Sentences with phrase «if polar ice»

If the polar ice caps were actually melting, we would see an increase in the length of the day as the polar mass moved toward the oceans and lower latitudes.

Broecker theorized that if the polar ice caps continue to melt, the conveyor belt would stop altogether.

If polar ice melting is increasing and CO2 in the atmosphere is also increasing (both are now well established) then how is it that you are so sure they are unrelated?

Some people think there could be dire consequences if the polar ice melts.

Why hasn't anyone projected what sea levels would be like if the polar ice caps were completely melted away?

Not exact matches

All this will become increasingly accessible if global warming melts the polar ice, a phenomenon already transforming northern communities.

2nd, if the global flood occured then the polar ice caps would have melted.

If all I had to eat for dinner was our salad course, I would have been as happy as a polar bear in a bucket of ice cubes.

Growing the polar ice caps, if they crept southward enough, might drive people out of northern Europe, Asia and North America, Haqq - Misra notes.

If the melting of the polar ice caps injects great amounts of freshwater into the world's oceans, climate scientists fear that the influx could affect currents enough to drastically change the weather on land

«So if ice is melting in the Arctic — you might think well, poor polar bears, but it doesn't matter, right?

If the polar cod population in the Barents Sea actually does shrink, the juvenile fish under the ice of the Eastern Arctic could become even more important — especially in order to make up for losses elsewhere.

If you extrapolate these findings, there could be more than nine billion polar cod living under the ice in the Eastern Arctic.

The decision was based on evidence that sea ice is vital for polar bear survival, that this sea ice habitat has been reduced, and that this process is likely to continue; if something is not done to change this situation, the polar bear will be extinct within 45 years, Kempthorne said.

If it happened in the last 100,000 years, it might be possible someday to extract traces of its effects from deep within the polar ice caps.

The IPCC has taken a crack at that, identifying 26 «key vulnerabilities» in its most recent assessment, ranging from declines in agricultural productivity to the melting of ice sheets and polar ice cover as well as determining how to judge if they are spiraling out of control.

If these polar continents lose a mile or more of ice from their land surface, there will be less mass, and so some of the water now attracted to those polar land masses will dissipate, and go elsewhere.

If you board a ship heading north from there, just before you reach the polar ice cap you run into a group of islands known as the Svalbard archipelago.

Now, if you have all this very cold, nearly freezing water surrounding these ice caps, sucking up carbon dioxide out of the polar atmosphere, at nearly the highest possible rate, 30 times faster than oxygen, and 70 times faster than nitrogen, doesn't it stand to reason that the air that remains might just have a lot less carbon dioxide in it than the atmosphere across the rest of the planet?

Today, if just the current Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica melted, it is estimated that sea level would rise 20 to 251 If we melted all of the ice on Greenland, the North polar areas and the Antarctic in addition, sea level could rise 300» or sif just the current Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica melted, it is estimated that sea level would rise 20 to 251 If we melted all of the ice on Greenland, the North polar areas and the Antarctic in addition, sea level could rise 300» or Ice Shelf of Antarctica melted, it is estimated that sea level would rise 20 to 251 If we melted all of the ice on Greenland, the North polar areas and the Antarctic in addition, sea level could rise 300» or sIf we melted all of the ice on Greenland, the North polar areas and the Antarctic in addition, sea level could rise 300» or ice on Greenland, the North polar areas and the Antarctic in addition, sea level could rise 300» or so.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

Excerpt: Livermore CA (SPX) Nov 01, 2005 If humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business as usual manner for the next several centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar 14.5 degrees warmer than current day.

If polar bears have been around for few hundred thousand years they have experienced a variety of environmental changes in the Arctic, including periods when there was more sea ice than present as well as periods when seasonal sea ice was considerably less than at present.

Ms. Gormezano is not a fan of the forecasting methods used by Dr. Amstrup to conclude that a two - thirds reduction in polar bears is possible midcentury if summer sea ice continues retreating.

If you ever see a good time series animation of SSTs, you will know that there is significant movement of water and temperatures within the world's oceans (like there is with polar ice extents.)

I wonder if the cooling earth, the lowering ocean, and the growing polar ice have driven him to desperation; could it be the GISS code about to be cracked?

At the most fundamental level, polar bears depend on ice to survive so, if we continue to lose ice, and have progressively earlier breakups and freeze - ups, then it will be hard on bears over the longer term.

First I asked him about the merits of the «sea ice refuge» proposal of Stephanie Pfirman and others as it relates to his new paper in the journal Nature on good prospects for polar bears if warming is slowed and other threats to the species are controlled:

Do this give our human a lession if we keep «business as usual», the earth like Arctic ice will be destoryed so that human being will no place to living like polar bears, then human being will extinct, too?

If now ice where are polar bear living?

«We expect that if the trends continue, compared with today, polar bears will experience another six to seven weeks of ice - free periods by mid-century.»

Even if greenhouse gas emissions were completely stopped today, most of the world's glaciers would still disappear or dwindle to remnants by the end of this century, just from the CO2 that's already in the atmosphere, while the polar ice caps will likely keep shrinking for centuries to come.

If recent trends continue, the Arctic will be ice - free on January 30, 2018 at 6:04 AM, with polar temperatures averaging -31 C. Ocean and Ice Services Danmarks Meteorologiske Instiice - free on January 30, 2018 at 6:04 AM, with polar temperatures averaging -31 C. Ocean and Ice Services Danmarks Meteorologiske InstiIce Services Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Climate - deniers use this to try to knock down evidence of how climate change will affect polar bears and sea ice, since they believe if they can disprove one tiny aspect of climate change, it will result in a domino effect.

If both Greenland and West Antarctica shed the entirety of their ice burden, global sea levels would rise by 12 to 14 m. Although these icecaps would not disintegrate within a century, the loss of even a third of their mass — quite plausible if the rate of polar ice loss continues to double each decade — would force up the oceans by at least 4 m, with disastrous socioeconomic and environmental consequenceIf both Greenland and West Antarctica shed the entirety of their ice burden, global sea levels would rise by 12 to 14 m. Although these icecaps would not disintegrate within a century, the loss of even a third of their mass — quite plausible if the rate of polar ice loss continues to double each decade — would force up the oceans by at least 4 m, with disastrous socioeconomic and environmental consequenceif the rate of polar ice loss continues to double each decade — would force up the oceans by at least 4 m, with disastrous socioeconomic and environmental consequences.

As if polar bears don't have enough problems, not only are they suffering due to climate change - related sea ice loss, but now new research indicates that pollution is giving them brain damage.

While there are perhaps a few places where moving is not really an option over the short term, over the long term (more than one season) polar bears are free to shift to another locale if ice conditions change (either too much ice or too little).

If you'll recall from my previous post, polar bears seem to have barely survived the extensive sea ice coverage during the Last Glacial Maximum — in other words, too much ice (even over the short term) is their biggest threat.

If Amstrup had been right about the relationship of summer sea ice and polar bear numbers, there would have been no polar bears in Churchill for the BBC to film this year.

Comments Off on If experts had been right about sea ice, there would be no polar bears in Churchill

if the seal aren't able to come out on the ice, the seals are much more vulnerable on land / beaches, the polar bears will not go hungry.

If we ask, «Will the earths average temperature melt all of the polar ice» and all we know («normal science» knowing) is that the average temp is between -273 and 100K, then we can not answer that question with scientific knowledge.

If polar vortices are driven further and further south, drawing up warmer air from middle latitudes toward the pole and supplanting them with Arctic chill, then many nations might experience cooling, while the generally unmonitored Arctic Circle region experiences substantial restructuring of sea ice as well as surface warming and deep ocean warming too.

... observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and «suggest that drowning - related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and / or longer open water periods continues.»

The «consensus» warm - mongers could have declared it only counts as «peer - reviewed» if it's published in Peer - Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar - bear fur, on a melting ice floe), and Ed Begley Jr. and «Andy» Revkin would still have wandered out glassy - eyed into the streets droning «Peer - reviewed studies.

If polar bears have been around for, say, half a million years this means that they've survived several ice ages, including all the sudden warming periods at the beginning of each interglacial, many of which will have been warmer than now.

it's also fairly logical and rational, even for an ordinary person who isn't a scientist to understand that if polar bears need sea ice to hunt for seals and that sea ice disappears, then those polar bears are going to be in trouble

JS: And it's also fairly logical and rational, even for an ordinary person who isn't a scientist to understand that if polar bears need sea ice to hunt for seals and that sea ice disappears, then those polar bears are going to be in trouble.

If the ice cover is high, very little heat escapes from the warm ocean to the cold polar atmosphere in winter.

If you included Polar Ice Cycles in your climate models and included more snowfall when polar oceans are thawed and included less snowfall when polar oceans are frozen, the models would work much better.