backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by amosbatto.. on Aug 26 at 2:26 PM


  (Source: sciencedaily.com)
Sea ice extent in the Arctic fell to 483,000 square km (186,000 square miles) on August 13, a new record

The Arctic Ocean is feeling hot, hot, hot, says new report released by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. 
 
According to the report, sea ice extent in the Arctic dropped to a record low on August 13, and will continue dropping to new record lows by the end of the month. 
 
Sea ice extent, which measures the amount of sea ice remaining in the ocean, fell to 483,000 square km (186,000 square miles) on August 13. This was a dip from the previous record low on the same date back in 2007. 
 
But that's not the end of it. The Arctic sea ice is expected to continue melting through mid to late September, but more record lows have been predicted for the end of this month.
 
"A new daily record would be likely by the end of August," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Chances are it will cross the previous record while we are still in ice retreat."
 
The news of a new record hasn't surprised many among the environmental community. This may be because the Arctic neared record lows last year, according to climate physics Professor Seymour Laxon from University College London. It almost seemed inevitable that this would happen at some point. "Rapid" melting occurred in June of this year as well with 100,000 square km melting daily.
 
However, Laxon worries that this rate of melting will adjust the prediction for an ice-free Arctic in summer. Previous reports estimated that the Arctic will have an ice-free summer in 2100 based on melting at that time, but when the 2007 low hit, this estimate was brought to the 2030-2040 range. Scientists are now concerned that this year's lows will bring that date even closer, which is problematic because the melting of sea ice means warming of the oceans. Sea ice keeps the Earth's temperature controlled.  
 
Global warming always seems to be a hot topic (pun intended). A recent controversial report released by James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed that global warming has caused hotter summers since 1980, but many question the merit of his opinions based on his position on climate change. 
 

Source: BBC News



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: take this with a grain of salt
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/22/2012 7:46:42 AM , Rating: -1
First of all, scientists are NOT pandering to politics. This is 99% of climate scientists who are in agreement with each other, have published peer-reviewed studies, etc. This is not some huge conspiracy involving 1000s of scientists SO GOOD at keeping a secret that no one can crack it. This is THE CONCLUSION that different groups keep coming to time and again. This is the science.

Second, 400ppm is normal FOR THE FCKING DINOSAURS, not for humans. And CO2 2500ppm?? Dude, are you kidding me? That was 600 fcking million years ago! You couldn't even breathe the air that long ago. It was toxic to modern animals. Animals of the of the quaternary period evolved with 250-300 PPM CO2. Boost it above that and you're putting entire ecosystems at risk.

And lets talk about that stupid site you linked to. First the owner is too cowardly to put his own name on it. It's a godaddy site registered under domainsbyproxy.com to hide the owner. Second, hooray for CO2!!! It's necessary for life! Corn and wheat will flourish! More is better! This is the stupidest Fcking thing I've read. You know what else is necessary for life? Water. Try drinking 2 gallons of it (8 liters) in one hour and get back to me. Oh, except that you won't get back to me b/c you'll be dead. Too little Co2 we die. Too much, we die. We haven't had 400 PPM CO2 on earth for FIFTEEN MILLION YEARS. The animals who evolved today, including humans, are not equipped for that level of CO2 and the climate it brings. There will be mass extinctions.

Plant a tree? It's not a bad idea. But here's the problem. The vast majority of CO2 absorbed in from plankton in the ocean. GW causes the acidification of the ocean which inhibits plankton growth which prevents CO2 uptake which increases GW, you get the picture. Reducing CO2 emissions is THE key to preventing GW and all of the nasty side effects.

Will humanity survive? Probably. Will billions of people die in the process? Probably. I'm all for controlling the population, but it seems to me that it should be done through birth control not through massive widespread deaths.


By Dr of crap on 8/22/2012 8:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
Hey less population means MORE food for us survivers!
I'm guessing I'm going to be here - you?
Because by the sounds of it this will happen soon. Right?

We are breathing now and not dying. So when is your model going to start happening?? Exactly WE don't know! Don't even know IF it will. Might have a volcano explosion that will do more damage than your CO2 prediction.

Me - I'm burning as much oil and gas as I can to ROB my grand kids of whatever I had !!! Having a barbeque with all the food not being eaten by the rest of the population! Come on over!


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By JediJeb on 8/22/2012 2:15:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Second, 400ppm is normal FOR THE FCKING DINOSAURS, not for humans. And CO2 2500ppm?? Dude, are you kidding me? That was 600 fcking million years ago! You couldn't even breathe the air that long ago. It was toxic to modern animals. Animals of the of the quaternary period evolved with 250-300 PPM CO2. Boost it above that and you're putting entire ecosystems at risk.


So the past 3 billion years of Earth's history means nothing, only the past few thousand years where the climate has been optimum for humans is what we should judge all climate by?

Maybe the current climate and CO2 levels are just a fluke and humans are thriving during a climate anomaly which will soon end and destroy our entire civilization through purely natural events. To rant on about how higher CO2 levels were only good for dinosaurs and forest of the past and should never happen again is the most arrogant of human beliefs that the entire world's climate and environment should revolve around what is good for humans.

quote:
First of all, scientists are NOT pandering to politics.


That is false on so many levels, and not only in the climate field. I work in an environmental testing laboratory and I can tell you that most of the "science" put out that we have to follow for analysis of the environment for pollution is purely political driven. There are so many newer and better ways to test water, soil and air for pollution and contamination, but we are only allowed to use techniques that are often 20 years old simply because the EPA has not "approved" the newer testing and forces us to use the old ways.

If you want to be successful in science you have to play the politics.

quote:
Will humanity survive? Probably. Will billions of people die in the process? Probably. I'm all for controlling the population, but it seems to me that it should be done through birth control not through massive widespread deaths.


Population is not a problem like many want to play it up to be either. I did the math in a post here before but the short and simple is that with current global population you can give every man, woman, and child on the planet something like a 2000 square foot house and fit all those houses on the land mass of Greenland, that would leave the rest of the entire planet to grow food on to support them. People today do not starve because of lack of tillable land, they die because of politics that prevent food from being distributed to everyone. We can double our current population and not even notice it if it weren't for political problems.

Also if you think about it, every man on Earth has to marry a woman and have two children just to maintain the world's population over time, and today in many cultures(not just in China) that is not happening. Russia is actually suffering from a loss of population because their younger generations are not having children. It will be a very long time before anyone has to worry about the world being over populated. The ones who are decrying such a problem are the ruling classes who find they are becoming too outnumbered by the lower classes and want to control that population to prevent their inevitable loss of power.


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By JediJeb on 8/22/2012 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, 400ppm is normal FOR THE FCKING DINOSAURS, not for humans. And CO2 2500ppm?? Dude, are you kidding me? That was 600 fcking million years ago! You couldn't even breathe the air that long ago. It was toxic to modern animals. Animals of the of the quaternary period evolved with 250-300 PPM CO2. Boost it above that and you're putting entire ecosystems at risk.


I forgot to add this before

250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
>5,000 ppm – this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
>40,000 ppm - this level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

Seems even at 2500ppm we could survive and I would imagine within a few generations we would adapt to those levels without much problem, just as long as the O2 concentration doesn't drop too much. Of course if the plant life increases from the increased CO2 then O2 should not drop off.

It also is interesting that even at a level of 400ppm we would still be in the lower range of CO2 concentrations outdoors that are considered normal for our indoor environments. Currently most animals, bacteria and plants seem to do well in normal indoor environments so I doubt that even approaching the 1000ppm level would destroy the entire ecosystem.


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By Zaralath on 8/22/2012 5:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't 'climate scientists' have a vested interest in promoting what's best for their careers? (i.e. more funding for research)

Just a thought :)


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki