Home | About | Donate

Could Arctic Ice Disappear For First Time in More Than 100,000 Years?



There is the reality that scientists cannot prove with any certainty their speculations. For example, these last two 'winterless' winters over much of the northern hemisphere were not predicted by the models. Similarly we cannot prove speculations although as one scientist says he thinks it will be this year or next year. It is the difference between science and the politics of climate change denial. Denialists want proof which only happens after the fact. So when the polar ice cap finally does melt then they will admit that it can melt. Meanwhile we continue to wait before doing what is necessary to prevent it happening.

How much of a sign does it take before we realize that this may get much worse very quickly? That other scientist who blathered on about it happening in 2030 or even 2050 is guilty of bad science but will pay no price for their incompetence now despite their benefiting from it at present (publicity). We penalize the truth teller by questioning veracity and doubting what is actually rigorous scientific speculation ( respecting the scienctific consensus), while rewarding the fraudulent and foolish or incompetent.

What if we are ambling forwards at a leisurely pace when perhaps we should be running as fast as we can. We will only know after it is too late if we allow politics and corruption to continue this doubting of the science like we do. Will anyone care that the incompetent scientist got it wrong twenty or thirty years from now if sea levels have risen by feet instead of the inches he suggests and storms are causing an economic crash etc.?


It seems like only about 15 years ago scientists were predicting that Arctic ice could disappear by 2100. Well, it is only 2016 and possibly Arctic ice is already on the verge of disappearing at the end of summer. While the world leaders are acting having signed the Paris climate agreement it seems that these actions are taking place in slow motion compared to the way the climate is changing. We are facing technological, financial, and political obstacles in dealing with the crisis. Probably the political obstacles will be the hardest to overcome. By now everyone should be aware that there are no easy answers. Given the situation is it challenging to hold on to any optimism about the outcome.


Here how it works, from what I have observed:

Ice fields are really fluid. Sea Ice holds up the coastal glaciers. Coastal glaciers prop up the interior ice caps. If just the Greenland ice cap breaks up all the way, the ocean's average level will rise by about 21 feet.

21 feet will cause massive migration. Syria was nothing. Paris just flooded from high tides. Germany just flooded from massive rains. Texas is washing away right now, with most of the state under flash flood warnings. A lot of South Carolina in the past year went underwater from an unusually super high tide.

Every year it's the same story now. 100's of floods are never reported around the world. The Maldives Islands and the Marshal Islands have had many residents evacuated since breakers are crashing through peoples bedrooms. After the North Pole melted, all that moisture had to come down somewhere.

According to studies, the largest carbon source from man-made emissions is the Light vehicle (our cars) and black coal emissions. In Wall Street's never-ending search for infinite growth, GM is planning to put another billion people behind the wheel in India and China with easy credit.

We won't survive it.


Vilifying the actors would go a bit farther if we put a good set of demands on them. Then one of their options would be, "Don't be vilified." Some of them might take that particular option.

My first, foremost push is for practical R&D leading to useful solar and other products. Feel free to add to the list:

  1. Buildings need to be retrofitted so that they use mainly solar-based heat to heat themselves to 68 degrees on winter mornings. Heat is maybe 1/2 of all fossil fuel use.

  2. Sunny day photovoltaic electricity is nice, but we also need nighttime solar-based electricity now. My personal opinion is that solar thermal storage will win this race, but I also respect the old standby of hydropumping, giant city-sized hydrogen fuel cells and Elon Musk's battery packs.

  3. I see environmentally benign ways to restore the polar ice by cooling the Arctic Ocean during the Arctic winter. Heat thrown into the Arctic winter quickly radiates back into space. Also we need to cool the Arctic tundra, probably by wind-powered snowmaking machines. It's a huge job that needs a bit of a war effort, but the alternative is far worse.


It had no appreciable effect in terms of adding moisture. Like an ice cube floating in a glass when it melts the glass does not overflow. In fact ice takes up more volume then water. When the pole ice melts it exposes more open water to sunlight. Greenland is shaped like a bowl with the major mass of ice sitting within the sides of the bowl.

After the North Pole melted... Not much was different except the ice was gone and the Arctic continued to warm due to the general increase in global temp. North Pole melt has no effect on sea level rise. That comes from land based ice and glaciers that melt not the North Pole Ice Cap.


The politicians constantly feature any scientist who sounds conservative in their estimates. If some scientist says the worst won't happen for thirty years they feature it and if that person then says I was wrong and the worst will happen in the next ten years, they never mention that. These exceptionally warm years were predicted to happen by 2050, then by 2030, then by 2020? Nope too late, they are already happening way ahead of expectations.

Why do we not teach our children the truth? Why don't we teach ourselves the truth? Someday people will ask that question - why didn't we tell ourselves the truth?

How is it that the media with so many reporters and writers still plays down global warming? How is it possible that a presidential candidate can consider global warming a hoax? I am seriously asking that question...how is it possible that he continues to think that way? The North Pole is disappearing, droughts and killer storms approach, unpredictable weather like these floods or 117F in Calif. 123F in India. How is it that Trump can not know?

