Arctic to be ice-free in 6 months

[Optrex]

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6364192.html

If the Arctic all melts in one season, by how much do sea levels rise?

If the Antarctic all melts, by how much?

What other effects result if the Earth becomes quickly totally ice-free, including the Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, Andies etc

[Trebuchet]

As previously discussed here (sorry, I'm feeling to lazy this morning to search for it), melting of Arctic ice would raise sea levels not at all. The ice already displaces its weight in water.

Antarctic ice, much of which is sitting on land would be a different story, as would the Greenland ice cap. Note however that much of that land is below sea level so it would leave a big lake.

[Paul Beardsley]

As previously discussed here (sorry, I'm feeling to lazy this morning to search for it), melting of Arctic ice would raise sea levels not at all. The ice already displaces its weight in water.
My understanding is that this is almost correct. In fact, the rise in temperature to cause the melting in the first place would cause the water in the sea to expand a little bit, so the sea level would go up a small amount.

[Moose]

Trebuchet, sorry, but while that's true for the floating pack ice, it's not true for the ice on the large number of islands up there, including Greenland.

It's absolutely not true for the Antarctic. On all these places, the ice isn't floating, so it is not displacing an equivalent weight of water.

That's the ice/snow that will cause the sea level to rise, not the pack ice.

[CodeSlinger]

Anyone care to comment on Dr. Orheim's comment that " "If Norway's average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions"?

[geonuc]

As previously discussed here (sorry, I'm feeling to lazy this morning to search for it), melting of Arctic ice would raise sea levels not at all.

This thread, I think.

http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/67609-if-antarctic-ice-sheet-completely-melted.html

[Trebuchet]

Trebuchet, sorry, but while that's true for the floating pack ice, it's not true for the ice on the large number of islands up there, including Greenland.

It's absolutely not true for the Antarctic. On all these places, the ice isn't floating, so it is not displacing an equivalent weight of water.

That's the ice/snow that will cause the sea level to rise, not the pack ice.

I think I said that. Or at least tried to.

The original article, by the way, seems quite a bit on the hysterical side.

[mike alexander]

When I tried opening the linked article I got a popup from my software saying the site might be trying to download something. Just to let others know.

[Moose]

The original article, by the way, seems quite a bit on the hysterical side.

Agreed. It does seem that way.

[KaiYeves]

<Reads title>
Bloody biscuits!

[Jay200MPH]

I don't buy that for an instant. The air temperatures over land in Norway actually have very little influence over seawater temperatures. The arctic sea makes its own nice little microclimate with some decent feedbacks in place that keep it free from land-influenced fluctuations... That said, we know it is warming somewhat - but it has nothing to do with seasonal variations on land.

If you want to tell me the sea ice will be gone in 50 years - or even 20 - fine, but not next year. That's a lot of ice.

- J

[geonuc]

Consider the source.

[HenrikOlsen]

I don't buy that for an instant. The air temperatures over land in Norway actually have very little influence over seawater temperatures. The arctic sea makes its own nice little microclimate with some decent feedbacks in place that keep it free from land-influenced fluctuations... That said, we know it is warming somewhat - but it has nothing to do with seasonal variations on land.

If you want to tell me the sea ice will be gone in 50 years - or even 20 - fine, but not next year. That's a lot of ice.

- J
Other way around, the air temperature in Norway is influenced by seawater temperature and is an indicator of how things are going there.

[Ronald Brak]

The difference between minimum arctic ice extent for 1978 and 2007 is 1.2 million square kilometers.

Here is a graphic showing the extent of ice reduction:

http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/Arctic%20sea%20ice%202007.jpg

1.2 million square kilometers is almost the size of South Australia and Victoria combined. Victoria was named after Queen Victoria, former ruler of the British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire).

[Paul Beardsley]

I think I said that.
I thought you said that too.

[Ronald Brak]

One interesting thing about the reduction in Arctic ice is that Russia has dumped 18 nuclear reactors in the Arctic sea, some of them still loaded with nuclear fuel. Wonder if that's going to cause any problems in the future?

[Doodler]

One interesting thing about the reduction in Arctic ice is that Russia has dumped 18 nuclear reactors in the Arctic sea, some of them still loaded with nuclear fuel. Wonder if that's going to cause any problems in the future?

Is there anything the Soviets did that isn't going to come bite us all in the butt for the next hundred years?

