backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 100 comment(s) - last by Polynikes.. on Sep 19 at 8:29 AM


New images from space show giant swaths of melting over Antarctica in 2005. Melting is indicated in red, orange, and yellow.  (Source: nationalgeographic.com)
Most studies and data collection indicate that the Arctic ice cap is melting, now a new study shows the Antarctic ice cap is also losing mass

DailyTech blogger Michael Asher recently wrote an article which indicated that Antarctica's ice cap was thickening.  The article cited a study by the British Cambridge Centre for Polar Observations.  The Center's study, published in July 2006, stated that Antarctic ice mass was increasing by 27±29Gtyr-1.  The study had an admittedly large range of error that was in fact larger than the predicted increase.  The large error range was attributed to difficulties in predicting snow density.

Another major study, which contradicts the Cambridge Centre's results was released a few months before.  The study was conducted by major U.S. research institute CIRES, a joint institute comprised of Colorado University-Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The study was published in the journal Science Express in March 2006. 

The study used two NASA satellites to examine the mass of Antarctica's ice cover.  The satellites would experience variable gravitational pull as they passed over the poles, depending on the mass of snow cover.  This technique allowed the study to predict the mass of snow at the poles much more precisely, with a smaller range of error than the Cambridge Centre's study.

The CIRES study discovered that Antarctic ice mass was actually decreasing, at a rate of
152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year.  The Cambridge Centre's study actually might predict an increase or a decrease, but the CIRES study clearly reports a decrease.

Further, the CIRES study indicates the decrease in ice mass would lead to
0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year.  This would mean that over 100 years, the loss in Antarctic ice mass would lead to global sea level rising 4 cm, as the ice is on bedrock.  These gradually rising sea levels would likely lead to loss of habitable land in coastal areas, such as Florida and California.  Also, the large amount of water displaced into the ocean, would likely disrupt the ocean's currents, causing unpredictable climate changes.

Furthermore, other studies and data over recent years have indicated that large areas of Antarctic ice which had not previously thawed are now freezing and rethawing each year.  This may eventually lead to even greater loss of ice mass.

As mentioned in Michael Asher's article, there is consensus in the scientific community that the Arctic ice cap is melting, and many studies indicate it is melting at a rate far faster than predicted.

While critics deride global warming and climate change models as being overly pessimistic, it turns out they may be too optimistic in their predictions of climate change.  A more recent study by CIRES indicates that the Arctic ice caps are melting at a rate that is far faster than that predicted by any of the current climate models.  The actual data paints a picture of Arctic ice melt far bleaker than that in the models.

While the melting of the Arctic ice cap will not increase sea levels, it will destroy the Arctic biosphere.  It will most likely lead to the extinction in the wild of many species include large mammals, such as the polar bear and various arctic seals.  This unfortunate loss of biodiversity may be an unprecedented ecological event.  If global warming is a result of human behavior--industrialization, deforestation, and/or domestication--as many theories predict, then the impending extinction would mark the first time a single species single-handedly destroyed a major ecosystem.

The melting of Arctic ice cap may not lead to sea levels rising, but the melting of the ice cover on neighboring Greenland, certainly will.  A new major ongoing study by the University of Reading in Britain is investigating the rate of melting.  Its finding are that Greenland's average temperature only needs to increase by 3 degrees Celsius to melt its ice-sheet, and that significant melting is likely to occur over the next century.

The study indicates that over 1000 years the melting of Greenland's ice cover will raise sea levels by 7 meters.  This equals an increase of over 2 feet a century.  Combined with the CIRES study's predictions for the Antarctic melt, this means that sea levels could rise by over 3 ft in the next century.  As mentioned, this would have numerous negative social and climatological effects.

As new studies and data emerge, a clear picture of melting at both poles emerges.  Whether we can reverse this melting with technology, or whether we are too late remains to be seen.  However, though the cost may be high, the ramifications of inaction may be far worse.  Coastal land loss, chaotic weather from violent thunderstorms to droughts and flooding, and irreversible loss of biodiversity are among the dire consequences of inaction.  Admittedly, many of the details of climate change are not understood, so people need to avoid jumping to hasty conclusions, absolutely.  However, the threat of these consequences and effects (good and/or bad) leaves no doubt that this is a significant topic to the future of mankind's habitation of Earth and much scientific research needs to be done to more precisely understand what is causing global warming, and a creative examination of if it is within the means of modern technology to fix it.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

But wait...
By Polynikes on 9/15/2007 2:54:03 PM , Rating: 1
I just read this:
http://www.dailytech.com/Antarctic+Ice+Levels+Hit+...

Who's right? How do they measure the ice mass? Clearly someone's fudging the numbers or they have very different ways of measuring the ice mass.

Either way, I'm done listening to any arguments on global warming, no matter who's saying what. This is completely ridiculous. Stupid scientists letting politics muddle up what should be completely objective research.




RE: But wait...
By noirsoft on 9/15/2007 3:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
Um, this article links (in the first sentence!) to the one you cite and is offerred as a direct rebuttal to that.

Did you read either article, or are you just enjoying the back-and-forth over global warming?


RE: But wait...
By Polynikes on 9/15/2007 4:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
I realize they brought in Jason Mick to offer a different viewpoint from Michael Asher's blog posts, and these two articles are obviously meant to show both sides of the debate. I just think it's ridiculous that a bunch of intelligent people can't arrive at some sort of consensus on the exact same research.


RE: But wait...
By Rovemelt on 9/15/2007 6:15:07 PM , Rating: 1
The consensus is that both ice poles are melting and will continue to melt into the near future due to the planet warming from human activity. There's still debate about how fast the melting will occur.


RE: But wait...
By TomZ on 9/15/2007 6:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, where do you see consensus? There are clearly studies that appear on the surface to contradict one another.

I'd have to say, however, that a three-year drop doesn't seem to me to be very statistically signficant when considering some aspect of global climate change. It would seem logical to me to look over a much longer period to deduce trends. After all, it's not like we just all of a sudden started emitting CO2 in 2001.


RE: But wait...
By Rovemelt on 9/15/2007 7:46:18 PM , Rating: 1
Here's some data on the arctic ice that you may not have seen:

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum...


RE: But wait...
By TomZ on 9/15/2007 7:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's still not consensus - don't change the subject.


RE: But wait...
By mars777 on 9/16/2007 10:11:12 PM , Rating: 3
Before we get to a consensus the earth might blow up... to much lobbists on this planet :)


RE: But wait...
By Rovemelt on 9/17/2007 7:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'm not surprised to see troll rating when I'm mean or posting something completely off topic, but this post is just the supporting data for the arctic melting phenomenon we're experiencing. If you look at the title of the blog, you can see that it's related information.

I'm not the only one posting off-topic comments, yet it seems like I'm getting the troll rating now irrespective of what I write. Apparently even if it's completely related and just supporting information. There are plenty of other comments that should have been troll-rated before this one.


RE: But wait...
By Polynikes on 9/15/2007 7:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, yeah, the other article (http://www.dailytech.com/Antarctic+Ice+Levels+Hit+... ) says the ice mass actually got larger. That's not a consensus.


RE: But wait...
By Zurtex on 9/16/2007 7:48:16 AM , Rating: 3
Science rarely has a single view point during its development. Having multiple arguments helps science.

Having 2 people argue different points of views, who aren't scientists, just accounts for free speech. Doing it in a media forum helps everyone be aware of both sides of the debate.


RE: But wait...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/16/2007 10:32:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "Science rarely has a single view point during its development. Having multiple arguments helps science"

Exactly. And what you're seeing in these articles is a microcosm of the climate debate raging in science journals. I think it's invaluable that real people see it.

Despite's Jason's claims of "wanting to provide both sides of the issue", the fact remains that one side is already being drastically overpresented in the media. There are hundreds of environmental reporters, working for publications with thousands of times the readership of Dailytech, who do nothing but scan the journals. Any paper which doesn't support the alarmist point of view is ignored; any which does hits headline status.

It's no wonder many laymen believe there's a consensus. It's all they're being presented with.


RE: But wait...
By cheetah2k on 9/17/2007 12:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
This is just a classic example like the Mobile Phone debate - does it really cause cancer?

Some say yes, others say no - and the people in between just say "just use in moderation"...

Who do we believe??

All i can say with certainty is, people will keep buying phones, cars and industry will keep polluting the air. If there is both an increase in cancer and decrease in the polar ice caps in the next 20 years, then someone will be the winner..


RE: But wait...
By tcsenter on 9/17/2007 4:59:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I just think it's ridiculous that a bunch of intelligent people can't arrive at some sort of consensus on the exact same research.
A bunch of people have arrived at a consensus: global climate patterns and conditions remained largely unchanged, non-fluctuating and non-cyclical by any substantial extent, steady-as-she-goes for the past few hundred thousand years up until circa 30 ~ 40 years ago, at which point global climate trends began to depart from this nice-and-consistent 'norm'; and all of this was inferred from evidence that goes back not more than 30 ~ 40 of the most recent years on a planet that has been inhabitable for at least a few hundred million years.

Oh wait, you asked for a bunch of intelligent people...nevermind!


RE: But wait...
By TomZ on 9/17/2007 5:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, that's good.


RE: But wait...
By Polynikes on 9/19/2007 8:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
Don't believe everything you read. Clearly there is not a consensus about what is causing any recent changes in weather and climate patterns, despite what your sources have told you.

There may be a consensus that there's been a change, but there's nothing conclusive and widely-accepted that definitely points it towards our own "contributions."


RE: But wait...
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/15/2007 3:41:29 PM , Rating: 4
I agree that it is indeed hard to tell what is truly objective research, especially on such a contentious issue.

My point in writing this article was to illustrate that there are numerous studies which take an opposing viewpoint to the studies cited by Michael Asher in his article.

My reason for doing this is not to try to stir up controversy or to create a fight. Rather it is to present both sides of the issue, which is what my intention of writing for Dailytech originally was.

Michael Asher is obviously quite intelligent and is a persuasive debater, however he is also logical--he himself has admitted during our debates that there are definitely studies which have conclusions counter to those he cites. However, most would not realize this if they merely read the content of his articles.

My concern is simply if people only see one side of the issue, one study that says "Antarctic ice thickening" most people will just accept that as the given truth without doing their own research.

A person like Mike would go out there and do their own research and realize that their is not a consensus, however, most wouldn't want to spend this amount of time and effort.

So my goal is to save you the time of researching the topic by presenting you the other opinion, the counter argument to Michael's, as best as I can, supported by studies I read and come across.

Also there are some issues that no scientific study is going to answer. For example, is it wrong to put industrial growth first, even if it results in extinction of all large predator species such as whales, lions, tigers, and polar bears? You can make many scientific arguments for and against, but ultimately this a moral issue, that people as a whole will need to examine and come to grips with.

My goal is certainly to present an opposing viewpoint to Michael's, but (except when I get worked up =P) I will try to do so respectfully and scientifically.

If you disagree with my articles, I welcome you to comment on them, a lively dialog is always something positive. And if you agree with my conclusions, I don't mind you saying that either!


RE: But wait...