That is now the real question. How when everybody knows that we keep acting like it hasn't been proven a fact yet?

Global warming now begins to equal $$$ money despite the misery that will follow. Those who benefit from global warming (I say it that way on purpose) literally have a stake in having it get worse. They all know by now but they make money as it gets worse. They will not stop on their own.

Such is reality. Such is the greed that rationalizes other people's increasing misery.

Such is greed that kills... a planet.


He is confused and is throwing out the name of some very complex research concerning the possible role of the arctic freshwater lens's effects on currents and regional thermal haline circulation which he doesn't understand and which is not about the continuance of Arctic Sea ice anyway. To clear up any further name dropping of research confusion, it is safe to assume that the primary factor in the loss of arctic sea ice is warming of the North Atlantic.


That is the perfect British understatement. You should apply for citizenship.


Scientific uncertainty has its limits, much like scientific certainty.

We do not know that the sea ice will disappear this summer. However, we know that we have some reasons to believe that it might. Not long ago, we knew that it could not. We know that it also might next year, or the year after.

This is like knowing that it will rain. We know it will. We have some idea during what time period. But we do not know just when.

How good a reason is that to not be ready for the rain?

Our rulers, the people thought to own most of the planet, find which individuals have power to be a personal and engaging struggle. They find the suffering and deaths of poor people to be difficult to imagine, understand, or respond to. Therefore, they will not move significantly to avert catastrophe in advance; they will wait until it hits, very hard, and becomes an immediate practical problem for them.

We have little reason to imagine that they might do anything else. What would be the precedent?

So we can expect this to hit hard. And we can expect other problems caused by mismanagement at the same time, probably financial and energy-related, and then lots of other problems from the loss of transport, technology, and familiar patterns of greater or lesser cooperation.

We do not know when, or at least I do not. We also do not know the validity of wild and broad conclusions like "Human beings will not survive." There might be some eco-catastrophe in which this might be true, secondary to the death of blue-green algae and oxygen production or whatever. Or other troubles might provoke us to the utterly silly and lethal nuclear catastrophe that our rulers appear to wish to keep every close at hand.

Why not survive on purpose? I don't mean prepper fantasies, or at least not the usual sort, though I suppose that sort of thing may have its value in its place. Why wait for governments and businesses that appear determined to destroy all but one surely imaginary scrap? I do not mean that we can ignore governments, at least not until we can find a way to get them to ignore us. But why not start by buying less of most things, particularly from global corporations? Why not start by trapping and harvesting water, growing food, looking for ways to extricate oneself from wage work, trading down expensive properties to escape debt, and so forth?

This is not just the sort of saw that we have heard for a couple generations now, to conserve and so forth and that this or that begins at home. It would be fine for politicians to act right, and we should vote out the ones who are now in office because they do not. And we should resist their rule otherwise. However, we are not going to walk away from the existing system without an alternative up and running, because the problem here is not just the government and not just a handful of corporations alone, but also our dependence on these corporations. Yet that dependence is not nearly as profound as most of us have been led to believe. We have to find and show the way, and travel it.


TJ said: After the North Pole melted, all that moisture had to come down somewhere.

Flea said:

You are wrong. You are ignorant about basic science. The ice cannot be gone and "poof" into nowhere. The scientific law of the Conservation of Matter, states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The atmosphere in the Arctic is very, very dry. If the ice is now gone from melting, that H2O moisture will evaporate and precipitate back out of the air somewhere else.

You have zero understanding of weather fundamentals and zero understanding of Earth Science. If you had studied these all your life, and kept up with changes you'd know that the tropics have shifted North and South into a much wider band from the Equator. And we see this with the hundreds of floods and massive rain in Paris, Germany and Texas just this week alone.

Scientists say:

But Vecchi says the latitude of maximum intensity has moved toward the
poles at roughly the same rate as an expansion of the Earth's tropics
over the same period, and other studies have attributed the tropics'
expansion to human activities.


The ice is now gone from the Arctic. The heaviest rains ever seen are flooding lower latitudes as a result. Texas, for example, is not flooding from ocean rise, but rather from massive downpours. I agree with you, however, that the melting of floating ice does not cause the ocean to rise. (that's a different subject that I did not put in my post.)

TJ .


After the North Pole melted you said...well it then became water as the North Pole is water not land. Nevermind. You cannot talk without resorting to insults, so this is pointless. Nevertheless the floating ice at the pole melts into the water and does not add moisture to the air. That comes from the warmer air world wide as warm air retains more moisture. Everything you've said is ridiculous. There is no added moisture in the atmosphere from floating ice melting into the oceans.


TJ says:
Yes there is, Mr Armchair Expert,

It is called the hydrological cycle: Movement of water
between the primary water reservoirs (ocean, land, atmosphere, cryosphere)
by evaporation, precipitation and river runoff is called the hydrological

For the basic science reasons I told you about. Do you even know what SST's are? If you don't, then you are simply ignorant about what I am talking about.

It is evident that the reduction of sea ice cover has increased the heat flux from the ocean to atmosphere in autumn and early winter. This has locally increased air temperature, moisture, and cloud cover,and reduced the static stability in the lower troposphere.


Kind Regards,

"Is our children learning yet?" - GWB


You have no idea of what you are talking about at least as far as climate change. You are talking high school science conservation of matter huh? Hydrological cycle huh? I tried to teach you but you want to pretend. So edit your posts and whatever. You are wrong okay and bringing the law of conservation of matter and...Nevermind. You are very you here today. After the North Pole melted you said all that moisture had to come down somewhere...you said ( I quoted it so you couldn't rephrase after you realized or had learned of your error. So F'n pretend if it matters so much to you. I could care less but you were putting out incorrect information so I corrected you and still do. Current information is questioning the significance of atmospheric warmth and playing more emphasis on warming seas as the major causative factor in Ice disappearance. Moreover a very recent finding is the odd circumstance of a very slight ice accumulation in the interior of the Greenland ice cap even though the coastal glaciers are disappearing at a phenomenal rate. This is being studied to see if it is anomalous or persistent.

Get your facts straight before you tell others about science. Most people know the North Pole is water and not land or they know that when ice floating ice melts into water that it does not increase the amount of moisture in the air appreciably. Either one.


TJ says:

Actually, if I'm reading it right, light vehicles are the second largest source of carbon according to the EPA:

The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are CO2
emissions resulting from the combustion of petroleum-based products,
like gasoline, in internal combustion engines.

The largest sources of
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars
and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks,
and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from
the sector.

The remainder of greenhouse gas emissions comes from other
modes of transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft,
ships, boats, and trains as well as pipelines and lubricants....

In 2014, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for
about 26% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second
largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions after the Electricity sector.
Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation have increased by about
17% since 1990. This historical increase is largely due to increased
demand for travel and the limited gains in fuel efficiency across the
U.S. vehicle fleet. The number of vehicle miles traveled by passenger
cars and light-duty trucks increased 37% from 1990 to 2014. The increase
in travel miles is attributed to several factors, including population
growth, economic growth, urban sprawl, and low fuel prices during the
beginning of this period. Between 1990 and 2004, average fuel economy
among new vehicles sold annually declined, as sales of light-duty trucks
increased. However, new vehicle fuel economy began to improve in 2005,
largely due to a lower light-duty truck market share and higher fuel
economy standards.



What are you talking about? I don't want to play this game using sentences out of context and inhave to figure out what you are talking about. He said something which is wrong and I corrected him. Now you are talking about something else. If I understand your comment at all since it derives from the term North Atlantic.nsuffice to say the North Atlantic is a vast area with differing depths which has warmed considerably. I think you are confining your comment to the Gulf Stream as if that were the North Atlantic. In any case the mechanism that causes hurricanes is not that well understood which is why they are not predictable.in any case that was not the substance of the discussion. The Gulf Stream is not responsible for the phenomenon under discussion and in fact it was a correction of a misstatement not a discussion anyway. Maybe I have never heard of the Gulf Stream huh? Give me a break. Is this another chemtrails group thing? Sigh.


Thank you Jazzbo.

I just didn't have the patience to educate him on simple H20 circulation.


Which is what I said - the increased moisture in the air is due to warmer global temperatures and not from ice melting at the poles and his "... all that moisture had to come down somewhere nonsense.


I leave out the obvious or else my fingers would break off from trying to fill all the gaps in your learning. You can't stare at your adult beverage and think that's going to answer it for you. I edit constantly to try and provide greater detail to communicate more effectively.

Let me try and draw you an over-simplified picture:

  1. Ice melts at the north pole into the water and circulates due to salinity change.
  2. The world-wide current (not just the gulf stream part) moves it back into hotter, lower latitudes, as does Coriolis force causing warmer than normal polar air to migrate South. And because the atmosphere is being heated by the ocean at high latitudes, large cyclonic weather and thunderstorms are now hitting the high-latitudes of Japan and Europe (where that was rare before.)

  3. What was Polar water THEN evaporates causing INCREASED moisture, as my link on the tropics bulging out from the equator proves.

  4. All that moisture, has to come down somewhere (the air can't hold it anymore), just as I said: Massive record-setting rains from larger supercells caused by greater SST's, since storms need both increased SST and increased relative humidity to form supercells. (but those extra atoms of H20 originated at the pole.)

Also, when polar sea ice melts thermal energy heats up the polar atmosphere which is a component of increased moist storms protruding into high latitudes (e.g., Anchorage and the Yukon getting massive rain and ice storms):

Do you see the red up arrows? "heat loss from ocean". This causes the tropics to bulge from the equator since moist warm air carries more water vapor than cold dry air.


Atmospheric moisture is not the same thing as sea level. How the hell do you not understand that?