[Ara Pacis]

We also talked about it here (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/42796-what-if-all-ice-melted.html). There's lots of links.

If you're talking about sea ice, then there is practically no change in sea height (except a slight difference due to fresh vs. salt water, according the the Sea Level Rise FAQ). Thermal expansion would be minimal in the arctic.

[KaiYeves]

Is there anything the Soviets did that isn't going to come bite us all in the butt for the next hundred years?
Kick-starting the Space Age?

[Noclevername]

Kick-starting the Space Age?

Yes and no. The Space Race did lead to advances, but it also led to a "win the race" mentality, and once that was done, there was no motivation to go on.

The Space Age would have happened anyway, maybe not as fast, but with more stamina. There were already too many scientists interested in it before WWII for us to not have developed space exploration in some form.

[Occam]

Anyone remember Y2K? What happened to all those aircraft that fell out of the sky? Were they all disintegrated by the exploding nuclear power stations? Could you let me know before the poles melt?

[Noclevername]

Anyone remember Y2K? What happened to all those aircraft that fell out of the sky? Were they all disintegrated by the exploding nuclear power stations? Could you let me know before the poles melt?



Are you saying Y2K was a false alarm? No, it was a real problem that was solved before disaster occurred by the hard work of millions of people. And even then, in some countries it still caused problems, just not disasters-- again, because preventative actions were taken.

So what preventative actions are we to take to make this another "false" alarm?

[Occam]

Are you saying Y2K was a false alarm? No, it was a real problem that was solved before disaster occurred by the hard work of millions of people. And even then, in some countries it still caused problems, just not disasters-- again, because preventative actions were taken.

So what preventative actions are we to take to make this another "false" alarm?

No actually, it was a very minor problem, affecting very few things, that was blown completely out of proportion by the media machine and software companies. The way it was portrayed by those groups was completely irresponsible. There was never going to be any kind of disaster and "the hard work of millions of people" is a gross exaggeration. What happened is that millions of people were compelled to take extraordinary and ridiculous measures to prevent something that was never likely to happen in the first place. Induced panic led to people refusing to fly, to withdraw money from banks, turn off all their power, and go to hospital for fear their pacemakers were going to stop... and the IT industry laughed all the way to the bank.

The ice caps are not going to disappear within six months and even if they did we would learn to live with it, just like we learn to live with everything else the world throws at us. The preventative actions we need to take, is to try and curb the knee-jerk reactions and use some common sense. Geological processes take millions of years and this is just another one of them. Global warming is better than global cooling, unless another ice age is what you prefer. Actually, we are 'overdue' for another ice age and generally these have been preceded by a warm period.

The ice caps are not going to disappear in six months. I'm not a gambler but would you care to wager?

[Noclevername]

No actually, it was a very minor problem, affecting very few things, that was blown completely out of proportion by the media machine and software companies. The way it was portrayed by those groups was completely irresponsible. There was never going to be any kind of disaster and "the hard work of millions of people" is a gross exaggeration. What happened is that millions of people were compelled to take extraordinary and ridiculous measures to prevent something that was never likely to happen in the first place. Induced panic led to people refusing to fly, to withdraw money from banks, turn off all their power, and go to hospital for fear their pacemakers were going to stop... and the IT industry laughed all the way to the bank.

Please provide proof that this claim is true.



The ice caps are not going to disappear within six months and even if they did we would learn to live with it, just like we learn to live with everything else the world throws at us. We haven't died yet, therefore nothing is bad for us? Specious reasoning.

The preventative actions we need to take, is to try and curb the knee-jerk reactions and use some common sense. <snip>

The ice caps are not going to disappear in six months. I'm not a gambler but would you care to wager?
Common sense like not doing something that we know is harmful?

No, I doubt the ice caps will vanish in six months. But they are shrinking.


I also agree there's a lot of hysterics out there. Ignore them. But just because they exaggerate the scope of the problem doesn't mean there's no problem.

Geological processes take millions of years and this is just another one of them.

This is a climatological process, not a geological one. They happen rather faster.

Global warming is better than global cooling, unless another ice age is what you prefer.
Any change that can kill large numbers of people (by coastal flooding, say) is pretty bad.

Actually, we are 'overdue' for another ice age and generally these have been preceded by a warm period.
Please provide proof that we have a schedule of ice ages, and that the next one has not met this schedule.

[HenrikOlsen]

Occam, it looks like you've been pulling out the Y2K strawman in every Global Warming thread you've posted in, despite being told it's a strawman every time.
Please stop, it's not funny any more and you're starting to read like a broken record.
If you have actual arguments please post those, if not, please don't post.

[Occam]

You know what? I don't have to provide proof of an impending ice age(nor is such a thing possible), since I'm offering nothing but personal opinion, not an ATM theory. However, you could try looking it up yourself http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=overdue+for+ice+age&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 and find many articles like this one (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html)
Then again, no-one can prove that the ice caps are melting either. No doubt they are currently receding, nor that the current trend is toward generally warmer weather. But it's all happened before and it's going to happen again and it's just as viable that our pollution is helping to delay the next ice age.


Y2K panic? How many examples would satisfy you? Here's a tiny sampling.
http://www.everything2000.com/news/computer/y2kpaniccash.asp
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s76370.htm
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/02/05/05.asp
http://www.usna63.org/misc/y2k/#Y2K Panic in San Antonio

We haven't died yet, therefore nothing is bad for us? Specious reasoning.
Yes, and not what I said at all

Any change that can kill large numbers of people (by coastal flooding, say) is pretty bad.
Yes, well, aside from tsunamis you can walk away from rising tides. Hurricanes and tornadoes can kill large numbers of people, too, but they still build towns in Kansas and Oklahoma.

Common sense like not doing something that we know is harmful?
Sure. If you can find some way of stopping the U.S and China from producing most of the world's pollution that would be great, thanks. Instead, smaller and poorer countries are being pressured and blackmailed into paying "carbon tax" and taking steps that they are financially unable to support, while the real culprits are doing what they damn well please, with the sure and certain knowledge that they can buy further carbon points at any time.

It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor wot gets the blame
It's the rich wot gets the pleasure
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame

I've seen 51 summers and winters and they've all been different. It's called weather. As we say in New Zealand, "don't like the weather? Wait half an hour";)

[Noclevername]

Y2K panic? How many examples would satisfy you? Here's a tiny sampling. Just because there were overreactions (as there always are, to every problem) doesn't mean there wasn't a problem.

We haven't died yet, therefore nothing is bad for us? Specious reasoning.
Yes, and not what I said at all

You said "The ice caps are not going to disappear within six months and even if they did we would learn to live with it, just like we learn to live with everything else the world throws at us.
Well, no, we don't live with everything the world throws at us. A large number of people die from things the world often throws at us.


Any change that can kill large numbers of people (by coastal flooding, say) is pretty bad.
Yes, well, aside from tsunamis you can walk away from rising tides.
Gee, sure is a good thing everyone on a low-lying or coastal area can afford to move, and that all those who live inland will be perfectly willing to share their land, food and resources with them? It's not like they'll all need, say, housing and clean water or anything. I guess half the population of, say, southeast asia will have no loss of life at all by the hundreds of millions of refugees "walking away from the tide" to their welcoming neighbors.

Common sense like not doing something that we know is harmful?
Sure. If you can find some way of stopping the U.S and China from producing most of the world's pollution that would be great, thanks. Instead, smaller and poorer countries are being pressured and blackmailed into paying "carbon tax" and taking steps that they are financially unable to support, while the real culprits are doing what they damn well please, with the sure and certain knowledge that they can buy further carbon points at any time.

Yes, and? Why are you arguing against what I didn't say? Do you have any point to make about what I did actually say?

I've seen 51 summers and winters and they've all been different. It's called weather. As we say in New Zealand, "don't like the weather? Wait half an hour";)
We are talking about climate here, not weather. The fact that you apparently don't know the difference shows that you still need to learn about htis subject before you can evaluate its rightness or wrongness meaningfully.

[Occam]

Occam, it looks like you've been pulling out the Y2K strawman in every Global Warming thread you've posted in, despite being told it's a strawman every time.


Fine, I'm getting sick of the flavour of the month, politically correct crap bandied about in this subject anyway. It looks like it's just fine and dandy for anyone to agree with the "woe is me, we have to save the world" viewpoint but not to take an alternative viewpoint and cite another well know example of a storm in a teacup as an example. I've also, if I recall correctly, used the SARS episode in the same context. But, just for the record, how about YOU furnish ME with examples of when I've used such a Y2K argument in "every global warming thread" I've posted in. Then show me examples of when I was told not to.

Please stop, it's not funny any more and you're starting to read like a broken record.
I'm not posting these OPINIONS and alternative viewpoints to be funny and you're starting to sound like you can't deal with an opinion that you don't personally subscribe to.

To noclevername - I've never once said that loss of life would not occur, nor that global warming was not a fact, nor that we should not do everything in our power to eliminate pollution. Never. All I've ever offered is the suggestion that maybe the popular idea championed by Al Gore is not an unquestionable fact.

If you have actual arguments please post those, if not, please don't post.
Want to know something? Unlike a number of people here, I'm not a scientist, or an engineer. I'm just an ordinary guy with an interest in things scientific and nearly everything I post is either opinion, a smidgen of data that I've managed to understand, or an attempt at humour. So when a moderator tells me that my arguments don't count and to cease posting unless they somehow get approval, thats fairly offensive. I also note with interest that strawman arguments are OK as long as they support the global warming is terrible contention. Well I am smart enough to know when I'm wasting my time and it looks like I'm doing it now.

[Ronald Brak]

Then again, no-one can prove that the ice caps are melting either. No doubt they are currently receding, nor that the current trend is toward generally warmer weather.

So you are saying that the ice caps are actually capable of retracting, kind of like a snail retreating into its shell when you prod it?

[Noclevername]

To noclevername - I've never once said that loss of life would not occur, nor that global warming was not a fact, nor that we should not do everything in our power to eliminate pollution. Never. All I've ever offered is the suggestion that maybe the popular idea championed by Al Gore is not an unquestionable fact.

I have never mentioned Gore, I've never read Gore and I have only the vaguest idea of what his suggestions might be, I don't endorse any Celebrity's ideas on any matter of importance. So what does Gore have to do with anything we've been talking about?

See, this is what I mean about reacting to the hysterical exaggerators instead of actually looking at the science! The true facts will be found by analyzing the overall weight of evidence, not someone hawking a book or trying to get on TV.

[TheHalcyonYear]

So you are saying that the ice caps are actually capable of retracting, kind of like a snail retreating into its shell when you prod it?
Actually the concept is more like the ice is redistributed based on prevailing arctic winds.

[Noclevername]

Actually the concept is more like the ice is redistributed based on prevailing arctic winds.

Redistributed to where? Someplace that can't be seen in satellite pics, it would have to be.

[Torsten]

Actually the concept is more like the ice is redistributed based on prevailing arctic winds.

Please, elaborate.

[Van Rijn]

Are you saying Y2K was a false alarm? No, it was a real problem that was solved before disaster occurred by the hard work of millions of people. And even then, in some countries it still caused problems, just not disasters-- again, because preventative actions were taken.

So what preventative actions are we to take to make this another "false" alarm?

While there was a very real Y2K issue, I never saw a news report that was even close to getting the subject right, but there was a huge amount of flat out nonsense (my favorite was a claim that the Y2K issue was a computer virus). Some of the nonsense came from people I thought should have known better. On the government level, there were a good number of unnecessary actions taken along with the necessary ones (for instance, heavy manning of emergency facilities at midnight Y2K, even for systems where it was obvious that if there had been uncorrected problems, they would have come up months earlier, but not at midnight Y2K).

It does seem to be a good example of what happens to a real issue when it gets in the hands of reporters and politicians. It's a good thing it didn't depend on them to get it resolved.

[Noclevername]

While there was a very real Y2K issue, I never saw a news report that was even close to getting the subject right, but there was a huge amount of flat out nonsense (my favorite was a claim that the Y2K issue was a computer virus). Some of the nonsense came from people I thought should have known better. On the government level, there were a good number of unnecessary actions taken along with the necessary ones (For instance, heavy manning of emergency facilities at midnight Y2K, even for systems where it was obvious that if there had been uncorrected problems, they would have come up months earlier, but not at midnight Y2K).

It does seem to be a good example of what happens to a real issue when it gets in the hands of reporters and politicians. It's a good thing it didn't depend on them to get it resolved.

Exactly. Trying to learn anything of value about a serious issue from them is like trying to write the complete works of Confucius by reading fortune cookies.

[Van Rijn]

Exactly. Trying to learn anything of value about a serious issue from them is like trying to write the complete works of Confucius by reading fortune cookies.

And that's usually what's being discussed in threads like this.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Actually the concept is more like the ice is redistributed based on prevailing arctic winds.

Please, elaborate.

Satellite data measure extent but not depth. The concept is that arctic cycles, I think wind but I'm not sure, result in changes in the depth of the ice fields. From what I have sen, there are models that indicate that this is likely and there are people who say that they can disprove the models. What I have not seen is any measurements either way or the other.

[Noclevername]

And that's usually what's being discussed in threads like this.

Sadly, yes. It's become the new 2012-- everyone who has seen an article about it weighs in.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Exactly. Trying to learn anything of value about a serious issue from them is like trying to write the complete works of Confucius by reading fortune cookies.

And that's usually what's being discussed in threads like this.

[giggles] I have to agree. There are some good places on the net to get the latest papers, but forums tend to lack the dignified discourse of universities and refereed journals.

From what I have seen, not all studies are created equal and the statistical variability and error bars associated with data tend to get lost before a lot before reaching the net.

Just my observation. ;)

[Torsten]

Satellite data measure extent but not depth. The concept is that arctic cycles, I think wind but I'm not sure, result in changes in the depth of the ice fields. From what I have sen, there are models that indicate that this is likely and there are people who say that they can disprove the models. What I have not seen is any measurements either way or the other.

Multi-year ice is thicker. But there is less of that around:

"Satellite-derived estimates of sea-ice age and thickness are combined to produce a proxy ice thickness record for 1982 to the present. These data show that in addition to the well-documented loss of perennial ice cover as a whole, the amount of oldest and thickest ice within the remaining multiyear ice pack has declined significantly. The oldest ice types have essentially disappeared, and 58% of the multiyear ice now consists of relatively young 2- and 3-year-old ice compared to 35% in the mid-1980s. Ice coverage in summer 2007 reached a record minimum, with ice extent declining by 42% compared to conditions in the 1980s. The much-reduced extent of the oldest and thickest ice, in combination with other factors such as ice transport that assist the ice-albedo feedback by exposing more open water, help explain this large and abrupt ice loss. Source, AGU's Geophysical Research Letters, December 22, 2007. (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL032043.shtml)

[TheHalcyonYear]

Multi-year ice is thicker. But there is less of that around:

"Satellite-derived estimates of sea-ice age and thickness are combined to produce a proxy ice thickness record for 1982 to the present. These data show that in addition to the well-documented loss of perennial ice cover as a whole, the amount of oldest and thickest ice within the remaining multiyear ice pack has declined significantly. The oldest ice types have essentially disappeared, and 58% of the multiyear ice now consists of relatively young 2- and 3-year-old ice compared to 35% in the mid-1980s. Ice coverage in summer 2007 reached a record minimum, with ice extent declining by 42% compared to conditions in the 1980s. The much-reduced extent of the oldest and thickest ice, in combination with other factors such as ice transport that assist the ice-albedo feedback by exposing more open water, help explain this large and abrupt ice loss. Source, AGU's Geophysical Research Letters, December 22, 2007. (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL032043.shtml)
If you read the paper, the assumption is made that the oldest ice is the thickest ice. However, the data supporting this assumption is pretty thin itself. So the question stands open at this point. There other models that suggest that this assumption may be wrong. What is missing is some field work that provides a more definitive answer to the question.

[Tuckerfan]

One interesting thing about the reduction in Arctic ice is that Russia has dumped 18 nuclear reactors in the Arctic sea, some of them still loaded with nuclear fuel. Wonder if that's going to cause any problems in the future?Radiation. They say it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,519162,00.html)But as the analyses show, even this accusation is exaggerated. The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) studied 29,873 people who lived along the Techa between 1950 and 1960. According to the NCI scientists, only 46 deaths came about due to radiation exposure.If we're lucky, maybe some good will come from all that radiation. (http://blogs.townonline.com/newton/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/godzilla.jpg)

[Ronald Brak]

We have a fair bit of information from Japan, resulting from a natural experiment that involved a rather large exposure to a rather large number of people, that seems to indicate that radiation can be bad for you.

[Tuckerfan]

We have a fair bit of information from Japan, resulting from a natural experiment that involved a rather large exposure to a rather large number of people, that seems to indicate that radiation can be bad for you.Sort of (from the same link)To answer these questions, the Japanese and the Americans launched a giant epidemiological study after the war. The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for 86,572 people.

Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

87 died of leukemia;

440 died of tumors;

and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.

In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.Based on that, I'd say it wasn't nearly as horrific as we're led to believe.

[Ronald Brak]

People have died from exposure to radiation. I'm sorry but saying that radiation is bad for you is pernicious nonsense is crazy talk.

Maybe what you are trying to say is that radiation isn't as dangerous as you thought it was, or as many people think it is. That is very, very different from saying that radiation isn't dangerous.

[Tuckerfan]

People have died from exposure to radiation.And, where, exactly, Did I say that they hadn't? I'm sorry but saying that radiation is bad for you is pernicious nonsense is crazy talk. Maybe crazy, but he did have dead aliens in the trunk. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087995/)

Maybe what you are trying to say is that radiation isn't as dangerous as you thought it was, or as many people think it is. That is very, very different from saying that radiation isn't dangerous.
And maybe you should get your HumourmeterTM recalibrated. One would think that the Godzilla pic in the second link would be enough to indicate that I wasn't completely serious.

[Torsten]

TheHalcyonYear wrote:

Actually the concept is more like the ice is redistributed based on prevailing arctic winds.

So I was expecting a description of how this ice could be redistributed. I can envision two modes: Packed by winds into heavily ridged and therefore thickened multiyear ice, or blown south out of the Arctic to where it ultimately melts.

But this is still vague:
Satellite data measure extent but not depth. The concept is that arctic cycles, I think wind but I'm not sure, result in changes in the depth of the ice fields. From what I have sen, there are models that indicate that this is likely and there are people who say that they can disprove the models. What I have not seen is any measurements either way or the other.

Right, but the microwave spectrum reported by the satellite data differs between first year and older ice, so we can get a sense of how persistent different components of the total ice are. And sure, wind is part of it. Wind patterns can prevent ice from escaping the arctic, thereby allowing it to ridge, or to be exposed to multiple winters, and thereby become thicker. Alternatively, wind patterns can promote drifting of the ice out of the Arctic altogether. But I'd like to see a publication about those models you mention. Meanwhile the abstract (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019492.shtml) to another paper suggests that the very winds you mention have been "decreasing the time that new ice has to ridge and thicken before returning for another melt season".

and this response to my post doesn't add up:

If you read the paper, the assumption is made that the oldest ice is the thickest ice. However, the data supporting this assumption is pretty thin itself. So the question stands open at this point. There other models that suggest that this assumption may be wrong. What is missing is some field work that provides a more definitive answer to the question.

You'll have to describe a mechanism for how the oldest ice is not generally the thickest. If ice created one winter manages to survive the summer, it is exposed to at least another winter of freezing, during which it can thicken to depths greater than first year ice. For the present state of affairs in the arctic to be nothing more than the redistribution of ice, you have to deal with the fact that the summer minimum ice was ~41% lower in 2007 than in 1977. That area has refrozen over this winter. Do you suggest that this vast area of first year ice plus the old ice has the same volume as all the ice that was present at the start of the 1977 summer - that the first year ice has either frozen to a great thickness (as it would have had to do each winter the last few years before the string of record-breaking summer melts for that idea to be true), or been packed by winds to great thickness? Or that the remaining multiyear ice has become about twice as thick as it was 20 years ago? Again, I'd like to see a description of the model.

If this is true, then these guys (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5446/1934) were right out to lunch, because they think the difference between first year and multiyear ice is quite substantial:

"Perennial multiyear (MY) ice (ice that has survived the summer melt) is about three times thicker than seasonal or first-year (FY) ice (~1 to 2 m), so that changes in ice type distribution could both reflect and effect climate change."

[Moose]

I just want to point out that I think the snow sitting in my yard* will raise the sea level measurably on its own when it has melted (by September).

I'm investing in water-wing futures for coastal regions.

(*4.3 meters and counting(!) fell this winter.)

[Gillianren]

Want to know something? Unlike a number of people here, I'm not a scientist, or an engineer. I'm just an ordinary guy with an interest in things scientific and nearly everything I post is either opinion, a smidgen of data that I've managed to understand, or an attempt at humour. So when a moderator tells me that my arguments don't count and to cease posting unless they somehow get approval, thats fairly offensive. I also note with interest that strawman arguments are OK as long as they support the global warming is terrible contention. Well I am smart enough to know when I'm wasting my time and it looks like I'm doing it now.

Want to know something? I'm not a scientist or an engineer, either. So I don't post my opinions on global warming, because I know I don't have enough information to have a reasoned opinion other than, "Yup, that sure is happening, and Bill Nye seems to believe humans cause it." If you claim an opinion about science, you should know enough about the evidence for it to back it up.

[Torsten]

I just want to point out that I think the snow sitting in my yard* will raise the sea level measurably on its own when it has melted (by September).

I'm investing in water-wing futures for coastal regions.

(*4.3 meters and counting(!) fell this winter.)

Man, you guys have had a rough one this year! I hear the latest monster has arrived your way today.

Our winter has been quite easy. I'm down to ~40 cm of the stuff in my yard now.

[Moose]

Yup. Posted that while I was thawing out from moving it around this afternoon. Not the worst we've had by any stretch, but what's already fallen complicates things. At least the wind was favorable this time.

[Noclevername]

We've been lucky, it's been relatively sparse here this year, as opposed to last year when we got about 18 inches... but most of it got shoved into my driveway by snowplows, making it a pile of about five feet, which then melted and refroze. Ugh.

[Ronald Brak]

And maybe you should get your HumourmeterTM recalibrated. One would think that the Godzilla pic in the second link would be enough to indicate that I wasn't completely serious.

Well I freely admit to having no sense of humour. So when you said, "Radiation. They say it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense," you were being humorous. But you do understand that radiation can be harmful. I got it now.

[Moose]

But you do understand that radiation can be harmful. I got it now.

Can be, but given the radiation hysteria these days, "can be harmful" pretty much must be qualified: In the form of sunlight, radiation is necessary to support life. As many upon many of us have said, (including you, I'm sure), it depends entirely on what kind of radiation and how much. (And on the CT forum, it's frequently followed by: let's see your numbers". ;) )

[Spock Jenkins]

Any change that can kill large numbers of people (by coastal flooding, say) is pretty bad.
Yes, well, aside from tsunamis you can walk away from rising tides.

This brings to mind that scene in one of the Austin Powers movies. The security guard is looking up at Austin screamin, "NOOOOOOO!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!" as Austin is driving the steam roller. From Austin's view, it looks like the guy can't escape. Then they cut to a side view. The steamroller is 30 feet away and closing the gap could take over a minute at it's slow pace. The guard could just walk away.

[Ronald Brak]

Lots of people are killed by coastal floods and sea surges each year that they could not walk away from. Rises in sea level have the potential to make the death toll a lot worse. Of course the danger is greatest in low lying poor countries such as Bangladesh. In richer countries the damage may be mostly economic as taxes are raised to pay for sea and flood control measures.

[Noclevername]

In richer countries the damage may be mostly economic as taxes are raised to pay for sea and flood control measures.

And add to that cost the loss and replacement of housing and infrastructure in places where those measure fail.

[Gillianren]

And add to that cost the loss and replacement of housing and infrastructure in places where those measure fail.

Heck, I think most of Olympia would end up underwater, including at least the first few floors of every major department of our state government. (There's a law in Washington that all the headquarters of all the departments in the state government have to be here in town, or at least no more than 20[?] miles away. Not that it matters, because if they were in downtown Seattle, where some of them wanted to relocate, they'd probably end up underwater there, too.)

[Launch window]

bumping this thread 5 months later as we have a new ESA Envisat image

no it hasn't vanished completely but it is extremely low

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMCKX0SAKF_index_0.html

Envisat observations from mid-August depict that a new record of low sea-ice coverage could be reached in a matter of weeks. The animation above is a series of mosaics of the Arctic Ocean created from images acquired between early June and mid-August 2008 from the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) instrument aboard Envisat. The dark grey colour represents ice-free areas while blue represents areas covered with sea ice.

Current ice coverage in the Arctic has already reached the second absolute minimum since observations from space began 30 years ago. Because the extent of ice cover is usually at its lowest about mid-September, this year's minimum could still fall to set another record low.

[Paul Leeks]

Hi Ya!

I have an old Geology book and it says if Antarctica melts the sea level will rise 60m(200 ft) this is also in ("Antarctica,Wikipedia").

I'm heading for higher ground, I'll go live in the mountains, NZ has plenty of them!!

PL

[Kaptain K]

Hi Ya!

I have an old Geology book and it says if Antarctica melts the sea level will rise 60m(200 ft) this is also in ("Antarctica,Wikipedia").

I'm heading for higher ground, I'll go live in the mountains, NZ has plenty of them!!

PL

Even if the Antarctic is melting, it won't do so in a human lifetime!

[alexvorn2]

we will celebrate soon independence of water, :P