WASHINGTON — Critical ice in the Arctic Ocean melted to record low levels this sweltering summer and that can make weather more extreme far away from the poles, scientists say.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Monday that the extent of Arctic sea ice shrank to 1.58 million square miles and is likely to melt more in the coming weeks. That breaks the old record of 1.61 million square miles set in 2007.
The North Pole region is an ocean that mostly is crusted at the top with ice. In the winter, the frozen saltwater surface usually extends about 6 million square miles, shrinking in summer and growing back in the fall. That’s different from Antarctica, which is land covered by ice and snow and then surrounded by sea ice.
Normally sea ice in the Arctic reaches its minimum in mid-September and then starts refreezing. But levels on Sunday shrank 27,000 square miles — about the size of West Virginia — beyond the old record.
Figures are based on satellite records dating back to 1979. The ice center bases its figures on averages calculated over five days.
Data center scientist Ted Scambos said the melt can be blamed mostly on global warming from man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. There are natural factors involved too, including a storm that chewed up a significant amount ice earlier this month. But, he said, dramatic summer sea ice losses in all but one year since 2007, continuous thin ice, and warm air temperatures show a pattern that can only be explained by climate change.
“It really does imply that the Arctic is moving to a new state,” said NASA ice systems program scientist Tom Wagner. “The Arctic is changing.”
Wagner and Scambos said in 2007 some people thought it was just an odd year that caused the dramatic melt, but years like this one show something bigger is happening.
This milestone is a “substantial step” to the day when there will be no significant sea ice in the Arctic in the summer, said NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati.
“Why do we care?,” Abdalati, an ice scientist, asked. “This ice has been an important factor in determining the climate and weather conditions under which modern civilization has evolved.”
Scientists sometimes call the Arctic the world’s refrigerator and this is like leaving the fridge door open, Scambos said.
“This is kind of a knob on global weather,” Wagner said. “We don’t know the impact yet” of fiddling with it.
Scientists say Arctic sea ice helps moderate temperatures further south in the winter and summer. A study earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters linked some of the factors behind Arctic sea ice loss to higher probabilities of extreme weather “such as drought, flooding, cold spells and heat waves.”
Scientists also say sea ice is crucial for polar bears and other animals.
Wagner said the changes in Arctic sea ice fits with glacier loss in Alaska and Canada and ice loss in Greenland. Earlier this summer, NASA satellites reported a dramatic melt in Greenland, where nearly every part of its massive ice sheet started melting, something that last happened in 1889.
Ohio State University ice scientist Jason Box has been monitoring Greenland, where he said temperatures have sometimes been 9 to 18 degrees warmer than normal this summer and the ice is reflecting far less heat — and thus absorbing more energy — than ever before.
Global warming physics for years has been saying if greenhouse gases are causing climate change, the Arctic will feel it first with loss of sea ice and melt in snow and ice on land, Box said.
“We’re in a declining trend because the Earth is getting warmer,” Scambos said. “It’s going to continue to be a series of shrinking ice extents year by year... We’re not going back.”
___
Online:
National Snow and Ice Data Center: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
___
Seth Borenstein can be followed at http://twitter.com/borenbears
.
Comments (46)
Add commentAre these chicken little's
Are these chicken little's saying that this is the first time in the history of the earth that the sea ice has been at this level?
"The only thing new in the world, is the history you don't know"
Harry Truman
Premature speculation.
Content edited to avoid looking stupid all day!
Satellite data since 1979
Satellite data since 1979. Yeah, that's pretty definitive for man-made global warming.
skirkz,
Did you miss the part in the article that states the record has already been broken?
The 300,000 sq miles is by how much... So the runner already crossed the finished line, so to speak. Which is probably a good time to declare a record.
I call that a little premature e-speculation.
madison89, I beleive they are saying all previous records have been broken now. Obviously we haven't been keeping records for billions of years...
How could you know?
Cheesy-- This isn't rocket science!!!!
MY BAD!!
"The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Monday that the extent of Arctic sea ice shrank TO 1.58 million square miles..."
Damned prepositions are so small! I recant as I pour another cup of coffee.
Melting ice is good news.
Easier access to resources.
Hopefully,before long we will be able to run large cargo ships from Europe to Asia through the Northwest Passage.
snagger,
How could I know what? That the article states something? I guess I just decided to read the article prior to commenting... weird, I know.
Another great opportunity
For the no nothings to discount climate change concerns. Keep it up, boys.
Profits over Life
Republican leadership love regs that protect profit, like copyright, patent and limited liability for corporations, they just hate the ones that protect life.
You don't hear of a Republican leader throwing out their wide-screen plasma out a window, because it is built based on science or stop using the Internet because it was mainly a product of government sponsored innovation or railing against billion dollar civil court awards over patent claims.
newlife, you're a moron.
Total moron.
Protecting Life
Republicans don't like to protect life? Really? You may want to rethink that. Keep in mind that Obama, as a state senator, advocated and voted for infanticide.
In addition to not protecting
In addition to not protecting life, Republicans also ignore science and blatantly lie about other people's positions. Or at least Republicans like akjim do.
@PP
There's no need to lie about Obama's history, it's on Youtube for all to see. Baby born alive after a botched or unsuccessful attempt at abortion should be left to die. That's his position. Clear and unequivocal. He voted against Illinois born-alive law 4 times. I defy you to prove otherwise. Considering his history of skipping votes, it seems this was the only real issue he had as a state senator. But blather on as is typical for you, it's just so much hot air from a dimwitted moron.
Republican War On Science
The Republican war on science and reason is a deliberate and calculated political strategy. There are many Americans who are deeply uncomfortable with reality, especially the realities of evolution and climate change. The GOP, like a loaded crack pipe, provides a way out from these uncomfortable realities.
Those conservatives who get on this comment board and blindly spew invective at the "other" political party no doubt feel a visceral thrill in being able to put the "other" in their place.
Your brain's pleasure centers are providing you the same chemical rewards as it gave to the cavemen who successfully defended their rocks from the tribe across the mountain.
In other words, you're literally arguing from the same intellectual level as monkeys and cavemen.
So be good, blind little party monkeys. Serve your masters. Let them convince you that the other guys are trying to destroy you, and obediently shriek your warning cries.
Denial as Needed
Denial of inconvenient facts and living in a fantasy world is a hallmark of much of the Republican party as represented in Congress. It is not just science (evolution, climate, etc), but across the board.
What is so hypocritical is how the Conservative electorate can deny science when it conflicts, but revel in it when it supports: cellphones, MRIs, night-vision goggles, laser-guided weapons, GPS navigation, and gene-sequencing to name a few.
This two-faced approach by the world in seven days citizens speaks to their conflicted lives.
The "war on science," as
The "war on science," as little-minded liberals like to frame it, is nothing more than an actual desire to get back to real science, in that those purporting to speak the truth must be the ones to prove such truth. A liberal mind doesn't work that way. They assume a result to their liking, then require others to refute their claim; to prove a negative, as it were. Pathetic, really, but expected.
Unfortunately, there's a
Unfortunately, there's a major disconnect in the minds of these people--they feel as if they can pick and choose facts to suit their beliefs, rather than picking their beliefs to suit the facts. Denying climate change, evolution, and radiometric dating techniques while embracing the technology the sciences produce is quite silly, and speaks to either the ignorance or the delusion of these people.
And then people like akjim, who have a very poor understanding of science in general, have the gall to claim they only want scientists to do "real" science! It's as if Jim thinks the word "real" means "what I agree with."
Unfortunately, it has real world consequences when a confederacy of ignoramuses band together and try to marginalize any facts that don't agree with their pre-conceived worldview.
You must love me, PP, to be
You must love me, PP, to be sniffing up my buttcrack so often. As a matter of fact there is ample evidence of evolution and radiometric dating, and reasonably strong theories on climate change. I actually do have a modicum of basic scientific education, though my real education is medicine, history, and law. But what that does teach is that one should question facts, to demand an accounting, to expect those speaking "truth" to prove their assertions.
I don't deny climate change, I demand that those who claim climate change is doing something to prove the causation and the connection. That, dear PP, is the basis of scientific inquiry, and where you are so woefully inadequate. So bugger off, little man, unless you actually have a real basis of thought, and not just more liberal talking point idiocy.
??
"I don't deny climate change, I demand that those who claim climate change is doing something to prove the causation and the connection. "
"...climate change is doing something.. "??
@akjim: it's actually very
@akjim: it's actually very simple: greenhouse gases trap heat, so releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere should (and does!) result in more heat retention. It's not rocket science, it's basic logic. Even a small change in the net energy retained by the earth's atmosphere results in larger changes over time. I did some rough calculations a while back showing that even a tiny, tiny increase in greenhouse gases causes the earth to trap petawatts of extra heart annually, and that didn't even take into account other mechanisms, such as higher concentrations of water vapor due to the extra energy, changes in albedo due to melting ice, or the heat WE generate from our own energy usage.
No, Jim, the science is well established. You disagree based on who is promoting the science (liberals), not because the actual science is flawed. That's why your type constantly goes on about liberals when faced with science you don't agree with. You assume it MUST be flawed because LIBERALS embrace it. And that, my friend, is an attitude incompatible with any mode of scientific inquiry.
Sorry, PP, it must be nice in
Sorry, PP, it must be nice in your little world, but science isn't that easy. While trapped CO2 is a nice theory, it hasn't been proven how a trace gas can cause the amount of harm you claim. While one of the stronger "greenhouse" gases, CO2 is also one of the least present gases. Methane and water vapor are both far more potent and far more abundant gases. This blind adherence to a theory that was flawed from the get-go in that the original calculations were based upon an air-tight earth and didn't take into account ocean CO2 levels is mind boggling. To be properly applied, the scientific theory must also be shown to have actually had an effect. This has not been done. Doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't occurred, but point to one actual proven causation event. You can't, because it hasn't been done. The best that can be shown is that both CO2 and temperatures are rising. But there does not exist a one to one connection, and historically it's been shown that CO2 increases with temperature. So which actually came first, the chicken on the egg?
No doubt you'll have some silly retort, harping about republicans, lack of scientific belief, whatever. It's not as if you'll ever be able to adequate consider anyone's opinion other than your own. So blather on about me, republicans, yada yada yada, but if you can't prove your own point, you're the one with the problem. You're the one blindly following the party line. You've been indoctrinated into the fold, and like a good little sheeple you'll march right off the cliff. Wow, that's a lot of metaphors, but you get drift. Or, actually, you probably don't....
@akjim: CO2 is the second
@akjim: CO2 is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, after water vapor. Methane is less abundant than CO2, and while it is more potent in terms of trapping heat (by mass), it also breaks down after about a decade, something that CO2 does not do.
You are correct that the bulk of the evidence we have comes from both CO2 levels and temperatures rising in tandem. What you failed to mention is that climate scientists have looked for other reasons for rising temperatures, and have ruled out solar variation, changes in water vapor concentrations, and many other factors. Given the timing of the shift in temperatures (right around the Industrial Revolution), and the fact that temperature are rising increasingly fast (as CO2 emissions exponentially grow), there is pretty solid evidence that climate change is largely anthropogenic. There is a consensus. Current research focuses on how much we are to blame, the specific mechanisms that cause it, and how best to mitigate the consequences.
Speaking of oceanic CO2 levels, as temperatures rise, the oceans can't hold as much dissolved CO2. This is another potentially disastrous feedback mechanism we may face in the future. Another is the melting of methane-rich permafrost in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia, which could inundate the atmosphere with an excess of methane, causing even scarier changes in climate. I don't know if you know anything about deep ocean currents, but no one really does, other than that they're very important to oceanic nutrient cycling and that there's a chance they might shut down in the face of extreme climactic changes, which would wreak havoc not just on oceanic ecosystems, but on global weather patterns as well.
Maybe it's just fear that makes you (and others like you) pass this off as some liberal conspiracy to destroy jobs. After all, this is scary. And it's mostly out of our control. We don't like things that are beyond our control. But it's more harmful in the long run to ignore it and hope it goes away than it is to swallow your ego, say, "maybe these liberals AREN'T out to get me," and work towards a solution.
I wonder what the dinosaurs thought...
...about global warming. Or about the onset of the ice age? But, then again, who cares! Do you think that cattle flatulence caused more greenhouse gas than dinosaur flatulence? Ask a fossilized methane producing dinosaur! Maybe the cavemen should have eaten more bronto burgers.
@skirkz: dinosaurs didn't
@skirkz: dinosaurs didn't have the cognitive ability to understand such things. They also didn't have the ability to cause dramatic changes to the world in short time frames. They are also all dead.
Can you see the differences between dinosaurs and humans, now, or do I need to spell it out for you?
Akin and Fellow Republicans Proudly Reject Science
The contempt with which the Republican party views reason is staggering. Republicans have become proudly and unquestionably anti-science. (It is their litmus test, though they would probably reject the science behind litmus paper.)
They believe, as a matter of principle, that scientific evidence is no evidence at all.
Ron Paul can say of evolution, “I think it’s a theory and I don’t accept it as a theory.” It’s on that basis that Rick Perry can call evolution “it’s a theory that’s out there, but one that’s got some gaps in it.” And it’s on that same basis, that same rejection of science, that Perry can say, “I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.”
Michele Bachmann has embraced the idea that the HPV vaccine can cause mental retardation,
Todd Akin stated “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,”
akjim: I could have done without the mental visual
of your "buttcrack".
Think I'll reschedule dinner.
You can't make this stuff up
Republicans don't just reject science, they reject the dictionary too:
"Earlier this month, Mitt Romney was welcomed for a campaign event at the Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio, by hundreds of coal workers and their families. Now many of the mine's workers are saying they were forced to give up a day-worth of pay to attend the event, and they feared they might be fired if they didn’t, according to local news radio WWVA.
The claims have been mostly denied by Rob Moore, Chief Financial Officer of Murray Energy Company, which owns the mine. He acknowledges that workers weren’t paid that day but says no one was made to attend the event. Well, kind of.
"Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend," he told local news radio WWVA..."
The event was mandatory but no one was forced to attend. Perhaps someone should hand Mr. Moore a dictionary and point him to the definition of "mandatory." Or perhaps it wouldn't make a darn bit of difference.
Here's another snippet for some context: "The company's interest in having its employees show support for Romney may be a result of its CEO's close ties with the presumptive Republican nominee. In May, Romney teamed up with Murray's CEO Bob Murray for a fundraising event in West Virginia. And Murray's made no secret of his support for the Republican party, previously backing Rick Perry.
In addition, his company has donated more than $900,000 to Republican candidates in the last two years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Murray, who is also a climate-change denier, has been an outspoken critic of President Obama’s stance on coal. That view may be why Moore told WWVA that having employees attend the Romney event “was in the best interest of anyone that's related to the coal industry in this area or the entire country."
Good day.
A challenge exists for scientifically literate people
How do you reason with a person and their position if they didn't use reason to develop it in the first place?
Mike
B, b, but PP!
Where is al that CO2 coming from? Cows? Your hot air? Think about it! DINOSAURS and the stuff they ATE!