"For more than a decade now, the rate of ice melting in the North Pole in the summer has exceeded the rate of accumulation in the winter," says Prof. Haim Kotiel, a climate expert from the University of Haifa
"For more than a decade, the rate of ice melting in the North Pole in the summer exceeds the rate of accumulation in the winter," says Prof. Haim Kothiel, a climate expert from the University of Haifa.
He further added that if the amount of greenhouse gases emitted does not decrease, there is a probability that the process will continue and the ice in the North Pole will eventually melt.
According to Prof. Kothiel, starting from March 21, six months of continuous sun begin in the North Pole, therefore the ice melts during this period. At the end of this period, the opposite period begins where the sun does not shine at all and then the ice accumulates. This phenomenon creates the "transitions" in the ice recently observed in the North Pole and is also the one that will eliminate them in winter. However, the emission of greenhouse gases undermines the equilibrium of this process and therefore in the last decade each spring begins in a less favorable situation in terms of the amount of ice.
The researcher also added that due to the increase in awareness of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, there is a moderation of the increasing trend from year to year, but still more greenhouse gases are emitted each year than the previous year. "In the limited Israeli aspect, we don't have much to do about it since the amount of greenhouse gases that can be reduced is sixty. It has to be a worldwide effort, which will cost a lot of money. The heads of state must understand that repairing the damage after the ice melts will cost much more," he says.
However, there is a slightly encouraging fact that arises from the differences between the two poles of the Earth: while at the South Pole ice covers land, the North Pole is made up of ice that floats entirely in the sea. Therefore, the mass of the North Pole will have much less effect on sea level rise.
9 תגובות
Everything is included in everything, this is part of the matter and the dynamics. One must understand more deeply how one thing is related to another.
Defiance only signals you to check your attitude and intelligence. There is no need for you to turn science into a brick.
And I don't think it's honorable, but it's probably part of the process. Oops, sorry for interfering.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
Politics takes over scientific truth. Yesterday's communists are today's greens. There is nothing to accept studies supported by the IPCC. They have set themselves the goal of changing the forces in the world through unfounded studies. Look how they put science in a firing squad.
A. Ben Ner:
Your claim raises a question about the facts - a question to which I do not know the answer.
As a general rule, it is not true that the melting of ice floating on the water will raise or lower the sea level.
Every floating body repels water according to its weight (Archimedes) and the weight of the ice after melting remains the same.
Before it melts - it is not all submerged in water and this is the source of your mistake.
So what's the question?
The question is whether there is any land that somehow stabilizes the height of the North Pole ice or lowers it compared to its position if it were floating.
I assume that if there is land support, then the chance of lowering the ice compared to a state of floating is extremely low compared to the chance of raising it (it depends on the form of its grip on the ice) and that most of the chances are that the ice is exactly at the height at which it was floating and therefore its melting will not affect the sea level.
As we know, each 1 kg of ice has a volume greater than the volume of 1 kg of water. Therefore, the melting of the ice in the North Pole should cause a decrease in the sea level, not an increase.
Regarding Antarctica. Even where a certain part of the ice is in the sea, the melting of the "marine part" of the Antarctic ice will also cause the sea level to drop.
It is true that the melting of the "land ice" in Antarctica will cause the sea level to rise. It seems therefore that in a global view, these two opposite trends will balance each other and that is indeed how it seems at this stage.
After all, so far, we do not notice the sea level rise despite the massive melting of the ice at the poles reported in this article and many other articles.
Eran Gafni:
Where did you get the claim that in the article they say that "the ice is bigger this year than last year and is already starting to thicken again"?
to Eran Gafni,
There is no contradiction regarding the amounts of greenhouse gases, what is claimed in the article is that there is a moderating trend of the "increasing trend" this does not at all contradict that there are more greenhouse gases than the name itself,
For example (arbitrarily) if the rate was doubled from year to year then now for example the multiplier is 1.5 - this means that there is still more greenhouse gas emissions this year but the rate has decreased.
Regarding the poles, the situation is really alarming, you have to look at maps of the poles at intervals of a few years and you can clearly see that the poles are shrinking.
to the cool commenter,
Supercomputers are used for short and long term climate forecasting, but there is no connection between predicting phenomena and preventing them.
I really hope that they will act as soon as possible to eradicate the phenomenon of greenhouse gas emissions, especially in China, India, the USA and other countries, in the meantime there are developments in the field, but there is a necessity for countries to apply strict laws to the emission of greenhouse gases.
Good day to all of us.
Carbon dioxide is not toxic.. and is the main greenhouse gas..
And yes, I don't understand why IBM built dozens of supercomputers for climate prediction if they are not used to try to predict the effect of the greenhouse effect in a system-wide aspect.
Most estimates of the greenhouse effect are built by diagrams that are not necessarily accurate and that do not necessarily take all factors into account.
The news itself contains information that contradicts Prof. Kothiel's words: the ice cover is greater this year than last year and is already beginning to thicken again. What do you think: if it was indeed a continuous trend of warming, we would expect this year to be worse than the previous one, but both with regard to the global temperature and the situation in the North Pole, the situation this year is better than last year.
As for the global temperature, the record of 1998 has not yet been broken. We would expect that in the trend of global warming, the record would be broken, but it lasts for 10 years.
All of this strengthens the claim of Israeli scientists who were quoted this morning in "Haaretz" that the suppression of global warming is more related to the effort to get more money into the pockets of the authors of the various studies, thereby calling into question their professional integrity and credibility in favor of a political struggle that fundamentally stems from a deep hatred of the USA and its being the No. 1 power XNUMX in the world.
By the way, Prof. Kothiel here also contradicts another fictional horror scenario that, as part of the brainwashing of those bodies, is introduced into the heads of laymen, according to which the melting of the North Pole will lead to a dramatic increase in the level of the oceans. Alas, the same authorities "forget" to point out that the ice cover in the Antarctic is actually thickening....
We must stop emitting in any case. More serious than climate change, which has not been proven beyond any doubt, is the fact that these substances are poisons.