5 ms·

The Arctic will never be frozen again

28 points by okket 9y ago

randomerr 9y ago
I think saying the Arctic will never be frozen again is a bit dramatic. We're coming out of 1,000 year ice age which means we've, geologically, had an ice age recently. With continual reduction of greenhouse gases by our growing efforts we could be open to a building of the arctic in the next 500-1000. Changes in any combination of the following could trigger a new ice age: solar radiation levels, volcanic activity, circulation, orbital forces often associated with earthquakes, changes in the global climate, and war resulting in a decrease in the human population. Please read the evidence below and comment if you agree or disagree. The Little Ice Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
- astrodust 9y ago
  The ice that's melting in both poles is in many cases hundreds of thousands of years old. This is a phenomenon vastly bigger than any "little ice age". Greenland is just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project It's projected that Greenland's ice, all of it, will melt. That hasn't happened for at least a hundred thousand years, possibly longer.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > We're coming out of 1,000 year ice age which means we've, geologically, had an ice age recently. We (due to climate change) may be coming out of a 2.58 million year ice age (an ice age is a period during which at least one permanent large ice sheet exists; in the case of the current one, it is the Antarctic.) The last glacial period with the within the current ice age ended 10,000 years ago, so even if you were using “ice age” to refer to a glacial period, we’re not coming out of one of those, either. (The “Little Ice Age”, which you link to the Wikipedia page for, was neither an ice age nor a glacial period, but—as the article you link to notes—a set of regional cool periods at different but close times after the end of the Medieval Warm Period.) > With continual reduction of greenhouse gases by our growing efforts we could be open to a building of the arctic in the next 500-1000. Because of the different albedo (ice reflects 50+% percent of solar radiation, sea water around 6%) melting Arctic sea ice will accelerate warming; it's a positive feedback loop; plus, we haven't even started reduction of greenhouse gases, nor have we even achieved reduction in the rate of increase—I think we've managed to decrease the rate of increase of the rate of increase, but that's a far cry from reducing greenhouse gases.)
CalRobert 9y ago
Is it normal to sit at work and be paralyzed by existential dread, wondering why I'm even bothering to deal with some random database issue when it looks like our entire civilization is teetering on the edge of collapse? I've been thinking about starting a retirement plan but between environmental collapse, crop failure, antibiotic resistance, it almost feels foolhardy to think we _won't_ destroy ourselves. I don't know if I'm wrong, and it's an unreasonable, all-encompassing and constant dread, or I'm right, and our entire world has managed to collectively decide we're just going to ignore all of this and pretend everything's hunky dory.
- vtange 9y ago
  Even if you wanted to take steps against the outcomes you wish to prevent, everything comes in baby steps. "Some random database issue" becomes "volunteering for some no-name environmental group". Life rarely just gives you a large amount of agency and responsibility. I've personally just accepted that life might just be watching a train wreck in slow motion and will steer my personal ship as I need to do what I can.
- taylodl 9y ago
  Take care of yourself and those you love. Change the things within your control for the positive. If everybody did just a little bit to make the world a better place then there'd be dramatic positive change. So be the example. Sure it may sound hippie-dippy and may not work - but it sure beats being paralyzed by existential dread, no? Not to mention that it just might work. Hope that helps.
  - cup 9y ago
    Climate change can't be fixed by small changes on an individual level. It requires sweeping regulations from nation states and in particular, the military (which accounts for huge quantities of carbon emissions).
    - harperlee 9y ago
      Yes, but: - Climate change requires sweeping regulations. - Regulation change needs politicians that care about the issue. - Politicians care when their voters base cares. - In order to the population in general to really care, not just by mouth, their value system needs to change, so they no longer accept doing nothing. The best way for one to have impact in all that chain is to leverage it, instead of only addressing "we need sweeping regulation". To make that, one can make visible changes in his/her behaviour, and make others reevaluate how they act and value things. If we don't have a "sustainable" frame of mind on a daily basis, when confronted to what is good or bad regulation, it takes intellectual effort to recognize that we need to think long-term. If we start using sustainable mindframes, even when thinking about e.g. server resources, it will be more automatic. However, if we daily use "another will care for that, let us think about the right now" mindframes, it will be more difficult. And our modern society pushes a lot towards the "right now" way of thinking... because, on the short term, it yields more gains.
mkempe 9y ago
It's irrational to believe or be frightened by such alarmist claims. Current arctic sea ice extent: about 14 million km2, more than double what it was last summer, as usual, and still similar to recent years. [1] On the other hand, since we are lucky to live in an interglacial, we should be more concerned about the return of ice age phenomena such as 1-2 km thick ice sheets that covered e.g. Scandinavia, Switzerland, and Seattle up to 10,000 years ago. [2] [3] [1] http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period#Weichselian_glaciation_(Scandinavia_and_northern_Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period#Weichselia... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordilleran_Ice_Sheet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordilleran_Ice_Sheet
- mkempe 9y ago
  Also, in relation to sea level worries: "Because of the weight of the ice, the mainland of northwest North America was so depressed that sea levels at the Last Glacial Maximum were over a hundred metres higher than they are today (measured by the level of bedrock)."
  - fallingfrog 9y ago
    That's local to North America though. The continent rebounded when the ice was removed. Has nothing to do with man made climate change.
    - mkempe 9y ago
      All available facts and identifiable causes of climate change are relevant if we are interested in science. Cherry picking facts or trying to hide their significance is anti-scientific. Your three statements are anti-scientific. 1. It's not merely "local" to the NW of N America, since a similar fact is known of Scandinavia where the rebound is still ongoing and significantly changing relative sea levels. (Your "local" sleight of hand is an attempt to minimize the significance of the scientific fact, and pretend that only man-made climate change is "global".) 2. The ice sheet covering North America was larger than the current ice sheet in Antarctica, and it melted in the course of climate changes. (Your "removed" sleight of hand is an attempt to hide non-man-made causes.) 3. It's a fact that sea level is a changing relationship between oceans and lands, influenced by tectonic activity, by climate, and even by the moon. On the one hand when large amounts of water are captured in massive ice sheets, the general water level is lower; on the other hand ice sheets push the land so far down, that the relative ocean level is higher as seen from the land. Whether climate changes are appreciably due to this or that cause, relative sea level has been changing for eons, a lot. (The "nothing to do with man made climate change" is an anti-scientific attempt to dis-integrate facts and theories of past and future climate change.)

