Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77
  1. #1
    Cowboy up
    Reputation: Art853's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,751

    Arctic sea ice deathwatch

    Arctic sea ice is in decline and ice volume is in it's lowest level ever in recorded history according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) director Mark Serreze.

    Serreze wrote:

    “I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It’s not going to recover,” he said.

    There can be no recovery because tremendous amounts of extra heat are added every summer to the region as more than 2.5 million square kilometres of the Arctic Ocean have been opened up to the heat of the 24-hour summer sun. A warmer Arctic Ocean not only takes much longer to re-freeze, it emits huge volumes of additional heat energy into the atmosphere, disrupting the weather patterns of the northern hemisphere, scientists have now confirmed.




    If the Arctic becomes six degrees warmer, then half of the world’s permafrost will likely thaw, probably to a depth of a few metres, releasing most of the carbon and methane accumulated there over thousands of years, said Vladimir Romanovsky of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks and a world expert on permafrost.

    Methane is a global warming gas approximately 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2).

    That would be catastrophic for human civilisation, experts agree. The permafrost region spans 13 million square kilometres of the land in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and parts of Europe and contains at least twice as much carbon as is currently present in the atmosphere – 1,672 gigatonnes of carbon, according a paper published in Nature in 2009. That’s three times more carbon than all of the worlds’ forests contain.

    “Permafrost thawing has been observed consistently across the entire region since the 1980s,” Romanovsky said in an interview.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/2...-death-spiral/

    Sea ice extent is the third lowest in recorded history.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Image
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=46282
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Arctic sea ice deathwatch-arcticseaice.jpg  
    Last edited by Art853; 11-08-2010 at 01:13 AM.

  2. #2
    Cowboy up
    Reputation: Art853's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,751
    What year will the arctic be ice free in the summer?


    The prevailing view among climate scientists had been that an ice-free Arctic ocean would occur in the 2070 - 2100 time frame. The February 2007 report from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that without drastic changes in greenhouse gas emissions, Arctic sea ice will "almost entirely" disappear by the end of the century. The recent observations and the Holland et al. model study suggest that it is conceivable that a complete loss of summer Arctic sea ice will occur far earlier. In a 2007 interview published in The Guardian, Dr. Mark Serreze, an Arctic ice expert with the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice, then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our children's lifetimes."

    http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp


    New norm in the Arctic
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...arctic-change/

  3. #3
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    41,177

    oh come on now

    Global Warming is a hoax by that Socialist Al Gore and the Evil Cabal at the UN

    I live in San Diego and we're having the wettest, coldest autumn in years
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    51,189
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    Global Warming is a hoax by that Socialist Al Gore and the Evil Cabal at the UN

    I live in San Diego and we're having the wettest, coldest autumn in years
    I left northwest New Mexico during the coldest winter in years to go to Boot Camp in San Diego, thrilled to be headed for the warm shores of California. Damned near froze to death in that cold wet windy place.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    14,731

    you're right Snake..

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit
    I left northwest New Mexico during the coldest winter in years to go to Boot Camp in San Diego, thrilled to be headed for the warm shores of California. Damned near froze to death in that cold wet windy place.
    those who live in a temperate climate region will never truly understand.

  6. #6
    Cowboy up
    Reputation: Art853's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,751
    Jeff Master's wrote on Wunderblog on August 27, 2010

    The Northwest and Northeast Passages are open

    The Northwest Passage--the legendary shipping route through ice-choked Canadian waters at the top of the world--melted free of ice last week, and is now open for navigation, according to satellite mosaics available from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. This summer marks the fourth consecutive year--and fourth time in recorded history--that the fabled passage has opened for navigation. Over the past four days, warm temperatures and southerly winds over Siberia have also led to intermittent opening of the Northeast Passage, the shipping route along the north coast of Russia through the Arctic Ocean. It is now possible to completely circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean in ice-free waters, and this will probably be the case for at least a month. This year marks the third consecutive year--and the third time in recorded history--that both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005, and the Northwest Passage in 2007. It now appears that the opening of one or both of these northern passages is the new norm, and business interests are taking note--commercial shipping in the Arctic is on the increase, and there is increasing interest in oil drilling. The great polar explorers of past centuries would be astounded at how the Arctic has changed in the 21st century.

    Image:Arctic sea ice extent image for August 24, 2010, as compiled by The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. The northern route (Western Parry Channel) through the Northwest Passage was completely clear of ice, as was the Northeast Passage. The southern route through the Northwest Passage was still partially blocked.

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=1589
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Arctic sea ice deathwatch-northwestpassage.jpg  

  7. #7
    Cowboy up
    Reputation: Art853's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,751
    Shippers are using the Northeast passage to ship between Europe and Asia.
    in September, a vessel loaded with iron traveled through the Northeast Passage from Norway to Qingdao, China, the first such voyage on record.
    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...est-on-record/

    On September 4, the ship left Kirkenes, on Norway's northern tip - and headed east. Christian Bonfils, managing director of the Nordic Bulk Carriers, a Danish ship operator, said his ship's captain found open water 85 percent of the way:

    "If there is a lot of ice, you cannot go full speed," said Christian Bonfils. "But with the ice we saw and experienced, we managed to go full speed almost all way."
    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...103728404.html

  8. #8
    Palm trees & sunshine!
    Reputation: KenB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    24,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Art853
    But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our children's lifetimes."


    Looks like I WILL own beach front property in my lifetime!


    supervillain

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    11,550
    Quote Originally Posted by KenB
    Looks like I WILL own beach front property in my lifetime!
    Yeah when is a rise in sea level suppose to become noticeable. I grew up near the beaches on the east coast and they still seem about the same as ever. Are we going to see the shorelines moving inland soon, lots of farms on the coast in DE, shouldn't salt water levels be rising, spoiling the fields, etc.?

    I'm just asking out of curiosity. I can recall from my childhood when the ponds/lakes use to freeze in my hometown, and that never happens anymore, hasn't for a long time.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation: Alpha & Omega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,572
    BTW, the Northwest Passage is CANADIAN waters. Not an international route.

    Just so you Yankees don't get any funny ideas.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    14,731

    it already has...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwayne Barry
    Yeah when is a rise in sea level suppose to become noticeable. I grew up near the beaches on the east coast and they still seem about the same as ever. Are we going to see the shorelines moving inland soon, lots of farms on the coast in DE, shouldn't salt water levels be rising, spoiling the fields, etc.?

    I'm just asking out of curiosity. I can recall from my childhood when the ponds/lakes use to freeze in my hometown, and that never happens anymore, hasn't for a long time.
    just not in your back yard. google it. some Islands along Africa, India, Panama, and Indonesia I believe are already dealing with it. Also various tribal villages in Alaska as well are having to relocate.
    excuse me, but this is a typical and somewhat dangerous viewpoint on the world. its' not happening to me, so it's not happening.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3940399.stm
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66A2N320100711
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8369236.stm
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-...lock-seas.html
    Last edited by bahueh; 11-08-2010 at 09:41 AM.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    11,550
    Quote Originally Posted by bahueh
    excuse me, but this is a typical and somewhat dangerous viewpoint on the world. its' not happening to me, so it's not happening.
    Well i don't know what exactly is dangerous about it unless you assume I'm not going to change my behavior because I'm assuming man-made global warming isn't real.

    Really just an honest question.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    14,731

    not dangerous..

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwayne Barry
    Well i don't know what exactly is dangerous about it unless you assume I'm not going to change my behavior because I'm assuming man-made global warming isn't real.

    Really just an honest question.
    from you per se, just a somewhat dangerous way of questioning in general.
    these types of things are easily checked in today's internet age, yet it's that same method of fact checking that drives denialist groups. I didn't make an assumption about what you think or believe.

    sea levels are driven by tidal influences, currents, thermal expansion, the jet stream, etc. your beach may not change for some time, but it will change.
    Last edited by bahueh; 11-08-2010 at 12:51 PM.

  14. #14
    waterproof*
    Reputation: Creakyknees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    40,592
    My stock answer to the global warming threads: so what?

    What, specifically, do you propose to do about it? Please illustrate how your proposals will prevent / mitigate the negative consequences, at lower net cost to society than alternative proposals including "do nothing."

    Thanks,

    p.s. this may involve math.
    * posted by Creakybot 2013 all rights reserved.
    * not actually waterproof.

  15. #15
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwayne Barry
    Yeah when is a rise in sea level suppose to become noticeable. I grew up near the beaches on the east coast and they still seem about the same as ever. Are we going to see the shorelines moving inland soon, lots of farms on the coast in DE, shouldn't salt water levels be rising, spoiling the fields, etc.?

    I'm just asking out of curiosity. I can recall from my childhood when the ponds/lakes use to freeze in my hometown, and that never happens anymore, hasn't for a long time.
    It's complicated because sea level doesn't rise at the same rate everywhere (gravity from continents causes water to "pile up" in some places). Moreover, the coasts are also moving (some places, such as the U.S. Gulf coast, are subsiding), so you'd get sea level rise in some places even without global warming.

    For the global average sea level rise, it's risen by about 2 inches in the last 25 years. That rate wouldn't be a disaster. What we're worried about is (a) it's speeding up; in the last 20 years, sea level rose about 25% faster than in any other 20-year period on record (the record is reliable going back about 115 years). And (b), we worry even more about sudden changes where something breaks and the rate of sea-level rise jumps dramatically (e.g., ice sheets on W. Antarctica or Greenland destabilize and rapidly disintegrate).

    We don't have good timetables or predictions on any of this. We just don't understand glacier dynamics enough to predict sea level rise with any certainty. Right now, the sea level is rising about 50% faster than the IPCC predicted (and you know how alarmist the IPCC is accused of being).

    But... and it's important to understand this: Loss of arctic sea ice (what Art is talking about here) is completely different from loss of glaciers on land. Arctic sea ice is already floating on water, so when it melts there's no significant change in sea level. Sea level rise is driven by thermal expansion of water (a small effect that we can predict confidently) and melting of glaciers on land (a large effect that we can't predict well). The details of the things that cause glaciers to melt are quite different from the things that cause sea ice to melt, so you can't use one to predict the other.
    Anything that doesn't take years of your life and drive you to suicide hardly seems worth doing. ---- Cormac McCarthy

    A man can get disouraged many times, but he is not a failure until he begins to blame somebody else and stops trying --- John Burroughs

  16. #16
    banned
    Reputation: Alpha & Omega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,572
    Just out of curiosity, is there anyone on this board who still believes that AGCC is a hoax?

  17. #17
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Creakyknees
    What, specifically, do you propose to do about it?
    I was on a panel about the Law of the Sea treaty with a guy from the Navy who was saying that the melting of the polar ice is a real national-security issue because:
    • The Canadians assert the Northwest passage is their territorial water, so unless the U.S. ratifies this treaty, we don't have grounds to assert our right to send our warships or merchant ships through it.
    • As the Arctic ice disappears, Russia and Canada are asserting mineral rights to the Arctic sea floor, including possible huge oil deposits. If we don't ratify the treaty, we're out in the cold on mineral rights. Also, there's saber rattling between Russia and Canada (overflights of bombers, etc.) that are at least a small cause for concern.
    U.S. military sees a lot of national security issues around global warming (e.g., the floods in Pakistan this summer had major implications for the power Islamic extremists have in the country, and if climate change causes events like that to be more common, the military needs to plan for it). DoD has put out some big calls for research proposals to study the national security implications of natural disasters related to global warming.

    On more mundane matters (separate from sea ice disappearing), if sea level is going to rise, you want to start thinking about which cities to abandon and which ones to protect with expensive sea walls. If global warming is going to lead to massive droughts in the plains states and Southwest, then we need to start thinking about how agriculture can adapt. If the Colorado River is going to go dry for the next century, we need to think about whether to abandon Phoenix and Las Vegas or find other sources of water for them.

    If global warming is going to compromise the supply of cooling water to nuclear reactors, then we need to take that into account in siting the reactors (reactors in Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia have been having real problems the last several years with summer water being too hot for the cooling system and rivers running too low to provide adequate cooling water, even when the temperature is acceptable).

    For all of these measures, they'll cost a lot less if we plan them coherently and start implementing them long before they're needed. If we wait until a crisis is upon us and have to respond hastily, it will be much more expensive and difficult.
    Anything that doesn't take years of your life and drive you to suicide hardly seems worth doing. ---- Cormac McCarthy

    A man can get disouraged many times, but he is not a failure until he begins to blame somebody else and stops trying --- John Burroughs

  18. #18
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha & Omega
    Just out of curiosity, is there anyone on this board who still believes that AGCC is a hoax?
    There are.
    Anything that doesn't take years of your life and drive you to suicide hardly seems worth doing. ---- Cormac McCarthy

    A man can get disouraged many times, but he is not a failure until he begins to blame somebody else and stops trying --- John Burroughs

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,622

    my proposal...

    Quote Originally Posted by Creakyknees
    My stock answer to the global warming threads: so what?

    What, specifically, do you propose to do about it? Please illustrate how your proposals will prevent / mitigate the negative consequences, at lower net cost to society than alternative proposals including "do nothing."

    Thanks,

    p.s. this may involve math.
    Use nuclear winter to counter global warming!

    Nuke a couple of small countries, say about the size of Iran and North Korea. The resulting smoke and particles would block the sunlight and lower the earth's temperature.

  20. #20
    AJL
    AJL is offline
    Rock on!
    Reputation: AJL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    And (b), we worry even more about sudden changes where something breaks and the rate of sea-level rise jumps dramatically (e.g., ice sheets on W. Antarctica or Greenland destabilize and rapidly disintegrate).
    If the ice sheets rapidly melt, that would cause a decrease in the earth's albedo (reflectivity) which would accelerate the rate of warming. Oh my, what fun
    “In an honest search for knowledge, you quite often have to abide by ignorance for an indefinite period.”
    – Erwin Schrödinger, 1948

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,936
    Quote Originally Posted by robwh9
    Use nuclear winter to counter global warming!

    Nuke a couple of small countries, say about the size of Iran and North Korea. The resulting smoke and particles would block the sunlight and lower the earth's temperature.
    why not the American west and east coast? would lower the worlds oil consumption as well, at least compared to nuking iran or NK. win/win.
    Blows your hair back.

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    11,550
    Fredke, thanks, just what I was looking for from someone with some knowledge on the subject.

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,392
    Quote Originally Posted by robwh9
    smoke and particles

    If I'm not mistaken, global dimming is already ameliorating global warming.

    Those of us alive in 1950 lived in a United States that received 10% more sunlight than in 1990. Maybe it's now 15%.

    Perhaps the effects of global warming are being masked; perhaps as we and China clean the air the atmosphere will warm still more quickly, etc.

  24. #24
    Cowboy up
    Reputation: Art853's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,751
    Time series satellite images of Arctic sea ice extent.

    The Cryosphere Today
    Past 30 days: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    You can also download a decades long animation.

    NASA Earth Observatory
    Hit play: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ge/sea_ice.php

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    51,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    I was on a panel about the Law of the Sea treaty with a guy from the Navy who was saying that the melting of the polar ice is a real national-security issue because:
    • The Canadians assert the Northwest passage is their territorial water, so unless the U.S. ratifies this treaty, we don't have grounds to assert our right to send our warships or merchant ships through it.
    • As the Arctic ice disappears, Russia and Canada are asserting mineral rights to the Arctic sea floor, including possible huge oil deposits. If we don't ratify the treaty, we're out in the cold on mineral rights. Also, there's saber rattling between Russia and Canada (overflights of bombers, etc.) that are at least a small cause for concern.
    U.S. military sees a lot of national security issues around global warming (e.g., the floods in Pakistan this summer had major implications for the power Islamic extremists have in the country, and if climate change causes events like that to be more common, the military needs to plan for it). DoD has put out some big calls for research proposals to study the national security implications of natural disasters related to global warming.

    On more mundane matters (separate from sea ice disappearing), if sea level is going to rise, you want to start thinking about which cities to abandon and which ones to protect with expensive sea walls. If global warming is going to lead to massive droughts in the plains states and Southwest, then we need to start thinking about how agriculture can adapt. If the Colorado River is going to go dry for the next century, we need to think about whether to abandon Phoenix and Las Vegas or find other sources of water for them.

    If global warming is going to compromise the supply of cooling water to nuclear reactors, then we need to take that into account in siting the reactors (reactors in Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia have been having real problems the last several years with summer water being too hot for the cooling system and rivers running too low to provide adequate cooling water, even when the temperature is acceptable).

    For all of these measures, they'll cost a lot less if we plan them coherently and start implementing them long before they're needed. If we wait until a crisis is upon us and have to respond hastily, it will be much more expensive and difficult.
    Thank God we have recently become aware that Canada doesn't need our protection. As far as mineral deposits in that region, let the Russians and Canadians have them and battle Greenpeace on their own. Doesn't matter who has the damned oil, we will be running on wind power by that time.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook