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?
#26 – James Hill,
I’ve got a question.
Isn’t this the point where New York was supposed to be underwater?
I think you have Greenland and the North Pole confused. Since the ice at the pole is floating already, having it melt does not increase sea level. Warmer waters (above 4°C) do expand. So, some sea level rise would occur from that. However, the arctic waters are probably below 4°C, so would not raise sea level on its own.
Do worry about the reduced albedo though. Water is dark. Ice is light. Ice reflects back more light and heat than water, which absorbs it.
Bobbo, despite the talk of a ‘tipping point,’ the global warming scientists I’ve heard speak on the subject just mentioned that a new equilibrium is formed. I think the consensus is somewhere around 50% below 1990 levels. The Kyoto Treaty is supposed to be a first step.
Whether it’s manmade global warming or natural global warming, it is still just a guess as to the cause, and coming so close to the news about the volcanic eruption, I’m surprised even the media didn’t catch it.
#30 – MikeN,
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?
You’re pretty funny Mike. You seem to assume a connection. Perhaps you are a better volcanologist or hydrologist than the authors. Or, perhaps they noticed that the heat never gets to the surface, which may be expected when it hits the ocean conveyor that takes deep water away from the poles.
So, when it seems to have no trouble to get a thought like “duh … I think this should melt the ice … why wouldn’t the scientists publish my opinion?” into your brain, why does it not occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the scientists in the field actually do know more than you. Maybe there is a reason they don’t connect the two. Maybe it’s because no connection can be shown at present. Maybe it’s because no connection exists.
But, no, you must be the smartest person on the planet and have knowledge beyond that of any scientist in any field, so your conjecture based on reading the work of others must be better than that of the people actually doing the work.
Wow! I stand in awe of such mentality.
#33 – Isn’t the majority of ice in the world (Antartica) floating? If your logic is true, then that would mean ice melting at both poles wouldn’t increase sea level… even though we’re told it would.
I’m certainly not calling my logic fact, but if its this easy to poke at its safe to say its not well thought out.
#37 – “Isn’t the majority of ice in the world (Antartica) floating?”
Good one! ROFL!!!
#37–James==that post puts you in a class all your own. ((Class has a double meaning. Substitute “category.”))
And BTW since it has been “a subject” recently, and was only just mentioned once above, yes, the photo looks shopped to me. Very interesting photo and nice to look at, well done, but with 6/7th of the iceberg underwater, and the “mass” of what is projected, that thing would immediately roll over if it were real. Just my gut feel.
#32 – bobbo,
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.
CO2 stays in the atmosphere for about 10 or so years. (I might have heard 12 recently, but think that 10 is more accepted.) So, reducing our output will reduce the total level, eventually. Though there is also a lag in the effect of about the same 10 years. So today’s warming is what we see based on the 1998 level. We are already committed to 2018 being a certain temperature from today’s carbon. We may not know exactly what that number is but it’s not pretty.
The generally agreed on number is that we must reduce to 80% below 1990 emissions levels by 2050. So, when McCain promises 60%, he is stating that he will allow twice the emissions that the scientists currently say are the maximum acceptable to avert catastrophe. So, McCain is a disaster, literally.
Unfortunately, the controversial Jim Hansen says that even our strictest targets are not strict enough. And, as this yet another piece of information in support of climate change being worse than expected shows, he has a nasty habit of being right.
I’m going to redirect you to my own blog where I have links to the original peer reviewed Hansen article, the full supporting data for the article, and a well written popular press article to translate Hansen’s work into a readable form for those of us who aren’t climate scientists.
Even Our Lowest Targets Are Too High
Also note that this article does indeed reference total CO2 in parts per million for all of the goals, including Hansen’s newest limit recommendation. Let’s hope he’s wrong for a change, ’cause that new recommendation is bit below where we are today, and will be very hard to reach.
#33 – Misanthropic Scott,
Note to self, do not use a superscript lower case O to indicated degrees. In post #33, those numbers do, believe it or not, say four degrees Celsius, not 40 degrees Celsius. I hope that hasn’t caused too much confusion.
[Scot, next time copy the ° from your character map and paste it in. I fixed it. – ed.]
#37 – James Hill,
#33 – Isn’t the majority of ice in the world (Antartica) floating?
No.
70% of the world’s fresh water is frozen on the continent (read land) of Antarctica. It averages 7,000 feet thick and is over 10,000 feet thick in spots.
If the ice on just the Antarctic peninsula melts, it will raise sea level by 7 meters, over 21 feet. Ditto for Greenland’s ice sheet which is also on land and is comparable to the ice mass on the Antarctic peninsula. So, those two regions alone would give about 42+’ of sea level rise. If the mainland of Antarctica melts too, that will make a total of over 200′ of sea level rise.
funny…3.5 million more square km of ice today than 6-27-07. this past winter had the largest snow & ice cover in human history…..
i think we should look at facts — not crazy scientist trying to get new funding from government grants.
The opinion of another armchair scientist… Every summer earth’s inclination increases the north’s exposure, that’s why it gets warm in the summer. Every summer part of the north pole melts a little working like an air conditioner absorbing the heat as it melts. Guess what summer’s gonna be like when the AC unit we call the north pole is gone.
#44 – guilford,
funny…3.5 million more square km of ice today than 6-27-07. this past winter had the largest snow & ice cover in human history…..
Link?
i think we should look at facts — not crazy scientist trying to get new funding from government grants.
Yeah those crazy scientists … I wonder why they’re so much more strongly influenced by the paltry sums they get from governments instead of the really big money they could get from ExxonMobil. What a bunch of morans!
Unless …
I think I’ll just stick my head in the sand and tell myself lies so I fit in with all the others in denial.
It is distressing to see people refer to “what the scientists think” and then ignore the views of high level, world renowned scientists who reject the anthropogenic account of Global Warming and the aligned apocalyptic fears regarding climate shifts. Every time someone talks about “what the scientists think” I wonder if the author knows anything about what science is or how it works? One gets the impression from such people that only “consensus” science is serious: whereas historically the scientific “consensus” has often been wrong (e.g., the view pre-Einstein that physics was a “completed” science with only a few minor gaps to fill in). In any case, neither the hard data nor what we know of the complexity of climate science provide any support for the apocalyptic read on climate change. This isn’t a function of how many people concur, it is a function of the data and of the genuine complexity of the climate, which is as hard to predict as the weather.
Hmmm… Just in time for Pootie-Poot to drill for oil. (It’s all his you know.)
#48 – alan,
Sometimes the consensus is wrong. In such cases, there are usually a whole lot more dissenting opinions than there are at the moment. Or, in some cases, it’s one person who challenges the foundation, like an Einstein. Most cases though, the established science is typically correct. Are you willing to bet the survival of the species on a long shot? Apparently you are.
If your doctor tells you that your cholesterol is 380 and your weight is 450 and you need to do something about it or risk dying, will you do nothing hoping that the science of cholesterol and fat are wrong? Will you do nothing because your doctor can’t tell you the exact hour and severity or even the exact probability of your pending heart attack? If you would not do so for one person why do so for 6.6 billion humans?
An alarmist article in a dubious publication with absolutely no evidence or facts to support it’s claim and everyone goes into hysterics. No wonder we invaded Iraq…
#51 – David,
I guess the observation of the huge quantity of the ice that is single year ice rather than multi-year ice is not a data point for you. Nor do you seem to understand that a single year’s ice build up is likely much thinner and will melt more quickly than a multi-year thick hunk of ice.
Yeah … no evidence … sure …
Let me point 2 things.
One: we’ve seen ice levels stay steady or increase in Antarctica.
Two: about the volcanoes under the arctic: heated water doesn’t have to reach the surface, just get close enough.
heat always tries to equalize itself, flowing from hotter to colder. If enough heated water gets close enough, and close enough changes with the amount of heat in the water, then enough heat will reach the water just underneath the ice.
And how long have these volcanoes been going on with this activity anyway? If it’s been awhile, then that could be a huge factor.
#53 – Chaz,
Actually, the ice levels in parts of antarctica are increasing due to increased precipitation in the driest desert on earth. However, the glaciers are still calving faster than before. The ice shelves are breaking off in chunks the size of Connecticut. And, climate change is not equal in all parts of the globe. The arctic happens to be warming faster than the antarctic. There are even some places that are cooling. But, the global average temperature is marching inexorably up.
You may also want to study up a bit on Thermohaline Circulation. When they talk about deep water currents, they don’t mean anywhere near the surface. They mean at the bottom of the ocean. So, I for one am no expert, but would not expect the heat to rise to the surface until it gets to the equatorial regions of the Pacific and Indian oceans in 800 or so years.
(continued due to spam filter)
(continued from my prior post, #54)
This may be longer than 800 years now that the Thermohaline Circulation has already slowed down by 30%.
#41–Scott==excellent link to your own site. We should all have our positions logically stated with supporting documentation. Well done.
If I ever knew, I forgot, the 10 year natural removal of carbon from the atmosphere.
2050 seems way out of whack==gotta happen sooner than that what with the North Pole open to absorb heat etc?
How much does the USA have to stop pumping out if China and India continue their increase in carbon output? HAH! Our kiddies are doomed.
It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Some called the guy who bought Canada’s only deepwater seaport for $7 a fool, but now it could be worth more than that.
The ramifications of all this are staggering. Christmas, Santa, the elves, the industrial-amusement complex…
RBG
We can cancel Christmas! Santa’s workshop has sunk! Polar bears are dying from eating too many elves! Santa will be sued for tainting the northern waters with lead tainted toys! Oh, the inhumanity of it all!
If China and India keep emitting, then the US could shut down and it would make no difference.
China is now the leading emitter in the world.
This is the earth’s attempt to shake us off like so many fleas, on a dog’s backside. But we’re tougher than that.