English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have a few vague ideas about why this may be happening - but I have yet to find a straightforward explanation for it in the literature. The GCM models have predicted that warming should be more dramatic around the poles, but again, what would cause this?

2007-03-14 07:12:48 · 10 answers · asked by Greg R 1 in Environment

10 answers

The first answer is precisely wrong. In fact, the "vast bright whiteness" means that snow (like clouds) have a high albedo - that is, they efficiently reflect solar radiation back into space, and thus reduce the amount of warming that occurs. However, in the case of the poles, warming melts sea ice and leaves dark water behind, which has a very LOW alebdo. So the more warming you get, the more ice melts, the lower the albedo, the more warming you get, etc. A positive feedback loop, resulting in much faster warming in the poles than elsewhere.

2007-03-14 07:25:34 · answer #1 · answered by astazangasta 5 · 0 1

You have to look at the poles as part of a larger system.

The latent energy of fusion is the energy necessary to change ice to water without any temperature change. Once this ice cold water hits the ocean it sinks and migrates away from the polar ice caps providing a heat sink to the rest of the ocean.

So it may appear that the poles are warming faster, when actually they are supplying the heat sink for the rest of the world to warm slower.

2007-03-14 07:30:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

And who's going to give an unbiased verification that it is or isn't happening? I'm still trying to figure out how you get that much heat over the neccesary time period to melt sea ice when the area only gets sunlight five months a year and even then it's very indirect. Couple that with the albedo from the snow and ice and ...?

2007-03-14 07:43:59 · answer #3 · answered by Spud55 5 · 0 0

Astazang has it right. More here:

http://www.pewclimate.org/arctic_qa.cfm#8

To Spud. Here you go:

"According to data from NASA's QuikSCAT satellite, between 2004 and 2005 the Arctic lost an unprecedented 14 percent of its perennial sea ice (shown in white)—some 280,000 square miles (725,000 square kilometers), or an area the size of Texas."

The site below has pictures.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-arctic-ice.html

More here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0914-02.htm

Google arctic ice picture for more.

2007-03-14 10:37:03 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 7 · 0 0

The sun reflection idea is a good one, can't back that up with facts but I do know that lots of snow reflects lots of sunlight, and since CO2 traps reflected sunlight as heat, this makes sense.

2007-03-14 07:18:59 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0 1

I would assume that the vast bright whiteness of everything helps heat collect, I'm not sure but the sun's reflection into the atmosphere is greater at the poles.

2007-03-14 07:15:57 · answer #6 · answered by chellimerrett 2 · 1 2

Good grief, do I have to explain everything to you? It's a proven fact that hot air rises and the north pole is at the top of the globe. So all the hot air is going there. Now, do you understand this simple concept or must I slap you to sleep? Some people are just too dumb to live.

2007-03-14 07:19:12 · answer #7 · answered by moonrose777 4 · 1 4

Got data?

2007-03-14 16:52:21 · answer #8 · answered by Specialist McKay 4 · 0 0

Here is a link you should check out!!!
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-4520665474899458831&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=Global+warming+swindle&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4520665474899458831%26q%3DGlobal%2Bwarming%2Bswindle&usg=AL29H211315vkBsvVwxwbq_e5R7qaV9yvA

2007-03-14 16:22:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Don't know for sure but..I'm Al Gore. The "inconvenient truth" is that I'm bringin "sexy back".

2007-03-14 07:16:36 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers