Arctic Ice Melt At Point Of No Return

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

The Independent   |  Steve Connor   |   December 16, 2008 02:31 PM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen.

Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.

The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect effects around the world.

Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions.

However, in a study to be presented later today to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future.

Computer models of the global climate have for years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades.

However, a study by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period.

Julienne Stroeve, of the NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today.

Story continues below
advertisement

"The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming.

"In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification."

Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region -- between 3C and 5C above average -- but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform.

"One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added.

Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.

Read more Independent stories

Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen. Climate-change ...
Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen. Climate-change ...
 
Comments
96
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

You may want want hang on to those winter jackets, gloves and snow boots.
As temps have risen and fallen over the past 100 years, CO2 has been on a steady climb and for that - mankind bears some responsibility. So, any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and a dependance on fosil fuels should continue.
However, a closer look at the cycles and syncronicity between the Sun and oceans would be useful in any conversation on climate change.
Interesting story from the folks at The Old Farmer's Almanac and their long range weather forecast - Is Global Warming on the Wane? Almanac.com www.digital-almanac.com/digitalalmanac/2009/?folio=68lio=68

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

Green energy will not solve global warming, only eating less meat or going veg will do it. It's like trying to be energy independent by drilling for oil in America.lo­l Check this out and pass it along. Good luck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ol_6Ju3oYI

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 AM on 12/24/2008
- mlaiuppa I'm a Fan of mlaiuppa 38 fans permalink
photo

How tragic.

I will live to see the extinction of the polar bear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 PM on 12/21/2008

Unless you are over 50 you may well live to see the extinction of the homosapien.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 PM on 12/29/2008

Hm... what if the global climate is warming and sea levels will rise? I'm thinking Canada will be a very nice place to live. The warming trend will open up huge tracts of fertile land and the lack of Arctic ice will open up new water trade routes. Really forward-thinking people will start buying up large tracts of Canadian land (at higher elevations, of course), for their grand-children and great-gran­dchildren.

Any body interested in buying some property in the Canadian wilderness?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 12/21/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

You clearly don't know much about geography. Here are a few concepts that might stand between reality and your bright side:

1) The precambrian Canadian Shield
2) and agriculture in acidic muskeg and permafrost soil humas.

So much for vast tracts of fertile land opening up in Canada.

3) How rising temperature affects soil moisture,
4) average elevation above sea level and population density of the country Bangladesh,
5) how many rivers rise in Tibetan Plateau and how many human beings are dependent on the flow of those rivers in the face of shrinking glaciers,
6) how the the Asian Monsoon has already shifted in tandem with rising temperature, leading to dryer conditions in the north of China and increased flooding in the south.

So much for your brighter, warmer future for hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion people or more.

But hey, as long as you're alright, jack.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 12/21/2008

Heck, there are all kinds of people here in Canada who don't understand what you have just posted. Try growing a crop on the shield or the skag. The longer growing seasons we are getting in the fertile areas may well be out weighed by new problems, such as pine beetles killing forests (their eggs under the tree bark are only killed by severe cold, more than -30), and other problems as yet unforseen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:35 PM on 12/22/2008
- kolorkin I'm a Fan of kolorkin 2 fans permalink

Compelling evidence suggesting that we must take drastic measures for change soon! It starts with each and every one of us from our daily routines to contributing in bigger ways.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 AM on 12/21/2008

I suggest you turn off your computer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 12/24/2008
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 71 fans permalink

i'll keep my routines thank you

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:22 PM on 12/24/2008
photo

You have far less time than you think you have. Change.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 12/20/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

*WE* have far less time than we think we have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 PM on 12/20/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

It seems that the official period used to determine annual average global temperatures is December through November, as opposed to the January through December calendar year. That means that the last 10 years hasn't covered the 1998 El Nino, and the consequent anomalously high temperatures of 1998, for some time now. Which means that global warming/climate change denialists can no longer cherry pick 1998 to compare to 2008 and insist that the temperature trend is down over "the last 10 years."

Although it wasn't "down" in any case, because the length of time period needed to separate a long-term trend in climate from the year-to-year and longer variation in weather "noise" is commonly accepted as 30 years, but even using the denialists' too-short 10 year period it's more than clear that the trend is up, not down.
Here's what the trend for "the last ten years" now looks like:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend

[Thanks to bob at Open Mind]
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 12/18/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

For those taking comfort in the fact that Summer 2008 Arctic sea ice melt failed to exceed than that of 2007, as measured by extent and area, it turns out that 2008 exceed 2007 in terms of minimum ice volume.

"Because ice was thinner in 2008, overall ice volume was less than that in any other year."
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/17/world-meteorological-organization-wmo-press-release-arctic-ice/

And for those taking comfort in this year's refreeze:

"Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 12/18/2008

There are new problems to add to the mix. Serious problems that have nothing to do with anything that mankind has done...

"Earth’s Magnetic Field Has Massive Breach - scientists baffled"

The solar wind presses against Earth’s magnetosphere almost directly above the equator where our planet’s magnetic field points north. Suppose a bundle of solar magnetism comes along, and it points north, too. The two fields should reinforce one another, strengthening Earth’s magnetic defenses and slamming the door shut on the solar wind.

You can read the whole story here... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-magnetic-field-has-massive-breach-scientists-baffled/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 PM on 12/17/2008
photo

Probably not much we can do about that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 PM on 12/17/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 88 fans permalink

The scenario you propose is a BENEFIT.

The REAL danger is a magnetic pole reversal. ..."Baffle­d scientists" are idiots - or woefully uninformed about their own discipline! We _know_ we are due for a pole reversal, geologically speaking. We also know that we have absolutely no idea how long it takes or what such a reversal "looks like" - except for some mathematical models and a few experiments. ...It could take hours, days, months, years, decades, or a century! All of these timeframes look the same to us in the geologic records...

When a pole reversal occurs, it's certain that there are times and places where we have no effective magnetosphere to protect us from the solar wind. We know that the reason Mars is barren is because it lost (or never had) a magnetosph­ere... And no one knows what happens to weather / climate during such periods. We _barely_ have any work going on to model it!
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 12/18/2008

This article has been severely critisized this week as just another example of the fact-less "news" pieces that are being repeatedly force fed to the World to promote the Global Warming myth. Why don't you ship a bunch of snow up north from LAS VEGAS!!! They have quite a bit and I'm sure they would be willing to share.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 PM on 12/17/2008
photo

by who, cite your evidence please?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 PM on 12/17/2008

Drudge had it posted earlier this week. One of the many scientists who considered this article irresponsible and lacking in proper scientific foundation took aim at the fact that melting sea ice would actually lower sea levels and not raise them - you know the old Archimedes Principle routine. I'm just tired of the incredible hype that this very weak argument has attained. I would much rather folks like you focused your time, energy and money on real issues that can be fixed - like hunger and poverty. You could still feel better about yourself at the end of the day and you wouldn't add to the current economic crisis by pushing an unnecessary environmental agenda that will hurt many of the industries that we need to pull ourselves out of the current mess. Don't get me wrong - I'm all about reducing pollution, recycling and reusing etc etc etc.....I would put my household up against most any day of the week. Let's just move forward wisely and not fall for the hype that sells magazines.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 PM on 12/17/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

And we're tired of rock hard stu-pid nonsense like this:

"...meltin­g sea ice would actually lower sea levels and not raise them - you know the old Archimedes Principle routine."

Try reading about some actual science, you just might learn something:
http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20050801_floatingice.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 12/18/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

...and even if both the ice cubes and the water were fresh, the water level would not go down when the ice melts. It would remain the same!

If you are going to cite the Archimedes Principle it would help for you to understand what it is and what it says.

But hey, never let facts or reality stand in the way of a perfectly ignorant opinion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 AM on 12/18/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 88 fans permalink

This isn't some fiction scientists are inventing to sell magazines - or even to get funded.

I've been working in this area since 1994. What I can tell you is that you and the public at large have been prevented by the Bush administration from getting the vast majority of information that science can tell us about both weather and climate. If you had access to it, you'd be convinced already; this is a coming calamity of truly biblical proportions - and that's no exaggeration. And if we don't act now, by the time you figure out the science was right, it'll be TOO LATE to save your sorry bottom.

What else you don't seem to get is that it's properly called GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. The focus on "global warming" misleads people. Yes, it's the warming that's causing the change, but some places will get colder while others get warmer and in any case it's the effect on weather patterns (that therefore constitute climate) that are the real issue.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 12/18/2008
- williamina I'm a Fan of williamina 7 fans permalink

and the only fix is stop burning oil. How you doing in that dept?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 AM on 12/19/2008

Your comment about biblical proportions speaks wonders, this is a belief system of enviro egoists who proclaim, they are profits of science who know how the climate system of the world behaves, and they can SAVE THE WORLD from this warming, oh yeah now j its any change of climate. Don't buy into their sham eco-religion, the use of absolutes in observation and causation statements shows the scam for what it is, remain skeptical! It is not what we believe that makes the laws of nature, it is the critical open mind which discovers the laws of nature, not the mindless acceptance the current culturally accepted paradigm.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 AM on 12/23/2008
- hollybork I'm a Fan of hollybork 65 fans permalink

Hey Tired - just go on believing what you want to believe. That's the ticket. But don't expect rational people to find your emotion charged, ignorant arguments compelling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 PM on 12/18/2008

Yeah, my fault for leaping onto someone elses "archimedes principal argument" although if I could find the original article I'm sure it was utilized with more skill than I certainly demonstrated. More importantly though, how naive of me to dare present an opposing view to the global warming crowd! Let's recap shall we...I say that I'm all for reducing pollution but suggest that we do it in a calm and well thought out manner that doesn't cripple our economy. I also suggest that maybe we could put a little effort into trying to reduce the worlds problems with hunger and poverty. I get called Stupid and ignorant! And my arguments are emotionally charged!!?? Get serious folks! Can't you just for a second admit that maybe, just maybe the very well documented solar cycles have something to do with this and that it has absolutely nothing to do with man made pollution? Have you looked outside recently? Oh yeah, this is where you insert the new "Climate Change" mantra instead of global warming, because your donations were starting to drop with that one. It's a cycle folks and it seems to be headed the other way. Once again....I am all for reducing man-made pollution, just knock it off with the whole "Sky is falling - it's a Bush Conspiracy routine" - you are embarrasing yourselves. "this is a coming calamity of truly biblical proportions - and that's no exaggerati­on".....ye­ah hardly any exaggeration at all!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 AM on 12/23/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Is this the original article you are referring to?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html

If so, the Archimedes Principal was not handled with any skill at all.
What do you expect when you get your science "news" from Fox?

See this thread for more on their emeritus professor "expert" and his "fourth grade science experiment":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/16/arctic-ice-melt-of-over-t_n_151334.html

But on to your question.

continued.­..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 PM on 12/23/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

....contin­ued

Yes, I will readily admit that changes in solar output have had an influence on Earth's climate since sunlight is the sole energy input into Earth's energy budget.

Now it's your turn. Will you admit:

1) That greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.) have the physical ability to absorb and emit infrared energy?

2) That in the atmosphere they delay the rate at which outgoing infrared energy radiated by Earth's surface reaches space, thereby making Earth's surface and atmosphere warmer than they would be if greenhouse gases were not present in the atmosphere?

(If not you are going to have to explain why Earth's average surface temperature is 15C/59F instead of -18C/0F.)

3) That an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would therefore have to make Earth's average surface even warmer?

4) That Human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels but also the manufacture of cement, land clearance, and even agriculture, has increased the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere by nearly 38%?

5) That Earth's average temperature has in fact increased?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 PM on 12/23/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

That's it Tired, drag out your bogus list of "scientists", Fed Singer chief among them.
I'll stack up the list of real, practicing physicists, chemists, oceanographers, geologists, biologists, meteorologists and climatologists who's work actually relates to understanding climate change, past, present and future to Fred any day.

And your false dichotomy of addressing either global warming or the poor and hungry, who, by the way stand to be impacted most by global warming-induced climate change. Do tell us, please, exactly what you've done for the poor and hungry recently?

And do tell us what crops the Norse dairymen grew in Greenland, other than silage for their dairy cows. And while you're at it, please show us exactly how Prof. Svensmark's Galactic Cosmic Ray hypothesis, supposing for the sake of argument that it pans out, negates any of the radiative physics of greenhouse gases that I outlined below, hmmm?

What's that, you have no idea?

Exactly. All you have is cut & pasted long refuted arguments that you have zero understanding of how they are supposed to work

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:31 PM on 12/24/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

I love the way that deniers of greenhouse gas induced global warming/climate change cling to this one:

"temperature increases have preceded"not resulted from"increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2."

as if the delay "proves" that rising CO2 did not induce warming. What you utterly fail to grasp, because you have no understanding of greenhouse gas radiative physics in the atmosphere, is that CO2 can act as either a climate feedback to some other initial forcing, or as a direct climate forcing, depending on the circumstances, and that in both cases it will induce warming.

