ARCTIC SEA ICE: The Arctic is losing sea ice rapidly. The varying thickness of the remaining ice can be seen here, from thin, nearly transparent ice to older, thicker, snow-covered ice.
Image: Courtesy of NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
On Sunday, September 16, the sun did not rise above the horizon in the Arctic. Nevertheless enough of the sun's heat had poured over the North Pole during the summer months to cause the largest loss of Arctic sea ice cover since satellite records began in the 1970s. The record low 3.41 million square kilometers of ice shattered the previous low—4.17 million square kilometers—set in 2007. All told, since 1979, the Arctic sea ice minimum extent has shrunk by more than 50 percent—and even greater amounts of ice have been lost in the corresponding thinning of the ice, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
"There is much more open ocean than there used to be," says NSIDC research scientist Walt Meier. "The volume is decreasing even faster than the extent [of surface area] as best as we can tell," based on new satellite measurements and thickness estimates provided by submarines. Once sea ice becomes thin enough, most or all of it may melt in a single summer.
Some ice scientists have begun to think that the Arctic might be ice-free in summer as soon as the end of this decade—leaving darker, heat-absorbing ocean waters to replace the bright white heat-reflecting sea ice. The question is: Then what happens? Although the nature and extent of these rapid changes are not yet fully understood by researchers, the impacts could range from regional weather-pattern changes to global climate feedbacks that exacerbate overall warming. As Meier says: "We expect there will be some effect…but we can't say exactly what the impacts have been or will be in future."
On thin ice
Arctic ice influences atmospheric circulation and, hence, weather and climate. Take away the ice and impacts seem sure to follow. There's more warming to come, as well, particularly in the Arctic, which is warming faster than the rest of the globe. Given cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, there's likely at least as much warming to come as has occurred to date—a rise of 0.8 degree Celsius in global average temperatures, most of that in the past 30 years.
The biggest impacts of the loss of Arctic sea ice, of course, will be felt locally: from the potential for more snowfall (which can act like an insulating blanket keeping the ice warm and incapable of growing) to more storms with stronger winds. These will also whip up waves to pound the shore, eroding it, as well as bringing warmer temperatures to thaw the permafrost—leading to "drunken" trees and buildings as well as villages slipping into the sea. A loss of sea ice will also affect the largest animals in the Arctic: seals, walruses and polar bears. "My people rely on that ocean and we've seen some dramatic changes," said Inupiat leader Caroline Cannon at a Greenpeace event on the Arctic in New York City on September 19. "We are the gatekeepers of the ocean. We speak for the animals. They provide for us so it's our time to speak for them," by arguing to ameliorate climate change.
Noting the climate change in Cannon's backyard, the rest of the globe is indeed taking action—just not the type that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "The world is looking at the Arctic as a new ocean to be developed and exploited," notes Arctic system scientist David Barber of the University of Manitoba, most particularly oil as evidenced by Shell's bid to drill the first offshore well in the Chukchi Sea. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds an oil and gas bonanza—and companies from Russia to the U.S. are lining up to start exploiting it.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add Commentthe ice is going to melt no matter what we do at this point and the oceans are going to rise. we don't know what all will happen at that point but it may not all be bad news. one good thing is it will make us get off oil and on to technology to help turn things around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa generation at some point is going to feel the worst of it either sooner or later so we best spend our time getting ready for it.
On Sunday, September 16, the sun DID rise above the horizon in the Arctic, even at the Pole! The equinox was on the 22nd, and the sun will continue to rise on the Arctic circle until the December solstice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo what extent and in which direction does the amount of fresh water incoming the Arctic ocean from the Siberian rivers influence the whole dynamics in this ocean, including the degree and speed of ice crust summer meltdown? Is it possible that the warming of cold waters, that reduces its ability to hold CO2 and other greenhouse effect gases in solution inside the water, may affect the pace and degree of global warming, specially by its effects on the oceans near the poles? Can these things be simulated or quantified in any way?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the NASA explanation of record Arctic minimum:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This year, a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska and moved on Aug. 5 to the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it churned the weakened ice cover for several days. The storm cut off a large section of sea ice north of the Chukchi Sea and pushed it south to warmer waters that made it melt entirely. It also broke vast extensions of ice into smaller pieces more likely to melt."
