As the Arctic's Winter Sea Ice Hits a New Record Low - What Happens Next? (msn.com) 89
The Washington Post reports that after months of polar darkness, the extent of sea ice blanketing the Arctic this winter "fell to the lowest level on record, researchers announced this week... the smallest maximum extent in the 47-year satellite record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
"Since then, the ice has already begun to melt again." "Sea ice is acting like the old canary in the coal mine," Dartmouth University geophysicist Don Perovich said. "It's saying loud and clear that warming is occurring...."
In the summer, when the sun's radiation shines down on the Arctic for 24 hours a day, the ice acts as a shield, reflecting more than half of the light that hits it back into space.... With so little sea ice in the Arctic this year, more sunlight will be able to reach the open ocean, which absorbs more than 90 percent of the radiation that hits it. This will further warm the region, accelerating ice melt and exposing even more water to the light. This feedback loop helps explain the rapid warming of the Arctic, and it is expected to lead to a complete lack of summer sea ice in the region within decades, [said explained Melinda Webster, a sea ice scientist at the University of Washington]. The consequences would be dire for seals, polar bears and other wildlife, which depend on a stable sea ice platform to birth their young and hunt for food. It would also expose miles of coastline to pounding ocean waves, accelerating the erosion that threatens to tip some communities into the sea.
But the effects will also be felt in places far from the poles, Perovich said. Studies suggest that a complete loss of Arctic sea ice would raise global temperatures as much as adding a trillion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Changes in the Arctic could also affect the jet stream, the river of winds that flows through the upper atmosphere, contributing to more extreme weather around the globe.
"What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic," Perovich said.
Earlier this year sea ice also fell 30% below the amount typical in the Antarctic prior to 2010, the researchers report. The total amount of sea ice on earth has now reached an all-time low, declining by more than a million square miles (2.5 million square kilometers) below the pre-2010 average.
"Altogether, Earth is missing an area of sea ice large enough to cover the entire continental United States east of the Mississippi."
"Since then, the ice has already begun to melt again." "Sea ice is acting like the old canary in the coal mine," Dartmouth University geophysicist Don Perovich said. "It's saying loud and clear that warming is occurring...."
In the summer, when the sun's radiation shines down on the Arctic for 24 hours a day, the ice acts as a shield, reflecting more than half of the light that hits it back into space.... With so little sea ice in the Arctic this year, more sunlight will be able to reach the open ocean, which absorbs more than 90 percent of the radiation that hits it. This will further warm the region, accelerating ice melt and exposing even more water to the light. This feedback loop helps explain the rapid warming of the Arctic, and it is expected to lead to a complete lack of summer sea ice in the region within decades, [said explained Melinda Webster, a sea ice scientist at the University of Washington]. The consequences would be dire for seals, polar bears and other wildlife, which depend on a stable sea ice platform to birth their young and hunt for food. It would also expose miles of coastline to pounding ocean waves, accelerating the erosion that threatens to tip some communities into the sea.
But the effects will also be felt in places far from the poles, Perovich said. Studies suggest that a complete loss of Arctic sea ice would raise global temperatures as much as adding a trillion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Changes in the Arctic could also affect the jet stream, the river of winds that flows through the upper atmosphere, contributing to more extreme weather around the globe.
"What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic," Perovich said.
Earlier this year sea ice also fell 30% below the amount typical in the Antarctic prior to 2010, the researchers report. The total amount of sea ice on earth has now reached an all-time low, declining by more than a million square miles (2.5 million square kilometers) below the pre-2010 average.
"Altogether, Earth is missing an area of sea ice large enough to cover the entire continental United States east of the Mississippi."
Drill baby drill (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't. Why do you?
Dill baby dill pickles for everyone! (Score:1)
He was obviously speaking collectively on behalf of our fading species and I would even consider it unlikely that he personally owns an SUV. But how do you [VT] think your cheap snipe contributed to a solution approach for the most generous possible interpretations of "contributed" or "solution"? Or perhaps it was a failed attempt at humor in search of even more generosity?
However I think the fossil fuel industries have lost their leadership edge on exterminating the species homo sapiens. True, their legacy
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He does not, and never has, spoken on behalf of anyone but himself. No matter how much he'd prefer otherwise.
You seem to be speaking on behalf of everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't make any sense. Oil companies don't have anywhere near enough control of "renewables" to monopolize them. The only way they could achieve that end would be to expand production and deployment of cheap renewables faster than anyone else which, as you indicate, is something they're actively opposing.
Re: (Score:3)
But the sunlight falling on my roof is mine. And the wind blowing through my farm is also mine.
There's no way to extract mega-profits, because there's competition in the PV cell market and wind turbine market.
So the big fossil fuel companies are working on climate change denial and tax breaks for their industry, but not the renewables.
