General Discussion

mindwalker_i

(4,407 posts)

7. Temperatures ON the pole can go up more before that ice melts

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:55 PM

Dec 2011

But think about the surrounding area. If temperatures rise, the edges of the polar cap will melt and the ice cap itself will become smaller. When I was in grade school (~1980) a teacher said that if just an inch of ice melted, it would flood a lot of land around the world. I didn't understand then but what he meant was that if the overall (average) radius of the polar ice cap decreased by an inch, that would cause the oceans to rise enough to put parts of continents under water. Yeah, the actual north pole might not melt, but it would be a shorter walk to the ocean from it.

I also heard somewhere that the south polar cap is actually growing, but I haven't looked it up to confirm. Yes, google is just a click away, I know. It would be interesting to see if that's true, and whether the ice growth there is more per volume than the ice loss up north.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

All-time record high temperature recorded at South Pole [View all] Newsjock Dec 2011 OP

But ,NO it's a normal cycle. n/t orpupilofnature57 Dec 2011 #1

Facts have a well-known liberal bias. Science is Socialism. Etc, etc... nt onehandle Dec 2011 #2

NOT good, NOT good derby378 Dec 2011 #3

I don't know about Kilimanjaro, but the upper rurallib Dec 2011 #5

I was on top of Kilimanjaro five years ago (in August). former9thward Dec 2011 #17

Wow... derby378 Dec 2011 #29

It was. former9thward Dec 2011 #34

yikes... FirstLight Dec 2011 #4

This is meaningless happyslug Dec 2011 #6

Temperatures ON the pole can go up more before that ice melts mindwalker_i Dec 2011 #7

I am curious about your statements... xocet Dec 2011 #8

My point was the temperature at the pole is much less important then temperatures elsewhere happyslug Dec 2011 #12

Thanks for your detailed response. It is appreciated. xocet Dec 2011 #13

No, I just read a lot and have been concerned about this for over ten years happyslug Dec 2011 #16

In the dead of winter here in northern MI 17 isn't too bad JNelson6563 Dec 2011 #11

I gotta agree. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #55

Looks like 2012 will be as hot if not hotter than 2010. Definitely in top 5 hottest years. joshcryer Dec 2011 #9

How much ya got? Edweird Dec 2011 #20

How much you willing to risk? joshcryer Dec 2011 #21

Risk? There's no risk on my part. Edweird Dec 2011 #23

Ahh, so you would dismiss the GISS temperature record if 2012 was in the 5th hottest on that record. joshcryer Dec 2011 #26

You are aware that the Earth is roughly 500,000,000 years old, correct? Edweird Dec 2011 #27

Ahh, yes. It's clear I am discussing the instrumental temperature record. joshcryer Dec 2011 #28

The OP says "all-time" and yours says the 'top 5' - both of which are incorrect. Edweird Dec 2011 #30

But, I never intended your intepretion, and neither did the OP. And you know that. joshcryer Dec 2011 #32

What bet? You mean the one where I showed that we are nowhere near "All-time" highs? Edweird Jan 2012 #35

You're dismissing the instrumental temperature record. Should I even continue this with you? joshcryer Jan 2012 #36

How long have instruments been around? How long has the Earth existed? Edweird Jan 2012 #38

Ahh, my friend. This is too easy. Your graph "starts" at 1950 (+95 year delay). joshcryer Jan 2012 #39

So? That changes the preceding 10,500 years in what way? Edweird Jan 2012 #40

The Holoscene was relatively stable. joshcryer Jan 2012 #44

You're having a real hard time accepting geological history. Edweird Jan 2012 #45

Haha, now you're using hundred thousand year variance. How far back do you want to go? joshcryer Jan 2012 #46

The blue link is the 10,000 year record, but here it is a 3rd time. Edweird Jan 2012 #47

That's a 3C variance. Compared to the 100ky variance, that is stable. joshcryer Jan 2012 #48

It's not stable. Edweird Jan 2012 #49

Ahh, so you agree temperature rise of a mere 2.0C would be catastrophic. joshcryer Jan 2012 #50

Pope Innocent VIII was wrong, and so are you. Edweird Jan 2012 #51

So what do you think the CO2 is doing? Is there a mechanism to equal out the *physical*... joshcryer Jan 2012 #52

Dude, get real. In the grand scheme of things we aren't squat. Edweird Jan 2012 #58

We put more excess CO2 into the atmosphere than all natural sources. joshcryer Jan 2012 #60

Wow, sarcastic I see. Logical Dec 2011 #31

The Earth is 500 million years old? You're off by an order of magnitude. TheWraith Jan 2012 #37

At least he didn't say 6,000. He's got that goin' for him. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2012 #41

That was, unfortunately, 'off the cuff'. Edweird Jan 2012 #42

Yeah, my bad. Edweird Jan 2012 #43

So if you're so wrong about that, what else might you be wrong about? TheWraith Jan 2012 #53

By all means, go over it with a fine toothed comb. Edweird Jan 2012 #57

I assume you're holding yourself to the same standard. Edweird Jan 2012 #59

Scrapitalism. Kids there isn't a Santa, and there soon will be no north pole either. lonestarnot Dec 2011 #10

Good news for Santa. MilesColtrane Dec 2011 #14

"All time"? I don't believe that's remotely accurate. Edweird Dec 2011 #15

not just broken, but broken by ~10 degrees? Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #18

But... but... it's snowing in Michigan! There's no climate change! Fawke Em Dec 2011 #19

Not in southeast Michigan. marmar Dec 2011 #25

Well WE have snow! DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #22

Sobering. marmar Dec 2011 #24

but...but...but CLIMATEGATE!!!!11 jpak Dec 2011 #33

Was Polar Temperature Increases Predicted? Dirty Socialist Jan 2012 #54

What does this have to do with Glenn Greenwald? DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #56