6 ms·

Old Arctic Ice Is Disappearing, and Taking the Rest of the Ice With It

50 points by ra88it 13y ago

simonh 13y ago
When the Vikings settled Greenland over a thousand years ago they grew crops and raised cattle on it, hence the name. I do appreciate that global warming is a fact, and that we are responsible. I also realize this is going to have severe consequences all over the world. I also don't think anything we do at this stage could slow down or stop the process, other than banning modern civilization. What we need to do is psychologically and politically prepare ourselves to mitigate the damage. This means cutting back judiciously on fossil fuel usage, without ruining the economy that we're going to need to be able to deal with the worst consequences. It means being prepared to help those countries or regions that will be worst hit. Hysterical articles about sticking our heads in the stand honestly don't really help at this stage, they just perpetuate the sense of controversy without contributing positively to the debate.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  I think there are ways around it. One would be a CO2 high energy sources like fission and fusion nuclear plants. Problem is we really need them yesterday. Other is geoengineering the oceans to remove acid from them. It's not hopeless, but there will be less and less simple solution as time goes by.
- jheriko 13y ago
  QFT > Hysterical articles about sticking our heads in the stand honestly don't really help at this stage, they just perpetuate the sense of controversy without contributing positively to the debate. ... also I like to think that when this becomes a /real/ problem with consequences everyone can immediately feel then we will solve it. We have the power to solve this with (large amounts of) effort and technology - and we have done for a very long time... nobody cares enough to do anything because the effects aren't immediate and tangible yet. This is human nature...
  - lkrubner 13y ago
    You misunderstand the politics, and how the problem will manifest. Imagine: a terrible storm hits New Jersey and dozens of seaside towns are damaged, some of which are nearly destroyed. The USA has various government programs in place to help people effected by natural disasters. Therefore these programs should mobilize and help these people. But what form should the help take? Should the government pay to rebuild the homes exactly where they were, or should the government pay to relocate those people somewhere further inland? Have you looked at a map of North Carolina or New Jersey? Please notice that both states have long, thin ribbons of land that run along the coast. Many people live on these ribbons of land, and their homes are vulnerable to rising sea levels. What shape should government policy take over the next 100 years? Should we say "We will never retreat one centimeter: we will rebuild in the same spot after every storm." Or should we say: "Defending these thin ribbons of land is too expensive, so we will pay to relocate these people further inland"? If the USA wanted to spend a vast treasure on the defense of coastal barriers, it could do what the Dutch have done, and build an immense system of dykes to defend its east and west coast. The cost would be staggering, truly unimaginable. The coasts of the USA are much greater than the coast of the Netherlands (especially if the USA also decided that "We will never retreat one centimeter" also applied to Alaska). If such a colossal project was to be in any way affordable, its construction would have to be stretched out over 100 years, so the annual cost would be manageable. And therefore, we would have to start working on it now, not when rising oceans become "a /real/ problem with consequences everyone can immediately feel".
    - jheriko 13y ago
      you raise some interesting points but i think you are quite misguided - despite having the right kind of idea imo. the fact that you use words like politics and expensive tells me we are imagining very different scenarios and consequences... what i mean by 'real problem with consequences you can feel' is unavoidable stuff where /nature/ forces you to pay attention or die. i.e. you must respond to the situation because it is vital for survival and doing actual harm to you whilst you do not. the fact that a flood is almost certainly going to happen tomorrow might make me run away - the flood happening right now forces me to run or die. /run or die/ that is what i am talking about. not freedom of choice but unavoidable force of nature. i think that is what it will take for people to do something - and it will need to happen to most of us if not all... i don't think thats a good thing. however i have a lot of faith in how creative and constructive people are when they are fighting for survival. cost and resources become irrelevant if they exist - if you need money (and you won't) then you will steal it because its preferable to dying... you will make a damned good effort too. the real limiting factors will be time vs. manpower (will we finish before we die - will we die trying?) and feasibility (i.e. does the universe allow it at all). of course we may also just let ourselves die... its a very real possibility that we end ourselves through the fallout from climate change. as an aside one of the biggest problems for climate change proponents, i feel, is that predictions are constantly wrong and have been historically. the situation you describe there i feel is very flawed... whilst it might be a good prediction is it really the thing to worry about? can you convince me of this? a classic case to point at in this regard is the recent global dimming due to particulates in the atmosphere - which have caused more problems where people actually have been dying and living a lower quality of life as a result of climate change. we are already not fixing these problems and ignoring them. people are actually dying today because of this problem - but nowhere near enough for people to seriously care - melting ice (nearly harmless artic ice as well which will not cause sea levels to rise appreciably if at all) is so very far away from that level of seriousness... let alone a survival scenario. ... long :I
- TheEzEzz 13y ago
  http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-name/ http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-... Greenland was not named Greenland for being green. The most common etymology is that the name was a marketing ploy to convince settlers to come to a hostile and bitterly cold land.
  - sigzero 13y ago
    I was just looking up that link! :)
  - 001sky 13y ago
    So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle. There are other theories as to how Greenland got its name So, "this is a popular legend" is the most scientific link on the subject? The second best answer is "translation error"? Um. ok. He purposely chose the pleasant name Grænland ("green land") to attract settlers, but the choice wasn't exactly misleading. Some parts of Greenland, especially the parts the Norse settled, really are green, as these pictures from the tourist board attest (www.greenland-guide.dk/outdoor_life_photo.htm). He may have been a killer, but at least he wasn't a real-estate scam-artist.
    - TheEzEzz 13y ago
      I agree, not the most solid etymological evidence =). I was mainly countering the idea that Greenland used to be more green, which the etymology does not suggest.
      - Jtsummers 13y ago
        And the Norse settlers were only in a few limited regions. We could call Nevada "Lake State" if we only lived near Lake Mead or Lake Tahoe, but it'd be a misnomer.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jellicle 13y ago
  The best part of watching global warming unfold is watching the deniers move straight from "it doesn't exist and isn't a problem, so we should do nothing" to "of course it exists and is a huge problem, I've never denied that, but it's far too late to do anything now, so we should do nothing".
  - Charliemack 13y ago
    The best part is watching al giores cult members change the name from global warming to climate change so that anything that happens can be blamed on man and watch the believers use the word deniers in that creepy you don t believe in our religion way
  - at-fates-hands 13y ago
    While I'm in "even if its not happening, shouldn't we do something just in case it is" camp, I see a LOT of hypocrisy on the part of people fervently saying it does exist. Al Gore? The guy who's the poster boy for climate change owns a huge mansion that's incredibly inefficient in its energy use: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp "In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home" This doesn't even take into account the amount of fuel the guy burns on all of his globe trotting talking about the evils of Global Warming. So yeah, there's the deniers, but it's hard to take these people seriously who are talking about the end of the world, yet are greatly adding to its demise. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but when do you think you're going to get solar to a point where's its more economically feasible? I just got an estimate from a company last summer and to get a few panels installed and up and running, it was around 40K up-front and then I would break even with the energy savings in about 10 years. Now think about low income families, you think they'd ever be able to afford something like that? Add in the fact renewable resource companies keep going bankrupt and I keep wondering when, if ever there will be a decent alternative to actually mitigate the ongoing damage.
- cromulent 13y ago
  I'm not sure how Greenland got its name, but the climate hasn't changed that much in 1000 years. Here is some ice core data from Greenland going back to 1800BC: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/gisp/dye3/dye3-1yr.txt
- dylandrop 13y ago
