Nasa Arctic Ice "GONE" By 2013

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by C1ay

As I said before, man may or may not be contributing to a natural cycle. We are not controlling anything.

Let's please try to keep this thread about the fact that the ice will be gone in less than 30 years instead of AGAIN arguing why.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Let's please try to keep this thread about the fact that the ice will be gone in less than 30 years instead of AGAIN arguing why.

So what should we do about it besides learning to accept the inevitable? Should we explore David Keith's idea to inject a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere, to deflect sunlight and heat simulating a volcanic eruption? This would cool the planet in the same way that nature does but it could yield another ice age. Which are we better equipped to adapt to, a tropical planet or a frozen tundra?

[cyclonebuster]

So if we remove the CO2 we are creating the temps. come back down if not they continue to rise. Sounds like we can control CO2 to regulate temps. If we can regulate CO2 then we can regulate climate.

[InfiniteNow]

We must certainly alter our impacts, but to C1ay's point, even if we stop ALL carbon dioxide contributions today, the forcing will continue for a few more decades.

Per the ideas to make solar umbrellas or inject huge amounts of ash into the atmosphere... etc... that doesn't strike me as the most intelligent solution. It directly implies that we've still failed to learn that our actions have unintended consequences.

Coupled with just "learning to accept it," we must also learn how do survive now differently. Change our contributions, change our approach, and change the efficiency of our air conditioning units and water filtration system, because it's gonna get hot.

[cyclonebuster]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

We must certainly alter our impacts, but to C1ay's point, even if we stop ALL carbon dioxide contributions today, the forcing will continue for a few more decades.

Per the ideas to make solar umbrellas or inject huge amounts of ash into the atmosphere... etc... that doesn't strike me as the most intelligent solution. It directly implies that we've still failed to learn that our actions have unintended consequences.

Coupled with just "learning to accept it," we must also learn how do survive now differently. Change our contributions, change our approach, and change the efficiency of our air conditioning units and water filtration system, because it's gonna get hot.

Here is my idea to end it. Anybody listening?

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-s...l-warming.html

[CraigD]

Wow!

It should be pointed out that, far beyond

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

… the fact that the ice will be gone in less than 30 years instead of AGAIN arguing why.

the VOA article quotes NASA Goddard’s Jay Zwally’s speculation that the Artic Ocean could be entirely ice free in 2013 – that is, 5.5 years from now!

Originally Posted by freeztar

As far as the Arctic ice, only time will tell...

As far as Zwally’s speculation goes, not much time is needed.

A critical speculation from the NASA Goddard scientists is that the Artic has reached at “tipping point” where the rapid loss of its ice is, barring catastrophically extreme influences, is inevitable. Even if a radical artificial action, such as dramatic curtailment of manmade output, increase in ocean or other uptake, or artificial or natural sun-blocking aerosols, are unlikely to prevent the loss of ice, just as pulling back your hand from a glass you’ve just pushed past its tipping point won’t cause the glass to upright itself.

My main question, however, is, assuming Zwally et. all’s speculations prove true, what then?

First, we should note a fundamental trait of artic ice – most of it is floating, so its melting won’t increase the global sea level.

One of the speculative “doomsday” scenarios involving artic melting is that release of less dense fresh water will cause the warm northwest flowing Atlantic current to submerge and flow south at a more southern latitude, resulting in the northeast US, Ireland, England, and coastal Europe to become much colder. Already, there has been an unexpected amount of artic melting, but to the best of my knowledge, no evidence of this scenario coming true. This is, I think, very good news.

Assuming the US and UK climate emerge OK from a total Artic Ocean thaw by 2013, what does a much warmer Artic mean for the rest of the world?

Obviously, an open Artic ocean becomes navigable. Northern Alaska is now about the same distance from Liverpool as is New York. The north coast of Sibera becomes one of the longest coasts in the world, possible continuously ice free. The geopolitical and economic consequences of this, and of the warming climate near the Artic Circle, boggle my imagination.

For some specialized artic wildlife (most famously polar bears), an iceless Artic Ocean is obviously catastrophic, potentially spelling their extinction. However, it’s potentially beneficial for humans and other species.

It’s an interesting time to be alive.

[cyclonebuster]

"Already, there has been an unexpected amount of artic melting, but to the best of my knowledge, no evidence of this scenario coming true. This is, I think, very good news."

Not such good news!

NASA - NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by CraigD

One of the speculative “doomsday” scenarios involving artic melting is that release of less dense fresh water will cause the warm northwest flowing Atlantic current to submerge and flow south at a more southern latitude, resulting in the northeast US, Ireland, England, and coastal Europe to become much colder. Already, there has been an unexpected amount of artic melting, but to the best of my knowledge, no evidence of this scenario coming true. This is, I think, very good news.

Originally Posted by cyclonebuster

Not such good news!

NASA - NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007

The “record low” in this NASA article refers to the area of artic ice, not temperatures in the northeast US or the UK, as was feared in the “doomsday scenario” I mention.

It’s an interesting article, offering explanations for some of the underlying causes of the unexpectedly fast rate of artic ice loss, but doesn’t address the effects of increased artic fresh water on the North Atlantic Current important to the feared outcome I described. It appears to me that this particular dreaded possibility is not coming to pass.

[cyclonebuster]

Originally Posted by CraigD

The “record low” in this NASA article refers to the area of artic ice, not temperatures in the northeast US or the UK, as was feared in the “doomsday scenario” I mention.

It’s an interesting article, offering explanations for some of the underlying causes of the unexpectedly fast rate of artic ice loss, but doesn’t address the effects of increased artic fresh water on the North Atlantic Current important to the feared outcome I described. It appears to me that this particular dreaded possibility is not coming to pass.

If the Gulfsream did slow down the BTU exchange between the two oceans would slow down and the ice would last longer. Sadly,this is not the case. It seems the Arctic Oceans doom is sealed much sooner than thought of by the IPCC.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by CraigD

It’s an interesting article, offering explanations for some of the underlying causes of the unexpectedly fast rate of artic ice loss...

Considering how fast the Earth has warmed during past ice ages I wonder why the current rate would be unexpected....