What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Summer 2013 = No more ice in North Pole

ngakpa

Active member
Veteran

Meltdown in the Arctic is speeding up

Scientists warn that the North Pole could be free of ice in just five years' time instead of 60
Robin McKie, science editor The Observer, Sunday August 10 2008

Ice at the North Pole melted at an unprecedented rate last week, with leading scientists warning that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2013.

Satellite images show that ice caps started to disintegrate dramatically several days ago as storms over Alaska's Beaufort Sea began sucking streams of warm air into the Arctic.

As a result, scientists say that the disappearance of sea ice at the North Pole could exceed last year's record loss. More than a million square kilometres melted over the summer of 2007 as global warming tightened its grip on the Arctic. But such destruction could now be matched, or even topped, this year.

'It is a neck-and-neck race between 2007 and this year over the issue of ice loss,' said Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. 'We thought Arctic ice cover might recover after last year's unprecedented melting - and indeed the picture didn't look too bad last month. Cover was significantly below normal, but at least it was up on last year.

'But the Beaufort Sea storms triggered steep ice losses and it now looks as if it will be a very close call indeed whether 2007 or 2008 is the worst year on record for ice cover over the Arctic. We will only find out when the cover reaches its minimum in mid-September.'

This startling loss of Arctic sea ice has major meteorological, environmental and ecological implications. The region acts like a giant refrigerator that has a strong effect on the northern hemisphere's meteorology. Without its cooling influence, weather patterns will be badly disrupted, including storms set to sweep over Britain.

At the same time, creatures such as polar bears and seals - which use sea ice for hunting and resting - face major threats. Similarly, coastlines will no longer be insulated by ice from wave damage and will suffer erosion, as is already happening in Alaska.

Other environmental changes are likely to follow. Without sea ice to bolster them, land ice - including glaciers - could topple into the ocean and raise global sea levels, threatening many low-lying areas, including Bangladesh and scores of Pacific islands. In addition, the disappearance of reflective ice over the Arctic means that solar radiation would no longer be bounced back into space, thus heating the planet even further.

On top of these issues, there are fears that water released by the melting caps will disrupt the Gulf Stream, while an ice-free Arctic in summer offers new opportunities for oil and gas drilling there - and for political disputes over territorial rights.

What really unsettles scientists, however, is their inability to forecast precisely what is happening in the Arctic, the part of the world most vulnerable to the effects of global warming. 'When we did the first climate change computer models, we thought the Arctic's summer ice cover would last until around 2070,' said Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University. 'It is now clear we did not understand how thin the ice cap had already become - for Arctic ice cover has since been disappearing at ever increasing rates. Every few years we have to revise our estimates downwards. Now the most detailed computer models suggest the Arctic's summer ice is going to last for only a few more years - and given what we have seen happen last week, I think they are probably correct.'

The most important of these computer studies of ice cover was carried out a few months ago by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Using US navy supercomputers, his team produced a forecast which indicated that by 2013 there will be no ice in the Arctic - other than a few outcrops on islands near Greenland and Canada - between mid-July and mid-September.

'It does not really matter whether 2007 or 2008 is the worst year on record for Arctic ice,' Maslowski said. 'The crucial point is that ice is clearly not building up enough over winter to restore cover and that when you combine current estimates of ice thickness with the extent of the ice cap, you get a very clear indication that the Arctic is going to be ice-free in summer in five years. And when that happens, there will be consequences.'

This point was backed by Serreze. 'The trouble is that sea ice is now disappearing from the Arctic faster than our ability to develop new computer models and to understand what is happening there. We always knew it would be the first region on Earth to feel the impact of climate change, but not at anything like this speed. What is happening now indicates that global warming is occurring far earlier than any of us expected."
 

HuffAndPuff

Active member
IMHO, this is slightly alarmist. It reminds me of the 'Peak Oil' predictions. The US Dept. of Energy has identified 36 different forecasts for a global peak oil date. Even Hubbert, whose concept this was, and who accurately predicted that US production would peak in 1970, couldn't accurately predict the global peak (he said 1995...http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/natgeog.htm). To me, once you have data on ANYTHING, it is merely an editing job away from PROVING your point, whatever side of the argument you are on. People manipulate data to create bogus/half-true statistics all the time.

I tend to bristle at any perspective that comes off as having ulterior motives, is alarmist, plays on fears/emotions, and comes from too far right or left. They key to this article, the global peak oil debate, and many other things lies in this quote here...
What really unsettles scientists, however, is their inability to forecast precisely what is happening in the Arctic

That, right there, should be THE ONLY thing the scientists talk about. What good are your predictions (fear-mongering to suit your own agenda...) when you admit they are not accurate? What really drives me bat-shit, is that no one will just fucking admit that they "don't know the answer to your question" any more. When they don't have an answer for something, they feel that their position/degrees/title/small penis gives them the right to make something up, and declare it as fact. What's worse, is that too many of us have lost our critical thinking skills.

No one fucking questions anything, anymore, which means everybody else is complicit in this. Its because they want the quick answer, and don't want to do the hard work that is often required to get to the 'truth' of things. Which would be fine, if these weren't the same idiots who then went on to spread and argue what they now 'know' to be 'fact' with the rest of us. Because people are generally lazy, it seems like whoever has the 'cooler' side of the argument, or who can shout louder, is whose side the public takes. All based on statistics that have been selectively created by people with vested interests, from raw data that the vast majority of us would never be able to make sense of.

Be serious.... you all 'know' global warming is real, right? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, mind you. Alls I am saying is that you 'know' that it is real, and that is happening, and the rough version of why it's happening. But how many scientific studies have you read on the topic? And of those studies you read, where/who were they coming from? Scientists who need more grant money next year? (not dissimilar from getting $$$ from the gov't to study marijuana.... you'd better be ready to 'discover' the newest way in which it is an abomination) Were they from oil companies? Do you see what I'm getting at?

The truth always lies somewhere in between the two sides that are arguing most ferociously. Let's assume, for a minute, that all of the data in the article is accurate about what is currently going on, and it's just that we have no idea what will continue to happen. If that is the case, how could we possibly be definitive about what has caused the situation, up until now?

IMHO, all we know is that this shit is melting. We don't really KNOW why, but we have some suppositions that may, or may not, be correct. We also cannot predict what is going to result, long- or short- term, from this melting. So, to claim that there are going to be catastrophic 'consequences' seems a little premature. These guys are douche bags, and based on the way they arrogantly present their 'findings', I am inclined to disbelieve them. That's just me. I tend to be slightly obstinant-defiant.

Stay Safe,

HuffAndPuff


[EDIT: NGAKPA- After a re-read, I just wanted to make sure that you know that I am not trying to call you out, or argue with you, if this is your perspective/opinion. We are all entitled to our own, obviously. I just didn't want the above to come off as disrespectful to you, or anyone else who agrees with the article. I hope that it was clear that I was not trying to argue the other side of things, but merely trying to point out that the debate itself, may be flawed.]
 
Last edited:

BiG H3rB Tr3E

"No problem can be solved from the same level of c
Veteran
well i figure:::we running low on water right??? at least thats what keeps plaing on the tv... so if the ice caps melt>>>we get more water,, voila problem solved....

now i just need a a/c to cool my central a/c :bashhead: :muahaha:
 

RudolfTheRed

Active member
Veteran
Arctic smog caused by humans most likely is fucking awful some parts of the year in the North Pole. We are fucked. Stupid humans look out there suburban paradises and don't see much change because they've already ravaged the environment around them and are in tune with nothing but there televisions and automatically assume climate change isn't there fault because its not happening in there back yard.

While I don't think the North Pole will be gone by 2013 it will be gone soon if something doesn't change. Humans impact on the earth is real. You can't live like this for this long and not expect it to have an impact on the earth. Its just fucking stupid to think otherwise.
 
Last edited:

wishbone420

Member
it only took us 100 years to get to the state we are in. what do u think it will be like 100 years from now if nothing is done on mass scale. i live in the south 90* was hella hot 15 years ago and breaking records. now its 100* all summer like nothing and more bigger stronger natural disasters are the result. 70,000 people killed not to long ago in china. earthquake. we are not going to be here much longer. times are changing for the worst. mankind has killed itself.
 
C

CheifnBud2

Most of the rich people in this country are in their 60's-80's. that means 10-30 years of life left.

Do you think they really give a fuck? :muahaha: no.

They are living it up now at the expense of the future generations. Its been progressing that way for what 50 years now?
 

HuffAndPuff

Active member
Rudolf-
What if they're watching the weather channel or "an inconvenient truth", on those TV's? haha, I keed, I keed. I don't think it's that "people don't think it's their fault because it's not in their backyard"... It's more simply that they don't care because it's not in their backyards.

And even when something IS in your backyard, and you DO care about it, it doesn't guarantee any change. You think the people of Naples, Italy WANT all of the trash that has collected in their city piled-up, like it is? Hell no. That doesn't mean the problem disappears.

I guess I, like the scientists, am still unclear as to what the melting of the icecap will mean for the world. Obviously, it is going to suck for polar bears, penguins, and the like. But honestly, the world has gone through many climate changes, and sometimes species become extinct. I, too, am nostalgic for the days of dodo birds, and American Buffalo... but I am a darwinist. It is survival of the fittest. You either adapt, or you cease to exist. Propping up these species through legislation is really only delaying the inevitable.

I have always been curious as to the human fascination with protecting, and even declaring, species as 'endangered'. I mean, what has the polar bear done for me lately? Guess what Mr. Polar bear? You prolly should have though about layering your outfit, instead of going for broke with the whole, "It'll always be balls-cold!" attitude, and going with the full-pelt/cold-weather package. And the penguins? Don't get me started. Yeah, they're cute as shit, but twice as useless. The good news about us, is that mankind will survive climate change. Our brains enable us to adapt in ways our bodies cannot. Polar bears lack the opposable thumbs required for operations of that magnitude.


[EDIT: YUKON, I'm kidding! And to the other poster above, who was getting ready to strap his tinfoil hat on- don't freak out, just yet. Have faith in the scientists (NOT the ones I spent calling out in my earlier post!)... Hot summers ain't going to kill mass amounts of people, in the developed world, for more than a couple of summers in a row. After that, we will have adapted our culture/society/technology and solved the problem of how to 'beat the heat'. By the time that shit happens though, we'll all be dead anyways.]
 
Last edited:

Stoner4Life

Medicinal Advocate
ICMag Donor
Veteran
You talk about this global warming like it's a bad thing.......

we must consider other peoples positions, like maybe by 2020 if it warms up enough Santa Claus will finally be able to grow his own stash, some folks just tend to take warm weather for granted.
 

cocktail frank

Ubiquitous
Mentor
ICMag Donor
Veteran
did anybody ever see "the day after tomorrow"
its a movie about some ocean current shutting down due to the influx of too much fresh water into the sea.
mostly from ice caps melting.
now, the movie was a little off, extremity wise, but this will happen.
there will be plenty more ice soon enough, when we jump start the next ice age.
maybe after 100k years or so, when the ice finally retreats, if we're still around, we'll learn our lesson.


plus, something like 60+% of the world population lives w/in 100 miles of a shoreline.
when these caps melt, sea levels will rise 20' or so
anybody who lives where the red is on this pic, should probably move.
why do you think islands have been for sale so cheap? :nono:
fig5.gif
 
S

Space Ghost

good, more land in the arctic for condos and golf courses!


edit: oh yeah, there is no land.... well, I can wait until the antarctic melts i guess...
 
Last edited:

RudolfTheRed

Active member
Veteran
Well one good thing about global warming is New Orleans and Florida will be under water. All I can say is if there is a God, THANK YOU! Florida and New Orleans equate to what is hell on earth. I wished Katrina would have blown New Orleans into the Gulf and it almost happened maybe this time global warming will take care of it.

That's the ONLY good thing about global warming.
 

RudolfTheRed

Active member
Veteran
Space Ghost said:
good, more land in the arctic for condos and golf courses!


edit: oh yeah, there is no land.... well, I can wait until the antarctic melts i guess...
No this just means big business for the oil companies. There going to drill the fuck out of the place once it melts. You can bet on that.
 

Pops

Resident pissy old man
Veteran
If the polar ice, which reflects sunlight, melts, then the Arctic ocean will evaporate faster,which will cause more rainfall at higher altitudes, which may form more ice. It is a big cycle that has happened before. About 14,000 years ago, the glaciers were melting and running down the Mississippi. When the St. Lawrence finally melted, the cold water rushed out into the Atlantic and disrupted the current of warm water flowing from the tropics, which puts us back into an ice age again. It is all cause and effect. I am not saying that it is good or bad, only that things change over time and have changed many times in the past. Man will survive, but some animals may not. 99% of all species that have gone extinct, have done so before man evolved. One day, we will go that way ourselves, but it won't be for a while.
 

Growler

Member
Here is my thought on the flawed logic behind "global warming".

Humans have only recorded weather everyday for, oh lets give an extremely large estimate, oh say 1800 years (and i take that from the invention of the thermometer). THe earth has been around for about 4.54 BILLION years (give or take a million or so).

In comparioson to the window that we can view (the last 1800 years) we are getting an extremely small (actually miniscule) view of the reactions of weather in comparison to the whole view of the weather patterns as a whole.

Not that my statment proves or disproves the existence of global warming, it is just looking at a non-alarmist viewpoint in comparison to an alarmist viewpoint.

Is there a problem? In my opinion no, it is just the way the earth works.
 

TNTBudSticker

Active member
Veteran
I Call Bullshit...If it's cold...it will make ice

Thats like saying the sun spewed another frequency in radio waves


Wait.....Can you hear that ??????????




..nahhhhhh :joint:
 

zig

Member
google pan evaporation rate, and fully understand it, not saying the ice is gonna melt or nothing, but something is happening...it dont take a genious(umm) to figure out- all this shit we're burning etc ...is up in the air blocking the sun
Growler said:
Here is my thought on the flawed logic behind "global warming".

Humans have only recorded weather everyday for, oh lets give an extremely large estimate, oh say 1800 years (and i take that from the invention of the thermometer). THe earth has been around for about 4.54 BILLION years (give or take a million or so).

In comparioson to the window that we can view (the last 1800 years) we are getting an extremely small (actually miniscule) view of the reactions of weather in comparison to the whole view of the weather patterns as a whole.

Not that my statment proves or disproves the existence of global warming, it is just looking at a non-alarmist viewpoint in comparison to an alarmist viewpoint.

Is there a problem? In my opinion no, it is just the way the earth works.
 
Last edited:

Dr Dog

Sharks have a week dedicated to me
Veteran
Anyone seen that doc on global dimmimg?

A bit of controlled dimming would suffice until we can get the other shit fixed

Should Nasa or Richard Branson, have not by this point, come up with some sort of greenhouse gas vacuum to pump out into space?
 

zig

Member
Dr Dog said:
Anyone seen that doc on global dimmimg?

A bit of controlled dimming would suffice until we can get the other shit fixed

Should Nasa or Richard Branson, have not by this point, come up with some sort of greenhouse gas vacuum to pump out into space?

I saw stuff on global dimming.

Controlled dimming nope...the prob is less water evaporation = less rain.

less rain means? imagine.
 
Top