Re: Drill baby drill (Score:2)
It takes years to get nuclear power plants online. Nuscale fell behind in development of their miniature plants. Biden funded them, but they will probably get turned up during Trumps adminâ¦and here you are ready to give him credit for them, even though he had nothing to do with it, instead focusing on drilling to solve energy issues, except we already drill as much as the oil companies want.
Re: (Score:2)
> If the fossil fuel industry has a stranglehold on public policy then why am I being spammed with phone calls about subsidies for putting solar panels on my roof?
Fact 1: YOU are getting phone calls because THE CALLER can EARN MONEY by selling something (solar panels or whatnot) directly to YOU.
Fact 2: One of the reasons that Exxon Mobil, BP or Equinor is not calling you is because do not have enough money to buy anything they sell directly.
Re: (Score:1)
Fact 1: YOU are getting phone calls because THE CALLER can EARN MONEY by selling something (solar panels or whatnot) directly to YOU.
Is this money only from me? No. The people calling me to buy solar panels know there's guarantees on funds from the government. They have a high probability of profit because of these subsidies even if I can't or won't pay.
Fact 2: One of the reasons that Exxon Mobil, BP or Equinor is not calling you is because do not have enough money to buy anything they sell directly.
How is it that they know they can't make money from me? I have a pretty basic SUV that burns gasoline, a fairly common furnace and water heater that burn natural gas. I have a propane generator and a gasoline generator (and there's a long story on why I own two generators) but I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that the fossil fuel companies are slowing the adoption of wind and solar?
They've got their PR people to tie renewables to a left-position, so that under conservative governments, the policies are to remove incentives to move to renewables and to maintain infrastructure that burns them.
Re: (Score:1)
They've got their PR people to tie renewables to a left-position, so that under conservative governments, the policies are to remove incentives to move to renewables and to maintain infrastructure that burns them.
I see. It is because of a view to a right leaning government that we see Tesla vehicles getting destroyed? How does that aid in the adoption of solar+batteries to avoid use of fossil fuels? I'm pretty certain that Tesla is a major producer of rooftop solar panels and batteries for everything from a single home to a utility grid.
Are people that lean politically to the right torching Tesla vehicles? If so then maybe your argument makes sense.
I've heard the current Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, speak
Re: It rose to a new low, not fell. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Especially if it kills a bunch of people. But they won't live long enough to enjoy it.
Re: It rose to a new low, not fell. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't state the name of the Democratic Party correctly, then I have to doubt whether your opinions of it are objective.
And it seems they aren't. You claim that Democratic Party voters are in favor of nuclear energy, but the leadership opposes it quietly. You provide evidence for the former but not the latter. "Quiet" opposition is indistinguishable from nonexistent opposition.
The fact is that both parties now support nuclear energy. [ans.org] However, they may differ in their support for renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't state the name of the Democratic Party correctly, then I have to doubt whether your opinions of it are objective.
Go type "democrat" in your favored web search tool and tell me what comes up. This was the first result for me: https://democrats.org/ [democrats.org]
Members of the Democratic Party call themselves Democrats. If you want to be a pedantic ass on nomenclature then I can play that game too. Show me where I screwed up on the nomenclature.
And it seems they aren't. You claim that Democratic Party voters are in favor of nuclear energy, but the leadership opposes it quietly. You provide evidence for the former but not the latter. "Quiet" opposition is indistinguishable from nonexistent opposition.
Okay, if Democrats aren't opposed to nuclear power then where is their support? I'm old enough to remember the debates between Obama and McCain. I remember McCain saying we need to build
Re: (Score:2)
Will the global warming catastrophe crowd be happy when the next ice age starts in 10,000 years?
I'm sure the global warming will be offset by nuclear winter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I'll believe in catastrophic global warming when the banshees screaming about the threat of nuclear power go quiet.
There's lots of government support for nuclear, Germany excepted - the 'banshees' are being ignored, on the whole. The issue is that even with government subsidies, it doesn't seem to be profitable enough to convince companies to invest in it. According to you, the issue is regulation, in which case please let us know which ones are to be dispensed with.
It appears that American Democrats have been losing their fear of nuclear power
Democratic presidents have been funding research into new nuclear technology since Obama's first term.
they just have to keep quiet about their opposition
It's obviously cunningly hidden behind the funding.
Re: (Score:1)
There's lots of government support for nuclear, Germany excepted - the 'banshees' are being ignored, on the whole. The issue is that even with government subsidies, it doesn't seem to be profitable enough to convince companies to invest in it. According to you, the issue is regulation, in which case please let us know which ones are to be dispensed with.
The bans should be dispensed with.
Democratic presidents have been funding research into new nuclear technology since Obama's first term.
Since Obama's first term? And only the presidents? I'm underwhelmed as that means two whole people out of hundreds of people from the party elected to federal office.
Just how much "support" for nuclear power was shown in appointing Gregory Jaczko as chairman of the NRC? Do you believe Obama was ignorant of Jaczko's belief that nuclear power should be banned? I believe Obama did know, and appointed him knowing he'd be a monkeywrench in the works for new nuclear power pla
Re: (Score:2)
The bans should be dispensed with.
That only affects Germany, though.
Democratic presidents have been funding research into new nuclear technology since Obama's first term.
Since Obama's first term? And only the presidents?
Obviously, it requires significant support to actually get funding through. Obama particularly championed it, though.
Do you believe Obama was ignorant of Jaczko's belief that nuclear power should be banned?
The belief he formed after he left his job.
appointed him knowing he'd be a monkeywrench in the works for new nuclear power plants.
New plants hadn't be built under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Can I remind you " I'm underwhelmed as that means two whole people out of hundreds of people "
Democrats love to fund research, they'll fund research
They should subsidise the nuclear industry instead? Are you in favour of subsidy?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the language bothered me too. But the meaning was pretty clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to criticize that phrase, the correct criticism would be that they didn't say how think the layer of ice would be. It makes a big difference whether they're talking about a layer 5 molecules thick or one 5 meters thick.
Re: (Score:2)
We continue with the delusion that reducing emissions is going to happen, and that it will reverse global warming. Also, that there is nothing else but this.
Re:What happens next? (Score:5, Interesting)
We continue with the delusion that reducing emissions is going to happen, and that it will reverse global warming. Also, that there is nothing else but this.
I believe reducing emissions will happen. What it will take is showing people what that means and letting it sink it.
Look at a list of nations by CO2 emissions per capita, such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sort the list from lowest to highest on CO2 emissions per capita and then scroll down until you see a nation you would not mind moving to. By that I mean the nation has a high standard of living, isn't in some kind of shooting war, fairly democratic government, provides a relatively high access to most any product or service you desire, or whatever else you'd think of as a place you'd live than just visit for the sights and food.
The first that jumps out to me is Sweden. I don't know much about Sweden, I just expect it is a nice place though perhaps a bit "crisp" or "chilly" given its location. Where does Sweden get their energy? Quite a bit comes from biomass and hydro, with a fair bit from nuclear. That works for nations with the right climate and geography but not a plan any nation can follow. The next nation that pops out to me is France. It appears to be a nice place though I've heard of some issues from immigrants. Where does France get their energy? They get a large bit from nuclear fission, and nuclear fission is a low CO2 producing energy source that any nation can implement.
Keep going down the list of nations with low CO2 per capita and see where the "nice" nations get their energy and you should see a pattern. They get energy from hydro and nuclear fission with a few nations also doing well with wind, geothermal, and/or biomass.
I expect to see reducing emissions as people wise up on what gives them the best life as fossil fuel prices rise from wars, scarcity, and other restrictions on supplies. Are there rivers worth a dam for more hydroelectric power? Are there winds sweeping over open plains? Are there hot spots near the surface for geothermal? Is there an abundance of fertile land, water, sun, and labor for cheap biomass fuels? If not then I guess people will have to turn to nuclear fission or see their quality of life diminish as the supplies of fossil fuels diminish.
I expect CO2 emissions to fall. I don't expect CO2 emissions to fall because of some international effort to reduce CO2 emissions. I expect CO2 emissions to fall because as prices rise on fossil fuels more nations will turn to nuclear fission to keep their energy costs low. Efforts in energy efficiency will absolutely play a part but we can't use energy efficiency efforts to get energy consumption to zero. The safest, most reliable, and lowest cost energy for the future will be nuclear fission. The exceptions to that will be regions blessed with ample supplies of wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass.
Those that believe solar PV and batteries will reduce CO2 and energy costs drank the kool-aid. Can anyone show me a nation that lowered CO2 emissions and their energy costs by increasing reliance on PV + batteries?
Maybe, perhaps, possibly, some nation got to lower CO2 emissions without rising energy costs with a combination of solar PV and some storage method other than batteries, such as pumped hydro. That's a method only available to nations with a climate and geography favorable to pumping water uphill, not something that can be applied generally. The general solution will call for some amount of nuclear fission in the energy mix, just how much a region would need to rely on nuclear fission depends on access to energy from wind, hydro, biomass, and geothermal.
Re: (Score:2)
I admire your optimism. We have been at this emissions reduction thing for some years now. How much have global emissions gone down?
I am happy about Sweden and the other nice nations. Maybe all the non-nice nations will copy them and all will be well.
BTW, if you need an example of a nation that has reduced its carbon emissions, look no further than the USA.
But just in case your Pollyanna-ish scenario does not pan out, do you have a contingency plan?
