It seems that the melting polar ice is becoming more of a concern to Alaskans than those of us in the lower 48.

click for larger graphic

courtesy of  Anchorage Daily News


Thank goodness there’s no Global Warming — imagine how much more of Alaska would be melting if there was!


See also:

The truth about global warming >

A world of evidence says global warming is real >


Permafrost-thawing concern deepens
PERMAFROST: Computer scenario shows rising temperatures could melt top 11 feet in Alaska by 2100.
Anchorage Daily News, December 25, 2005

Category: Science, Technical Analysis, UnScience

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

11 Responses to “Alaska is Melting . . .”

  1. basic_science says:

    Of course the icecaps have to melt to spread the water from time to time back to the rest of the world.

    Otherwise we’d end up like Mars. There once was water flow on Mars. But over the centuries all the water that ever came in contact with the polar icecap became frozen and locked away, never to return, because its polar icecaps never melt.

    Today Mars is just one giant rocky desert. All the water is locked away at the poles, thanks to non-melting glaciers at the poles.

  2. What happened in 1976? Big discontinuity there.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there is global warming (the data is getting very solid). I would not even be surprised if the warming is anthropologically driven by CO2 and Methane (unlike other large climate changes like the Little Ice Age and Hypotherm, which were not).

    What we really lack is a good way to predict what effect changes in greenhouse gas emissions would do to climate (models to date have been very inaccurate).

    This makes the cost/benefit ratio of dramatic state action difficult to interpret.

    In a world where most of humanity is living at a very low standard of living, will they have to continue to suffer due to emission restrictions? Or would the economic growth due to continuing emissions allow developing nations to better survive the climate change?

    Those are the real questions facing humanity.

  3. Mark says:

    Why does the data start in 1949? Surely Alaska existed before then. Why isn’t there data back to say, 1890?

  4. Jon H says:

    “Why does the data start in 1949? Surely Alaska existed before then. Why isn’t there data back to say, 1890?”

    A long highway was built by the Army during WW2, which must have improved access dramatically, especially to the interior.

  5. nate says:

    In addition to analysis of the U.S., it would be interesting to know the impact on the environment from economic growth in developing nations such as China, Brazil, Russia, and India.

  6. D. says:


    you’re joking right?

  7. nate says:

    I am not joking.

  8. cm says:

    nate: I’m not sure what you are trying to get at. What is quoted is an observation, with no interpretations attached. Of course this is *global* warming, and as such incorporates everybody’s environmental inputs.

  9. Steven M says:

    OF course there is global warming.

    I don’t know how you people [some of you] can ignore all this evidence.

  10. Idaho_Spud says:

    Hahahaha. Anyone else remember the bumper stickers from the 1970s environmentalists cars?

    “Split wood, not atoms”

    OK, I’ve been doing that. Do you want me to stop now?

  11. Me says:

    Once again, science is going against religion. In the Bible, it was written that after Noah, the world will never flood again. And here are scientist telling us all the ice caps will melt and flood the whole world…..