Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arctic ice faces accelerated meltdown
SpaceDaily ^ | 12/12/2006 | AFP

Posted on 12/12/2006 8:13:39 AM PST by cogitator

The worrying shrinkage of Arctic sea ice could accelerate dramatically in coming decades, leaving the planet's most northerly ocean virtually devoid of ice in summer by 2040, according to a study published on Tuesday.

The paper, which appeared in the US journal Geophysical Research Letters, mainly points the finger at greenhouse-gas emissions.

It warned that if carbon pollution continues to increase at present rates, the Arctic's normal cycle of freezing and thawing faces catastrophic disruption.

A simulation run by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Canada's McGill University predicted that the area covered by ice in September -- before new ice begins to form each year -- could shrink from about 5.9 million square kilometres to 1.9 million sq. kms. (2.3 million to 770,000 sq. miles) within a decade.

By 2040, "only a small amount of perennial sea ice" would remain along the north coasts of Greenland and Canada in summer, NCAR said in a press release.

In winter, ice thickness would be reduced from about 3.5 metres (about 12 feet) to less than a metre (three feet).

"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said NCAR scientist and lead author of the study, Marika Holland.

Greenhouse gases trap the Sun's heat, gradually forcing up Earth's surface temperature.

But several peripheral factors could also account for such a rapid meltdown.

Open water absorbs more sunlight than ice, accelerating the rate of warming and leading to more ice loss. In addition, global climate change is likely to drive warmer ocean currents into the Arctic region.

"This is a positive feedback loop with dramatic implications for the entire Arctic region," Holland said.

The shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap is viewed with alarm by scientists, as it appears to perturb important ocean currents elsewhere, notably the Gulf Stream, which gives western Europe its balmy climate.

It also threatens animals such as polar bears and seals that depend on ice -- as well as Inuits and other native peoples who hunt these animals and have to travel on thinner ice in this quest.

There are geopolitical implications, too, as Canada, Russia and the United States jockey to claim rights over transpolar passages that open up within their newly ice-free waters.

In September, European scientists unveiled satellite images from late August showing that perennial sea ice -- thick ice that is normally present year-round and is not affected by the Arctic summer -- had disappeared over an area bigger than the British Isles.

The study released Tuesday concludes that reduced rates of greenhouse gas emissions could slow the ice loss. "Our research indicates that society can still minimize the impacts on Artic ice," Holland said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: arctic; climate; climatechange; globalwarming; ice; melting; predictions; theskyisfalling; wereallgonnadie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-152 next last
To: cogitator

Cogitator:

The Vostok ice core data show that temperature increases occurred approximately 1,000 years before increases in CO2. Repeatedly, over several glaciations and deglaciations.

This suggests that rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of global warming.

How do you reconcile these data with the conjecture of anthopogenic global warming?


61 posted on 12/12/2006 10:25:21 AM PST by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Ten years is so quick, why bother trying to stop this process. It seems a turnaround is too late and we need to figure adaptive strategies.


62 posted on 12/12/2006 10:28:34 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
My question -- if the Arctic perennial ice cover actually shrinks this much in a decade, will Senator Inhofe still be claiming that global warming is a hoax?

The climate experts were TOTALLY OFF in their predictions of Atlantic hurricane activity this year. Therefore, the onus is on environmentalists to get a few predictions right before we assign them any credibility.

As others have pointed out, most of these eggheads know they are safe because they make predictions so far out in the future it is difficult to check their work. What we do know is all the most publicized doom mongers of the 70s and 80s were NOT CREDIBLE.

63 posted on 12/12/2006 10:29:40 AM PST by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zon

You're welcome. :) bttt


64 posted on 12/12/2006 10:34:35 AM PST by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

The U. of Colo. also believes this report. And if Inhofe really uses sciresearch that is not based on models, yes, he and others will tell Gore, the McGillites, that proof is needed with more research than their computer models.


65 posted on 12/12/2006 10:57:58 AM PST by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; All
Is it just my imagination, or are the predictions mellowing? I seem to recall predictions of 10 Degree Centigrade increases within 50 years, now I am seeing predictions of .6 to 2 degrees increase in 100 years. The hockey stick chart alone indicated that we should be 3 or 4 degrees hotter right now (if not more).

I recently read an article where 'scientists' said that aerosols caused more of a cooling than anticipated so they had to scale back their previous predictions. The same goes for predictions in the Antarctic (unaccounted for wind patterns), ocean temperature decreases ('scientists clueless'), lack of hurricanes hitting the US (El nino), failure of the oceans to rise 3 meters (unexplained),etc.