  > Hysterical articles about sticking our heads in the stand honestly don't really help at this stage, they just perpetuate the sense of controversy without contributing positively to the debate. See, this is problematic. If we don't have articles documenting the problem, no one will care. Right now the possibility of the Keystone-XL pipeline is on the president's table, and for those of you who don't know, the Keystone-XL pipeline will double imports of tar sands oil, thus bringing climate change to even a bigger problem than before [1]. If we stop this, we have a chance of improving the problem. I realize that you said we should "[cut] back judiciously on fossil fuel usage", but when things like the Keystone-XL pipeline are a serious consideration, not being alarmist is a problem. The idea that the fossil fuel industry's thinly veiled "jobs creation" argument (when in reality, the pipeline would create very, very few jobs in the larger scale [2]) could be one that gets this pipeline built, puts us in extreme jeopardy. It's time that people are scared about the world changing, because there are certainly too many people who don't really care. > I also don't think anything we do at this stage could slow down or stop the process, other than banning modern civilization. This is just wrong, and part of why we're experiencing a problem now. Germany is installing tons of solar panels [3]. Buenos Aires is switching to LED lighting to cut down on electricity costs by as much as 50% [4]. We should also be investing in sustainable technology, because this is going to be a serious problem. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands-keystone-xl-climate http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands... [2] http://www.livescience.com/38735-putting-keystone-pipeline-job-numbers-in-context.html http://www.livescience.com/38735-putting-keystone-pipeline-j... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/energy-environment/solar-power-begins-to-shine-as-environmental-benefits-pay-off.html?pagewanted=2 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/energy-environmen... [4] http://www.treehugger.com/energy-efficiency/buenos-aires-switching-100000-street-lamps-led-technology-cutting-energy-use-50.html http://www.treehugger.com/energy-efficiency/buenos-aires-swi...
- 3am 13y ago
  You're the one sticking your head in the sand. You act as though _we have a choice_ about how to continue past global warming. Do you know about methane production from thawing permafrost or melting subsea clathrate deposits? God is my witness, this has shades of Steve Jobs going vegan to try to treat his pancreatic cancer. Human civilization as we know it is on the edge of an existential crisis, and action on it is being postponed by a small group of extremely wealthy individuals because they want to become more wealthy. That is it, period. Look at where the anti-global warming money comes from. If you think I'm being 'hysterical' then by all means tell me: 1) how we plan on moving the populations and infrastructure built by the sea when sea levels rise 25+ feet when the Greenland ice sheet melts. 2) how we plan on feeding the world when temperatures render the American midwest to warm for wheat and corn production. Same for the bread/rice baskets in China, Ukraine, Africa. 3) how do you think the economy will be affected by #1 and #2. how do we deal with it. I think that a good percentage just assume they'll be one of the 1-in-4 to survive the next century. Sorry if that is too pessimistic for you. EDIT: And right on cue, it's flagged off the front page. Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt.
  - glenra 13y ago
    (1) sea levels aren't going to rise noticeably in just a day or a year or a decade. If they rise a lot over a century or more, we'll just gradually tend to move inland over time. As old buildings need to be replaced anyway on that timescale we'll build new ones further inland. (2) Even the IPCC says the next 1-3 degrees of warming will improve agricultural productivity. So if feeding the world is the priority we don't want to stop warming now even if we could - we should wait for at least another degree or two. In a warmer world you get longer growing seasons in the places that are most productive today for food crops, and in a more CO2-rich world timber forestry becomes much more productive near the equator due to CO2 fertilization. So for at least the next 50-100 years, warming is a boon. A good thing. That gives us at least 50-100 years to check our predictions and figure out what, if anything, we need to do next. (Which is long enough that it's ridiculous to assume current trends will continue, but it can't hurt much to think about it.)
lotsofmangos 13y ago
Bruce Sterling's Khaki-Greens are about due.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
vixen99 13y ago
Meanwhile the Alfred Wegener Institute reported (October 2013) that the Antarctic sea ice coverage is the greatest for 30 years. I don't know what this means but it's odd that apparently good news (if it is) is more or less ignored in the more widely read media accounts.