Re: (Score:2)
My question regarding a contingency plan was the plan in the event of emissions not reducing. Your response is entirely about reducing emissions, which is not the premise. In my opinion, the likelyhood of emissions reducing sufficiently in the required timeframe, is very low. So a non-emissions contingency is essential.
Re: (Score:1)
The contingency to not seeing a reduction in CO2 emissions is adaption.
If this is a matter of rising sea levels then adaptation means cities building seawalls, moving buildings inland, requiring structures on pylons/stilts/whatever and so on. I've seen this already with a road I traveled on regularly being raised about 8 feet to avoid flooding. I've seen changes in construction where the lowest floor of a commercial or apartment building is a parking space than living space. Should the low level parking
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your considered responses.
Re: Climate goobs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree we need to give nuclear power another chance and research on better reactors is badly needed.
I don't know if research on better reactors is "badly needed" as I've watched a few videos on YouTube lately that show boiling water reactors (BWR), pressurized heavy water reactors (PWR), and molten salt reactors (MSR) have already been well developed and if we'd only build more of them we'd be doing quite well.
We should certainly be doing research but I'd rather we do development. Development means building things. It is because we have been building a lot of windmills and solar PV panels that the costs
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand that it is upsetting to you to be constantly reminded that the climate is changing dramatically with consequences for "life as we know it".
However, it is also true that not enough progress is being made to "stop burning stuff" so people need to be constantly nagged to draw their attention back to the problem.
Renewable energy is the solution. Wind and solar reduce the amount of stuff that is burned. Plastic and chemical pollution is also slowly killing us so that should be stopped. We're not bui
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto for anyone who thinks nuclear is a better solution than renewables. The reason is because neither nuclear nor renewables provides the load-following power that we need.
Neither nuclear nor renewables provides the load-following power that we need, and so the carbon-free solution for both is grid storage.
Re: (Score:1)
Even IF we concede that climate change/global warming/whatever it's being called this year is real
So what you're saying is "even if we don't deny objective reality"?
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have any evidence at all of any "green" policy "destroying the economy?" If you're going to fret about policies that have a negative impact on the economy, you'll have plenty of data from the present administration in the USA to examine in the near future.
Re: (Score:3)
"I will start being more careful with my campfires when the US Forestry Service stops intentionally starting fires."
I'd like to discuss it but... (Score:1, Troll)
Don't wait for any data from the feds because it has likely been banned and the people who work on it laid off.
Re: (Score:1)
Why pose that question anonymously?
I don't use the term "climate change" since it is ambiguous and nonsensical. When was the global climate optimal? Was it in 1985? Was it during the Jurassic period some 200 million years ago? The climate changes, and will continue to change as the sun slowly burns out and Earth's orbit slowly decays. The concern isn't "climate change" it is global warming. More specifically it is catastrophic global warming from human activity.
If I'm not taking global warming serious
Next? Predicting ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As the Arctic's Winter Sea Ice Hits a New Record Low - What Happens Next?
<sarcasm>
The current U.S. administration will disband whichever agency monitors/studies this, and stop funding to any universities that do, 'cause if we don't know about it it doesn't happen -- like how during the first term we wouldn't have had any COVID cases if the testing stopped (Trump on coronavirus: ‘If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any’ [thehill.com])and how we won't have climate change w/o NOAA, or fewer tornadoes, hurricanes, etc... w/o the National Weather Service (maybe not even weather!).
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
So don't ask don't tell, eh? /s
One thing for sure, he will not see it happening so he does not care.
Suffer. (Score:2, Troll)
What happens now is obvious: humanity and its progeny will suffer the consequences while trying to distract from the fact that they knowingly caused this long-term problem in order to reap short-term gains. The impact on the ecosystem will be significant and increasing. There is no bright side to this story because it's story about the inexhaustible supply of human selfishness that is harming the ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
[...] new trade routes and agriculture will flourish in the northern latitudes while the lower 48 turns into a dust bowl/swamp.
It's not that simple. For crops to grow, you need soil, seasonal temperature variation, and seasonal rainfall patterns all to be compatible. Maybe you can evolve something edible that will grow in the new environment, but it would take time, assuming you could do it at all. I'd rather not take that risk.
Livestock may adapt more quickly, but they still need to eat plants, so, see above. And will bees still be around? We need them to pollenate (some?) crops.
All in all, I think it's better to try to keep clima
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, new trade routes and agriculture will flourish in the northern latitude
It take centuries for the soils to develop to allow anything to flourish. And the further north it gets, the less land there is. Don't look at the Mercator projection.
Simple answer... fire the scientists (Score:2)
Obviously the easiest solution to this is to fire the scientists who are recording the state of Arctic ice. Problem solved... no longer a way to guilt us into not consuming more and more and more.
Re: Simple answer... fire the scientists (Score:1)
After this...the water and boat prices will rise. (Score:2)
So... invest in marine. Build the arks. Learn to sail. Learn to fish. /s.