North Pole may disappear [briefly] this summer

[Ivan Seeking]

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. [continued]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

 

[humanino]

Shall we have a barbecue in the North pole on solid ground for the first time in man's history ?

White ice reflects quite an amount of heat, and the breakdown of this can cause a serious feedback loop in the heating process. On the other hand, we know of a few ways of reflecting Sun's light, which would be quite efficient in reducing our temperatures. Geoengineering, although politically incorrect, faces us both because we know better and better how to do it, whether we want or not, and also because the need to use it becomes more and more urgent. What if tomorrow morning you read in the news that China for instance, in order not to reduce CO2 emissions, decided on its own to use geoengineering ?

It seems to me, independently of whether we want to use geoengineering or whether we don't, despite its political incorrectness, we can not afford not to talk about it anymore. We need a responsible international organization to make decisions, to define rules, at least to officially release an assessment

Planetary engineering

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On the up side, shipping will be much cheaper this summer.

As for the OP: When I heard this, I nearly soiled myself.

 

[Moridin]

Isn't the geographical North Pole just ice and no land beneath?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, that is true of the North Pole proper, if you will, however the arctic circle includes plenty of land mass. Glaciers contain a vast reserve of fresh water.

Salinity changes are huge concern.

 

[Hurkyl]

Oh, ha ha ha. They're not saying the arctic ice will disappear, just the ice located at the geographic North pole.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sure, but if the ice at the northermost lattitude experiences historic melting, that would certainly be true for everything South, until we get South of the equator.

 

[edward]

A couple of years ago there was talk of black soot being deposited on the ice as the culprit involved in the arctic melting.

I am thinking that pollution from China could be involved.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would think any evidence of this would be easily seen by satellite.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sure, but if the ice at the northermost lattitude experiences historic melting, that would certainly be true for everything South, until we get South of the equator.

Would it? Climate is complicated subject; I know I am certainly unqualified to judge whether such a thing is certain. But if they were predicting the entire ice pack was going to melt, don't you think that would have found its way into the article, not to mention every major news outlet?

We should base our opinions on facts (these climate models predict ice at the North pole will melt), and not exaggerations of facts (these climate models predict the Arctic ice pack will melt).


(I'm not trying to diminish whatever significance the article has -- I'm trying to diminish exaggerations of that significance)

 

[humanino]

Ah!, fine, we have 5 years left before it happens. Maybe 10. Maybe 15. Who cares. To me that's missing the point. Even though you might be technically right, the article ends up on

But given the rapid changes now evident in the Arctic, the ultimate fate of the North Pole—in fact, all permanent ice in the Arctic—may be all but assured. Almost all models have the Arctic completely ice free in the summer by 2100.

"We jokingly call [perennial ice] an endangered species," Barber said. "It's on its way out. And so we're studying it as quickly as we can, because there isn't going to be any of it left pretty soon."

and points to at least 2 other articles mentioning the entire Arctic all together.

 

[edward]

I would think any evidence of this would be easily seen by satellite.

NASA did use satellite info during a study of the possible involvement of soot in 05. I think they mostly used temperature information because the soot doesn't turn the ice black it just reduces the reflectivity.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_soot.html

Edit: This more recnet study implicates China

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/blog/2008/01/18/black_soot_causes_arctic_melting

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Does this mean that the opening to hollow Earth will be visible again?






Sorry but this is GD. ;-p

 

[Borek]

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],"

I hate such an anthropocentric approach. At best it will be for the first time in the history of our observations.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, I think the correct number is something close to 20,000 years.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But if they were predicting the entire ice pack was going to melt, don't you think that would have found its way into the article, not to mention every major news outlet?

Where did I say that? I said historic melting, not complete melting. From everything that I've seen with possibly one or two exceptions, historic melting is an accurate description.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I remember when suggestions of the polar ice melting in our lifetimes was considered to be a crackpot assertion posited only by the most extreme fear mongers.

 

[Hurkyl]

I remember when suggestions of the polar ice melting in our lifetimes was considered to be a crackpot assertion posited only by the most extreme fear mongers.

Just goes to show that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Andre]

The reasons why arctic ice increases melting rates include rougly in this order:

- Temperature and flow of water below the ice

- Increased direct solar radiation

- Air temperature and windspeed.

The unusual large arctic melt of 2007 was attributed to unusual winds:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

 

[vanesch]

I remember when suggestions of the polar ice melting in our lifetimes was considered to be a crackpot assertion posited only by the most extreme fear mongers.