28 points by okket 9y ago

I think saying the Arctic will never be frozen again is a bit dramatic. We're coming out of 1,000 year ice age which means we've, geologically, had an ice age recently. With continual reduction of greenhouse gases by our growing efforts we could be open to a building of the arctic in the next 500-1000. Changes in any combination of the following could trigger a new ice age: solar radiation levels, volcanic activity, circulation, orbital forces often associated with earthquakes, changes in the global climate, and war resulting in a decrease in the human population. Please read the evidence below and comment if you agree or disagree. The Little Ice Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

astrodust 9y ago
The ice that's melting in both poles is in many cases hundreds of thousands of years old. This is a phenomenon vastly bigger than any "little ice age". Greenland is just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project It's projected that Greenland's ice, all of it, will melt. That hasn't happened for at least a hundred thousand years, possibly longer.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> We're coming out of 1,000 year ice age which means we've, geologically, had an ice age recently. We (due to climate change) may be coming out of a 2.58 million year ice age (an ice age is a period during which at least one permanent large ice sheet exists; in the case of the current one, it is the Antarctic.) The last glacial period with the within the current ice age ended 10,000 years ago, so even if you were using “ice age” to refer to a glacial period, we’re not coming out of one of those, either. (The “Little Ice Age”, which you link to the Wikipedia page for, was neither an ice age nor a glacial period, but—as the article you link to notes—a set of regional cool periods at different but close times after the end of the Medieval Warm Period.) > With continual reduction of greenhouse gases by our growing efforts we could be open to a building of the arctic in the next 500-1000. Because of the different albedo (ice reflects 50+% percent of solar radiation, sea water around 6%) melting Arctic sea ice will accelerate warming; it's a positive feedback loop; plus, we haven't even started reduction of greenhouse gases, nor have we even achieved reduction in the rate of increase—I think we've managed to decrease the rate of increase of the rate of increase, but that's a far cry from reducing greenhouse gases.)

CalRobert 9y ago

Is it normal to sit at work and be paralyzed by existential dread, wondering why I'm even bothering to deal with some random database issue when it looks like our entire civilization is teetering on the edge of collapse? I've been thinking about starting a retirement plan but between environmental collapse, crop failure, antibiotic resistance, it almost feels foolhardy to think we _won't_ destroy ourselves. I don't know if I'm wrong, and it's an unreasonable, all-encompassing and constant dread, or I'm right, and our entire world has managed to collectively decide we're just going to ignore all of this and pretend everything's hunky dory.

vtange 9y ago
Even if you wanted to take steps against the outcomes you wish to prevent, everything comes in baby steps. "Some random database issue" becomes "volunteering for some no-name environmental group". Life rarely just gives you a large amount of agency and responsibility. I've personally just accepted that life might just be watching a train wreck in slow motion and will steer my personal ship as I need to do what I can.
taylodl 9y ago
Take care of yourself and those you love. Change the things within your control for the positive. If everybody did just a little bit to make the world a better place then there'd be dramatic positive change. So be the example. Sure it may sound hippie-dippy and may not work - but it sure beats being paralyzed by existential dread, no? Not to mention that it just might work. Hope that helps.
- cup 9y ago
  Climate change can't be fixed by small changes on an individual level. It requires sweeping regulations from nation states and in particular, the military (which accounts for huge quantities of carbon emissions).
  - harperlee 9y ago
    Yes, but: - Climate change requires sweeping regulations. - Regulation change needs politicians that care about the issue. - Politicians care when their voters base cares. - In order to the population in general to really care, not just by mouth, their value system needs to change, so they no longer accept doing nothing. The best way for one to have impact in all that chain is to leverage it, instead of only addressing "we need sweeping regulation". To make that, one can make visible changes in his/her behaviour, and make others reevaluate how they act and value things. If we don't have a "sustainable" frame of mind on a daily basis, when confronted to what is good or bad regulation, it takes intellectual effort to recognize that we need to think long-term. If we start using sustainable mindframes, even when thinking about e.g. server resources, it will be more automatic. However, if we daily use "another will care for that, let us think about the right now" mindframes, it will be more difficult. And our modern society pushes a lot towards the "right now" way of thinking... because, on the short term, it yields more gains.

mkempe 9y ago

It's irrational to believe or be frightened by such alarmist claims. Current arctic sea ice extent: about 14 million km2, more than double what it was last summer, as usual, and still similar to recent years. [1] On the other hand, since we are lucky to live in an interglacial, we should be more concerned about the return of ice age phenomena such as 1-2 km thick ice sheets that covered e.g. Scandinavia, Switzerland, and Seattle up to 10,000 years ago. [2] [3] [1] http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period#Weichselian_glaciation_(Scandinavia_and_northern_Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period#Weichselia... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordilleran_Ice_Sheet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordilleran_Ice_Sheet

mkempe 9y ago
Also, in relation to sea level worries: "Because of the weight of the ice, the mainland of northwest North America was so depressed that sea levels at the Last Glacial Maximum were over a hundred metres higher than they are today (measured by the level of bedrock)."
- fallingfrog 9y ago
  That's local to North America though. The continent rebounded when the ice was removed. Has nothing to do with man made climate change.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    All available facts and identifiable causes of climate change are relevant if we are interested in science. Cherry picking facts or trying to hide their significance is anti-scientific. Your three statements are anti-scientific. 1. It's not merely "local" to the NW of N America, since a similar fact is known of Scandinavia where the rebound is still ongoing and significantly changing relative sea levels. (Your "local" sleight of hand is an attempt to minimize the significance of the scientific fact, and pretend that only man-made climate change is "global".) 2. The ice sheet covering North America was larger than the current ice sheet in Antarctica, and it melted in the course of climate changes. (Your "removed" sleight of hand is an attempt to hide non-man-made causes.) 3. It's a fact that sea level is a changing relationship between oceans and lands, influenced by tectonic activity, by climate, and even by the moon. On the one hand when large amounts of water are captured in massive ice sheets, the general water level is lower; on the other hand ice sheets push the land so far down, that the relative ocean level is higher as seen from the land. Whether climate changes are appreciably due to this or that cause, relative sea level has been changing for eons, a lot. (The "nothing to do with man made climate change" is an anti-scientific attempt to dis-integrate facts and theories of past and future climate change.)