Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Could we refreeze the Arctic?

42 posts in this topic

A record loss of Arctic sea ice and faster-than-expected melting of Greenland’s ice cap made worldwide headlines in 2012, but research published in major science journals in the fall suggest warming in the North doesn’t have to continue.

We could refreeze the Arctic, proposed a paper in Nature Climate Change. It wouldn’t even cost that much, said an affiliated study in Environmental Research Letters.

The question is should we?

http://blogs.windsor...-but-should-we/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it will melt, sea levels will rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientists have long theorized that injecting reflective particles of some kind into the high atmosphere could reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface and compensate for the greenhouse effect. High CO2 levels would continue to trap heat, but with less energy coming in to begin with, temperatures on the surface would go down.

What if they miscalculate how much reflective particles are needed and we end up in a ice age. I think we need to leave it alone and develop other forms of energy before its too late.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it will melt, sea levels will rise.

arctic ice cap is sea ice.

sea ice melt won't raise sea levels.

ask archimedes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arctic ice cap is sea ice.

sea ice melt won't raise sea levels.

ask archimedes.

I'm sorry but this is not correct.

Basic physics tell us your statement is correct. But this is not basic physics. If anyone wants me to explain the science behind this i'll gladly do it, just ask.

You statement would be correct if salt wasn't in the equation.

But would it have a big impact on sea levels? No, if the world's entire sea ice melted the sea level would only increase with a few centimeters (0,5 - 1,5 inches roughly)

This subject will also be in the upcoming IPCC report, as its a fairly new scientific discovery. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if they miscalculate how much reflective particles are needed and we end up in a ice age. I think we need to leave it alone and develop other forms of energy before its too late.

Have no fear. We know how to warm the planet back up - just do nothing and CO2 emissions will make it happen.

Little Fish and BFB are both right: when floating ice melts, sea levels are not affected (For BFB: at least, not significantly.). But when on-land ice melts, the melt water runs into the sea, raising sea levels.

As the article says: this is a bad idea whose time may have come. If we cannot control emissions, we may have no choice.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This subject will also be in the upcoming IPCC report, as its a fairly new scientific discovery. . .

New? When I took Freshman chemistry way back in 1967, the instructor did a demonstration/experiment in which he poured an entire box of table salt into a 1-liter beaker of water and only raised the water level a centimeter or so. The salt dissolved into the water, essentially fitting between the water molecules.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the 'how do we get rid of these bugs, oh wait cane toads' solution in Australia. We barely know the direction climate change may take and they wanna try something as crazy as this? Well, at least someone's thinking seriously, unlike the politicians and their 'carbon taxes'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New? When I took Freshman chemistry way back in 1967, the instructor did a demonstration/experiment in which he poured an entire box of table salt into a 1-liter beaker of water and only raised the water level a centimeter or so. The salt dissolved into the water, essentially fitting between the water molecules.

Doug

I'm talking about Shepherd et al. 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the 'how do we get rid of these bugs, oh wait cane toads' solution in Australia. We barely know the direction climate change may take and they wanna try something as crazy as this? Well, at least someone's thinking seriously, unlike the politicians and their 'carbon taxes'.

A culture addicted to techno-fixes rather than addressing the real issues would inevitably take this risky course of action.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but this is not correct.

Basic physics tell us your statement is correct. But this is not basic physics. If anyone wants me to explain the science behind this i'll gladly do it, just ask.

You statement would be correct if salt wasn't in the equation.

But would it have a big impact on sea levels? No, if the world's entire sea ice melted the sea level would only increase with a few centimeters (0,5 - 1,5 inches roughly)

This subject will also be in the upcoming IPCC report, as its a fairly new scientific discovery. . .

thinking it about it, salt water has more bouyancy, easier to float yourself in the dead sea, etc.

so ice would not displace water as much in higher salinty?

is that what you are alluding to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about Shepherd et al. 2010.

according to shepherd 2010, sea ice melt between 1994 and 2004 equates to 0.049 millimeters sea level rise.

one 20th of a millimeter over 10 years = insignificant.

http://www.agu.org/p...0GL042496.shtml

al gore is investing in sea front properties, didn't he claim sea level would rise 20 feet?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to shepherd 2010, sea ice melt between 1994 and 2004 equates to 0.049 millimeters sea level rise.

one 20th of a millimeter over 10 years = insignificant.

http://www.agu.org/p...0GL042496.shtml

al gore is investing in sea front properties, didn't he claim sea level would rise 20 feet?

Sea level rise in the short term has always been a distraction - its a pleasure reserved for our childrens children - unless you happen to live on a South Sea Atoll.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea level rise in the short term has always been a distraction - its a pleasure reserved for our childrens children - unless you happen to live on a South Sea Atoll.

Br Cornelius

our children's children is 2 generations = 40 years.

40 years @0.049mm/decade = 0.196 millimeter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 6inchs in the AGW period since 1870.

http://academics.eck...8SLRSustain.pdf

Certainly not insignificant. Whats worthy of note is that the previous 4thousand years showed almost no rise.

Thermal expansion seems to account for most of the rise and this is not surprising considering that the majority of the warming so far has been sequestered in the oceans.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 6inchs in the AGW period since 1870.

http://academics.eck...8SLRSustain.pdf

Certainly not insignificant. Whats worthy of note is that the previous 4thousand years showed almost no rise.

Thermal expansion seems to account for most of the rise and this is not surprising considering that the majority of the warming so far has been sequestered in the oceans.

Br Cornelius

according to that, the sea level rose ~20mm between 1994 and 2004, so given shepherd 2010, only 1/(20/0.049) = 1/400th or 0.25% of that rise was due to sea ice melt. Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to that, the sea level rose ~20mm between 1994 and 2004, so given shepherd 2010, only 1/(20/0.049) = 1/400th or 0.25% of that rise was due to sea ice melt.

Which is expected.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats worthy of note is that the previous 4thousand years showed almost no rise.

"In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone."

http://wattsupwithth...ewers-steketee/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone."

http://wattsupwithth...ewers-steketee/

Cherry picking again. The scientific evidence clearly shows a sharp rise of sea levels after the last ice age. Misuse of trends and averages would suggest your statement to be true, but the reality is that sea levels stopped rising over 4thousand years ago - only to restart again in about 1870.

If you checked the paper I referenced you would know that.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherry picking again. The scientific evidence clearly shows a sharp rise of sea levels after the last ice age. Misuse of trends and averages would suggest your statement to be true, but the reality is that sea levels stopped rising over 4thousand years ago - only to restart again in about 1870.

If you checked the paper I referenced you would know that.

Br Cornelius

i did check it, the graph in figure 1 shows sea level has risen ~8.5 feet over the last 4,000 years =62mm/century well within the margin of error of todays measurements, ie, no change in rate of change of sea level, looks like a continuation of recovery from the last ice age 11,000 years ago. Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not insignificant. Whats worthy of note is that the previous 4thousand years showed almost no rise.

Did you mean NET rise? Sea levels have been through a number of ups and downs in the last 2000 years. This includes three periods when sea level was above current: about 1750 BC sea levels were about 2.7 feet above modern. Sesostris II did not run his canal all the way to the Red Sea, but was able to end it just south of Lake Timsah. Again, about 1000 BC, sea levels rose about 3.6 feet above modern and during the Roman Period (250-400 AD) they were 5.6 feet above modern, juding by molliusk holes in the piers at Caesarea. A sedimentologist, David Symms at UCLA has been studying this and used to occupy an office just across the treet from me.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refreeze the arctic. Get real.

That would take hundreds and hundreds of years to do.

And whose is going to pay for the 37 trillion air-conditioners to do this? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you mean NET rise? Sea levels have been through a number of ups and downs in the last 2000 years. This includes three periods when sea level was above current: about 1750 BC sea levels were about 2.7 feet above modern. Sesostris II did not run his canal all the way to the Red Sea, but was able to end it just south of Lake Timsah. Again, about 1000 BC, sea levels rose about 3.6 feet above modern and during the Roman Period (250-400 AD) they were 5.6 feet above modern, juding by molliusk holes in the piers at Caesarea. A sedimentologist, David Symms at UCLA has been studying this and used to occupy an office just across the treet from me.

Doug

Where we have to see what part actually was sea level changes and what part do to tectonic movement.

In any case, for those living on high enough ground a foot in sea level rise is irrelevant, the problem is that 60% of humans live there where the ground is not really high enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refreeze the arctic. Get real.

That would take hundreds and hundreds of years to do.

And whose is going to pay for the 37 trillion air-conditioners to do this? :w00t:

Well, tax the middle class so the rich can keep on burning fossil fuels in their corporate jets. Really simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.