Thread: A question about polar ice caps

I have been watching Planet Earth on the Discovery channel (great show, btw), and they showed a before/after comparison of the ice caps in summer compared to winter. There is like a 2000 mile (not 100% on that exact number) difference in diameter between the two. Apparently it grows and shrinks every year.

A lot of people are saying that the polar ice caps are melting. Well, yea, but they grow back. So, am i to understand that all the heartbreaking film clips of chunks of ice falling off into the water is just inflamatory nonsense, or it is a fact that each year they are a little less wide (when it is at its peak diameter). I mean, are they just filming something that happens every year?

If you check out Wikipedia for "polar ice caps", they have a good illustration of the difference between Sept. and Feb. of the northern ice cap.

1 more little question. A lot of people are saying that if the ice caps keep melting, some places will be underwater (like Amsterdam, i think). I performed a little experiment on accident. I put ice in a cup of water and forgot about it. After the ice melted, the water level went down. So, since ice is EXPANDED water, wont the water level go down if more ice melts? Just a thought. This is, of course, assuming that the ice caps are just big ice cubes floating in the water.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I have been watching Planet Earth on the Discovery channel (great show, btw), and they showed a before/after comparison of the ice caps in summer compared to winter. There is like a 2000 mile (not 100% on that exact number) difference in diameter between the two. Apparently it grows and shrinks every year.

A lot of people are saying that the polar ice caps are melting. Well, yea, but they grow back. So, am i to understand that all the heartbreaking film clips of chunks of ice falling off into the water is just inflamatory nonsense, or it is a fact that each year they are a little less wide (when it is at its peak diameter). I mean, are they just filming something that happens every year?

If you check out Wikipedia for "polar ice caps", they have a good illustration of the difference between Sept. and Feb. of the northern ice cap.

1 more little question. A lot of people are saying that if the ice caps keep melting, some places will be underwater (like Amsterdam, i think). I performed a little experiment on accident. I put ice in a cup of water and forgot about it. After the ice melted, the water level went down. So, since ice is EXPANDED water, wont the water level go down if more ice melts? Just a thought. This is, of course, assuming that the ice caps are just big ice cubes floating in the water.

True to some degree. 32° to be exact.
Not all ice is floating. Much of it, more so in Antarctica has land underneath it. Therefore it would raise the level if some areas melted

So there is land under there? How much?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

So there is land under there? How much?

I did not know specifically so I began to research a little.
I did find this:
Size: 13,209,000 sq km, 5,100,021 sq miles
(varies due to changing ice shelves)

Percent of Earth's Land: 8.9%

Status Antarctica, almost 98% solid ice, was finally considered a continent in 1840, and not just a group of isolated islands. Today it has active territorial claims submitted by Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. (Many of these claims are not recognized by some countries and remain in a constant disputed status)

There is a ton of information about the South pole I did not know.

A lot of people are saying that the polar ice caps are melting. Well, yea, but they grow back. So, am i to understand that all the heartbreaking film clips of chunks of ice falling off into the water is just inflamatory

Yep. Congrats on seeing past the media.

All the footage of polar bears on ice is just screwing with people's emotions, too. It happens every year, and the bears just jump into the sea and swim back to the mainland. They spend a very large proportion of their lives at sea, actually.

Now all you've gotta do is take a look at the numbers and you're well on your way to realising the unscientific nonsense that is 'Global Warming'.

Yes, of-course, no scientist ever thought of that! In the winter it grows back! Nobel prize for you!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm

Of course not.

It melts over Years.

The problem is the temperture world wide gets raised. Eventually, the ice will all melt. So it is still a problem, the world is still getting warmer.

I see no need for sarcasm, neuro. Im pretty sure i asked a question and wasnt an a-hole about it. Congrats to YOU for being SO much smarter than me. I was mostly poking fun at media reports that take advantage of the fact that most people do not know about this constant melting.

Global Warming is real. Anyone who disputes that is ill-informed. I just dont think our (proven) small contributions can destroy the planet.

A couple more questions. If more UV rays get in to the surface, wont that mean more plant life, thus more oxygen, thus more O zone?

hmm but i dont think we are that responsible really. Co2 is still a very tiny percentage, and it naturally rises anyway, its earths cycle.

So now we going to enter the "hot" age for a few thousand years, then the ice will creep back and we will have another ice age. We might be speeding up this process but its going to happen anyway, the reason the ice caps are melting is that the they are whats left of the last ice age, so yes its time for them to melt away.

When theres to much C02 forest fires will be rarer and more plants will grow(faster,bigger). They will producse more oxygen. When there is too much oxygen, there will be more forest fires, and more active animals( whose death will release co2, carbon cycle). So this has been happening for millions if not billions of years. I think we just have to face it's going to happen and start thinking of ways to adapt, rather then trying to stop something which is impossible to stop.

Originally Posted by joey11223

I think we just have to face it's going to happen and start thinking of ways to adapt, rather then trying to stop something which is impossible to stop.

You seem sure that changing it is impossible and that adapting to it is possible. Considering what's at stake, don't you think it might be worthwhile to consider that the opposite may in fact be true? Especially since most scientists seem to think this is the case?

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yes, of-course, no scientist ever thought of that! In the winter it grows back! Nobel prize for you!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm

Of course not.

It melts over Years.

Lose the tone jackass, you're no Einstein either. Of course the worry is about the annual decline.

My comment was a reply to the fact that the media keep showing emotive footage of huge lumps of ice falling into the sea, implying that such an event is actually news; which, of course, it isn't, considering it's happened every year for millenia.

And yes, there's an annual decline. This is because the Earth is getting warmer each year. I guess you're in the pro-CO2-causal-factor lobby, in which case I'll just make a brief mention of one of the many glaring errors of Gore's little movie:



Two interesting things to note here. Firstly, as Gore smugly pointed out, there's a very strong correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

Gore then said that this implies that CO2 rise is the causal factor in global warming, which is what we call a logical fallacy.

And in fact, upon closer examination, the reverse is proven, considering that the changes in CO2 levels take place rougly 1000 years after the changes in temperature.

But what complex process could cause such a thing!? Is it that the CO2 levels of the atmosphere increases the size of the layer of greenhouse gas which is trapping energy in our atmosphere, therefore causing a temperature increase 1000 years in the past?

Let's use Occam's Razor and some basic highschool science here:



I think the fact that temperature rise significantly reduces the solubility of carbon dioxide in the stuff that 2/3 of the planet is covered with is a somewhat more plausible explanation to the correlation.

And the second thing to point out: notice how the temperature of our planet fluctuates up and down rapidly? And notice also that every 100,000 years, temperature rapidly increases before gradually falling? And that if you actually follow the trendline, what we'd expect to see happening at the moment is an increase in temperature, as has happened repeatedly over the last million years, when the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans was 0, give or take about 0.

So why are we getting worried about it? I guess it must be the fact that nowadays we have eco-maniacs around who repeatedly tell us that industry is satanic, and assholes like Gore who have no scientific qualifications, yet a position in popular media to allow themselves to make great deals of money by spouting nonsense about a subject which they have very little grasp of.

wow. good stuff Xei, you know your stuff for sure. Why are we so worried about it? Armagedom scenarios gets peoples' blood pumping? From the amount of European trash-talkers i have met (in person), anti-Americanism? Fear? Here in America, because its "cool"?I still havent figured out why people think this little spike in temp. is the one that going to scorch the planet. So far it hasnt exceded the other spikes, i dont think.

I heard once that cows put out more CO2 last year than humans have in the last 120 years. Does anybody know if this is true?

Yeah, I've heard that too, but I don't know if that's true. Might just be one of those things people say. That sorta stuff happens on both sides of the argument. But I dunno.