We're wet in about 13 years

[tugmoose]

Surf Nebraska!

 

 

Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.

 

This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050.

 

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

 

"Right now ... the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool," Scambos said in a telephone interview. "Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster."

 

That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.

 

Scambos and co-authors of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice to reach their conclusions, a far different picture than that obtained from computer models used by the scientists of the intergovernmental panel.

 

"The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur," Scambos said in a telephone interview.

 

ICE-FREE SUMMER

 

The wide possibility of what might occur included a much later melt up north, or a much earlier one, Scambos said.

 

"It appears we're on pace about 30 years earlier than expected to reach a state where we don't have sea ice or at least not very much in late summer in the Arctic Ocean," he said.

 

He discounted the notion that the sharp warming trend in the Arctic might be due to natural climate cycles. "There aren't many periods in history that are this dramatic in terms of natural variability," Scambos said.

 

He said he had no doubt that this was caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he said was the only thing capable of changing Earth on such a large scale over so many latitudes.

 

Asked what could fix the problem -- the topic of a new report by the intergovernmental panel to be released on Friday in Bangkok -- Scambos said a large volcanic eruption might hold Arctic ice melting at bay for a few years.

 

But he saw a continued warm-up as inevitable in the coming decades.

 

"Long-term and for the next 50 years, I think even the new report will agree that we're in for quite a bit of warming," Scambos said.

 

"We just barely now, I think, have enough time and enough collective will to be able to get through this century in good shape, but it means we have to start acting now and in a big way."

[Kicking_Television]

Scary stuff. It's sad this won't get more attention.

[ikol]

It's bad enough that we're melting our own ice caps, but melting the ones on Mars is just too much. We need to have mandatory emissions caps on Mars Rovers!

[owl]

Maybe we could launch you up to 4th planet. Your cool-headedness will surely rescue the Martian icecaps.

[JUDE]

It's bad enough that we're melting our own ice caps, but melting the ones on Mars is just too much. We need to have mandatory emissions caps on Mars Rovers!

 

 

Maybe we could launch you up to 4th planet. Your cool-headedness will surely rescue the Martian icecaps.

 

 

There is already a thread about this...

[Atticus]

"The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur," Scambos said in a telephone interview.

 

He said he had no doubt that this was caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he said was the only thing capable of changing Earth on such a large scale over so many latitudes.

 

that's some confidence

[ikol]

Maybe we could launch you up to 4th planet. Your cool-headedness will surely rescue the Martian icecaps.

 

I'd be willing to do that as long as you bought me some carbon credits to offset the emissions from my launch.

[caliber66]

Why are we worrying about this if the bees are going to rise up and kill us all in four years?

[Drazil]

I think the global warming will get us before the melting ice...

[Edie]

I wonder if anyone has thought about the damage that ice cutting boats do since a smaller ice cube melts faster than a larger one. A quick search yielded nothing.

[cryptique]

I think the global warming will get us before the melting ice...

You realize that there's not really a difference between those, right?

[ikol]

I think the global warming will get us before the melting ice...

 

Considering that global warming will bring on a new ice age (that chases people through the streets of major cities), I agree.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I wonder if anyone has thought about the damage that ice cutting boats do since a smaller ice cube melts faster than a larger one. A quick search yielded nothing.

My guess would be that ice cutters' affect on the surface area of the ice caps is negligible.

[ikol]

Why are we worrying about this if the bees are going to rise up and kill us all in four years?

 

It's already begun:

Bee Swarm Shuts Ark. Hospital's ER

[Edie]

My guess would be that ice cutters' affect on the surface area of the ice caps is negligible.

 

Because there isn't enough activity?

[kidsmoke]

Bees can't swim, so it's all going to work out fine. Everybody calm down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In all seriousness, this stuff scares the crap outta me. We have some incredible hurtles ahead.

[nicburto]

Agreed, this is certainly scary. We might be the last generation.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Because there isn't enough activity?

Well, I'm really speaking out of my ass here, but yes. That and they're only (presumably) cutting near the surface and (presumably) the icebergs/caps/etc. go very deep--or would normally. The reason a small ice cube melts faster is that its surface area to volume ratio is higher--meaning a higher percentage of it is exposed to the outside world. If you just take a few slivers out of the ice cube the surface area isn't going to change that much.

[street spirit]

on a positive note, at least some of us will be around to tell some others of us, "i told you so"

[anodyne]

we just need to mine a large block of ice from haley's comet and drop it in the atlantic every once in a while. that'll solve the problem once and for all.

[owl]

I'd be willing to do that as long as you bought me some carbon credits to offset the emissions from my launch.

 

I can do that, but what about your non launch-related emissions?

[quarter23cd]

Considering that global warming will bring on a new ice age

In that case, you gotta admit the future actually looks kind of cute

 

[Lammycat]

The thing with this stuff is that the experts don't even agree on a lot of the theories/predictions. You can pretty much find "facts" from experts to support one side or the other concerning the extent of/relevance of global warming/greenhouse effect/catchphrase du jour.

 

I'm not saying there isn't truth to some of it or that there shouldn't be concern for environmental issues but I'm cautious as to the soruces that report these findings and their (potential) agendas. There's been so much debate on these issues and there always seems to be a lot of leeway on either side as to what is fact and what is theory.

 

I side with the Gaia effect/theory on a lot of these issues that are open to debate. In a nutshell, the planet is a self-regulating gigantic ecosystem that adapts to circumstances in order to survive. It self-repairs. Of course, doing one's part to help along the way is only right.

 

I think, overall, that there's a lot of hype/scare-tactics thrown at us, though.

[Moe_Syzlak]

My ex-girlfriend is a PhD studying climate change for NCAR. Believe me, the science is there. The naysayers exploit the differences in the language of science from the language of the media/politicians/general public to create doubt. There is just about as much dissent that climate change is happening as there is that gravity isn't real, but it is still expressed -- in the language of science -- as a theory. Even if you believe humans aren't contributing (although there is pretty good consensus there too), why would NOT do something about it. It's like arguing about who left the toilet seat up in your cabin on the Titanic as it is sinking.

[owl]

In that case, you gotta admit the future actually looks kind of cute

 

 

"loser"