The Big Melt

U.K.'s animated map of sea-level rise is inaccurate geographically. How could polar melting ever directly affect the land-locked Caspian Sea and the almost disappeared Aral Sea? Yet,U.K. has shown exactly that event! If U.K. took into account indirect water inputs (increased rain and snow) then why aren't other inland water bodies--the Great Lakes, Great Salt Lake, Lake Baikal etc--also shown as increasing in volume? In other words, U.K.'s mapping is pure active visual entertainment, not any kind of useful and accurate information conveyor.

Does anyone else see in the animation that when the northern polar caps are receding, the southern polar caps are growing... Could this just be a global climate shift? Maybe those thousands of engineers and scientists were right when they said we have nothing to do with "global warming."

the global warming issue is just a conspiracy formed by gore and sceintists worried that if they didnt play along they would lose government grants it seems like for every 5 degrees the temp goes up we find out that there isnt actually any change and the falty equipment they use doesnt lead me to beleive what they are telling me check out the link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

@bws28: Summer in the north coincides with winter in the south and vice versa. Go on, say it."Duh!"

Life is change. Change is normal. We wouldn't be here if not for climatic shifts (the dino's would still be here and would have eaten our ancestors before they had a chance to 'evolve' into humans).

If climate shifts dramatically then go with the flow. Move to higher ground or wetter grounds. Plan ahead and be the owner of that next 'beachfront' property. That's life.

And if we really wanted to we could regulate the temperatures by blocking some of the sunlight with solar panels in space and microwave the energy back to earth. Kills two birds with one stone. Makes it possible to regulate temperature and get energy out of the equation.

We can do the same thing with the runaway meltdown on Venus by blocking the sun and essentially 'terraforming' venus to be a twin sister planet. It will take tens of millions of years to stabilize it at a lower temperature but it CAN be done and then we can work on the atmospheric content to get it 'earth-like'. That will make up for any lost beachfront property!

It just takes imagination folks and sweat that our ancestors had which these days the only sweat I see is that of rich jerks owning beachfront property worried they will loose theirs!

Hey if your that worried get a good topographical map and find your new beach front property and buy it now because it's gonna happen no matter what we do at this point. It's already too late. Momentum is a wicked thing and it's a sure thing so get used to is.

It's not like this thing will happen overnight in a 'great flood' like noah's ark. There will be plenty of time to get out of the way. If we can relocate 300,000 New Orleans citizens in a couple days we can surely relocate 300,000,000 in a couple decades.

I wonder if people will really care about this until absolutely terrible things happen.

Perhaps all the experts can do is put forth their conjecture and evidence, and the chips will fall where they fall.

When u think of all the other dastardly things coming down the pike, perhaps climate change isn't what will be the ultimate concern.

With robotic military "soldiers" and delivery systems, biochemical warfare, electro-magnetic pulse and non-pulse weaponry, nanotechnological delivery systems, the world is becoming increasingly... dangerous.

What is Israel and Iran have a nuclear tumble? What will it do to the global atmosphere?

I'm becoming increasingly less hopeful.

Top it off with losing water and having to eat processed gmo foods in the future only, well i'm not a happy camper.

I absolutely love the line in "Contact" when Jody Foster asks the Alien Presence one particular question:

"How did you survive your technological adolescence?"

I didn't quite understand the question at the time. Now I truly think it's one of the most brilliant questions ever.

Will WE?

You ever notice how those who support global warming theories tend to talk about the actual scientific data and those apposed tend to talk about politics?

Forget getting everyone on the same page, we are not even reading the same book.

Really I like Popsci, but stuff like this has to stop. I am getting to the point that I don't want to come back and read the cool interesting article's, because of stuff like this. All it is, is propaganda. If the globe hasn't been warming since the beginning of time, wouldn't we still be in the ice age? Or how come they conveniently leave out the fact that we have lost heat since 98. Just quit pushing this crap. Get back to the cool stuff, things that are useful. Meteorology is in its infancy, so how can we know whether we are the cause or not? That is like saying you know history by reading one page of a history book. It's no where near time to panic yet, we don't have enough conclusive evidence one way or another to make such a rash judgment.

The worst part is that our greed extends far beyond our home planet. The polar ice caps of Mars are also succumbing to our reckless disregard for nature. Some say it is a just part of the sun's normal cycle, but I say it is our disrespect for Mother Gaia which so angers Father Sol.

You ever notice how those who support global warming theories reject all scientific data that don't support their politics? Haven't heard much of the Hockey Stick graph lately have we? If scientists can award a Nobel for bad data to push a political agenda, it just MIGHT be time to start noticing that political agenda. Unless, of course, you agree with it.

Well, I tend to be the type who wants to see the actual product instead of a press release, so I went to the IPY site at
http://www.ipy.org/index.php?/ipy/detail/state_of_polar_research/ which will link you to a pdf upload of the report at (http:)//216.70.123.96/images/uploads/IPY_State_of_Polar_Research_EN_web.pdf.

Unfortunately, it doesn't present any scientific studies, just 'highlights' of unmentioned research. It was impossible to discern the legitimacy of the studies, i.e., was it peer-reviewed research? Did it include analysis from satellite date that has now been shown to be inaccurate (a malfunctioning sensor resulted in an area of Artic ice the sized of California to be missed)?

Continuing with the report, suggesting that the 'big melt' may be affecting the distribution of deep-see octopus species and incidence rates of active tuberculosis cases in northern regions is more than a stretch. No info is given, only that 'studies' are showing a change over time. Such loose correlation is more misleading than informational. The cumulative number of days I have lived in my present house correlated with global temperatures for the ten year period 1987-1998 (i.e., they both steadily increased. The correlation was broken when the temp. stopped going up after 1997). The report looks like UN fluff, with the bulk of it touting the importance of the IPY.

Evidently, they have mastered time-travel. The report states, "Launched in March 2007, the IPY covers a two-year period to March 2009 to allow for observations during the alternate seasons in both polar regions," yet they managed to compile, write, edit, and publish the final report before the end of February, 2009. It would seem to me that if you 'launch' a study in Mar 07, and have it published by Feb 09, then you are starting off with a credibility issue claiming it to be a two year study. I know that's picky, but IMHO, that's kinda how science should be.

Conclusion: this is a political report to justify continued funding for the IPY.

MIP: it's not the 300,000,000 being relocated in a couple of decades that's the problem, it's the loss of great chunks of irreplacable cities like London, Washington, New York, Saigon, Melbourne, etc etc. Plus all the coastal towns and ports, the river deltas and their fertile land.
Then there's the other changes to the climate that would accompany the temperature rises that would be causing those ocean rises. Hotter hots, colder colds, wetter rains, drier droughts, fiercer storms. We will adapt of course, but at what costs?
May you live in interesting times.

interesting article; if it is the case of major sea level rises & flooding of many islets & sealevel places;would it not be good idea to use ice;as it's 90% fresh water; their's many country around the world that has major draughts;& the world is spending billions a year to combat;
so instead of spending billions of $; leaping up & down saying the north & south poles are melting;put it to good use;if it's considered to expensive to transport icebergs;bottle the stuff & sell to all these fitness fanatics & the like;who pay outrageous prices for bottled tap water;

"Then there's the other changes to the climate that would accompany the temperature rises that would be causing those ocean rises. Hotter hots, colder colds, wetter rains, drier droughts, fiercer storms"

Kiwi, you believe everything that Al Gore says? Did you stop to think that he has a monetary stake in this? And it succeeding would make him a lot of money.

@bws28
>Does anyone else see in the animation that when the northern polar caps are receding, the southern polar caps are growing... Could this just be a global climate shift? Maybe those thousands of engineers and scientists were right when they said we have nothing to do with "global warming."

Nope you're just stupid, it's the seasons. Think about the spin of the earth and how some ice in the north and refreeze some in the winter also the .gif file is looping which make the visualization even harder to understand, try saving it and opening in a image editing program such as Photoshop or the GIMP, then you can under stand it frame by frame. Also google about the seasons of the Earth if you are still lost.

What is the animation supposed to be showing besides one full cycle of seasonal ice extent from north to south to north again? Why is there very little if no red for shore line locations near the equator? More explaination of the graphic is necessary otherwise it has no value to the article. As for the article, once again sensationalism and alarmism courtesy of POPSCI. The same alarmism by the Chief Alarmist of all, James Hansen (a NASA employee) who predicted in 1988 that there would be major flooding of coastlines and islands in the next twenty years. What happened to his predictions?

The climate has always been in flux and will always be in flux. We are so many folks intent on believing the current observations of the earth's climate are man made and can be stopped? Answer: The media loves the sensation.

CNN seems to be a great purveyor of injecting politics into the science of climate change. Check thier "Planet in Peril" series. Lots of stuff starring Al Gore with his carbon foot print never mentioned by his pals in the media.

The EPA may soon declare CO2 a pollutant. I can't think of any idea more stupid. However, if you believe CO2 is a pollutant then I have a nice product I'm working on that you can wear on your face that removes CO2 from your breath as you exhale. It looks like a gas mask which is not too attractive but soon I will be making them available in different styles and colors to match your mood. It may appear in Popsci's "Whats New" section someday. Hurray for Al Gore! I'm gonna make millions $$$$$$

Interesting comment: "You ever notice how those who support global warming theories tend to talk about the actual scientific data and those apposed tend to talk about politics?"

Uh, what scientific data would that be? All I've seen have been computer models. It's not hard to get a computer to give you the answer you want. Yes, Sci Amer and Science magazine have jumped on the bandwagon and yes, I don't read those anymore either. To me this is all a statement on the sorry state of science education. There is no "scientific method" anymore. Just some guys and gals in white coats, running computer models, sucking on grants. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

It will be quite interesting to see if the Arctic ice summer meltback is nearly as severe this coming summer as in 2008 or 2007. I feel myself on strong ground to claim that the speed with which the glaciers in SW Greenland are racing to the sea are not indicative of global warming (based on new satellite measurement.)

I can make an argument about the velocity of glacial ice in West Antartica being more dependent on warm ocean currents breaking off coastal ice shelves, thus allowing in-land ice to move faster to the sea. The way we tell how much ocean currents affect things is to wait for them to change.

In the meantime, Mark Twain once said: "In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten together at second-hand, and without examination, from authority who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

The only exception I can take to that statement is that the price of copper is up so much that brass farthings are worth a lot more than they used to be.

chubbee - then why are we worried about GLOBAL warming, when it seems like everyone just wants to wach one pole at a time. If there is ice increasing in the south pole, and decreasing in the north... isnt that just a natural thing. Maybe the increase in water levels is a temporary shifting of water from the north to south... Saying that humans had anything to do with "global warming" is ridiculous. But I must say, its drawn people to develop ways of getting us off of foreign oil and what not, and by not sending money and supplies over seas we make money!

What is so interesting about this article - and all like it - is this: Where are the studies that contradict this one? There are plenty. So why isn't PopSci doing it's journalistic duty and publishing in an unbiased manner?

Well gee, you wouldn't really want a second opinion or contrary statement in this mag now would you! It's all about political correctness and making the most money possible by sensationalist scare tactics (can ya say Al Gore?); not responsible journalism.