Well, I remember a discussion I had with a PhD student in geology, now about 15 years ago, who told me that the ice sheet on top of Greenland is actually metastable: there shouldn't be that ice sheet. However, because it was there, it kept itself in place because of two reasons: high reflectivity, and the top of the ice sheet was pretty high, which means that the precipitation which should have come down as rain, was in fact snow up there at that altitude. He told me that if ever it were to melt down, it would "flip" in the stable state of Greenland, which is no ice cover at all.

 

[Andre]

That's another story, Vanesh, the Greenland ice sheet. I believe that the thread is about Arctic sea ice.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How will we explain this to children. Will Santa Clause drown?

If the arctic ice melts, I bet that some parents will be stumped by that question.

 

[Evo]

Just point them to this and it will make complete sense and alleviate any fears showing that this is a normal cycle on Earth between hot and cold.

Warming, then a cold snap. Around 14,000 years ago (about 13,000 radiocarbon years ago), there was a rapid global warming and moistening of climates, perhaps occurring within the space of only a few years or decades. In many respects, this phase seems to have resembled some of the earlier interstadials that had occurred so many times before during the glacial period. Conditions in many mid-latitude areas appear to have been about as warm as they are today, although many other areas - whilst warmer than during the Late Glacial Cold Stage - seem to have remained slightly cooler than at present. Forests began to spread back, and the ice sheets began to retreat. However, after a few thousand years of recovery, the Earth was suddenly plunged back into a new and very short-lived ice age known as the Younger Dryas. Although the Younger Dryas did not affect everywhere in the world, it destroyed the returning forests in the north and led to a brief resurgence of the ice sheets. This map by D. Peteet shows the possible distribution of Younger Dryas cooling around the world. The main cooling event that marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas seems have occurred within less than 100 years, according to Greenland ice core data (Alley et al. 1993). After about 1,300 years of cold and aridity, the Younger Dryas seems to have ended in the space of only a few decades (various estimates from ice core climate indicators range from 20 - 70 years for this sudden transition) when conditions became as warm as they are today. Around half of the warming seems to have occurred in the space of a single span of 15 years, according to the latest detailed analyses of the Greenland ice core record (Taylor et al. 1997).

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

So, we've been there, done that.

The last approximately 10,000+ plus years have been unusually stable and we are overdue for a major climate swing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And you think climate scientists don't know that?

Armchair science.

 

[Evo]

And you think climate scientists don't know that?

Armchair science.

Those are climate scientists that wrote that. So, if it is common "public" knowledge, why the surprise?

I think a lot of people really think that the polar ice caps have always been there and this is something unprecedented.

 

[B. Elliott]

I think a lot of people really think that the polar ice caps have always been there and this is something unprecedented.

Other than past Mars geology, that's another thing I'm pretty interested in; Earth glacial cycles and their effect on crustal compression and sea level variations. It's all just cycles. I've seen a few threads where Andre has contributed quite a bit. Excellent articles.

Here's a few that I just recently printed out for hard copies...

The Flandrian Transgression

The name "Flandrian" has been applied to the current sea level rise affecting the coastal regions around the globe which began approximately 18,000-19,000 years ago (Stage 1 - beginning in latest Pleistocene time and continuing progressively through Holocene to the present). This rise in sea level is directly related to the melting of the Wisconsin (Stage 2) continental polar and mountain piedmont glaciers. However, the rate of melting and proportional sea level rise was not constant through time. Sea level rose quickly during warm periods, but stopped or even temporarily fell during cold periods. The character of regional and global climatic patterns are exceedingly complex. For instance, glaciers may be melting in one region while advancing in others, yet the overall global temperature pattern seems to follow insolation variations related to Milankovitch Cycles.

http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/nyc/morraines/flandrian.htm Effect of ice sheet growth and melting on the slip evolution of thrust faults

The modeled deglaciation-induced slip acceleration agrees well with the occurrence of large earthquakes soon after the melting of the Fennoscandian ice sheet, which led to the formation of spectacular fault scarps in particular in the Lapland Fault Province. Furthermore, our model results support the idea that the low level of seismicity in currently glaciated regions like Greenland and Antarctica is caused by the presence of the ice sheets. Based on our models we expect that the decay of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets in the course of global warming will ultimately lead to an increase in earthquake frequency in these regions.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4RX075N-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6005dc282aa7062e016ce8fc940d4220Earthquake activity is frozen by ice sheets

Can you put a freeze on earthquakes? It seems so, according to a computer model showing that earthquakes happen less often in areas covered by ice caps. Trouble is, quakes come back with a vengeance when the ice melts.

