[nubbles526]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hU5i54pX9VdxAcD6Mo3VfWZDWfyQD91ILU4G1

WASHINGTON (AP) — There's a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer, which would be a first in recorded history, a leading ice scientist says.

The weather and ocean conditions in the next couple of weeks will determine how much of the sea ice will melt, and early signs are not good, said Mark Serreze. He's a senior researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colo.

The chances for a total meltdown at the pole are higher than ever because the layer of ice coating the sea is thinner than ever, he said.

"A large area at the North Pole and surrounding the North Pole is first-year ice," Serreze said. "That's the stuff that tends to melt out in the summer because it's thin."

Preliminary February and March data from a NASA satellite shows that the circle of ice surrounding the North Pole is "considerably thinner" than scientists have seen during the five years the satellite has been taking pictures, NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said Friday. He thinks there is slightly less than a 50-50 chance the North Pole will be ice-free.

Last year was a record year for ice melt all over the Arctic and the ice band surrounding the North Pole is even thinner now.

There is nothing scientifically significant about the North Pole, Serreze said. But there is a cultural and symbolic importance. It's home to Santa Claus, after all. Last August, the Northwest Passage was open to navigation for the first time in memory.

A more conservative ice scientist, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington, put the odds of a North Pole without ice closer to 1 in 4. Even that is far worse than climate models had predicted, which was 1 in 70 sometime in the next decade, she said.

But both she and Serreze agree it's just a matter of time.

"I would guess within the next 10 year it would happen at least once," Bitz said.

Already, figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center show sea ice in the Arctic as a whole at about the same level now as it was at its low point last year in late June and early July.

The explanation is a warming climate and a weather phenomenon, scientists said.

For the last couple of decades, there has been a steady melt of Arctic sea ice — which covers only the ocean and which thins during summer and refreezes in winter. In recent years, it has gradually become thinner because more of it has been melting as the Earth's temperature rises.

Then, this past winter, there was a natural weather shift called the Arctic Oscillation, sort of a cold weather cousin to El Nino. That oscillation caused a change in winds and ocean that accelerated a normal flushing of sea ice in the Arctic. That pushed the older thicker sea ice that had been over the North Pole south toward Greenland and eventually out of the Arctic, Serreze said. That left just a thin one-year layer of ice that previously covered part of Siberia.

I know this has been discussed numerous times, but this summer, the Summer of 2008, man kind would see the concequences for it's ignorance: The disappearence of Ice in the North Pole. According to the article above, the North Pole's ice has a 50-50 chance of completly melting away. All life that has adapted to the enviorement in the North Pole would die out.

If you are a person who can persuade the government/community/companies to stop emitting that much greenhouse gas, please do so. The future of the world will lie in your hands. It's not just the humans, but the animals that are in that area.

[achtung]

I'm glad I live a good 1200 ft above sea level.

My gut tells me this is fear mongering, but we'll see I suppose.

[Black Wolf]

I know this has been discussed numerous times, but this summer, the Summer of 2008, man kind would see the concequences for it's ignorance: The disappearence of Ice in the North Pole. According to the article above, the North Pole's ice has a 50-50 chance of completly melting away. All life that has adapted to the enviorement in the North Pole would die out.

The article says the ice at the north pole will melt away, not the entire arctic circle sea ice. The ice at that exact point is quite thin according to the article, I would assume because it get's a fair bit more cosmic radiation because of the way the magnetic fied works (only a guess).

All life adapted to the area wont die out, just whatever happens to be silly enough to still be at the exact north pole when the ice melts.

[nubbles526]

I know this has been discussed numerous times, but this summer, the Summer of 2008, man kind would see the concequences for it's ignorance: The disappearence of Ice in the North Pole. According to the article above, the North Pole's ice has a 50-50 chance of completly melting away. All life that has adapted to the enviorement in the North Pole would die out.