You probably have a very good database of predictions. Is there any way you could list them so that we could keep track of them and see how they pan out?
66 posted on 12/12/2006 11:26:58 AM PST by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
And did these morons, I mean 'scientists', ever consider that the increase cloud cover will reflect more sunlight and decrease the effects of global warming.

As a matter of certain fact, yes, they do consider that as a possibility. Cloud feedback effects are considered the top uncertainty in all GCMs. It is possible that cloud feedback effects could cancel out the effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. It will be VERY interesting to see what the next IPCC report says about clouds.

67 posted on 12/12/2006 11:59:29 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
If the hockey stick theory is so accurate, what made the glaciers disappear over the great lakes region and Canada over the last 20,000 years?

Glacial/interglacial changes are primarily driven by Milankovitch cycle forcing. Milankovitch cycles change the total amount of solar insolation the Earth receives. When the cycles positively or negatively reinforce each other, there are significant maxima and minima in solar insolation. These maxima and minima mark the glacial/interglacial transitions. The changes driven by solar insolation are reinforced by a positive or negative global temperature feedback driven by atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Now aren't you glad you asked? If you want to check and see if my basic description above is accurate, use Google.

68 posted on 12/12/2006 12:03:02 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Inhofe is correct, global warming is a misnomer.

The Antarctic is very isolated case.

69 posted on 12/12/2006 12:04:51 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
It will be VERY interesting to see what the next IPCC report says about clouds.

As if there is any doubt. The IPCC will conclude that clouds will accelerate global warming. It is not a scinece, it is an agenda.

70 posted on 12/12/2006 12:09:57 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
So can you quantify that for us. Is it 5%, 10%, 50% or 100%? I am positive the fear-mongering models assume it is nearly 100% and further assumes some acceleration factors in there for good measure.

Since I used the term "qualitative", quantifying it would be a mistake. The IPCC Third Report said "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." If most of the warming is attributable to human activities, then the human contribution is certainly not neglible, as I stated.

In many other FR discussions, I have pointed out that climate scientists have considered other climate forcing factors, such as solar activity and volcanoes, for the global climate since the mid-1850s. When you run the models using the known forcings from these, the models do not produce the observed warming. If anthropogenic CO2 is added, the models are close to the observed warming. If one asserts that anthropogenic CO2 is not to blame for the warming, then another "mytery" forcing of the same magnitude has to be found to replace it.

71 posted on 12/12/2006 12:11:14 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Mount Erebus simply must be plugged, or we will all freeze to death in our beds.

The emissions from Erebus do not affect stratospheric ozone. Since your posting tone was facetious, I hope that you already know this.

72 posted on 12/12/2006 12:12:25 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The Antartic is part of the globe cogitator.

You shouldn't be dishonest when you characterize Inhofes views. He acknowledges that the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age which is a good thing both substantively and politically.

Inhofes problem is with the Globaloneyists.

73 posted on 12/12/2006 12:13:08 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
Scientists are evenly split on the theory.

No, they're not. While there are a few skeptical holdouts, the vast majority acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

74 posted on 12/12/2006 12:14:16 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
How do you reconcile these data with the conjecture of anthopogenic global warming?

Simple, lagging CO2 concentrations are the leading edge of the next warming cycle. Fuzzy science.

75 posted on 12/12/2006 12:16:04 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The changes driven by solar insolation are reinforced by a positive or negative global temperature feedback driven by atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Pure speculation. There is nothing that supports that.

76 posted on 12/12/2006 12:16:59 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I am going to award this to every "earth will be devoid of life in months unless we confiscate everyone's freedom" story I see.


77 posted on 12/12/2006 12:18:39 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Kind of convenient that the early industrial age did not contribute to global cooling in the 30's and 40's. Cherry-picking data, typical of IPCC tactics.

78 posted on 12/12/2006 12:19:49 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
No, they're not. While there are a few skeptical holdouts, the vast majority acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

But how many buy into the catastrophic climate change predictions that appear daily in our newspapers and are posted by you?

79 posted on 12/12/2006 12:21:55 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
When you run the models using the known forcings from these, the models do not produce the observed warming. If anthropogenic CO2 is added, the models are close to the observed warming. If one asserts that anthropogenic CO2 is not to blame for the warming, then another "mytery" forcing of the same magnitude has to be found to replace it.

Of course they do. The models were made to fit the observed warming with their assumed anthropogenic CO2 effects. So when you remove that component, it no longer matches. Using models that were fitted to the data do not prove anything. You could easily change the effects of other components to match the data also.

80 posted on 12/12/2006 12:29:15 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-152 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson