It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
“From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water,” said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado…
“The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the NorthPole is covered with extensive first-year ice – ice that formed last autumn and winter. I’d say it’s even-odds whether the North Pole melts out,” said Dr Serreze.
All’s right with the world. Eh?
Don’t forget, the North Pole will reach Siberia in 50 years time,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_051209_pole_shift.html
Here’s an interesting article on a possible large error in current global warming theory from Physorg. It may be that cause and effect of cloud formation has been misinterpreted.
@bubbaray…”AA Forces Autistic Toddler And Mom Off Flight”. So autistic toddlers are the cause of global warming?
[Ed. Fixed]
Yea!==and as far as I’m concerned its also unprovable that pink unicorns live in my back yard.
Lets see…..what else did you not claim?
I think we should listen to anonymous bloggers, radio pundits and talking heads on conservative TV, because they are better authorities on climate science than climate scientists are.
Whoopee were all gonna die.
But I ask you which place do more people want to live. Alaska or Florida. Global warming may be good for some.
Poler bears are surly. Never met one I liked.
rubes
I hope this happens so I can sell that beachfront property I have in Idaho.
they’re so dumb we call them dumb and they like it
I fully support Global Warming efforts.
This image is proof that Photoshop causes global warming.
Of course, global warming will be good for some. I met some successful small businessmen in Auschwitz who made a tidy profit during the war from the nice visitors working at the recreation camp down the road.
As always, pictures or it never happened.
I’ll believe it when it actually happens.
Might/maybe = whatever !
Why do they say as fact that this is a result of global warming? Any proof? Just recently I read about volcanic activity on the ocean floor in the arctic.
Highest recorded volcanic activity at North Pole
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-arctic-volcano.html
#4 What is disturbing about the picture? Polar bears swim out to icebergs all the time. Don’t worry; they swim back to shore.
The age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years or so. Man has been on earth 25000 years or so.
We started seriously studying weather about 118 years ago.
So that leaves us with:
Mans experience on Earth at around 0.0005555555555555556%
Mans experience studying the weather at around
0.47200000000000003%
Do we have an effect on Earth? Certainly. Do we know what that effect is. Not a chance.
Currently weather prediction is akin to John Edwards talking with the dead. When Scientists can accurately predict the weather for Friday on Monday then I’ll start paying attention. Until then, this Global Warming thing is nothing more than a hook to effect social change.
[Duplicate comment deleted. – ed.]
[Duplicate comment deleted. – ed.]
#18 – MikeN,
Incredibly interesting article. Thanks for sharing. A few points I’d note though because of the topic on which you chose to post the link.
1) They do not say how high the heated water rises.
2) They do not indicate that these volcanoes are new or newly erupting.
3) They do not link any of this to melting ice in the arctic.
4) If the column of heated water does not reach the surface, but merely reaches a level where it can be carried in the undersea current, which seems likely given some knowledge of the ocean conveyor currents, it would be unlikely to melt ice preferentially at the pole.
5) If this is not a new phenomenon, but merely newly observed, it means that this was occurring with the same degree of frequency 150 years ago when ice was thick. Of course, since it is newly observed, it seems unlikely that we know at this time whether this has always been this way. It seems that a lot more studying of this particular volcanic phenomenon would be necessary to make any such determination.
Hmmm
Still no jarlsberg or melot from Newfoundland.
Cursor_
I’ve got a question.
Isn’t this the point where New York was supposed to be underwater?
Don’t misunderstand: The ice at the north pole going away is interesting, but outside of the “Did we do it?” question, the only other issue to discuss is why the end-of-the-world mantra isn’t coming true if the “cause” in that relationship is happening.
The seas right now are far below where they have been for much of human history. Look at how far inland all of Britain’s shipyards from the Middle Ages are, for just one example.
We have quite a bit of sea-level rising to do before we even reach the average. People really need to calm the Hell down.
The article says a 50-50 chance not that it has happened
another chicken little article brought to you by the independent, this rag is the equivalent of the weekly world news in Britain, every week they report the new earth like planet in a solar system 50million light years away with an artists rendition of the life on the planet that the actual scientist has only observed by a gravitational wobble in the star the supposed planet is orbiting
Would be great if true. Think of the amount of fuel oil & time that can be saved by freighters!
Scott, exactly they make no link to melting at the surface. It should have at least been mentioned. This strikes me as a conscious bias to not mention anything that goes against the global warming paradigm. Volcanos blowing up under the ground, in a manner not thought possible, would strike me as a possible explanation, but somehow these scientists never even thought of it?
Fuck em’.
😉
#30–Mike==you seem to be equating/confusing the issue of “Global Warming” with “Man Caused Global Warming” aka Carbon Pollution. Not keeping that distinction in mind makes it difficult to “fathom” your posts. To that end, if the models are at all correct and there is a new source of carbon, that can only be bad news. I’ll leave you to connect those dots.
It’s interesting to me that reading the headlines on this for the last few years that I’ve never heard of the disappearing North Pole Ice Sheet before. I’m sure it got reported, I just never saw it. I have read that the summer ice was melting faster and the ice sheet was getting smaller all to the risk of the polar bears hunting/survival mode but not the total absence of ice. When did the models first predict this?
Scott===if you happen to know, do the models/does the IPCC/or the Kyoto Protocol ever identify expressly how much carbon has to be REMOVED from the atmosphere in order to prevent the ill effects of Carbon Pollution? All I’ve seen is a general recommendation to reduce the increase in pollution to slow maybe stop the increased warming. I don’t see warming stopping unless carbon is removed==ie, we are all doomed, as in our kiddies and grandkiddies.