North Pole Could be Ice-Free This Summer

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2008-06-27 11:06am

Santa Clause Looking to Relocate

(Sorry, couldn't help the link title...)

Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
LiveScience.com
Thu Jun 26, 10:55 PM ET

Arctic sea ice could break apart completely at the North Pole this year, allowing ships to sail over the normally frozen top of the world.

The potential landmark thaw - the first time in human history the pole would be ice-free - is a stark sign of global warming, according to an article Friday on the web site of the The Independent, a London newspaper.

"Symbolically it is hugely important," said Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado. "There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water."

Last year, the fabled Northwest Passage opened as Arctic ice retreated more than ever before.

There is no land at the North Pole, but as long as anyone has looked, it has remained a giant block of ice year-round. Scientists have been watching Arctic sea ice melt more and more each year. But each summer in recent years, the amount of ice has gotten thinner and thinner. Each winter's freeze, therefore, results in a thinner pack that, this summer, could melt altogether.

"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice," Serreze is quoted by The Independent. "I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out."

Russia and other countries, meanwhile, have been arguing over who has rights to the region's resources, including potential oil reserves.

Several studies in recent years have predicted that the North Pole could be ice-free within a few decades. Alarm has ratcheted up every summer as the ice gets thinner and thinner. In a study released June 10, scientist said the rapid meltoff in the Arctic could threaten permafrost in continental soil elsewhere above the Arctic circle in a warm version of the snowball effect.

Last summer saw a record melt of Arctic sea ice, which shrank to more than 30 percent below its average. Around the peak of the melt, in September, air temperatures over land in the western Arctic from August to October were more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the 1978-2006 average.

"The rapid loss of sea ice can trigger widespread changes that would be felt across the region," said Andrew Slater, also of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Okay, the ice is melting, raising global water levels, and putting millions in danger, and there arguging over who has rights to it?

There's nothing there but fish slowly cooking in water too warm for them, you idiots!

Post by **Edi** » 2008-06-27 11:25am

Floating sea ice does not raise water levels when it melts because displacement does not change. Continental ice melting does raise sea levels because that ice did not displace any water before melting and is thus adding to the total amount of seawater.

That said, this is not good news at all.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-06-27 11:29am

Actually, wouldn't the sea level go down? Water expands as it freezes; as it melts it would actually displace less volume, right?

And the whole "control of resources" thing is silly-- the internationally recognised coastal limits (what, 12 miles, right?) would apply like anywhere else.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2008-06-27 11:33am

depends, if they find Oil down there... I can see it becoming very relevant very quickly...

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2008-06-27 11:38am

Coyote wrote:Actually, wouldn't the sea level go down? Water expands as it freezes; as it melts it would actually displace less volume, right?

The extra volume is what floats above the surface.

Korto · Post by **Korto** » 2008-06-27 11:42am

Coyote wrote:Actually, wouldn't the sea level go down? Water expands as it freezes; as it melts it would actually displace less volume, right?

No. The expansion of ice is counter-balanced by the ice floating partially above the water, and therefore not displacing as much water as it would if it was completely submerged. There is no change to the sea level, up or down.
What does change the sea level is water expanding as it gets warmer.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-06-27 04:01pm

Still, once you get ice-free on the northern pole, it's harder to go back to the way it was. All of that ocean has a much lower albedo than the ice, so whatever sunshine that was reflecting off the ice will instead be absorbed by the water, warming it further.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2008-06-27 04:14pm

how long before Russian and Canadian warships begin to patrol the arctic waters enforcing their claims to whatever Oil might be below the surface....

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2008-06-27 05:07pm

God this is depressing. I guess we can put Polar Bears and other arctic creatures on the "Critically Endangered" list. I wish there was something I could do beyond reducing my own carbon emissions as much as possible.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-06-27 05:13pm

There have been reports by the WHOI about undersea volcanoes which may be having an effect here. However, this is beside the point (The Indy's comments section is full of retards for a paper that is supposedly higher brow).

The IPCC and other reports looked at an ice free arctic by the end of the century. Last year, it was seen as 2013-20 time frame. Now it's possibly this summer. This isn't exactly filling me with joy-joy feelings; the public reaction is the icing on the cake.

I'd really not like to be on that station now.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-06-27 05:43pm

Xess wrote:God this is depressing. I guess we can put Polar Bears and other arctic creatures on the "Critically Endangered" list. I wish there was something I could do beyond reducing my own carbon emissions as much as possible.

You can go to anyone who opposes nuclear power and tell them to shut the fuck up and explain how solar and wind are not sufficient replacements for fossil fuels.

Also I'm curious what the imminent problem is with arctic ice melting if it won't raise water levels.

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2008-06-27 05:58pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:You can go to anyone who opposes nuclear power and tell them to shut the fuck up and explain how solar and wind are not sufficient replacements for fossil fuels.

Done, and often with much gusto.

Also I'm curious what the imminent problem is with arctic ice melting if it won't raise water levels.

It lowers the albedo of Earth which will increase the rate of warming and lead to the quickened melting of continental ice that will raise sea levels.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-06-27 07:36pm

Too much emphasis is placed on sea levels. The loss of the Arctic ice at such a critical point in the year will lead to severe climatological shifts in the northern hemisphere in the near future.

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2008-06-27 09:13pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Too much emphasis is placed on sea levels. The loss of the Arctic ice at such a critical point in the year will lead to severe climatological shifts in the northern hemisphere in the near future.

Well I don't know to much about climatology. What sort of shifts might those be anyway?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-06-27 09:24pm

Disruption to general weather patterns. Increased precipitation in some areas, drought in others. More severe and energetic storms and increased thermal intake in the northern oceans as the albedo drops and feeds ENSO which goes on to affect further afield.

Less stability, basically. Our civilisation came about at an unusually calm period in the global scheme of things. How modern agriculture and social cohesion fares in less predictable climates remains to be seen.