50 points by ra88it 13y ago

When the Vikings settled Greenland over a thousand years ago they grew crops and raised cattle on it, hence the name. I do appreciate that global warming is a fact, and that we are responsible. I also realize this is going to have severe consequences all over the world. I also don't think anything we do at this stage could slow down or stop the process, other than banning modern civilization. What we need to do is psychologically and politically prepare ourselves to mitigate the damage. This means cutting back judiciously on fossil fuel usage, without ruining the economy that we're going to need to be able to deal with the worst consequences. It means being prepared to help those countries or regions that will be worst hit. Hysterical articles about sticking our heads in the stand honestly don't really help at this stage, they just perpetuate the sense of controversy without contributing positively to the debate.

Ygg2 13y ago
I think there are ways around it. One would be a CO2 high energy sources like fission and fusion nuclear plants. Problem is we really need them yesterday. Other is geoengineering the oceans to remove acid from them. It's not hopeless, but there will be less and less simple solution as time goes by.
jheriko 13y ago
QFT > Hysterical articles about sticking our heads in the stand honestly don't really help at this stage, they just perpetuate the sense of controversy without contributing positively to the debate. ... also I like to think that when this becomes a /real/ problem with consequences everyone can immediately feel then we will solve it. We have the power to solve this with (large amounts of) effort and technology - and we have done for a very long time... nobody cares enough to do anything because the effects aren't immediate and tangible yet. This is human nature...
- lkrubner 13y ago
  You misunderstand the politics, and how the problem will manifest. Imagine: a terrible storm hits New Jersey and dozens of seaside towns are damaged, some of which are nearly destroyed. The USA has various government programs in place to help people effected by natural disasters. Therefore these programs should mobilize and help these people. But what form should the help take? Should the government pay to rebuild the homes exactly where they were, or should the government pay to relocate those people somewhere further inland? Have you looked at a map of North Carolina or New Jersey? Please notice that both states have long, thin ribbons of land that run along the coast. Many people live on these ribbons of land, and their homes are vulnerable to rising sea levels. What shape should government policy take over the next 100 years? Should we say "We will never retreat one centimeter: we will rebuild in the same spot after every storm." Or should we say: "Defending these thin ribbons of land is too expensive, so we will pay to relocate these people further inland"? If the USA wanted to spend a vast treasure on the defense of coastal barriers, it could do what the Dutch have done, and build an immense system of dykes to defend its east and west coast. The cost would be staggering, truly unimaginable. The coasts of the USA are much greater than the coast of the Netherlands (especially if the USA also decided that "We will never retreat one centimeter" also applied to Alaska). If such a colossal project was to be in any way affordable, its construction would have to be stretched out over 100 years, so the annual cost would be manageable. And therefore, we would have to start working on it now, not when rising oceans become "a /real/ problem with consequences everyone can immediately feel".
  - jheriko 13y ago
    you raise some interesting points but i think you are quite misguided - despite having the right kind of idea imo. the fact that you use words like politics and expensive tells me we are imagining very different scenarios and consequences... what i mean by 'real problem with consequences you can feel' is unavoidable stuff where /nature/ forces you to pay attention or die. i.e. you must respond to the situation because it is vital for survival and doing actual harm to you whilst you do not. the fact that a flood is almost certainly going to happen tomorrow might make me run away - the flood happening right now forces me to run or die. /run or die/ that is what i am talking about. not freedom of choice but unavoidable force of nature. i think that is what it will take for people to do something - and it will need to happen to most of us if not all... i don't think thats a good thing. however i have a lot of faith in how creative and constructive people are when they are fighting for survival. cost and resources become irrelevant if they exist - if you need money (and you won't) then you will steal it because its preferable to dying... you will make a damned good effort too. the real limiting factors will be time vs. manpower (will we finish before we die - will we die trying?) and feasibility (i.e. does the universe allow it at all). of course we may also just let ourselves die... its a very real possibility that we end ourselves through the fallout from climate change. as an aside one of the biggest problems for climate change proponents, i feel, is that predictions are constantly wrong and have been historically. the situation you describe there i feel is very flawed... whilst it might be a good prediction is it really the thing to worry about? can you convince me of this? a classic case to point at in this regard is the recent global dimming due to particulates in the atmosphere - which have caused more problems where people actually have been dying and living a lower quality of life as a result of climate change. we are already not fixing these problems and ignoring them. people are actually dying today because of this problem - but nowhere near enough for people to seriously care - melting ice (nearly harmless artic ice as well which will not cause sea levels to rise appreciably if at all) is so very far away from that level of seriousness... let alone a survival scenario. ... long :I
TheEzEzz 13y ago
http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-name/ http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-... Greenland was not named Greenland for being green. The most common etymology is that the name was a marketing ploy to convince settlers to come to a hostile and bitterly cold land.
- sigzero 13y ago
  I was just looking up that link! :)
- 001sky 13y ago
  So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle. There are other theories as to how Greenland got its name So, "this is a popular legend" is the most scientific link on the subject? The second best answer is "translation error"? Um. ok. He purposely chose the pleasant name Grænland ("green land") to attract settlers, but the choice wasn't exactly misleading. Some parts of Greenland, especially the parts the Norse settled, really are green, as these pictures from the tourist board attest (www.greenland-guide.dk/outdoor_life_photo.htm). He may have been a killer, but at least he wasn't a real-estate scam-artist.
  - TheEzEzz 13y ago
    I agree, not the most solid etymological evidence =). I was mainly countering the idea that Greenland used to be more green, which the etymology does not suggest.
    - Jtsummers 13y ago
      And the Norse settlers were only in a few limited regions. We could call Nevada "Lake State" if we only lived near Lake Mead or Lake Tahoe, but it'd be a misnomer.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jellicle 13y ago
