Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Record-Low Arctic Sea Ice Is the 'New Normal'


Claire.

Recommended Posts

Record-Low Arctic Sea Ice Is the 'New Normal,' NASA Says

The Arctic has experienced a trend of thinning and melting ice for more than a decade, and NASA scientists now say these worrisome depleted ice levels are the "new normal." Melt season in the Arctic Ocean has consistently experienced record lows in recent years. This year, a record low for the sea-ice extent (the area of ocean covered by the ice) was set in March, with relatively rapid ice loss continuing through May, according to NASA scientists. Although the melting slowed in June — likely keeping this year's summertime sea-ice minimum extent from setting a new record low — the Arctic ice is not bouncing back, the scientists said.

Read more: Live Science

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
 

We're not there quite yet... 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

Quote

Yet when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

For the month of September overall there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released this week from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show, amounting to an extra 421,000 (1.09 million square kilometres) of sea ice and making the month only the fifth lowest since records began.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Image result for we're doomed meme

...we all are.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is scary, and plainly scientific views must be listened to by politicians and measures taken.  This is not (hopefully), the end of humanity.  Conceivably a run-away greenhouse could develop, dooming us, but the best opinion says this is unlikely (no excuse though for ignoring the potential).

Absent some runaway situation we can imagine but don't expect, the harm is going to be expensive but controllable.  Relocation will cause political and economic disruption.  Crops will have problems.  Some cities may have to be abandoned.

We do need, though, to take political action to accelerate as much as practicably feasible, the transition of the world from dependence on green house gas emitting technologies to more sustainable, non-polluting technologies.  First, the oil and coal and similar industries need to be aggressively prevent from getting in the way.  The same applies to electric utilities and their handling of people who go solar and so on.  Existing subsidies for oil companies and so on need to be scrutinized for their effect on these things,

To an extent, subsidies and special rules should be considered to accelerate technological advances and their application.   The paranoia about nuclear energy should be re-examined, especially with the standards of modern as opposed to old plants.

We could also, as individuals, inform ourselves and change our lives, such as by reducing meat consumption, energy-proofing our homes, recycling, and so on.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit skeptical of the amount of influence by human created global warming. However, I do agree that something is happening and I do agree that we should get a handle on CO2 levels ASAP. It may not be that all the ice is gone by 2017, or 2020, or even by 2050, but that it will eventually be gone should be beyond a reasonable doubt. The retreat of glaciers over the last 50 years alone should have clued us in. 

Will humanity be wiped out? No, I don't think so. Maybe we'll end up with a population in the hundred millions, rather then billions, but I'm not sure that in the long run, in the big picture, if that would be such a bad thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the Altithermal (about 8000 years ago) the Arctic Ocean was essentially ice free.  That, by itself, is not a cause for great alarm.  But currently, an ice-free Arctic is only one of many symptoms to be concerned about.  It is the cumulative effect that concerns me.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, the Arctic was probably ice free in summer 8,000 years ago - and indeed the region was also probably warmer than today.    However tropical regions were nearer current temps.

Since then, declining axial tilt should mean the Arctic is cooling (slightly, and not enough to trigger an ice age).   But just lately that trend has reversed.  Whilst other parts of the world have also been warming .....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2016 at 5:49 AM, Doug1o29 said:

During the Altithermal (about 8000 years ago) the Arctic Ocean was essentially ice free.  That, by itself, is not a cause for great alarm.  But currently, an ice-free Arctic is only one of many symptoms to be concerned about.  It is the cumulative effect that concerns me.

Doug

On 10/10/2016 at 10:02 AM, Essan said:

Aye, the Arctic was probably ice free in summer 8,000 years ago - and indeed the region was also probably warmer than today.    However tropical regions were nearer current temps.

Since then, declining axial tilt should mean the Arctic is cooling (slightly, and not enough to trigger an ice age).   But just lately that trend has reversed.  Whilst other parts of the world have also been warming .....

But I read frequently that the Arctic animals, like Polar Bears, will go extinct when the polar ice completely melts. I've usually believed this to be overstated BS, but I do admit that it can't be good for the animals, and puts them under more stress. If the science would be stated simply and truly by all media sources there'd be a lot less Climate Change Deniers.

We're led to believe that the disappearance of the ice will doom the bears, yet you both say that exact event happened 8000 years ago, and we know that the polar bears survived that event, right? So which is it? Polar Bears survive, or they are doomed? I realize that in today's world, the ice may never come back, and given that, the bears will be in real trouble, since they are designed to live on that ice, and not entirely on land. But, I think the exaggerations really don't help the doubters to change their minds. If anything it convinces them that the scientists are lying. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

But I read frequently that the Arctic animals, like Polar Bears, will go extinct when the polar ice completely melts. I've usually believed this to be overstated BS, but I do admit that it can't be good for the animals, and puts them under more stress. If the science would be stated simply and truly by all media sources there'd be a lot less Climate Change Deniers.

We're led to believe that the disappearance of the ice will doom the bears, yet you both say that exact event happened 8000 years ago, and we know that the polar bears survived that event, right? So which is it? Polar Bears survive, or they are doomed? I realize that in today's world, the ice may never come back, and given that, the bears will be in real trouble, since they are designed to live on that ice, and not entirely on land. But, I think the exaggerations really don't help the doubters to change their minds. If anything it convinces them that the scientists are lying. 

 

 

I think the greatest obstacle to widespread acceptance of danger is the fact that only certain countries are required to pay to help with the problem. When India and China are given a free carbon "pass" then it makes the whole discussion seem like a shakedown.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For just a few more degrees, I have no doubt humanity will survive. However, the main problem here is the rise of the sea. A lot of people live only a few feet above the average sea level, a lot of infrastructures are built there and some countries need only a few meters to almost disapear (with 10 meters more, the Netherlands are three quarters under water. So is half of Bangladesh). I must admit I'm not too keen to go back to Stone Age...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

But I read frequently that the Arctic animals, like Polar Bears, will go extinct when the polar ice completely melts. I've usually believed this to be overstated BS, but I do admit that it can't be good for the animals, and puts them under more stress. If the science would be stated simply and truly by all media sources there'd be a lot less Climate Change Deniers.

We're led to believe that the disappearance of the ice will doom the bears, yet you both say that exact event happened 8000 years ago, and we know that the polar bears survived that event, right? So which is it? Polar Bears survive, or they are doomed? I realize that in today's world, the ice may never come back, and given that, the bears will be in real trouble, since they are designed to live on that ice, and not entirely on land. But, I think the exaggerations really don't help the doubters to change their minds. If anything it convinces them that the scientists are lying. 

 

 

I agree, the polar bear story is misleading (but the media - who rarely give a damned about facts - love it). The real problem (I think) is that with reduced summer sea ice, polar bears will have to change their feeding habits (as no doubt they did in the past - and don't forget that it was even warmer and more ice free during the Eemian, 120kya).   The problem is that these changes in habits bring them into confrontation with humans (who were not around in any large numbers, and certainly not with guns, 8,000 years ago).   Human don't like polar bears wandering through their settlements.   They shoot them.   And this, ultimately, is why polar bears are endangered....   Even the WWF acknowledge that " As polar bears spend more time on land, we need to be prepared to manage for increased human-polar bear conflict "

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

But I read frequently that the Arctic animals, like Polar Bears, will go extinct when the polar ice completely melts. I've usually believed this to be overstated BS, but I do admit that it can't be good for the animals, and puts them under more stress. If the science would be stated simply and truly by all media sources there'd be a lot less Climate Change Deniers.

We're led to believe that the disappearance of the ice will doom the bears, yet you both say that exact event happened 8000 years ago, and we know that the polar bears survived that event, right? So which is it? Polar Bears survive, or they are doomed? I realize that in today's world, the ice may never come back, and given that, the bears will be in real trouble, since they are designed to live on that ice, and not entirely on land. But, I think the exaggerations really don't help the doubters to change their minds. If anything it convinces them that the scientists are lying. 

 

Polar bears have survived several periods of ice-free conditions.  They take refuge on the islands in the Canadian Arctic.  Their numbers are reduced, but they survive.  So, yes, the claims are probably exaggerated.  Perhaps a bigger risk is that as they are driven south by melting sea ice, they encounter brown bears spreading northward and cross with them.  The result produces a much more aggressive bear that will likely genetically swamp the polar bear.  So while polar bear genes will still be around in the cross, the polar bear itself, will go extinct.

The American bison is such a cross.  The ancestral species (Bison woodsii and Bison latifrons) crossed to produce Bison bison which then out-competed Bison latifrons, driving it into extinction.  The woods buffalo still survives in Alberta.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
22 hours ago, Gingitsune said:

For just a few more degrees, I have no doubt humanity will survive. However, the main problem here is the rise of the sea. A lot of people live only a few feet above the average sea level, a lot of infrastructures are built there and some countries need only a few meters to almost disapear (with 10 meters more, the Netherlands are three quarters under water. So is half of Bangladesh). I must admit I'm not too keen to go back to Stone Age...

I wonder where those Muslim Bangladeshi will go. They are already way overcrowded. Such a necessary migration in the past has always led to war.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good part will probably go to India and Myanmar, either legally or not. Maybe even Thailand and South East Asia in general.They'll probably try their luck at Australia, Canada, USA, Europe, New Zealand. But +10 meters is not a scenario for the 21st century, at 5 meters, Bangladesh still has a lot of room to displace her people internally. And by the time the water reach some problematic height, the population will be decreasing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.