http://environment.newscientist.com...thquake-activity-is-frozen-by-ice-sheets.htmlISOSTATIC REBOUND AROUND THE PATAGONIAN ICEFIELDS

The organized field of large vertical velocities observed around the Patagonian
icefields (up to2 cm/yr) is unique in our geodetic network of over 200 benchmarks that
spans the width of the southern cone of South America from Bolivia to Cape Horn. The best
explanation for the observed deformation field is a combination of elastic recovery and
postglacial rebound in response to recent changes (hundreds of years) in ice mass in a
region with MOR like geodynamic structure

http://www.dna.gov.ar/CIENCIA/SANTAR04/CD/PDF/103GH.PDF

 

[Andre]

Meanwhile, the underlying aim of this thread seems to be, wheather or not the Arctic sea ice will disappear from the north pole and if so if this is unprecedented, if it can have natural causes or if it is related to anthropogenic processes.

The answer to the last question seems to be ignored at bit:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1782421#post1782421

...http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

...the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds...

So how unprecedented is this?

1938:
see
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/zloty/Arctica.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/zloty/Arcticb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/zloty/Arcticc.jpg

(pics too large to display)


Also a little longer back during the Holocene there have been much variation in Sea Ice cover

http://www.nfh.uit.no/arctos/documents/papers/Andersen04QSR.pdf

After 7.5 kyr a 2.5 C rise over a 500-year period marks the start of a period of maximum Holocene temperatures (Fig. 4a). SSTs of 13–14 1C are reached between 7 and 5 kyr, which is 2–3 C higher than the modern SSTs at this site.

Apparantly we still have a few degrees to go to get there

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like 2008 must have been an unusually windy year for the Arctic as well. Both the NE & NW passages are now open.

Not only does that mean that a lot of shipping from Europe to/from China/Japan/Korea can save tons of fuel by using the new passage, they can probably even use sailships!

So how precedented is this?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Those are climate scientists that wrote that. So, if it is common "public" knowledge, why the surprise?

I think a lot of people really think that the polar ice caps have always been there and this is something unprecedented.

The point is not whether or not the event is unprecendented, it is whether or not the melting is related to APCC, or due to natural cycles, or perhaps even due to something like soot from Chinese coal plants, as has been suggested. To simply state that it has happened before is very misleading given the context.

 

[Andre]

Meanwhile, going back to the OP

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],"

which was likely based on the registered minimum last year:

http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears/2007SeaIce_home.jpg

Source: http://www.doi.gov/secretary/speeches/081405_speech.html

Most recent ice extent I could find

Source: http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm

We seem to need a lot more melting to reach that ice free north pole.

 

[Gokul43201]

2 weeks later...just a little change. And most of it was near the Bering Sea side of the Arctic, far from the NP.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/graphics/2008/08/31/618-arctic.jpg

 

[Evo]

The point is not whether or not the event is unprecendented, it is whether or not the melting is related to APCC, or due to natural cycles, or perhaps even due to something like soot from Chinese coal plants, as has been suggested. To simply state that it has happened before is very misleading given the context.

I don't see how it's misleading, we have proof that it happens, and it happens very quickly. What we don't have evidence of is it being caused by man, not that it's not impossible for man to have had some small impact. So why would we more likely jump to a man made cause than one that is proven to happen naturally again and again without man?

 

[Evo]

Interesting, as I am reading up on this, it appears that the artic actually has MORE ice than last year at the same time, it's just in different areas. See link

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/576/arcticicefb6.png

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=31&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=31&sy=2008

Also, I'm verifying what I read that says the Arctic Ice has only officially been recorded since 1979, so "all of recorded history" is 29 years?

Edit:Apparently it is true, scientific sea/ice satellite record keeping only began in 1979.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

 

[Mk]

North Pole may disappear (briefly) this summer

So does this mean my compasses won't work?

 

[lisab]

So does this mean my compasses won't work?

And what about Santa...the reindeer...the elves?

 

[TeTeC]

So does this mean my compasses won't work?

Yep.

You can still use the cows however.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7575459.stm

 

[Gokul43201]

Interesting, as I am reading up on this, it appears that the artic actually has MORE ice than this year at the same time, it's just in different areas. See link

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/576/arcticicefb6.png

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=31&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=31&sy=2008

Yes, there may be more ice this year. I don't know if that should be expected, but this year has also been cooler than last year, so I'm not surprised.

Also, I'm verifying what I read that says the Arctic Ice has only officially been recorded since 1979, so "all of recorded history" is 29 years?

Edit:Apparently it is true, scientific sea/ice satellite record keeping only began in 1979.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

But tradespeople and explorers have been looking for Arctic passages for hundreds of years.

 

[Art]

Washington (ChattahBox) - A report released by the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado has revealed that the Arctic ice is at its second-lowest level in history, and is melting because of the impact of global warming.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center put out the report late last week, confirming that the Arctic sea ice is melting away.

It is at its second-lowest point in recorded history. The lowest-point in recorded history was in 2007.

The report stated that “We could very well be in that quick slide downward in terms of passing a tipping point.”

That tipping point has to do with global warming, and is causing major problems for the Arctic sea ice, and endangered species such as the polar bear.

The level of Artic sea ice in 2008 is at 2.03 million square miles, compared to 1.59 million square miles in 2007.

http://chattahbox.com/science/2008/09/01/arctic-ice-melts-away-due-to-impact-of-global-warming/

When one ignores the usual AGW sensationalist spin and keep in mind that recorded history stretches back an amazing 29 years, according to the information in this report it seems the Arctic sea ice is a long, long way from disappearing this year.

Funny how they manage to make what should be good news look like the apocalypse

 

[Evo]

But tradespeople and explorers have been looking for Arctic passages for hundreds of years.

True, and I'm not saying that the position of the ice has allowed for passage since we started exploring the region. The shift in ice allowing a route could be a good thing, as you pointed out. No telling how suddenly it could close up again, though.

 

[Gokul43201]

So why would we more likely jump to a man made cause than one that is proven to happen naturally again and again without man?

First of all, "we" don't do the science here. It is done by a bunch of climate scientists that know a whole lot more about the field than we do. I think we should clearly separate us from them.

Secondly the claim that they "jump to a man made cause" is missing the point.

What they have arrived at, through careful or careless means, is that CO2 plays a noticeable role. Whether that CO2 is man made, kangaroo made, geologically generated or shipped into our atmosphere by aliens doesn't matter one bit.

 

[lisab]

Frankly, I'm tired of the reaction mainstream science gives people who raise doubts about the far-too-politicized subject of AGW. It seems when someone questions the science, they are told "You aren't qualified to ask that question," or "People who are making these decisions are far smarter than us," or "Don't worry your pretty head about it." Or worse, they're accused of being Bush lovers or oil company puppets.

Look, the entire population of Earth is being asked to make huge changes to our lifestyles. Why can't doubts be raised in a civilized manner?

 

[tribdog]

What will happen to all the penguins if the North Pole melts?

 

[Evo]

What will happen to all the penguins if the North Pole melts?

They'll be okay trib, they live in the South Pole.

 

[tribdog]

They'll be okay trib, they live in the South Pole.

WHAT, they're all gone from the north pole? oh the humanity.

 

[Gokul43201]

What will happen to all the penguins if the North Pole melts?

They fly south for the summer.

 

[Gokul43201]

Frankly, I'm tired of the reaction mainstream science gives people who raise doubts about the far-too-politicized subject of AGW. It seems when someone questions the science, they are told "You aren't qualified to ask that question," or "People who are making these decisions are far smarter than us," or "Don't worry your pretty head about it." Or worse, they're accused of being Bush lovers or oil company puppets.

Look, the entire population of Earth is being asked to make huge changes to our lifestyles. Why can't doubts be raised in a civilized manner?

It is one thing for the layperson (like you and me) to ask questions (and a good thing, too). It is completely another thing for us to sit in our armchairs (you in yours, and me in mine - and mine rocks!) and pronounce that hundreds and thousands of peer-reviewed papers are basically nothing more than a bunch of silliness which can easily be refuted by this here three sentence argument...

 

[Gokul43201]

What will happen to all the penguins if the North Pole melts?

Trib, you need to learn the art of telling a joke and making sure people know it's a joke.

For instance, a subtle modification thusly, does the trick.

What will happen to all the penguins if the North Pole melts?

Or even...

What will happen to all the penguins if the North Pole melts?

If those are a too subtle, you could add a wee bit more emphasis:

What will happen to all the penguins if the North[/color] Pole melts?

 

[tribdog]

subtle, that's me. I thought the fact that I wrote something was enough to tell you its a joke.

 

[russ_watters]

What will happen to all the penguins if the North Pole melts?

The north pole can't melt - it isn't made of ice, it's just a steel pole, sunk in concrete ( http://www.northpole.com/ ). Now those houses they built on the arctic ice cap, on the other hand, are in some trouble.

 

[russ_watters]

Trib, you need to learn the art of telling a joke and making sure people know it's a joke.

We recognized the joke - it's just funnier to not let him have it.