The best part of watching global warming unfold is watching the deniers move straight from "it doesn't exist and isn't a problem, so we should do nothing" to "of course it exists and is a huge problem, I've never denied that, but it's far too late to do anything now, so we should do nothing".
- Charliemack 13y ago
  The best part is watching al giores cult members change the name from global warming to climate change so that anything that happens can be blamed on man and watch the believers use the word deniers in that creepy you don t believe in our religion way
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  While I'm in "even if its not happening, shouldn't we do something just in case it is" camp, I see a LOT of hypocrisy on the part of people fervently saying it does exist. Al Gore? The guy who's the poster boy for climate change owns a huge mansion that's incredibly inefficient in its energy use: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp "In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home" This doesn't even take into account the amount of fuel the guy burns on all of his globe trotting talking about the evils of Global Warming. So yeah, there's the deniers, but it's hard to take these people seriously who are talking about the end of the world, yet are greatly adding to its demise. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but when do you think you're going to get solar to a point where's its more economically feasible? I just got an estimate from a company last summer and to get a few panels installed and up and running, it was around 40K up-front and then I would break even with the energy savings in about 10 years. Now think about low income families, you think they'd ever be able to afford something like that? Add in the fact renewable resource companies keep going bankrupt and I keep wondering when, if ever there will be a decent alternative to actually mitigate the ongoing damage.
cromulent 13y ago
I'm not sure how Greenland got its name, but the climate hasn't changed that much in 1000 years. Here is some ice core data from Greenland going back to 1800BC: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/gisp/dye3/dye3-1yr.txt
dylandrop 13y ago
> Hysterical articles about sticking our heads in the stand honestly don't really help at this stage, they just perpetuate the sense of controversy without contributing positively to the debate. See, this is problematic. If we don't have articles documenting the problem, no one will care. Right now the possibility of the Keystone-XL pipeline is on the president's table, and for those of you who don't know, the Keystone-XL pipeline will double imports of tar sands oil, thus bringing climate change to even a bigger problem than before [1]. If we stop this, we have a chance of improving the problem. I realize that you said we should "[cut] back judiciously on fossil fuel usage", but when things like the Keystone-XL pipeline are a serious consideration, not being alarmist is a problem. The idea that the fossil fuel industry's thinly veiled "jobs creation" argument (when in reality, the pipeline would create very, very few jobs in the larger scale [2]) could be one that gets this pipeline built, puts us in extreme jeopardy. It's time that people are scared about the world changing, because there are certainly too many people who don't really care. > I also don't think anything we do at this stage could slow down or stop the process, other than banning modern civilization. This is just wrong, and part of why we're experiencing a problem now. Germany is installing tons of solar panels [3]. Buenos Aires is switching to LED lighting to cut down on electricity costs by as much as 50% [4]. We should also be investing in sustainable technology, because this is going to be a serious problem. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands-keystone-xl-climate http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands... [2] http://www.livescience.com/38735-putting-keystone-pipeline-job-numbers-in-context.html http://www.livescience.com/38735-putting-keystone-pipeline-j... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/energy-environment/solar-power-begins-to-shine-as-environmental-benefits-pay-off.html?pagewanted=2 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/energy-environmen... [4] http://www.treehugger.com/energy-efficiency/buenos-aires-switching-100000-street-lamps-led-technology-cutting-energy-use-50.html http://www.treehugger.com/energy-efficiency/buenos-aires-swi...
3am 13y ago
You're the one sticking your head in the sand. You act as though _we have a choice_ about how to continue past global warming. Do you know about methane production from thawing permafrost or melting subsea clathrate deposits? God is my witness, this has shades of Steve Jobs going vegan to try to treat his pancreatic cancer. Human civilization as we know it is on the edge of an existential crisis, and action on it is being postponed by a small group of extremely wealthy individuals because they want to become more wealthy. That is it, period. Look at where the anti-global warming money comes from. If you think I'm being 'hysterical' then by all means tell me: 1) how we plan on moving the populations and infrastructure built by the sea when sea levels rise 25+ feet when the Greenland ice sheet melts. 2) how we plan on feeding the world when temperatures render the American midwest to warm for wheat and corn production. Same for the bread/rice baskets in China, Ukraine, Africa. 3) how do you think the economy will be affected by #1 and #2. how do we deal with it. I think that a good percentage just assume they'll be one of the 1-in-4 to survive the next century. Sorry if that is too pessimistic for you. EDIT: And right on cue, it's flagged off the front page. Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt.
- glenra 13y ago
  (1) sea levels aren't going to rise noticeably in just a day or a year or a decade. If they rise a lot over a century or more, we'll just gradually tend to move inland over time. As old buildings need to be replaced anyway on that timescale we'll build new ones further inland. (2) Even the IPCC says the next 1-3 degrees of warming will improve agricultural productivity. So if feeding the world is the priority we don't want to stop warming now even if we could - we should wait for at least another degree or two. In a warmer world you get longer growing seasons in the places that are most productive today for food crops, and in a more CO2-rich world timber forestry becomes much more productive near the equator due to CO2 fertilization. So for at least the next 50-100 years, warming is a boon. A good thing. That gives us at least 50-100 years to check our predictions and figure out what, if anything, we need to do next. (Which is long enough that it's ridiculous to assume current trends will continue, but it can't hurt much to think about it.)

lotsofmangos 13y ago

Bruce Sterling's Khaki-Greens are about due.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

vixen99 13y ago

Meanwhile the Alfred Wegener Institute reported (October 2013) that the Antarctic sea ice coverage is the greatest for 30 years. I don't know what this means but it's odd that apparently good news (if it is) is more or less ignored in the more widely read media accounts.