Instead of taking Singer's word for it, why don't you educate your self on how greenhouse gases actual work. You could start here:
The Discovery Of Global Warming, by physicist Spencer Weart, available for free on-online at : http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Or you could try reading one of these:
The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate, by physicist David Archer
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/our-books/#Archer09

Global warming: Understanding the Forecast, also by Prof. Archer
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/our-books/#Archer06

What have you got to loose, other than your own ignorance?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 PM on 12/24/2008

Pollution is a serious problem and it has been for years and the real problem is that no-one could find a compelling way to make people change, so suddenly someone found an argument that our pollution was going to kill us all though global warming. And it was a good sales pitch and it started getting some air play and some people started to change their ways. So the enviro's started to hype up the message and the media discovered it could get some attention for them as well and off it went! Along came old Al (cause he needed something to do) and here we are with a full blown, out of control monster. Everything in the world comes down to power, money (and likely sex but I don't think we need to include that one here) and I don't think this is any different.­....carbon credit trading has become a $64 Billion market in 2008 and don't you dare try to tell me that this has nothing to do with perpetuating the myth. "Carbon Markets" are clearly listed as one fo the 4 main key priority areas of focus for Al Gore's company Generation Investment Management LLP. I'll check back in a few days to seeif any of you can present a calm response, or if you just continue with the name calling when pushed into the corner a bit by one of the many folks who is willing to look at all sides of this issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 12/23/2008
photo

ASK the environmental groups to come together, to build clean energy plants waiting on the government will take to long.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/green-power-plants

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:28 PM on 12/17/2008
photo

We can solve 80% of global warming if everyone went vegan. All these attention to green energy will not solve anything, the main problem is meat!!!! Get that through all your heads!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:07 PM on 12/17/2008

Vegan is not the answer!

The only way to solve this problem is to stop listening to all climate alarmists and ecofascists.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 PM on 12/17/2008
- topgunna I'm a Fan of topgunna 5 fans permalink

Yes, the only way to save the planet is to adopt the lifestyle you're already living. How convenient for you!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 12/18/2008
photo

Lets not let vegans like this one hurt the effort by piggyback on Climate change with their farting cows.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 12/21/2008

Hmm, I propose we eat vegans. Two birds with one stone?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 12/24/2008

Scientists have found the ice cap at the South Pole expanding. Does this mean we will have a new ice age? No....natu­re runs in cycles. The warming fears we now hear so much about is political not environmental.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 12/17/2008
- GuyRC I'm a Fan of GuyRC 7 fans permalink
photo

Here is a quote regarding that study

"Despite the gains of Antarctica's sea ice, the larger region - encompassing the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Seas - has suffered as a whole: glaciers in these seas, which flow from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, are now losing ice to the sea faster than they are being replenishe­d."

So actually if you look at the southern ocean rather than focusing in on the coast of antarctica there is a net loss of ice also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 12/17/2008
- Nooooorm I'm a Fan of Nooooorm 3 fans permalink

You mean the Ross Ice Shelf?

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/aberg32300.htm

"I don"t think the calving (breaking off) of this iceberg is any indication of global warming," says Ted Scambos, a scientist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Michael Oppenheimer, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, who has written about the potential effects of warming on Antarctica, agrees: "At this time, I would lean against global warming as an explanation" for the iceberg.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 PM on 12/22/2008

Did you even read the article? Politics don't even enter into it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:57 PM on 12/17/2008

Fail.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 12/29/2008

I can't believe I am saying this, but carbon emmisons may not have to do with this warming. Check out Mayan, Lord Pacal, and sun spots.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 12/17/2008
- GuyRC I'm a Fan of GuyRC 7 fans permalink
photo

All the ice in the Arctic is at sea level, and floating in the ocean. In the antarctic the ice is partly at sea level and partly on land some of which is high elevation where it will get snow despite global warming just like the rockies and the sierras. At sea level there likely has been net loss of ice in the antarctic as well. They just havn't looked for it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 PM on 12/17/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 276 fans permalink

It's difficult to measure.

The ice could be melting underneath, and we wouldn't know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 PM on 12/17/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

The Antarctic ice cap is a high ice desert, where it rarely snows. (Look it up.)

That it is currently gaining mass from increased snow fall is in fact due to global warming:
a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapour, and more water vapour will condense into more precipitation.

Science. It works.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 12/17/2008
- hollybork I'm a Fan of hollybork 65 fans permalink

Good post. Interesting information. Thanks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 12/18/2008
- GuyRC I'm a Fan of GuyRC 7 fans permalink
photo

The Antarctic ice cap, glaciers, and sea ice, were all formed by snowfall, high desert or not. Now there is more snow at high elevation yes. But at sea level around the coast they are getting rain part of the year now and the rain/snow ratio will go up as global warming increases. My point was you can't compare the arctic and antarctic because there is high elevation land with alpine ice sheets and glaciers in the Antarctic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 PM on 12/18/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

I would agree with your point, then. The same is true for Greenland's ice cap.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 PM on 12/18/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect