wat will be the rffect of the melting glaciers on the animals like penguin, seals etc.?

Question

the glaciers on the earth r melting at a great velocity. it is definrtly goinjg to affect the planet earth. can u tell me about its effecte in brief on mankind and the flaura and fauna in the polar regions. will there be a drastic change in the climate in the future??

Answer 1

Not all glaciers are getting shorter, but all of them are showing signs of global warming. Not all areas of the world are getting warmer, but all of them are showing shifts in their climate and the overall trend is warming.

Where warming has changed weather patterns to increase precipitation (snowfall) the glaciers may be growing. Where they are melting faster, this has led to some retreating rapidly, and some accelerating their flow and getting longer, but thinner. It is therefore a very complex picture.

Overall, however, the scientists studying glaciers worldwide are agreed that the total mass of water in mountain ice is shrinking at an alarming rate. The only people who will tell you any different are using suspect sources (or none at all) and have an agenda to muddy the waters around global warming.

"More than 110 glaciers have disappeared from Montana’s Glacier National Park over the past 150 years, and researchers estimate that the park’s remaining 37 glaciers may be gone in another 25 years"

It should be noted that possibly the greatest concentration of glaciers is to be found in the Hymalayas. The melt water from these glaciers provide virtually all of the drinkable water in both India and China, and they are melting. If they were ever to disappear totally, the rainfall on the mountain range would mot be enough to keep the 2.5 billion Chinese and Indian people alive. Large numbers would die. The rest would emigrate (by force if necessary) to find the necessities for life wherever they remain.

The Ice caps, however, must be treated differently. At the Arctic, the sea ice is melting rapidly and is predicted to be largely gone within 50 years. This will shrink the viable range for seals that live under and on the ice, and the Polar Bears that hunt them and rely on them for food. Some bears will cling on on the north coast of Greenland, or adapt to a different diet on land, but if the sea ice fails to form, then several species of seal will be unable to breed, and the species will die out. Sea ice does not affect sea levels when it melts, as it is already floating on the water and displacing its weight in water.

The Greenland Ice sheet is retreating at the edges (although, again, some glaciers are flowing faster as they are lubricated by meltwater) but thanks to some increased precipitation, it has grown slightly in the centre. Overall, the total mass of water on the island is falling slightly. If it melts faster, and starts to disappear, as could happen over the next century, there is enough water in the ice sheet to raise sea levels by a few metres.

Antarctica is different again. It is a very high altitude continent in the centre, which makes it naturally much colder than it would be at sea level. The edges are showing the same warming trends as the north polar regions, while the centre is cooling. It also has the benefit, being in the Southern Hemisphere, of a generally lower temperature than the Northern hemispehere, which has more landmass and thus more surface heat (the oceans absorb sunlight and heat up only gradually, compared to the land).

If the Antarctic were to melt, different parts would melt at different times, but the total amount of water in the ice could raise sea levels by tens, if not hundreds, of metres. Penguins would adapt, slowly, since the land would still be there. Their populations might shrink as the sealife around the continent on which they feed shrinks, but there is no reason to believe they will become extinct from antarctic melting alone (they may do so from other causes).

Lastly, and I can't stress this enough, do not trust anyone who tells you what they think is happening unless they are in a position to know from direct observation (i.e. glaciologists) or they refer you to those same sources so that you can verify their statements. There are a lot of people in this area who have read and accepted lies or badly researched opinions, and who regurgitate them without ever bothering to check the facts out for themselves. It's an emotive issue, and many people have a vested interest in preventing clear communication of the reality of the situation.

Answer 2

Glaciers have been melting since 1700. The total warming since then (the middle of the Little Ice Age ) is about 3degrees Celsius, a little higher than the 1400's. Temperatures back then are determined rather indirectly so who knows. Some of the glaciers that are receding (glaciers ALWAYS melt eventually) are associated with river systems that are flowing much less. This means that these glaciers are affected by a reduction in precipitation (drought) rather than higher temperatures. If man is totally responsible for recent warming via CO2 emissions then we are in good shape. CO2 can only contribute at most another 2 degrees after 100 years or so. That's a maximum. Certainly could effect some glaciers.
But your question related to animals. Not much lives on glaciers. Apparently Polar Bears are toast. If that is true, it means that they have become overly specialised and have therefore reached their use by date. Far more likely that they can adapt and indeed they may simply be a variety of Grizzly that can hide in snow, in that case their genetic variety resides within other populations. Hard to see much threat to most of the organisms that you mention.
You may have picked up on the real reason for much of the hype and over reaction to the Global warming hypothesis; conservationists want fewer people so that our beloved animals can have more space. Nice sentiment but not at all necessary since we only use about 6% of the Earths surface intensively and leave the rest for other life. Unfortunately that means removing some forests. As long as 30% remains there is no real threat to most species. A while back the push was about Ecological Services provided only by "natural" systems. Unfortunately it turned out that natural systems were no better than farm or grazing systems. So now we have the latest fear campaign. Try not to worry. You may like to work on your spelling and grammer however. You will need to get a job one day; we will all be around for a long time yet.

Answer 3

>>the glaciers on the earth r melting at a great velocity.>>

No, they aren't. As many are growing as are shrinking.

<>

Not in an adverse way.

<>

They'll adapt. Zones may shift a little as they always have and always will.

<>>

Probably. There have been drastic changes before, why would they suddenly stop?

Answer 4

We are already seeing an effect on polar bears-the ice that the hunt from has melted, so they are drowning or starving-check any newspaper from the East Coast-you'll see they are being overrun by starving polar bears. As for the glaciers remelting, I have not heard anything about this and do not believe it for a second. PLEASE watch "An Inconvenient Truth" for a quick bit of information because a lot of what we find today is MISinformation-people purposely putting their own spin on things.

The biggest reason I hear people complaining is they are saying that it's just people who want to make money. Well, hybrid cars aren't any more expensive than others AND are selling better AND saving you money on gas. Flourescent lightbulbs (while a little more expensive at purchase) last over 3 times as long AND use less electricity. Nobody's asking us to change our standard of living, just small little habits like this make a big difference.

As for glaciers melting, to use Gore's Example-what happens when ice above the water level melts? The water level moves up. Places like Florida, China, India will be covered in water-there are already islands that were inhabited for many years that people had to leave because of the increasing water level.

Answer 5

The glaciers Will not all melt . The heat up should be short lived. The amount of energy including the volcanoes is less than 1% . Recipe will increase and cover more area with snow which reflect ts the light and will last much longer. I have traveled over much of the world and don't see anything that has changed that much. We always have hot years and cold years ,so don't listen to those that says that is not the hole picture . Every bit of information is data and needs to be looked at.

Answer 6

not realy that much bad effects for the penguins and seals
Antarctica is on the land and these animal may end up walking arround where many people believe Atlantis used to be ,on the ground instead of on ice
their food is in the sea and that will still be there although most likely at a higher level

Inhabitants of the North pole wont be so lucky their world is diapearing into the sea ,because it is a pole that is ice floating on water .

the poles do not have any flora to speak of
but they found fosilized tropical frens in Anrarctica
so at one time this place must have been tropical.
the fuana may have to change their diet a little and loose some of their down.because odds are that it is gonna get warmer.

the drastic climate change is world wide
to discribe the effects on everybody would take a few books to write.

Answer 7

One of the interesting secrets that the global warming crowd dares not tell you is that the Antartic has shown cooling recently. That is where the penquins live. Penquins are far more likely to die of too much cold than too much warmth in my opinion. Penguins live and die in a very harsh place. Sometimes they do well, sometimes they don't. Interesting that cold d uses the little ice age to compare our temperature. It is a rediculous comparison.

Answer 8

10 Questions For Al Gore And The Global Warming Crowd
By John Hawkins
Friday, March 30, 2007

I'll be the first to admit that like most conservatives, I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Is that because I take payoffs from the energy industry, don't like Al Gore, don't like science, or any of the other silly excuses global warming alarmists come up with to explain why people don't buy their theory?

No.

It's because "the Earth-is-going-to-burn-us-alive" crowd cannot answer the most basic questions about the theory that they haughtily insist is so beyond reproach that there should be no more need for debate. In fact, the most ironic thing about the global warming argument is that Al Gore and Company have declared that it's settled, but they have to use scary stories about cities being flooded a hundred years from now and fake tales about polar bears drowning to sell it. If they're on such rock solid scientific ground, why doesn't the science speak for itself? Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.

Despite that, like most conservatives, I'm open minded and could be convinced that mankind is responsible for causing global warming -- but with science, not scaremongering. If the proponents of the manmade global warming theory can come up with good answers to questions like these, you can expect everyone, including me, to accept their theory:

1. The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times in the past and many of those temperature swings have been much greater than anything we've experienced so far. So, since we human beings don't really understand why those temperature swings occurred, how can we be sure that the very mild warming we've seen so far hasn't been caused by normal changes in our climate?

2. If greenhouse gasses produced by mankind are behind the roughly one degree increase in temperature over the last century, then why did the global temperature go down from roughly 1940 to 1975 even though mankind's production of greenhouse gasses was skyrocketing during that same time period?

3. We can't accurately predict whether it's going to rain or not a week from now. We can't accurately predict what the weather will look like next year (Remember that in 2005, they were predicting we'd be hammered with non-stop hurricanes in 2006 because of global warming. It didn't happen). Since that's the case, how can we possibly have any confidence in predictions of what the weather will be like in 50-100 years?

4. Mars has also been experiencing global warming. Since man can't be a factor on that planet, doesn't it suggest that perhaps a factor other than man, i.e. the sun, is responsible for the warming on both planets?

5. Back in the early seventies, the in-vogue scientific theory was that we were in the midst of global cooling that was caused by man. Now, it turns out that there was nothing much behind that except that the global temperature was getting cooler. So, where did they go wrong back in the early seventies and how do we know that we're not making the same type of mistake today in forecasting global warming?

6. Global warming alarmists will tell you that there is "scientific consensus" that mankind is causing global warming and that only a few scientists disagree. But, there are more than 17,200 scientists who say that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Since that's the case, how can anyone credibly claim that there is "scientific consensus" on the issue?

7. Even if mankind was responsible for global warming, how would the solutions that are being offered, like Kyoto or carbon credit trading schemes, fix the problem? Big developing countries like India and China are exempt from Kyoto and unlikely to sign on to any deal that hurts their economy, Europe isn't meeting its Kyoto goals, and environmentalists say Kyoto wouldn't fix the problem even if all of its targets are met.

8. In Bill Bryson's book on science, "A Short History Of Nearly Everything," (and yes, Bryson does appear to be a believer in manmade global warming), he notes that,

"For most of its history until fairly recent times, the general pattern was for earth to be hot with no permanent ice anywhere." -- P.427

That would seem to suggest that despite everything we hear about the "hottest temperatures on record," the global temperature is significantly cooler than it has been throughout much of earth's history. Since that's the case, is the small change in global temperature we've seen so far really out of the ordinary or anything to be alarmed about?

9. As Carl Zimmer has noted in Discover, at times in the earth's past, we've had considerably more carbon dioxide in the air that we do today, and yet it's debatable whether the temperature was significantly warmer,

"During the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, there seems to have been 16 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today--and yet, judging from the gravelly deposits it left behind, there was also an ice sheet near the South Pole that was four-fifths the size of present-day Antarctica. The second exception is even more troubling. The Cretaceous Period, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 levels were about eight times what they are today, has been one of the most popular case studies for global warming forecasters. And everyone knows what the climate was like during the dinosaurs’ heyday: steamy. Or was it? The latest evidence, reported just this past summer by British researchers, suggests that temperatures in the tropics 95 million years ago were no higher than they are now; and while it was a lot warmer at the poles than it is today, it was still freezing cold."

Doesn't this suggest that there isn't anywhere near as much of a close relationship between greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and the temperature as many people seem to believe?

10. Skeptics of manmade global warming have often pointed out that the rise in global temperature seems to track much more closely to increased solar activity than it does to an increase in manmade greenhouse gasses. Doesn't that seem to strongly suggest that the sun, not mankind, is more likely to be responsible for global warming?

Bonus Question) If people like Al Gore believe their own hype and think it's necessary for us to cut back our energy consumption, why aren't they practicing what they preach? If a global warming fanatic like Al Gore can’t get by on less than 20 times the amount of energy that a regular family uses, how can we reasonably expect the average family to dramatically cut their energy usage?

Quite frankly, if you buy into manmade global warming, you should have good answers for these questions or, if you don't, admit that your opinion is based more on faith and guesswork than it is on science.