The article says the ice at the north pole will melt away, not the entire arctic circle sea ice. The ice at that exact point is quite thin according to the article, I would assume because it get's a fair bit more cosmic radiation because of the way the magnetic fied works (only a guess).

All life adapted to the area wont die out, just whatever happens to be silly enough to still be at the exact north pole when the ice melts.

Ummmm....I am sure Polar Bear won't come swimming south towards Europe - they need the ice, you see.

[Black Wolf]

Ummmm....I am sure Polar Bear won't come swimming south towards Europe - they need the ice, you see.

Well...

Anyway, that aside, yes, they need the ice but they don't need the ice around the specific region of the north pole.



The white part is the arctic sea ice. The black part is the north pole (I'm fairly sure - there's no legend on the map). They're different things.

Have a read of this as well.

[Mika]

I'm yet to be convinced this is caused by human actions. However, it proves there is something critically wrong (again!) in the climate model that they used to simulate the human influence.

The thinning and melting of the ice layer is a real phenomenom. But it has been a lot thinner before, and considerably thicker in the Ice Age.

It would be great if they decided to invest in Venus research to find out the reasons why the atmosphere is so different there. And, should the global warming really become a problem, Russian scientists figured out a solution to it in last century: namely spraying soot in the atmosphere from the aircraft.

As the last continents melt, watch the desperate super powers grab oil from there as much as they can - screw the unsoiled bacteria thousands of years old and that kind of nonsense. Though, this can cause a lot of trouble: it would be sad to see global thermo nuclear war played on my back yard. And because of an unsettled continent, where building anything cannot be thought permanent!

Mika

[DeepSpace9er]

Ah screw it. The world is 4.5 billion years old, and has survived much worse than we could ever have thrown at it in the last 200 years. Its pretty vain to think that we are going to destroy the planet and wipe out so much when the natural cycle of the world has killed off most of the species who have ever inhabited it here. Let things happen as they would and ADAPT. Thats what life on here is best at.

[Vidmaster]

oh yeah, great idea 

[DeepSpace9er]

oh yeah, great idea 

An even better one would be to spend trillions of dollars on 'efforts' to alter the climate when we have NO idea what exactly is responsible for the increase in temperature, the melting of sea ice. They are guessing its manmade carbon emissions. Not just natural carbon emissions.. SUVs, the burning of oil. Kinda curious how certain lifestyles, specifically those in the civilized world are single handedly destroying the planet and we are to be made guilty about it with emotional arguments such as 'the polar bears are dying!'

[Snail]

Ah screw it. The world is 4.5 billion years old, and has survived much worse than we could ever have thrown at it in the last 200 years. Its pretty vain to think that we are going to destroy the planet and wipe out so much when the natural cycle of the world has killed off most of the species who have ever inhabited it here. Let things happen as they would and ADAPT. Thats what life on here is best at.

The animals probably could adapt but ****ing Manhattan would be underwater.

[Uchuujinsan]

I'm yet to be convinced this is caused by human actions.

Well, we know that C02 has a greenhouse effect itself, that can be easily tested in the lab.
We also know that the temperature in the last 200 years rose at a rate far higher than every climatic change in earth history. (I think more than 20 times faster)
Of course humanity wont go extinct with such a little change, it didnt go extinct in the past - but the cost will be very high.

I just wonder, why shouldnt C02 heat up the earth if it is undoubtedly having the effect of holding back infrared rays, while letting "normal" and ultraviolet light through.

It is also clear by comparing the emissions to the atmosphere volume that human emmissions are having an effect in the C02 concentration.

What reasons are there to say that theres no "manmade global warming" except the one: "I dont like it"?

[Spicious]

Why is anyone arguing that burning oil for cars is a good idea?
It's clearly in very limited supply.
It is required for jet fuel.
It is required for petrochemicals.
Yet humanity seems to yearn to piss it away driving absurdly oversized cars, almost always somewhere where they are completely unnecessary.

Now, if you choose to disregard scientific method, please relinquish everything you have that has depended on it.

[karajorma]

Ah screw it. The world is 4.5 billion years old, and has survived much worse than we could ever have thrown at it in the last 200 years. Its pretty vain to think that we are going to destroy the planet and wipe out so much when the natural cycle of the world has killed off most of the species who have ever inhabited it here.

Complete strawman argument.

No one is saying that life is going to end or that we are going to destroy the planet. That would be be completely ****ing idiotic. However it is a different thing to point out that there are nearly 7 billion people on Earth and we are already having trouble feeding them. Stir in rapidly changing climates and you end up with famine on a massive scale.

And it is beyond simple vanity to say "Well I'm all right so I don't give a damn if other people starve as a result of my actions."

[WeatherOp]

Well, we know that C02 has a greenhouse effect itself, that can be easily tested in the lab.

While that is true, it is also very weak, and almost micro sized if you compare it to something like Water Vapor.

We also know that the temperature in the last 200 years rose at a rate far higher than every climatic change in earth history. (I think more than 20 times faster)

I'll have to go and find a reference, but I'm pretty sure that is false, and I'm nearly sure that second part is false.

It is also clear by comparing the emissions to the atmosphere volume that human emmissions are having an effect in the C02 concentration.

Now that could quite possibly be true, however it is far from clear to say if the .4C or so of warming in the lower atmosphere is changing the climate and how much C02 has added to that warming when we were already in a warming period before the industrial revolution even started.

What reasons are there to say that theres no "manmade global warming" except the one: "I dont like it"?

Go do some studying?

[Mars]

Global Warming Crisis feeds Global Food Crisis which threatens Global Overpopulation Crisis

[karajorma]

Go do some studying?

Why don't you? I've yet to hear a proper objection from you other than some rather cheap shots which even you must see the flaws of.

For instance you compared the effects of CO2 against water vapour but if there is no long term change in the amount of water vapour in the air then what does that mean in regards to global trends?

[Dark RevenantX]

The planet will survive.  We won't.

[WeatherOp]

Go do some studying?

Why don't you? I've yet to hear a proper objection from you other than some rather cheap shots which even you must see the flaws of.

For instance you compared the effects of CO2 against water vapour but if there is no long term change in the amount of water vapour in the air then what does that mean in regards to global trends?

That is just it, what does it mean for global trends, we do not know. See the thing is, it has been proven c02 rises are correlated to temp rises(some studies even show temp rises first) So we know c02 has been rising along with temps, we also know that we were in a warming trend before the industrial revolution. So how much co2 have we added compared to the natural warming cycle? We don't know. Is it plausible or maybe even likely that we have added some effect to c02 concentrations. Of course. Could it be plausible that if we have increased the temp slightly. It sure is.

Taking cheap shots? Dang right. How can you not take cheap shots on a theory that says we are changing the climate due to adding co2, when we don't even know how much we have added nor how much temperature change this has caused if any.  Add in people who scream every natural disaster is an effect of man-made global warming. Then add in people who just about say anything that is not normal is caused by global warming. Because honestly when people claim that you can't use any event happening in weather to prove them wrong. So Kara you tell me, how can I not use cheap shots on a theory which is basically all cheap shots itself?

You know another thing, if I remember correctly, all you have ever done is take cheap shots at my "cheap shots" and have never expressed what or why you believe, which I have made myself pretty clear.

Once again I will go ahead and re-re-re-link this very good link on greenhouse gasses.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[BengalTiger]

Variations in CO2, temperature and dust from the Vostok ice core over the last 450,000 years:


So who still thinks we're a major cause of global warming?

Every circa 100 000 years the (average annual?) temperature was above zero Celsius in the region near Vostok. We just happen to live in the warmer times, which aren't as warm (in terms of peak temp) as they were 125k and 325k years ago.

[DeepSpace9er]

It must have been the Woolly Essuvees back then causing all that warming