WASHINGTON — In a critical climate indicator showing an ever warming world, the amount of ice in the Arctic Ocean shrank to an all-time low this year, obliterating old records.
The ice cap at the North Pole measured 1.32 million square miles on Sunday. That’s 18 percent smaller than the previous record of 1.61 million square miles set in 2007, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Records go back to 1979 based on satellite tracking.
“On top of that, we’re smashing a record that smashed a record,” said data center scientist Walt Meier. Sea ice shrank in 2007 to levels 22 percent below the previous record of 2005.
Ice in the Arctic melts in summer and grows in winter, and it started growing again on Monday. In the 1980s, Meier said, summer sea ice would cover an area slightly smaller than the Lower 48 states. Now it is about half that.
Man-made global warming has melted more sea ice and made it thinner over the last couple decades with it getting much more extreme this year, surprisingly so, said snow and ice data center director Mark Serreze.
“Recently the loss of summer ice has accelerated and the six lowest September ice extents have all been in the past six years,” Serreze said. “I think that’s quite remarkable.”
Serreze said except for one strong storm that contributed to the ice loss, this summer melt was more from the steady effects of day-to-day global warming. But he and others say the polar regions are where the globe first sees the signs of climate change.
“Arctic sea ice is one of the most sensitive of nature’s thermometers,” said Jason Box, an Ohio State University polar researcher.
What happens in the Arctic changes climate all over the rest of the world, scientists have reported in studies.
The ice in the Arctic “essentially acts like an air conditioner by keeping things cooler,” Meier said. And when sea ice melts more, it’s like the air conditioner isn’t running efficiently, he said.
Sea ice reflects more than 90 percent of the sun’s heat off the Earth, but when it is replaced by the darker open ocean, more than half of the heat is absorbed into the water, Meier said.
Scientists at the snow and ice data center said their computer models show an Arctic that would be essentially free of ice in the summer by 2050, but they add that current trends show ice melting faster than the computers are predicting.
Comments (25)
Add comment"all-time low." If one wants
"all-time low." If one wants to argue climate change, please feel free. But please, don't try to argue that 33 years of data constitutes "all time." This isn't hinky at all, data from 1979, past low of 1980, and no mention that during the 70's climate "scientists" were claiming that a new ice age was upon us.
yes
Yes, ice is at a record low level in the arctic. Global temperatures on average are on a steep rise. Ocean temperatures are rising and providing more habitate for warmer water creatures. Weather patterns are shifting dramatically. But that global warming thing is still totally a scam. Totally...
The less ice there is, the
The less ice there is, the less sunlight is reflected back into space, resulting in more heat trapped by the earth's atmosphere. It's a pernicious feedback loop.
Let's hope those like akjim and Rough Cut aren't still alive to eat their words when things really turn to [filtered word].
@akjim
Quote: "Records go back to 1979 based on satellite tracking."
Maybe, as an Alaskan, you could take a hint from the peoples who have lived on the edges of the Arctic for at least 10,000 years?
I'll take hints from anyone.
I'll take hints from anyone. If there's 10,000 years of data out there that is far more appealing than 33 years. What's interesting is that for years folks have been shouting about the thinning ice, but it hadn't been as low as it was 30 years ago. And cheesy, I seriously doubt, as you should, that this is truly a "record" low level, given that there have been many periods in Earth's history of far warmer temperatures. But no doubt as an ideologue you soak up anything and everything that might back up your little beliefs.
@akjim: we're obviously not
@akjim: we're obviously not talking about geologic time periods, genius. There was once a period of time in which the Earth's atmosphere contained no oxygen. Does that mean it's okay if all our oxygen disappears?
If you aren't literate in science, don't pretend to know what you're talking about.
Less ice is good.
Hopefully,we will soon be able to run cargo ships/Barges over the top of North America.
Being able to do so will be a big boon for commercial shipping.Going through the Panama Canal is time consuming and costly.
Ships on the Europe-Asia- Europe route will save time and burn less fuel. This will save money for everyone and is better for the environment.
Full Speed Ahead.
Shorter wavemkr: "once the
Shorter wavemkr: "once the environment is trashed, we'll stop trashing the environment."
akjim,
"But no doubt as an ideologue you soak up anything and everything that might back up your little beliefs."
I'm sorry, Jim, but could you explain how you're any less of an ideologue on here when your initial claim is that the experts are wrong? The experts that hold evidence directly conflicting with your beliefs... and you dismiss their expert opinion because why? Because you're a hypocrite? Thanks for making it painfully obvious.
