectedly faster trend continues, the Artic could be ice-free in as little as 15-20 years.

I think I read this a few months ago. A study based on satellite imagery showed that the ice melt in the Arctic was some 30 years ahead of the scheduled predicted by most of the models.

I don't believe they said that the Arctic would be ice-free in the near future, did they?

If so, it would be pretty catastrophic. As ConspiRaider pointed out, it would mean a significant rise in sea level (at a time when more and more humans are living in coastal areas) and a big change in the Earth's albedo.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think I read this a few months ago. A study based on satellite imagery showed that the ice melt in the Arctic was some 30 years ahead of the scheduled predicted by most of the models.

I don't believe they said that the Arctic would be ice-free in the near future, did they?

They did in the article I quoted.

If so, it would be pretty catastrophic. As ConspiRaider pointed out, it would mean a significant rise in sea level (at a time when more and more humans are living in coastal areas) and a big change in the Earth's albedo.

It would not mean an increase in sea level, at least not directly. Polar ice is sea ice and hence doesn't directly affect the sea level. The reason for its melting might affect sea levels though, and the flush of sweet water into the oceans could very definitely affect currents.

 

[The Atheist]

If so, it would be pretty catastrophic. As ConspiRaider pointed out, it would mean a significant rise in sea level (at a time when more and more humans are living in coastal areas) and a big change in the Earth's albedo.

N.B. Conspi is only right as far as Greenland's ice melting. In a genuine example of "stopped clock" syndrome, Iamme is actually right about the polar cap - the melting of all of the ice makes no difference at all to the sea level.

The real danger for sea level is Antarctica, but it's still only a red herring anyway. Far more important is the lack of reflection of sunlight. If that has a cumulative effect, which it would well do, then we are in deep stuff.

 

[Rodney]

It would not mean an increase in sea level, at least not directly. Polar ice is sea ice and hence doesn't directly affect the sea level. The reason for its melting might affect sea levels though, and the flush of sweet water into the oceans could very definitely affect currents.

According to http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html --

In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, [Dr. Peter] Noerdlinger [a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada] demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

North Pole is melting faster than predicted

Reminds me of the story of the drunk TV weatherman, who supposedly pointed to the weather map and proclaimed:

" Well, there it is, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it .. "

Of course, we can prepare for it, but that's about it ..

I wonder what the melting ice cap version of ' being first in line at the Super Dome , so you can get the luxury sky boxes ' will be...

 

[a_unique_person]

Reminds me of the story of the drunk TV weatherman, who supposedly pointed to the weather map and proclaimed:

" Well, there it is, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it .. "

Of course, we can prepare for it, but that's about it ..

I wonder what the melting ice cap version of ' being first in line at the Super Dome , so you can get the luxury sky boxes ' will be...

We can cause it, but we can't not cause it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

N.B. Conspi is only right as far as Greenland's ice melting.

Please re-read his post. He said, the ice on top of islands. He also made the point about the ocean temperature causing some increase in volume.

And then there's the issue of loss of albedo which would only cause more global warming.

Yes, to lose all Arctic ice in the next 15-25 years would be catastrophic. Or is someone suggesting that only the floating ice is what's melting?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Indeed. How bad was Katrina, afterall?

A lot of the people who went through it, must not think it was too bad. They are spending billions of dollars just so they can be in the path of the next one...

 

[mhaze]

John Bailo's comment, from the message string following a section about melting sea ice at Gristmill - if I recall it was part of that

"How to sound really dumb while debating a skeptic on climate science" section.

Yeah right.

Warmer..and Loving It !

I was channel surfing between breaks in football Sunday and caught a few minutes of a Global Warming scare flick (I mean, PBS documentary). This one was about arctic ice melting.

First the narrator says that the ice of some lake was frozen "year round". But then the guide for the explorers says it was free "a few months a year". Well, never mind, because now it's ice free almost all year round. And guess what -- the native people there love it! Now they have free passage and trade.

The funny part is the hapless "environmentalists" who go through the village trying to get someone to say what a bad thing it is...and yet, everyone of the Aleuts seems to be liking the warm weather and open water!

There's one fellow, who they really try to arm twist. He says how its getting warmer and warmer there every year.
"Well, how do you feel about that?" says the environmentalist, a foot from the guy's face, with his enviro-buddies right behind him...looking like a bunch of hoods asking "you want this loan, don't cha?".

The guy nonchalantly says "oh, I think it's good. We're poor and warm weather means we'll spend less on fuel".

"But, but" sputters the environmentalist, "what about the polar bear!?!"
"Oh", says the Aleut, "he can go North...to where it's colder".

See, this was the first time I ever had sympathy with a tunda person, because he reacted and spoke like every other person that I know -- he likes warm weather and he likes to save money. He didn't go into some epileptic fit about "Shamanadoda" and start decrying the spirit of the Polar Bear.

Nope. He wanted to sip pina coladas and watch the ice melt!
​

 

[Gurdur]

N.B. Conspi is only right as far as Greenland's ice melting. In a genuine example of "stopped clock" syndrome, Iamme is actually right about the polar cap - the melting of all of the ice makes no difference at all to the sea level.

No, Iamme is unsurprisingly dead wrong. It has been said before, but melting of freshwater ice into a saltwater sea does indeed change volumes and also reactions to temperature change, meaning that very-large-scale melting of sea-floating ice would have some effect on sealevel.

The effect would not be large, but it would be there.

 

[mhaze]

If Greenland decided to start melting, it'd take a thousand years.

Ain't gonna happen.