Poll: If all of the Arctic (North Pole) sea ice melted....

If all sea ice in the North Pole melted the ocean level would rise by...

  • 0 inches

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • 6 inches

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • 12 inches (1 ft)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 2 feet

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • 4 to 6 feet

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • 12 feet

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • Total voters
    12
If ww3 errupts using nuclear bombs then the problem would be the radioactive water that becomes undrinkable. THat is depending where the explosion took place, how many, and the prevailing weather patern at the time (ie wind direction, jet stream).
 
Interesting that the article I just read quoted scientists as estimating a 216' rise in ocean levels, yet your choices are 10% of that, tops. Obviously, I am not a climatologist. Anything I would contribute would be pure speculation, coming from some HOH guy at a desk. However, I do know that if Al Gore was calling global warming poppycock, and Rush Libmaugh was calling it fact, I think this thread would be written quite differently.
 
Personally I'd keep my opinion the same regardless of who said what was BS and not. I don't change my opinions based on who support them and who don't. My opinions are my own, not controlled by anyone including who is in the government or in power. Plus, I hate Rush.... With all my being.
 
Sure. You do your own research, understand how certain things work and then you can reasonably form your own opinion based on what you've found.
 
why not for 12 feet would be interesting to see how world changes if all of it is melted, will the axis be off kilter? im not a scientist or know much about environmental/climate changes I just know. mother nature likes to make weatherman look like fools
 
The weather stats you gave for Alaska are exactly my experience. A steady average warming trend over the course of my lifetime.
Anchorage sits on Cook Inlet. As a small boy up into my early teens it went from being choked with ice most of the winter to no ice. All the glaciers that I am used to seeing up here have melted back for miles. That is not to say that some have not increased, there have. Not like the decrease though which is huge. Fairbanks used to be so goddam cold the brass monkeys balls fell off by November. Then it really got cold. Cold snaps of 60 plus below zero were a yearly occurence now people are sniveling when it is 40 below.
I started working in the Arctic in the mid 70's same thing slow warming trend. I worked out on the artificial islands and other places on the coast and off the coast. The stats show warming trend and it is true. The ground cover is changing. It is warmer now. In fact it is polluted compared to 40 years ago. Just the amount of low lying ice fog that used to be normal winter is not happening like it used to.
The stats match my experience but do not give the visual on the ground feel the pain truth. In many ways it is much easier warmer but the problems it will cause are enormous. Most of the effects will hammer you folks down there and the coastal areas of Alaska being struck by everlarger storms that work their way north from the South Pacific and of course an increase in radioactivity from Fukishima and old Russian disasters still waiting to surface.
 
goodonya said:
The weather stats you gave for Alaska are exactly my experience. A steady average warming trend over the course of my lifetime.
Anchorage sits on Cook Inlet. As a small boy up into my early teens it went from being choked with ice most of the winter to no ice. All the glaciers that I am used to seeing up here have melted back for miles. That is not to say that some have not increased, there have. Not like the decrease though which is huge. Fairbanks used to be so goddam cold the brass monkeys balls fell off by November. Then it really got cold. Cold snaps of 60 plus below zero were a yearly occurence now people are sniveling when it is 40 below.
I started working in the Arctic in the mid 70's same thing slow warming trend. I worked out on the artificial islands and other places on the coast and off the coast. The stats show warming trend and it is true. The ground cover is changing. It is warmer now. In fact it is polluted compared to 40 years ago. Just the amount of low lying ice fog that used to be normal winter is not happening like it used to.
The stats match my experience but do not give the visual on the ground feel the pain truth. In many ways it is much easier warmer but the problems it will cause are enormous. Most of the effects will hammer you folks down there and the coastal areas of Alaska being struck by everlarger storms that work their way north from the South Pacific and of course an increase in radioactivity from Fukishima and old Russian disasters still waiting to surface.
Click to expand...

Cook Inlet's high tides average over 30 feet. It has some of the highest tides in the world with 3 other places having higher tides than Cook Inlet. High tides ensure that sea ice does not stay into one large piece of ice. Perhaps not so in the narrower part of the inlet such as Turnagain which is about 25 miles south of Anchorage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ71Z9RXtMU

Although Anchorage sits at Knik Arm at a narrow mouth which flow into Cook Inlet. (https://maps.google.com/?ll=61.297945,-149.647522&spn=0.475519,1.271667&t=h&z=10 ). At its narrowest it's 1.6 miles wide with the wider body behind it around 4 miles wide do experience choking ice.

At Knik Arm - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8gqNCAqUAw
 
whatdidyousay! said:
Climate change threatening polar bears in Canada - World News

This was on Nightly News tonight and the polar bears are having are harder hunting for seals because the ice is melting for a longer time and they need the ice to for the seals . :(
Click to expand...

Last year, the polar bears were suffering from starvation when it is warm up North pole or close to the Arctic Circle. Yes, they need seals or fishes very badly and they don't have the strength to hunt for them. Yes, they need the ice really bad. Now we are having the winter like in the Fall, so hopefully they will be able to go on the ice throughout the season.

For me and my sister, we think it is global warming anyway. :roll:
 
Bebonang said:
Last year, the polar bears were suffering from starvation when it is warm up North pole or close to the Arctic Circle. Yes, they need seals or fishes very badly and they don't have the strength to hunt for them. Yes, they need the ice really bad. Now we are having the winter like in the Fall, so hopefully they will be able to go on the ice throughout the season.

For me and my sister, we think it is global warming anyway. :roll:
Click to expand...

That's a big myth designed to generate sympathy from the public for political purposes thinking the population of polar bears are dying en masse from starvation. The polar bear population is healthy and the population continues to grow. Wild animals in any environment do face the prospect of starving whether it's because of food shortage or some other circumstances that caused them to starve.

Polar bears are designed by nature to swim long distances in water up to a few hundred miles. You can see where they went during the warmer months on the polar bear tracking maps. You can see several polar bears on different tracking maps where they swam at long distances.
 
Koko. The ice moved with tide. Damn you are a know it all sort. I watched this stuff growing up. Stick your know itallness where the sun don't shine.
 
goodonya said:
Koko. The ice moved with tide. Damn you are a know it all sort. I watched this stuff growing up. Stick your know itallness where the sun don't shine.
Click to expand...

I know that ice moved with the tides. With the tides moving up and down 30+ feet can certainly limit ice formation. Although I provided the videos to show that ice do form enough to do "pack surfing" but that does not do justice when in the past it was colder but it was also warmer, too, when you have glaciers that receded near Juneau, Alaska showing tree stumps when an ancient forest of trees grew there at one time.

Global Coolness: Retreating Glacier Reveals Ancient Forest | Sampling Science®Sampling Science®

33_juneau.jpg


Shockingly, all but one of the thirty-two glaciers in Juneau’s ice-field are currently retreating. Ancient trees have been revealed at two other nearby glaciers a several miles north: Eagle Glacier and Herbert Glacier.

Scientists, including Cathy Connor from the UAS Environmental Science Program, have been monitoring the glacier’s progress and characterizing the revealed tree stumps. The stumps she’s dated so far have ranged from around 1,200 years old to 2,350 years old.

So far, the melting ice at Mendenhall Glacier is just revealing very old trees, but scientists are hoping to find some deep pockets of sediment to study. Unfortunately, glaciers generally don’t leave much history behind. Successive freeze-thaw cycles wash away layers of earth that aren’t solid rock, leaving only the most recent chapter of history directly under the glacier. Finding a forest beneath the forest is unlikely. The effects of freezing and thawing affect scientists at all levels of research.
Click to expand...


You have said some of the same things as elder Eskimos have said in some places of Alaska seeing the differences and rate of change on ice formation and climate change. But that does not give us the overall picture of true climate change whether it has gotten warmer or colder over the last 100, 200, 500, or 1000 years plus. You need to see thousands of years to see exactly what the trends were like and not rely on a 50 or 70 year period as proof. That's a very, very small window to look at. We have gotten out of the ice age when ice sheets began retreating from the northern part of "North America" (the area) some 12,000 years ago.
 
kokonut said:
That's a big myth designed to generate sympathy from the public for political purposes thinking the population of polar bears are dying en masse from starvation. The polar bear population is healthy and the population continues to grow. Wild animals in any environment do face the prospect of starving whether it's because of food shortage or some other circumstances that caused them to starve.

Polar bears are designed by nature to swim long distances in water up to a few hundred miles. You can see where they went during the warmer months on the polar bear tracking maps. You can see several polar bears on different tracking maps where they swam at long distances.
Click to expand...

Polar bears are vulnerable species and they are on declining as well.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/15-Copenhagen.html

http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/dynamic/app/
 
I like the picture part of the glacier article but the words, huh? Glaciers are one of sciences great repositories of climate, weather, atmosphere, history. The retreating glaciers like these give us all kinds of information by just what is pointing out - the remains of a forest inundated years ago.
Glaciers can do a thing called galloping where they get going on a rapid expansion and movement forward.

I do not think the real question is whether or not warming is happening. Of course it is and of course it has happened many many times in geologic history. The surface of our home, our planet, is in constant motion and change.

The question is are we somehow causing this rapid change?

It is not like we are minor players now. When we started setting off A-bombs and burning fossil fuels, launching rockets, and creating all manner of chemical combinations and spraying them out there, we did take an undeniable step up into the realm of affecting our world.
 
goodonya said:
I like the picture part of the glacier article but the words, huh? Glaciers are one of sciences great repositories of climate, weather, atmosphere, history. The retreating glaciers like these give us all kinds of information by just what is pointing out - the remains of a forest inundated years ago.
Glaciers can do a thing called galloping where they get going on a rapid expansion and movement forward.

I do not think the real question is whether or not warming is happening. Of course it is and of course it has happened many many times in geologic history. The surface of our home, our planet, is in constant motion and change.

The question is are we somehow causing this rapid change?

It is not like we are minor players now. When we started setting off A-bombs and burning fossil fuels, launching rockets, and creating all manner of chemical combinations and spraying them out there, we did take an undeniable step up into the realm of affecting our world.
Click to expand...

WIth CO2 as the main and major culprit? No. 99.96% of our atmosphere is made up of gases that doesn't include CO2. That leaves .04% for C02 concentration while human's contribution is even punier still compared to the amount on what the Earth stores and releases CO2. Water vapor and cloud water droplets have a much higher influence on warming and cooling effect than C02 can never do with the current volumetric amount. As much as 4% of the atmosphere (troposphere) is made up of water vapor and cloud water droplets. The lower troposphere has not shown any warming at all when according to the global warming hypothesis it should be warming.
 
So if I filled a large tumbler with ice cold spring water, and allowed one drop of urine to fall into the tumbler, (constituting a fraction of 1% of the volume) would anyone care to drink the water in the tumbler?
 
Found interactive link of what will happen when the sea level rise and where it will go under water around the world.

Flood Maps
 
Back
Top