@akjim
You state: "What's interesting is that for years folks have been shouting about the thinning ice, but it hadn't been as low as it was 30 years ago. "
From the article: "In the 1980s, Meier said, summer sea ice would cover an area slightly smaller than the Lower 48 states. Now it is about half that."
So 30 years ago, according to you, was a historic low. Now we are half of that historic low in just 30 years.
AkJimmy
"during the 70's climate "scientists" were claiming that a new ice age was upon us"
Please reference the scientific papers from the 70's making those claims. And no, magazine articles don't count.
In reality, even back in the 70's scientists had identified that increasing CO2 was causing global temperature rises.
Hook it up and tow it...
...to the equator and get it over with. Make the Bering Strait the new Panama Canal and charter marlin fishing off the Aliutians! Make Attu the new Maui!
the drill baby drill crowd
the drill baby drill crowd put us here.
god help our kids
Human activities linked to warming and loss of sea ice
Published: August 15th, 2011 04:11 PM
"The state of Alaska and others sued, claiming in part that the earlier modeling that predicted sea-ice loss was flawed"
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/08/14/2014771/human-activities-linked-to-warming...
and
Scientists warn marine life is on 'brink of extinction'
Catastrophe would be "unprecedented in human history," they say.
By ANNA TOMFORDE
McClatchy-Tribune News Service
Published: June 22nd, 2011 10:33 AM
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/06/21/1928924/scientists-warn-oceans-marine.html...
more ice in the south pole
You don't see this article in the main stream media. There is more ice right now in antarctica than has ever been recorded for this date. Mother nature is playing again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-set...
Where's YOUR proof lat?
You say "In reality, even back in the 70's scientists had identified that increasing CO2 was causing global temperature rises." Really? I want a scientific paper and not a magazine article.
So, have any of you sky is falling whackos like cheezey and lat read any of the accounts of Capt Cook in his travels in SE? There was no glacier bay. It was full of ice. And that was just a little over 300 hundred years ago. The fact is the planet has been in a toaster cycle for a long time.
You whacks just like to use warming to try to kill our economy. The only f@&$ing chance we have is for our economy, and no I don't mean the world economy, I mean America, to figure out what we can do to not only cope with these changes but thrive on them. But instead of that all you do is work to stymie, SE, Alaska and US growth and prosperity. You buy foreign cars, foreign everything and then [filtered word] about when anyone in our country tries to do anything to nurture our economy. The answers will come from US strength, not weakness.
Idiots.
Assorted
The first person to suggest that increases in CO2 would result in rising global temperatures was Arrhenius in 1889.
As for papers...
Bitz C, Shell K, Kiehl J, et al. Climate Sensitivity of the Community Climate System Model, Version 4. Journal Of Climate. May 2012;25(9):3053-3070.
Gettelman A, Kay J, Shell K. The Evolution of Climate Sensitivity and Climate Feedbacks in the Community Atmosphere Model. Journal Of Climate. March 2012;25(5):1453-1469.
Gosling S, McGregor G, Lowe J. The benefits of quantifying climate model uncertainty in climate change impacts assessment: an example with heat-related mortality change estimates. Climatic Change. May 2012;112(2):217-231.
Shepardson D, Niyogi D, Roychoudhury A, Hirsch A. Conceptualizing climate change in the context of a climate system: implications for climate and environmental education. Environmental Education Research. June 2012;18(3):323-352.
Power S, Delage F, Colman R, Moise A. Consensus on Twenty-First-Century Rainfall Projections in Climate Models More Widespread than Previously Thought. Journal Of Climate. June 2012;25(11):3792-3809.
Powledge F. Scientists, Policymakers, and a Climate of Uncertainty. Bioscience. January 2012;62(1):8-13.
Good P, Caesar J, O'Connor F, et al. A review of recent developments in climate change science. Part I: Understanding of future change in the large-scale climate system. Progress In Physical Geography. June 2011;35(3):281-296.
climate change
People argue about climate change like its some futuristic thing that may or may not happen and its either Mother Nature or its man-made. I encourage anyone to go read about the Dustbowl. Its a perfect example of "climate change" caused by man that already happened. You can argue all day long about whether the change happening is a natural evolution or man-made, but the fact remains you cant place demands from an ever increasing population on resources without problems happening. Our state's current King Salmon disaster is a perfect example. People say our kids will have to learn to adapt. I commercial fished with my father in the 70's and I can tell you what is called "fishing" now isnt anything like it used to be. So people have already adapted and they dont even realize it. My kid is wondering why the older folk arent doing something now. Our kids arent afraid of wind, solar, biofuel. We adults are the ones afraid of change. Other people say well its about the economy. Our salmon is Alaska's economy and look whats happening to that. What kind of economy is forever being beholden to big oil. We are paying $450.00 for 98 gallons of heating fuel right now which in turn affects everything we purchase. We have companies that have developed solar, wind, biofuel, but people scoff at them. People with brains developed these, why not use it. Maybe what it will take for people to get it is something like another Black Sunday where dirt from the Plains literally blew into D.C. making them finally pull their heads out of the arses.
Kiki, I assume of course that
Kiki,
I assume of course that your home is completely powered by wind, solar and biofuels…or are you just preaching?
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/small_wind/small_wind_guide.pdf
A typical home uses approximately10,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year (about 830 kWh per month). Depending on the average wind speed in the area, a wind turbine rated in the range of 5 to 15 kW would be required to make a significant contribution to this demand. A1.5- kW wind turbine will meet the needs of a home requiring 300 kWh per month in a location with a 14- mile-per-hour (6.26-meters-per-second) annual average wind speed.
Depending on local zoning, permitting, and utility interconnection costs. According to the American Wind Energy Association, small wind energy systems cost from $3,000 to $5,000 for every kilowatt of generating capacity.
The cost of an installed residential wind energy system with an 80-foot tower, batteries, and inverter typically ranges from $15,000 to $50,000 for a 3- to 10-kW wind turbine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/j
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-set...
@noroad
Nope, I dont remember "preaching". All Im saying is perhaps if these other alternative sources were given as much of a chance as oil, it would become more developed making it easier and cheaper for the average household to take part in. The Coast Guard building has wind, Im assuming it helps alleviate some of their costs. It would be great to learn more about how its worked out for them. Oil subsidies have been around since 1913 when the government wanted to motivate companies to drill. I dont see anything wrong in other sources being given a leg-up if it helps us lessen our oil dependence and diversify. Im not preaching, Im not trying to pick a fight, Im just wishing our country was more open-minded to the other possibilities that exist.
Also as a sidenote, wind power is being used successfully in Alaska.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/business/18alaska.html?_r=1&pagewanted...
Error
The idea that ice levels in Antarctica somehow give lie to the climate change process is incorrect. Antarctic climate is largely controlled by wind and sea currents; there is no land mass to aid in the localized warming process. Climate researchers have long figured that the warming process would affect the Arctic far earlier and more drastically than the Antarctic.
I also remember reading some paper on the effects of ozone depletion on temperatures in the Antarctic, but I can't recall it.
Of course, James Taylor (the author of the Forbes article and a leading figure with the Heartland Institute, not the musician) is not a climatologist. So he must indeed be correct.
madison89, that's an oped by
madison89, that's an oped by a guy who is considered less-than informed on climate change. James Taylor is a heartland institute writer with no background in climate change, yet here he is, debunking the fact that antarctic sea ice has been shrinking for deacdes. This guy literally disagrees with the experts, and has zero evidence to support his theories. Nice job on referencing an oped by a poltical talking head. It doesn't support your belief that climate change is a hoax. It only strengthens the argument that those who disregard scientists on this matter are out to lunch.
So decreasing ice at the
So decreasing ice at the north pole is climate change, and increasing ice at the south pole is merely a local event? Welcome to an envirowacko argument. If it fits the narrative it's climate change, otherwise it doesn't count. Typical.
You misunderstand
BOTH are localized expressions of a global process, in the same way that high winds traveling across the Pacific, carrying large amounts of moisture, pass over flatter land masses until encountering a mountain range, at which point the rains condense. The local influences (topography) affect the expression of the larger scale process (wind currents).
From the NSIDC: "Antarctica
From the NSIDC:
"Antarctica and the Arctic are reacting differently to climate change partly because of geographical differences. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by water, while the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. Wind and ocean currents around Antarctica isolate the continent from global weather patterns, keeping it cold. In contrast, the Arctic Ocean is intimately linked with the climate systems around it, making it more sensitive to changes in climate."
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html
And for more information: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
It's a dangerous thing when people only accept information that affirms their pre-conceived beliefs. Even moreso when they believe ignorance in everything else to be a virtue.