Scientists started monitoring the Arctic area via satellite in 1979 to gauge the stability of the region. In August 2012, researchers reported that half of the Arctic ice mass has disappeared, and it only gets worse from there. The Arctic is now losing 100 square kilometers a day of ice mass. To put this in perspective, one square kilometer equals 247 acres.
To formulate ice in the Arctic region requires seawater to freeze. The freezing process for seawater is vastly different from freshwater. Seawater is considerably denser than freshwater. When seawater freezes, the newly formed ice is so heavy that it falls away and sinks to the bottom of the ocean. This means that Arctic surfaces form from the bottom of the ocean, upwards. Whereas, freshwater freezes from the top, downwards. In contrast to the South Pole of Antarctica where ice formations start on land and spread outwards, the Arctic region is strictly comprised of ice.
As the ice in the Arctic continues to melt, more of the sun's rays penetrate the surface. This heats up the exposed ice and makes the water temperature warmer. The warmer the water becomes the more quickly young seawater ice formations melt and never adhere to the ice mass. This creates an aggressive cyclical warming reaction that compounds on itself.
The major component causing this dangerous chain of events is the unnatural emission of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Research scientist Julienne Stroeve pointed out that when greenhouse gases are removed from Arctic climate change simulations the North Pole shows no decrease in size. Since 1979, humans have contributed 60 percent of the pollutants necessary to bring about global warming. As a result, inside 33 years, the consumption of fossil fuels has shrunk the Arctic to half its size, which has led to record-breaking high temperatures and drought during the Earth's orbital cool cycle. Effectively, in the blink of an eye, humans have assaulted the only known viable planet for the species' continued existence.
A majority of people seem to have a default proclivity to wait until the worst happens before attempting to correct a situation. As far as planetary warming is concerned, people are now facing the tipping point for survival, as Arctic ice melt is spinning out of control. How can any person look into the eyes of a newborn and not have dread wash over them?
No longer is the superheating of the planet an unaccountable issue to leave for distraught future generations to sort out. The immediate and productive way for Americans to change the environmental condition is through responsible voting in the coming political election, November 6, 2012. Avoid voting for politicians whose first order of business is to approve projects for toxic industries, like Tar Sands pipeline construction and oil drilling in the Arctic. Further, be wary of politicians who want to see the Pebble Mining project in Bristol Bay come to fruition. This mine plans to have the largest tailing ponds on the planet, filled with superheated toxic waste, and is slated for construction in a region that regularly experiences earthquakes. Irrespective of a full breach, there is no such thing as a leak-free tailing pond, which means that sulfuric acid 1,000 times stronger than battery acid, mixed with lethal levels of cyanide, will leak into Arctic waterways.
This election, each citizen needs to take a stand and put the needs of the planet over personal wants. For a dead planet is a dead planet and no amount of money changes that reality. After all, the goal of American families is to protect each other from harm.
"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." - Thomas Edison
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 44
1 arctic ice extent in the northward sea has just set a new record
Low
2 Mitt Romney just got done mocking the concept of global warming in his speech at the RNC
3 Climate scientists expect the arctic to become ice free in summer within 20 years for the first time in 130,000 years
That is an interesting bit of physics. Despite being a physics teacher, I have never heard of it. I refer to the way sea ice freezes and is then denser than the water it was formed from so it it sinks to the bottom. If this is so, the Arctic ocean must be solid ice from bottom to top. Perhaps you should take a styrafoam cup full of sea water and put it in your freezer to check this out. Taste the ice that is formed. You might have a wee surprise.
William
wlhgmk@gmail.com
You are not a physics teacher, not In this space time continuum. ocean water sinks to the bottom when it freezes? That is probably the most idiotic piece of denialist I have ever read on gather, and that is saying something.
Ocean water when frozen behaves exactly like fresh water when frozen;it floats to the top. Did you ever drink a glass of water with ice in it? Holy cow.
Major oopsky.
I apololgize for that first reply. If you read it over a little more carefully, you will see that I was being rather naughty with a bit of gentle sarcasm but trying not to be too harsh. Deb, in her article said that ocean water sinks to the bottom when it freezes. I suggested she do a little trial with a glass of salt water in her freezer. If she did so, she would have found that the ice stays on the top. If she followed up by tasting the ice, she would have found that it was made of fresh water. When sea water freezes, it freezes out fresh water and leaves the salt behind in the liquid water below. This is what powers the Gulf Stream. When the saltier water left behind sinks as sea water freezes in the Arctic, water is drawn northward on the surface from as far away as Florida. This keeps the UK far warmer than her latitude would suggest she should be. Have a look at this
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/07/arctic-melting-no-problem.html
You clearly stated that you have never heard of it, referring to the ice sinking in salt water. I'm not quite sure if Chris has a bit of dyslexia, or was just reading too fast, however, your comment to disagree was very polite and straightforward.. unlike his. So there is no need to apologize.
I tend to perceive things on climate change threads as a matter of denial or non-denial. After 20 years of this, I have no tolerance for denial. Sorry if that sometimes makes me go off.
It is true that salt water requires colder temps to freeze than fresh water (that's why we salt the roads in winter to melt the ice). It is also true that sea water (salt water) is denser than fresh water, but neither of those facts makes your description of the process correct. What DOES happen is that as sea water freezes, the denser brine squeezes out of it, leaving the floating ice a primarily fresh water block of ice, and the seawater a little saltier than it was.
What's happening now is that as all that ice melts, the arctic sea becomes more dilute and less dense. That means it rides atop normal seawater. And THAT may mean disaster for the Gulf Current as it approaches the north. That floating wall of light, dilute seawater may block it or drive it deep. If it does.. England will freeze. There's more to this than is easily seen.
This blog might help to explain how we go in and out of glacials and interglacials.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2011/08/end-of-ice-ages.html
Vic, believe what you want. Yes, the figure is 20 feet of sea level
Rise when Greenland melts, correct. Antarctica has the rest of the Big Ice- enough to put another 100 feet in the sea. Just saying, when a trend begins it tends to continue in the absence of something to stop it. talk about millions of years ago if you want. It does not matter what caused the ice ages; we have taken over the system with our CO2.
The true fact is that these scientists have not produced evidence as to what impact CO2 has actually had on the world, and they do not know, nor can they tell us how it will be corrected. We are not going to stop driving cars. The same people who are bitching about the global warming hoax are the same one who I see filling their gas tanks as I do with mine.
If people would look at Generation Investment Management, which was founded and chaired by Al Gore, you will see why they want this global warming legislation to be passed. The legislation will dictate what products we buy, and they will be purchased from the companies that are funneling millions of dollars into Al Gore's junk science. I have written about this many times, and those on the left seem to be uninterested in Al Gore's global warming business venture. All of the companies involved are either selling products that will be mandatory by the legislation, or companies that specialize in products and equipment that measure the impacts of weather or the actual usage of energy by us as individuals. I am not making this up. It is there for anyone to see, but you will be limited to the amount of information because Al Gore chose London as his location to avoid taxation and the ability to be monitored by the IRS, or even the American Government. Al Gore has the same type of venture in progress that will be located in China.
The info is there...Find it, or stop pretending to understand the whole story behind the global warming junk science. If the information from the scientist were accurate, the emails that proved manipulation of the facts would not have been needed.
Greenland is not going to melt anytime soon, but that legislation to come will change our daily lives more than you could possibly imagine. The government based on their concept of environmental safety and preservation will dictate all of what you purchase. The part most do not understand is that you will be required to make these purchases from only those companies that are a part of Al Gore's Generation Investment Management.
@ Chuck...Mind your own business...I was not addressing you, and I have nothing to say to you. It is sad how you get pleasure out of simply being nasty. I do, and I will continue to ignore those who have nothing to say based simply on party loyalty.
As for "Mind your own business" *grin* Make me!
BTW - I'm only nasty to the willfully ignorant, and that wasn't even close to really nasty anyway. Besides, I was right... you learned nothing.
Generation Investment Management is set up to profit from global warming legislation. If you want to end this created global warming, you may want to see how much it will cost you. Every appliance, every car, every light bulb you purchase will be determined by the government, and you will purchase it through Al Gore's GIM business venture and those with that company that will manufacture the products. Does the name "General Electric" ring a bell? They were one of the first to join Gore...
Obdurate ignorance is not your friend, Vic.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. As there is more open water absorbing more heat and happening earlier and earlier in the year, it becomes likely that the Arctic will be an area of rising air instead of the classic situation where as the air radiates heat to space, it is an area of falling air. This is what in the past has powered the Polar Hadley cell, kept the tundra frozen with all that cold air flowing over it, created the polar jet stream and sent Rosby waves around mid latitudes pushing weather pattern after weather pattern along in temperate climates. Now if the Arctic becomes an area of rising air which it seems to have done around Aug 6 with that big storm and arguably is still doing, the jet stream should weaken and disappear and the Ferrel cell should, when there is enough warm open water, extend to the North Pole. A two cell system sucking warm air across the tundra from mid latitudes. Scary
The landmass in Russia is 6,600,000 square miles.
If a body of ice, which was the size of Russia melted, it would not raise the seas by 100 feet.
There is no way that scientists are ignorant enough to believe their own predictions based on this observation. People need to do a little more thinking and a little less listening to others.
What you called the landmass of Russia is actually the land surface area. The landmass is nearly incalculable. The ice surface area of Antarctica is roughly the same as the land surface area of Russia, but the ice depth is known to be about 2,200 meters (6,800 ft.), or about 29 million cubic kilometers (18 - 20 million cubic miles). If it ALL melted, the sea rise would be more like 200 feet.
And that's a fac' Jack!
Now, this is all from a couple of blogs, but you could look up their sources. You won't like the answers, but...
Being ignorant is a CHOICE, Vic.
I didn't misrepresent your words. Your words misrepresented (as do these most recent ones) the facts of the matter. If you truly believe what you're spouting, then what I really did was misunderstand the depth of your... well, you know.
In this very post, the amount that the seas will rise if all of the ice melts, has increased from the original estimate of 100 feet all the way to 200 feet. What has changed since the post started?
I think that the solution is to clarify the facts. If you check wikipedia under "greenland ice sheet", you get the figure of enough ice on top of greenland, if melted, to raise the world ocean by 20 feet. If you stay in wikipedia and check the first paragraph of the article "antarctic ice sheet" you see a statement that this sheet contains enough ice, if melted, to contribute 70 meters, or around 200 feet, to the world ocean. Antarctica is the big one, Greenland is a distant second, all the rest of the world's glaciers and snow packs are trivial when compared to these two.
The main issue is- will they melt? Greenland shows signs of melting. Antarctica is less clear- denialists claim that it is not melting at all. But when you defrost an old style refrigerator freezer, you see that melting is cumulative in the absence of a force to re-freeze the system. In other words, first it melts where there is only a little ice, then it melts where there is a lot of ice.
I'll sure do my best here in Utah. Sadly, tar sand development has many powerful friends amongst the saints of Utah.