The End of the Arctic?By Mark Hertsgaard

Dec 13, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Daily Beast

Say goodbye to polar bears and a whole lot of ice. New research suggests the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free by 2015 with devastating consequences for the world.

Comments
1 - 14 of 14 Comments Last updated Dec 14, 2013
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

6

4

2

From the article:
Wadhams has been going on board British nuclear submarines to map the ice from below with sonar. Arctic ice thickness has declined by 43 percent between the 1970s and 2000s, Wadhams has calculated,“an enormous loss” that he attributes to the higher temperatures of both air and sea in the Arctic.
//////////
Coupling the strong Arctic sea ice area losses with the thickness losses, Arctic sea ice VOLUME losses have been devastating.

In the 1980's, yearly Arctic sea ice VOLUME losses from their yearly highs, decreased by ~ 50%, percentage-wise LESS than Arctic sea ice area losses.

In the early 2010's, the yearly Arctic sea ice VOLUME losses had increased to 80+%, percentage-wise GREATER than Arctic sea ice area losses!
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

4

dud diver wrote:
if its due to underwater thermal activity, then it is NOTHING to due with the alleged "global warming".
and it won't raise sea levels by a millimeter.
No one talked about sea level rise........ except "dud diver". But it's nice that "dud diver" knows its going down till it reaches crush depth.

Lots of AGW enhanced GHG energy plus primary & secondary feedbacks is conducted into the oceans AND much is transported via downwellings to continental shelve bottoms & into ocean depths. With the feedbacks, this is particularly evident in the Arctic. Of course, ocean volume expansions, just by AGW heats, cause sea level rise.

Also:
Fair Game wrote:
....... the region(the W. Antarctic) now to be dumping over 150 cubic km of ice into the sea every year.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Despite the cold Arctic temperatures that toxic topix AGW deniers crow about this year, the present Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss compared to the average sea ice VOLUME average of the 1980's decade, is still 9500 cubic km, or ~ 9500/28=~ 340 cubic km per year. Greenland ice Volume loss is ~ 215 cubic km per year.
//////////
litesong continues:
Extra ocean rise due to East Antarctic land ice losses plus mountain glacier ice losses from around the world, are & will continue sea level rises.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

litesong wrote:
Coupling the strong Arctic sea ice area losses with the thickness losses, Arctic sea ice VOLUME losses have been devastating.
In the 1980's, yearly Arctic sea ice VOLUME losses from their yearly highs, decreased by ~ 50%, percentage-wise LESS than Arctic sea ice area losses.
In the early 2010's, the yearly Arctic sea ice VOLUME losses had increased to 80+%, percentage-wise GREATER than Arctic sea ice area losses!
Volume losses are mainly due to less sea ice surviving each year to make 'multi-year' ice. Along with a warming Arctic ocean due to shorter seasons and lower area of ice reflection increasing heat capture while increasing wind friction pushes more ice out of the arctic.

The projection of 2015 is quite possible as seen from this graphic presentation.

http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/arctic_tipping...

But year to year variability is still a dominant factor so I would be surprised if it happened in 2015 specifically. A 'range' of 2014 to 2017 would be more supportable.

The important point of this article is more about the effects on agriculture of an ice free arctic.i.e.

"More than any gradual increase in temperature, it is the projected increase in extreme heat and drought that makes the warming of the Arctic such a threat to agriculture. Corn, which is the major crop (by volume) grown in the US, does not reproduce at temperatures higher than 35 degrees C. In the 20th century, the state of Iowa—the center of the US Corn Belt, experienced three straight days of 35 C only once a decade. By 2040, if emissions remain on their current trajectory, Iowa will experience three straight days of 35 C in three years out of four, professors Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University and Don Weubbles of the University of Illinois have calculated."

With the importance of maize to industry and food production (meat) this is NOT an item for calm contemplation.
Anti Christ

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

New research is finally going to be validated in mere months! The "abstract" indicates 25 months of less to validate or disprove the "theory".

The Climate Science Countdown Begins.

Careful what you hope for... for it may come true.

Post Script:
If this study is validated the Muldives should be under water due to thermal expansion long before the passing of this single score.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Anti Christ wrote:
New research is finally going to be validated in mere months! The "abstract" indicates 25 months of less to validate or disprove the "theory".
.
There is no 'theory' of arctic ice free conditions, merely a projection of the estimated mean time to zero ice in the summer. And the projection is true even if the actual date is 2017 (due to year to year variation).

http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/arctic_tipping...
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anti Christ wrote:
"New research is finally going to be validated in mere months! The "abstract" indicates 25 months of less to validate or disprove the "theory"."
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no 'theory' of arctic ice free conditions, merely a projection of the estimated mean time to zero ice in the summer. And the projection is true even if the actual date is 2017 (due to year to year variation).
http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/arctic_tipping...
Glad you agree (Note quotation marks) there is no "theory"!
Your reasoning also applies to The CAGW "theory". Neither idea is a scientific theory because, like the non-theory above, CAGW refers to future events ("merely a projection" as you so indelicately put it) AND neither idea has never been coupled to a test to offer an opportunity to scientifically falsify the premise.

Once again, thank you for all your successful efforts in debunking this hoax that is known as "The Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Driven Catastrophic Global Climate Disruption Fellowship of Orthodox Climatology.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 13, 2013
 
Oops: "never" = ever
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

1

B as in B S as in S wrote:
Glad you agree (Note quotation marks) there is no "theory"!
Of arctic ice free summers. Yes.
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Your reasoning also applies to The CAGW "theory". Neither idea is a scientific theory
SInce that is a term made up by YOU, certainly. There IS a scientific theory called AGW. Which has solid scientific support.
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Once again, thank you for all your successful efforts in debunking this hoax that is known as "The Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Driven Catastrophic Global Climate Disruption Fellowship of Orthodox Climatology.
I will be glad to debunk all the shit you have to excrete. But I prefer to deal with the science of AGW and AGW induced climate changes. The point about maize illustrates how this will be a challenge to overcome. Catastrophic? Only if we allow it to become..
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

litesong wrote:
Fair Game wrote:
....... the region(the W. Antarctic) now to be dumping over 150 cubic km of ice into the sea every year.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Despite the cold Arctic temperatures that toxic topix AGW deniers crow about this year, the present Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss compared to the average sea ice VOLUME average of the 1980's decade, is still 9500 cubic km, or ~ 9500/28=~ 340 cubic km per year. Greenland ice Volume loss is ~ 215 cubic km per year.
//////////
litesong continues:
Extra ocean rise due to East Antarctic land ice losses plus mountain glacier ice losses from around the world, are & will continue sea level rises.
Updates from an interesting science paper concerning small shifts in the Earth's physical Poles:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24755-e...

From the New Science article:
Jianli Chen of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues have shown that melting due to our greenhouse-gas emissions is making its own contribution to the shift.

Greenland thaw
Chen's team calculated that the biggest contribution is coming from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which is losing about 250 gigatonnes of ice each year. Another big factor is the melting of mountain glaciers, which contributes about 194 gigatonnes per year. The contribution from Antarctica adds up to 180 gigatonnes per year, but there is considerable uncertainty here because changes in the gravity field due to Earth's crust rebounding are less well understood over Antarctica than elsewhere.

All, very very interesting.......
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I prefer to deal with the science of AGW and AGW induced climate changes. The point about maize illustrates how this will be a challenge to overcome. Catastrophic? Only if we allow it to become..
Yes. "We" should "deal" with Carbon Dioxide Driven AGW.
Yes. "We" are faced with a Climate "Challenge" to overcome.
Yes. "We" do not have to "allow" AGW to become "Catastrophic".

But How?

You and your fellow apostles in the faith of "The Orthodox Climatology Fellowship in Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Driven Catastrophic Global Climate Disruption" have proclaimed the answer to these and other mortal questions for many years now... The solution is the same for each and every question. "We" must give ourselves over to the wisdom of our experts who are educated and understand the serious nature of our existence.
Because:

Science understands the fundamental mechanics of Climate.
Though climate science is in it's infancy experts think they have sufficient knowledge to control the weather.(Of course they also say they need billions of $ for further research)

Right now there is a consensus that a single control mechanism can be applied to adjust our weather.

If we don't like the size of the tornadoes in a region there is an application of a scientific (AGW) theory to make them less severe.
If we are unhappy about the numbers of tornadoes each year....
there's an Application for that too.
Big Hurricanes? There's AN APP.
Floods...AND/OR drought... AN APP.
Collapsing bridges in Minneapolis??? APP!!!
YES! The list goes on...
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.html
Just look at the hundreds of studies that all suggest "dialing down" the CO2 is the single application that will solve our climate woes.

People who embrace the principles of Climotology -attend:
Now is the time to stand fast in your faith of Our Climate Science Orthodoxy.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

1

B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. "We" should "deal" with Carbon Dioxide Driven AGW.
Yup. Hard to avoid reality.
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. "We" are faced with a Climate "Challenge" to overcome.
Yup. No getting around reality.
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. "We" do not have to "allow" AGW to become "Catastrophic".
We are all in the same small lifeboat called Earth, with it's life support systems failing and no guidance. Life boat rules apply. That means everyone is involved whether they want it or not.
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
But How?
Basically we are 'rocking the boat' with GHG emissions. First order of business is to stop rocking the boat. Even you must be able to understand that. Of course you are generally willfully blind and ignorant.

Just as an example, read the crap you posted. Not a useful idea in the bunch. Most of it is 'sound bites' like 'there's an app for that' and stupid claims about CONTROL of the weather instead of MODERATION of climate.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Yes. I see... I guess "we" are all guilty to one degree or another. I suspect I am more guilty than most because I was born of this offense for I spent my first weeks of life upon this burning planet in a heated incubator in an Air Conditioned hospital whose energy was supplied by a COAL burning Power Plant during a blistering hot Minnesota Summer. And now, as a former Olympic marathoner my metabolism burns close to TWO TONS of CO2 annually.

I now can see "we" are in desperate need of a higher power to guide us away from our evil path of self destruction without which we would doom all of Mankind to everlasting firery torment.

Thank you Les, for bestowing upon us all your prophetic pronouncements. I now see the truth that resides within the teachings of Orthodox Anthropogenic Climatology as revealed by Hansen, Trenberth and the Hockey Stick. Amen.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Cut n Paste wrote:
Yes. I see... I guess "we" are all guilty to one degree or another. I suspect I am more guilty than most because I was born of this offense for I spent my first weeks of life upon this burning planet in a heated incubator in an Air Conditioned hospital whose energy was supplied by a COAL burning Power Plant during a blistering hot Minnesota Summer. And now, as a former Olympic marathoner my metabolism burns close to TWO TONS of CO2 annually.
The issue is not of assigning guilt but of fixing a system gone wrong. Something you don't seem to be able to understand. Ad that is about reducing the amount of carbon ADDED, not recycled (i.e food to shit to fertilizer to food). And options of clean energy rather than no energy.
Cut n Paste wrote:
I now can see "we" are in desperate need of a higher power to guide us away from our evil path of self destruction without which we would doom all of Mankind to everlasting firery torment.
I'd be more worried about food scarcity and collapse of civilization. Or is that what you mean? As to guidance, the only guide we have is the science that tells us the problem. It is for society to make the solutions (and there are many forms).
Cut n Paste wrote:
Thank you Les, for bestowing upon us all your prophetic pronouncements. I now see the truth that resides within the teachings of Orthodox Anthropogenic Climatology as revealed by Hansen, Trenberth and the Hockey Stick. Amen.
Science reveals a lot of truths. But selecting 'prophets' among the scientists is not what it is about. You are really really stupid aren't you? Do you make a religion of everything you deal with? How about tying your shoes? Do you worship at the feet of your mother who gave you "THE WORD' and revealed the orthodoxy of shoe tying? I hope you are not married.. for her sake...
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Dec 14, 2013
 
litesong wrote:
Fair Game wrote:
....... the region(the W. Antarctic) now to be dumping over 150 cubic km of ice into the sea every year.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Despite the cold Arctic temperatures that toxic topix AGW deniers crow about this year, the present Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss compared to the average sea ice VOLUME average of the 1980's decade, is still 9500 cubic km, or ~ 9500/28=~ 340 cubic km per year. Greenland ice Volume loss is ~ 215 cubic km per year.
//////////
litesong continues:
Extra ocean rise due to East Antarctic land ice losses plus mountain glacier ice losses from around the world, are & will continue sea level rises.
//////////

Updates from an interesting science paper concerning small shifts in the Earth's physical Poles:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24755-e ...

From the New Science article:
Jianli Chen of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues have shown that melting due to our greenhouse-gas emissions is making its own contribution to the shift.

Greenland thaw
Chen's team calculated that the biggest contribution is coming from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which is losing about 250 gigatonnes of ice each year. Another big factor is the melting of mountain glaciers, which contributes about 194 gigatonnes per year. The contribution from Antarctica adds up to 180 gigatonnes per year, but there is considerable uncertainty here because changes in the gravity field due to Earth's crust rebounding are less well understood over Antarctica than elsewhere.

All, very very interesting.......
//////////
Conversation from Gigatonnes(billion) of melt water to cubic kilometers of melt water:
1 Gigatonne = 1 cubic kilometer

The most recent data, indicate increased melt water of ices from supported land masses in Antarctica, from Greenland Ice Sheet, AND from mountain glaciers around the world, to join continuing Arctic sea ice losses.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••