Could Melting Ice Caps Reduce Global Warming?
New Scientist reports a controversial study that melting ice caps could actually weaken the greenhouse effect. Stanford University scientists studied satellite data from 1998 to 2007 to evaluate changes in sea surface temperatures and quantities of sea ice and phytoplankton (increased phytoplankton activity removes atmospheric carbon). What they found is startling— phytoplankton grew more in areas where ice was disappearing.
Essentially, the melting northern polar ice cap is opening up a new carbon sink that can soak up carbon dioxide. Right now, however, the sink is only able to account for 0.7 percent of our total annual carbon emissions. For productivity to rise further, more nutrients need to be brought to the Arctic surface waters. But this is unlikely—the arctic doesn’t contain many surface water nutrients.
While melting ice caps may mean a slight reduction in greenhouse gases, they also mean a drastic change in the Arctic food chain. And we may not care about atmospheric CO2 levels if our cities are flooded due to climate change. So even if melting ice caps have a slight silver lining, we shouldn’t necessarily encourage their demise.
More Posts on Global Warming:
- Satellite That Predicts Climate Change About to Launch
- New Study Says Commercial Carbon Capture Unlikely by 2020
Geoengineering to stop co2 is based on faulty and incomplete science.
Here are 10 things everyone should know about the hockey stick graph .
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/ten-things-everyone-should-know-about-the-global-warming-hockey-stick/
Seems this study gonna start to debate on global warming issues. Interesting
Great story. I’ll take a closer look at the facts, but my initial reaction is that what the scientists are seeing is the exquisite engineering inherent in our natural systems at work. Nature has an amazing capacity to bring out-of-balance systems back to equilibrium.
But as the article points out, the increased plankton isn’t likely to be capable of keeping up with the carbon. Also, too much plankton isn’t a great thing either.
The potential dangers in this situation outweigh the minimal benefit we’re witnessing. If seas get too cold from the melting ice, the gulf stream flow could be shut down. That would be a catastrophe. Also, the role of the ice cap is to provide a type of “air conditioning” for the warmer parts of the planet. When it’s gone, the lower regions will warm up significantly faster. This affects water levels, rainfall, hurricane systems, etc. The list is very long.
Nice job Ariel.
Thanks! Let’s just hope this doesn’t get spun into “melting ice caps are great”.
I think any reasonable scientist/human would come to a similar conclusion: that the earth will somehow compensate for the damage we are doing to it.
The question remains, though, what kind of timescale would that work on?
A new ice age would be brilliant, too. Not so good for humans.
And you know what? Let’s pretend for a moment, just a tiny moment, that global warming isn’t caused by humans. Some troll will certainly post that here.
Who gives a rat’s ass? Even if that were the case, I would want to live in a world that has softened its technology, designed waste out of our products, and the extremes of cancerous consumerism were checked by genuine stewardship.
Thanks for this article, good comments too. One thing I would like others opinion on, re: “the arctic doesn’t contain many surface water nutrients”
I’ve been thinking about trees recently: the coniferous zone is exactly that, but as snow and ice retreats, perhaps the greater area for birds to land and even nest will bring other types of seed and nutrients to the area, accelerating growth of conifers and perhaps other, broader-leafed species too? I have no idea what timescale this might work on, but life has a startling way of living wherever it can.
What will be the effect of other species eating this new source of food? Will they bring others with them, in their urine/excrement - i.e. bring the nutrients needed for more phytoplankton?
Assuming of course we don’t harvest it all, as we seem to have started doing with krill.
[any response more substantive than "probably not enough to counter AGW" appreciated!]