They provided this video of the action:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=152489941
Meanwhile the Antarctic pushes record high ice again:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
An ice balance video may be found here:
vimeo.com/46429608#
GK
WOW! what a fantastic reality! And me without a class to teach! DAMMIT. If China wants to create about a million jobs over-night here's a plan: Buy all the used tires America cant get rid of; slice them into long ribbons; weave them into barge/ballons to harvest the fresh water to haul to Africa and re-establish arable land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuick someone get me a hundred welders, 200,000 ft of 3" sq. tubing or pipe, some outboard motors, the tiresand weaving staff mentioned above. I'll be pulling up to Africa with a billion gallons of fresh water by Christmas.
Happysnapper,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think so. By your reckoning, the north pole would have daylight every day, since , after the winter solstice (before which point, you think the sun rises at the pole), the daylight hours start to increase. Check out several websites to show the sunlight hours in locations just inside the arctic circle, for example, timeanddate.com . For those on the edge of the circle, the sun stops rising above the horizon in October.
sofistek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn September 22nd the Sun was directly over the equator, so at the pole the sun was on the horizon. For 6 months before that the sun was North of the equator and so it was above the horizon at the Pole all the time, 24 hours a day.
At 66N, just outside the Arctic circle, there is still over 2 hours of daylight on December 22.
http://www.dawnsun.net/astro/suncalc/?sc=1&d=22&m=12&y=2012&lad=66&lam=0&ns=N&lod=0&lom=7&we=W&th=0&tm=0&dst=1
At 67N, just inside the circle, there is 46 minutes of daylight as late as December 12.
" there's evidence in the paleo-climate record that the climate system is capable of changing quite rapidly ". Baber notes " We're moving into new territory and the impact of that are unknown scientifically " - So it is obvious, that the Static model of the globe to explain global change of a climate - cannot. As the Dynamic model of the globe solves this problem... ww.mammoths.narod.ru - in the first - it is necessary to take into account, that during III stage (~ 800 thousand years), the environment of a planet (Ms) repeatedly turned in an equatorial plane - thus on poles there were constantly ice domes (at stationary and non-stationary positions Ms),
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt means, that the thermal stream of bowels did not influence redistribution of weights on surfaces of a planet (during III stage), but as soon as the environment of a planet (in a zone of the Southern polar circle has burnt through) - weight of an ice dome in the Southern polar circle has reached in a point (b ') min values, IV stage began at a level of Ocean which in comparison with a level of Ocean during III stage - has raised on (400 - 500 м). To define capacity of a thermal stream of bowels does not represent complexity
(this stream stabilizes abnormal weight of an ice dome and a present level of Ocean, and also (non-stationary) position Ms. Thus a substantiation of global change of a climate from a position of Two models of the globe - very much differ
Hansen's "good news" that the disappearing sea ice is a reversible phenomenon is predicated on eliminating CO2 emissions and removing enough CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce its concentration to 350 ppm or less. Its not good news. You try to imagine today's Republican Party committing itself to leading the world to eliminate the emission of CO2 globally, then to lead the world in removing a few decades worth of emissions. Still trying?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a lot more info on albedo change to consider. There's the disappearing sea ice and there's less snow staying on land in the north as well. There's the Rutgers Snow Lab which is compiling snow cover anomaly data. There's Stephen Hudson at the Norwegian Polar Institute who published a <a href="http://www.npolar.no/npcms/export/sites/np/en/people/stephen.hudson/Hudson11_AlbedoFeedback.pdf">peer reviewed study</a> in JGR. His institute put out a press release showing his calculation for albedo change if the sea ice disappears for a month each year <a href="http://www.npolar.no/en/news/2011/2011-08-16-clouds-halve-the-climatic-effect-of-bare-ocean.html">here</a>. Hansen has a <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaIceArea/">Sea Ice Area</a> page up. He's saying what matters is the albedo during the period of high insolation, and he points out that the Arctic sea ice minimum is not happening during that period. But if Hudson is anywhere near correct when he talks about 0.1 w/m2 change already and 0.3 w/m2 in the cards if sea ice disappears periodically, that is a significant change given Hansen's recent calculated value for the planetary energy imbalance of around .6 w/m2. Both Hudson and Hansen caution that not much is actually known about the changes in albedo will cause in clouds which modifies the effectiveness of the albedo change. Because he now has Argo data, i.e. precise measurement of the heat content change where most incoming heat is accumulating, i.e. in the oceans, Hansen says there has been a dramatic improvement in his ability to calculate what the planetary energy imbalance is, so one might think big changes in albedo forcing will show up in measurements. There are no Argo floats in the Arctic ocean however.
Ah yes, NASA. Let's see what they actually said, shall we?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Arctic sea ice cover naturally grows during the dark Arctic winters and retreats when the sun re-appears in the spring. But the sea ice minimum summertime extent, which is normally reached in September, has been decreasing over the last three decades as Arctic ocean and air temperatures have increased.
"Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions," said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent."
The thickness of the ice cover is also in decline.
"The core of the ice cap is the perennial ice, which normally survived the summer because it was so thick", said Joey Comiso, senior scientist with NASA Goddard. "But because it's been thinning year after year, it has now become vulnerable to melt"."
And then there's the quote directly after the paragraph you mention, which for some reason (hmmm) you failed to include:
"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."
David Lewis, no one is going to reduce anything:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://finance.sfgate.com/hearst.sfgate/news/read?GUID=22361245
Coal burning for power will increase CO2 by several times what Kyoto called for in reductions. I don't believe the CO2 will make a difference, but since you do, I would suggest you prepare yourself, as the climate will continue to change either way.
BWTrainer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"which for some reason (hmmm) you failed to include:"
The provided links takes one to the entire article, for those interested. It is bad form to cut and paste an entire article into another publication (not to mention illegal).
We are permitted however to use excerpts from published material (fair use), or paraphrase to our heart's content.
You refer to caveats, as if, they were the main thrust and findings of the study. They are not and are not supported by this research, but are just AGW window dressing instead. Commentary, while interesting, should not be confused with meat and potatoes. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat’s not being considered here, in the article or the comments, are the repercussions of arctic thawing.
For starters, for decades climatologists have predicted that chemical pollutant GHG would affect world climate. Inconsequential, skeptics claimed. Now Arctic Thawing is a clear, easily measurable, undeniable world-level change that is the first clear global change related to warming.
But global warming is not a curious effect, occurring in isolation, and a scientific curiosity. It is the first clear sign of Malthusian environmental collapse and is compounded by pollution (which further reduces the available clean water and air), depletion of resources in general – and this is the catch here - simultaneous with overpopulation.
The same way positive feedback loops are becoming predominant in the Arctic thaw (albedo and methane outgassing), the depletion of resources will couple up with overpopulation to create the historically not infrequent situation in which small crop oscillations create major famines and so forth, but on a world scale: there will be nowhere to run to.
Climate proofing is the merely first of a long list of changes that must be addressed today to tackle the challenge of our time: post-oil logistics (electric vehicles), all energy generated from renewables (solar + wind + sea – or, in the US, just a massive geothermal program, which perhaps should be publicly built because I do not see companies picking up the bill, considering the long return on investment: “EGS could provide100 GWe or more of cost competitive generating capacity in the next 50 years”, explains the MIT:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/future_geo_energy.pdf) – and of course stop polluting, recycle everything, and address overpopulation through a UNO Framework Convention and a Third World youth coalition to simply end accidental pregnancy.
Impossible? Are we no better than locusts - or bacteria on a Petri dish?
I choose to fight for my children and grandchildren’s quality of life. We have faced challenges before; disease in the XIV century, political extremism in the XX… the cost of cleaning up our act is smaller than that of most wars. It can be done. Citizens of good will: rise and enforce mankind’s claim to a bright future.
First, we have accurate ice records for something like 30 years. This is not enough time to draw any accurate conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is ample evidence that the ice cover was less in the 1930s and in many periods previously. During the Medieval warm period the Vikings were farming in Greenland. Recent ice retreats have exposed some of their farms. In northern Canada, remains of trees are found well north of the present tree line.
The only rational conclusion is that Arctic ice has varied in the past and, on several occasions, it has been much less than it is now. So there is absolutely no reason to panic.
What the article fails to mention – and this is a disgrace – is that Antarctic ice is, at present, at virtually record extent. All the climate model predictions agree that carbon dioxide driven warming will melt ice at both poles. Svensmark's explanation is that a reduction in cloudiness at both poles will cause ice to melt in the Arctic and accumulate in the Antarctic because it has a huge reflective icecap. At least it fits the evidence!
Once again, Scientific American demonstrates how unscientific it really is and how much it is devoted to the discredited hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming.
“First, we have accurate ice records for something like 30 years.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMake that since 1885. Ice coverage is the one thing in climate that is easy to measure.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/the-shrinking-arctic-ice-cap-ar4
“Once again, Scientific American demonstrates how unscientific it really is and how much it is devoted to the discredited hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming.”
SA can be blamed of being inaccurate and half amateurish. A good science proofreader would do wonders. But the bias is not theirs. It is the scientists who are saying these things. And the Antarctic icecap is changing, growing in some places and thawing in others. It is not growing in volume as a whole and is certainly not compensating for the Arctic or whatever.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=726
If only the Polar Bears were NFL referees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this16. David Russell "If only the Polar Bears were NFL referees."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL - They are all too busy playing ice hockey! GK
This is all a bunch of whooies and scare tactics. Why are the Martian ice caps melting? Have our ice caps melted before? 500 years ago? 700 years ago? a thousand? These are people with too much free government money and way too much free time and no real purpose in the world other than to lower our standard of living.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs ocean temperatures increase, the sea water will eventually absorb less CO2, even gassing off CO2 into the air, which will therefore fuel a vicious circle of warming. This is basic chemistry Theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems like you have posted a bunch of whooies and scare tactics, yourself. You post some questions that have been answered many times, and then trash the government for spending money trying to answer similar critically important questions. The way I see is is you don't want more research because you know it will confirm the current research that says we are in deep trouble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as lowering the standard of living, you are confusing the problem with the solution, and not even a real solution at that. Many people claim that a lower standard of living is the inevitable result of addressing global warming, but that is only fear-mongering. Lowering carbon usage does not automatically result in a lower standard of living. I read recently in the newspaper that wealthy, conservative people have higher rates of installing solar panels than liberals, because it actually saves them money, even if they don't believe in AGW. They can afford the upfront installation costs so they can save money in the long run. I doubt they are paying up front for a lower standard of living, but they (by the way) produce less carbon emissions.
I think everyone actually agrees that solar power is cheaper than coal or oil for electricity. The disagreement is about how long it takes for the installation to pay for itself. Current estimates put it far less than the lifetime of the solar panels, like 5 or 10 years, as compared with a minimum 25 year or more life span for the array. If you had money to invest, you would get immediate, guaranteed, monthly benefits by installing a solar array, instead of keeping the same money in savings, stocks or bonds. Now even renters and people without the upfront cost can go through a third party company to get solar power installed, and just make monthly payments until it is paid for.
Do you call better insulated houses a lower standard of living? People can pay as little or as much as they want to improve the efficiency of their homes, from putting weather stripping on their doors to putting insulating plastic over their windows to blowing insulation into the walls, and it will not lower their standard of living. It will result in lower energy bills and therefore a higher standard of living, and (by the way) lower carbon emissions.
When Benjamin Franklin invented the potbellied stove, the improved efficiency of heating houses did not lower the standard of living, but raised it. The efficiency resulted in warmer houses, less smoke pollution, cheaper heating costs, and (by the way) lower carbon emissions.
Junior, technology caused the problem of global warming. Do you really think technology is going to overcome the problem on any level except a supremely superficial one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisantarctic sea ice is at record extent by a small amount. further, given how much ice mass the WAIS is shedding into the sea, it's expected that sea ice around the continent would increase.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismeanwhile, arctic ice is at a record low with a capital R.