Slashdot Log In
North Pole Ice On Track To Melt By September?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Jun 27, 2008 02:12 PM
from the new-swimming-holes dept.
from the new-swimming-holes dept.
phobos13013 writes "Recently released evidence is showing the North Pole ice is melting at the highest rate ever recorded. As a result, the Pole may be completely ice-free at the surface and composed of nothing but open water by September. As reported in September of last year, the Northwest Passage was ice-free for the first time known to man. The implications of this, as well as the causes, are still being debated. Are global warming experts just short-sighted alarmists? Are we heading for a global ice age? Or is the increase in global mean temperature having an effect on our planet?"
Related Stories
[+]
Science: Impassable Northwest Passage Open For First Time In History 528 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Northwest Passage, a normally ice-locked shortcut between Europe and Asia, is now passable for the first time in recorded history reports the European Space Agency. Leif Toudal Pedersen from the Danish National Space Centre said in the article: 'We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million sq km which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100 000 sq km per year on average, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is extreme.'"
[+]
Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift" 823 comments
dtjohnson writes "The National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during
the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led
to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square
kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received
emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered
regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns
out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking
sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it
is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice
extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so
the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
But lack of polar bears is good for seals. screw those polar bears and their radical bear agenda!
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
But the cod eat plankton. Screw those fish and their radical cod agenda!
-jcr
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
And, plankton take solar energy and convert it into stored food energy.
So, Global Warming = Less Polar Bears = More Seals = Less Cod = More Plankton = More Solar Conversion = Global Cooling!!!!
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez, this is the most asinine thread I've ever read. We start with some tasteless jokes about dying animals and end up with the argument that it's all no big deal because a little coastal flooding now and then is good. Let's not deal with the hard stuff, like the extinction of thousands of species, the loss of cropland, the reversal of the carbon cycle, increase in catastrophic weather, and the faint (but real) possibility that the whole thing will cycle out of control and render the planet uninhabitable. No, that would require giving up some smugness. And we at Slashdot value our smugness!
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
You sound like you plan on being part of the 99% who fail to survive the first 6 months. Tough luck.
It will be a wonderful and renewed world afterwards.
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
Those seals are not radial! They exhibit bilateral symmetry!
Note: the above is a marine biology joke. If you have not majored in Marine Biology, please go back to college and complete enough courses until the above is funny in context.
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
Or, go back and major in maths [xkcd.com]. You get all the jokes!
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
It's kind of gamey... like spotted owl and bald eagle.... :-D
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Informative)
Polar bears don't actually live 'at the pole':
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Polar_bear_range_map.png [wikimedia.org]
They live in areas around which, according to the article, have plenty of ice...
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
They live in areas around which, according to the article, have plenty of ice...
Damn...That must be why my freezer keeps growling at me.
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
Without these natural predators the population of Arctic researchers could reach dangerous levels.
Parent
Re:You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Informative)
Citation?
So many people toss around opinions without backup here I've given up on listening since the whole thing is such a hotpotato.
And anyways, massive coastal flooding only happens if the south pole melts (because it's actually on land). If you fill a glass with water and ice, just to the point of overflowing on the edges, and cubes are sticking out the top, when that ice melts, does your glass of water overflow? Same concept with the north pole here.
Parent
santa? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no! What will happen to santa and his elves, and the reindeer? Won't someone think of the reindeer?
Re:santa? (Score:5, Funny)
But Mommy I have been good this year.
Sorry Billy Santa dies from global warming, and it all because you had to go back to the house from school because you forgot your lunch.
Parent
Re:santa? (Score:5, Funny)
Santa's business has since long been outsourced. Just look at the gifts the kids get, and how many of them that are Made In China.
Parent
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
It's about fucking time those damn penguins get what they deserve.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the sound of that joke going way over your head.
Your remark interests me cause as a relative new slashdot member, I noticed that one of the main things I love about the threads here is the wonderful intermixing between jokes, facts, irony, wisdom and sarcasm.
Your reasonably funny joke, gave someone else the opportunity to spread a fact he's been sitting on for years. Besides all the funny guys, there are a lot of smart people dwelling here, and I for one welcome the knowledge especially in this intermixed way.
In other words. Take it easy..
Parent
Tell us in September (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not news. This is a prediction that there might be news in September.
If it doesn't happen, will we get an apology for misleading us?
Re:Tell us in September (Score:5, Informative)
It does contain news -- the news that the current melting rate of the polar ice is the highest recorded.
It's just that the rest of it is speculation.
Parent
From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
"The melt would be mostly symbolic--thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth's rotation, would still survive the summer."
So when we say the North Pole will melt we are talking about a point not the whole Artic ocean which is what impression one might get from the title.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
That's correct. The last estimate (2006) for a complete summer Arctic melt was the year 2013.
Before that it was 2038, and before that it was the year 2100...
Parent
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
Tropical diseases were once common in the southern US. It wasn't climate change which made them rare; it was public health and medicine.
Parent
What about that volcano under all that water? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the melting ice could have something to do with this:
AFP Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study [yahoo.com]
Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths [nationalgeographic.com]
Some analysis at:
Global Warming - Or Simply Massive Under Sea Volcanoes? [strata-sphere.com]
Re:What about that volcano under all that water? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a possibility, but I don't think it's an overly likely one.
My bet is that the difference between Northern and Southern ice cover trends is a lot more obvious if you care to look for it: Soot.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=impure-as-the-driven-snow [sciam.com]
Money quote: "and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming."
Not that this is Scientific American talking here, which is hardly a hotbed of AGW skepticism, to put it extremely mildly.
So "just" clean up all those dirty soot-emitting Chinese factories, and the Arctic will start freezing more.
This policy has the advantage of being A Really Fucking Good Idea(TM) whether you're a true believer in AGW all the way over to denying it completely.
Of course, in the real world, not only do we not discuss China's possible particulate-based contribution to GW, we even exempt them from even discussions about adhering to Kyoto, despite the fact that they've been the largest global C02 emitter two years running now and the rate of increase is accelerating...
Parent
Cryosphere Chart (Score:5, Informative)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ [uiuc.edu]
Best graph is :
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg [uiuc.edu]
My friends refer to it a climate-porn...
Can't say I strongly disagree since it has the feel of watching a loooong slow train wreck...
Re:Cryosphere Chart (Score:5, Funny)
My friends refer to it a climate-porn...
Can't say I strongly disagree since it has the feel of watching a loooong slow train wreck...
Are you implying that your porn resembles a loooong slow train wreck? I think you're doing it wrong.
Parent
Cyclic? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod me down if you will, but I heard one report that ice levels right now are higher than at the same time last year.
The NW Passage [wikipedia.org] has been open in the recent past from (1905 [wikipedia.org] - 1948 [hnsa.org]). Accurate measurement of the "melting" began in 1979, probably about the time ice coverage peaked. [newsbusters.org] As a cursory search will show, it has also been open in the more distant past as well.
The freeze/thaw of the arctic is clearly cyclic. Whether it is clear evidence of global warming or not is a question to be considered. Man's impact on this warming, if the warming is actually happening, is another question altogether.
The Cyrosphere Today (Score:5, Informative)
As shown here [uiuc.edu] and here [uiuc.edu] and here [uiuc.edu], the arctic ice extent is actually greater than last year, although lower than historical averages.
We seem to have conflicting data.
Re:1421 (Score:5, Informative)
That book was powerfully bitch-smacked it was so debunked after it came out.
I wouldn't take any details in it seriously... good book, interesting theory, but most of the evidence was fabricated or misinterpreted.
Parent
Re:1421 (Score:5, Interesting)
I just finished reading 1421, and my completely-layman, don't-know-enough-history-to-comment opinion was that it was interesting (and, sure, possible), but the author seemed to play pretty fast and loose with his evidence. Some of his claims (like the idea that the Bimini Road [wikipedia.org] was a construction to slide ships back into deeper water after repair) sounded pretty outlandish and not well researched. Others, such as his analysis of old maps and the routes ships would have taken, seemed plausible, but I don't have the background to evaluate them.
I've been looking for a good analysis of his claims, but haven't been able to find much beyond "he got detail X wrong, so it's all bogus." I'd like to read some better thought out critiques. If you have any links handy, I'd be much obliged.
Parent
Re:1421 (Score:5, Funny)
Just read a great book about China's 'discovery' of the America around 1421 and they were able to get their junks around Greenland, a feat not otherwise possible, but it was warm that year.
Just think how much they've progressed, now they can get their junks all the way to Walmart!
Parent
Re:1421 (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that book is widely considered to be poppycock [1421exposed.com]?
Parent
Re:Natural? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. No one credible believes that we are entirely responsible for the climate change, on the other hand no one credible disputes that we are contributing to it. No matter what the cause, the increased global temperature is a bad thing for us and thus it is in our best interest to stop contributing to the change ASAP.
Parent
Re:Natural? (Score:5, Insightful)
Adding insulation, better windows, more efficient air conditioner, florescent lights, and so on makes my home more valuable. It also reduces my electric bill, which means more money in my pocket. Same for cars. Less pollution is a side effect, albeit a good one. More to the point it lowers my gasoline consumption, again, more money in my pocket. And I happen to like clean air, so bonus!
Argue climate change all you want, green makes sense, if only from an economic standpoint. And why would anyone be against clean air and water?
Parent
Re:Natural? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Natural? (Score:5, Interesting)
I rather agree with you--people should stop kidding themselves. Global warming is not about saving the planet--this stuff has happened repeatedly and all this life is still here--its about saving humanity. Because if the other species out there that we require start dying off because there's too much C02 or its too hot or the ocean is to acidic, then we're screwed unless we can evolve fast enough. It gives a lot of credence to the idea of being stewards of the planet, since at this point we are realizing that what we do /can/ have an effect on the planet as a whole. At this point, we've already worried about polluting the world's oceans, causing worldwide nuclear winter, and now global warming. Either way, it seems to me that carbon is too good of an energy transport to give up, so we should leverage it. Biofuels anyone? What if I said we genetically engineered algae to make them for us? Well, sure, not yet, but that's the logical next step.
Parent
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, Chrichton. Because writing Jurassic Park is the only scientific credential that actually matters.
With all due respect, he's got an M.D., he's not a climatologist. I don't call a plumber when I'm sick; I don't ask an M.D.'s opinion on climate change.
Parent
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't call a plumber when I'm sick; I don't ask an M.D.'s opinion on climate change.
Then please, please tell me why anyone thinks Al Gore is remotely relevant on the issue of climate change!!!
Parent
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
True... now here's the converse: Al Gore is no climatologist, either - but that didn't stop him from writing a book and being pointed at as some sort of authority on climate by the populace at large.
Not trying to pick a debate, but I do want to point out something.
It doesn't require any sort of degree to use logic in order to take what's out there data-wise, and form a hypothesis (or opinion) that can withstand scrutiny. All that is required is logical skill, intellect, a lot of research, a little wisdom, and patience enough to see the argument (pro or con) come together.
I honestly don't care about who advances the opinion, I care about the logical progression of the argument. I also care about whether or not the supporting facts are as complete as possible, in context, and not in disregard of facts which oppose the conclusion. See also the reasons why ad hominem and appeals to authority are counted as fallacious.
Parent
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Do you believe that Michael Crichton has information that the climate scientists do not?
2) Do you believe Michael Crichton is smarter than the climate scientists and better able to interpret the data?
3) If either of these is true, what leads you to believe this?
Parent
Re:Why is this even being debated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who believes this isn't a man-made disaster has their speaking privileges taken away. Put on your dunce caps, go sit in the corner and shut the f&*k up.
Yes, absolutely. Instead of believing the propaganda from Big Oil that nothing is wrong, we should instead believe in the propaganda from political interests attempting to divert our attention from other matters and scientific communities whose funding is dependent on the support of those political interests that our doom is upon us and we must stop doing anything.
In no way will this turn out to be the same as most issues in popular science, where there is an underlying trend that we should consider changing, but whose likely effects will not be fully understood without much more research and in any case will occur subtly over a period of many years.
Parent
Re:Time to Grow Up (Score:5, Funny)
Almost.
But not quite.
Don't anthropomorphise Mother Nature. She hates it when you do that.
Parent
Re:Cycles (Score:5, Informative)
But at a scale a lot greater than the human one, our sun is growing fast. A couple hundredths of a percent every decade. So our faith is there. As the sun will grow larger and larger, our planet is going to heat more and more, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Bzzzztt!!! I call Bullsh-t.
WTF are you talking about? The sun is growing larger? Why would you pull something so incredibly obviously wrong out of your arse, and why would anybody be dumb enough to mod this up?
The output of the sun is so even and so predictable, it's called the "Solar Constant [wikipedia.org]". There is a variation of about 1 part per thousand over a 30-year cycle [wikipedia.org]. In short, the idea that the sun is getting hotter every year is not just wrong, it's absurdly so.
Come back when you have some "facts" that reflect reality, mmmkay?
Parent
Re:Why no rising sea level (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, free-floating ice is displacing 100% of the volume it would displace once melted.
Parent
Re:Is this being caused by . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Changes in solar energy output (the "ringing" of the Sun)?
Well that's certainly a hypothesis worth investigating. Thankfully people other than yourself did actually think about that one, and have done a significant amunt of research on the amount of solar variation and how much of the change in global average temperature over the last century or so is attributable to those variations. The short answer is that, while solar variation has contributed (around 30% according to the IPCC) it can't fully account for the observed temperature changes. Indeed, solar variation flattened off in the last few decades, while temperature continued to rise see here [wikipedia.org].
Naturally occuring changes in the planetary atmosphere (as has happened before on this planet)?
An interesting hpothesis; perhapsthe dramatic rise in CO2 has nothing to do with humans. Fortunately, again, other people thought of this possibility and actually did the research. Since fossil fuels have rather distinctive isotope ratios we can gauge how much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning by analysing the changing isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2. Unfortunately your hypothesis just isn't borne out; humans are responsible for the most recent dramatic rise in levels of atmospheric CO2.
But you get the point - when we at least have an educated guess as to the 'why'...
But we do have an educated guess as to why, significant amounts of research into that, and the alternative possibilities you suggest have been explored, and the results are that, to the very best of our current understanding, anthropogenic CO2 (and to a lesser degree other anthropogenic greenhouse gases) are a very significant factor -- indeed, the most significant -- in causing the observed increase in global average temperature. That rise in temperature is easily the prime candidate for blame with regard to melting arctic sea ice.
Parent