Ice Sheet Collapses

[Da Skinna]

Nothing new... but:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science....ap/index.html


We're all gonna die!

[Aetius]

We're all gonna die!

Yes, I am glad you figured that out.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Don't worry, its only natural that we all die. This is just a cycle, we'll all not-die soon enough.

[Blau&Gruen]

Icebears and seals die, actually. Young seals starve and drow these days in the Baltic Sea, because the ice has melted too early this year.

[the_mango55]

Actually, I live in the mountains.

I think I'll be okay.

[Blau&Gruen]

I think, you could flood your entire planet by producing too much polution in Civilization I. A friend told me having founded his last settlement in the Himalaya region when playing the Earth map.

[Old_Rome]

The glaciers are actually growing in most places. As they grow they push older ice fields in to the water.

[LSJ]

As far as I remember, glacier growth and loss is mixed across the planet, but the net effect is a loss, by a significant amount (only significant relative to human perspective of course).

The places with the glacier growth were a bunch of inland mountain glaciers, while the places with the loss consisted of other mountains glaciers, and the North and South Poles, which contain by far the most ice.

And because the glaciers in the Poles, a lot of it in the water, are far more susceptible to slight changes in temperature and chemical conmposition of the environment, they break apart faster. Plus when they break apart they float, and unlike mountain glaciers, they end up in warm regions where the melt in a short period of time.

Something like that... just trying to remember the documentaries I saw in my Physical Geography class.

[Old_Rome]

As far as I remember, glacier growth and loss is mixed across the planet, but the net effect is a loss, by a significant amount (only significant relative to human perspective of course).

The places with the glacier growth were a bunch of inland mountain glaciers, while the places with the loss consisted of other mountains glaciers, and the North and South Poles, which contain by far the most ice.

And because the glaciers in the Poles, a lot of it in the water, are far more susceptible to slight changes in temperature and chemical conmposition of the environment, they break apart faster. Plus when they break apart they float, and unlike mountain glaciers, they end up in warm regions where the melt in a short period of time.

Something like that... just trying to remember the documentaries I saw in my Physical Geography class.

Hmmm, the facts show a very different picture. Take a look at the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice graph (attached) which shows 2008 has more southern ice since the records began. Also, look at the article that I posted below.


Tuesday, September 11, 2007
A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent?

While the "Antarctic Peninsula" (which is a VERY small area of the Antarctic) has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now”.



http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...tal_ice_extent