Image: NASA
More In This Article
-
Overview
The Winters of Our Discontent
-
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 »
It might seem counterintuitive to link Arctic sea ice that disappears in the summer to a colder winter in the northeastern U.S. and Europe, but scientists have reason to believe the connection is real and will make itself felt this upcoming season.
Less sea ice in summer means the Arctic Ocean warms more. It radiates much of that excess heat back to the atmosphere in winter. That release disrupts typical atmospheric conditions, thereby affecting how the jet stream behaves. The net result is a greater chance for unusually cold winters, or at times unusually warm ones, in the northeastern U.S. and Europe, according to an article by Cornell University Earth and atmospheric scientist Charles Greene in Scientific American’s December 2012 issue.
Each winter ice builds up across the Arctic Ocean. Each summer some of it melts or breaks off and is carried away by ocean currents. The ice cover reaches its minimum each September, then begins to build up again. The minimum amount of ice cover each summer had fluctuated above and below six million square kilometers from 1979 through 2000. Losses began to get greater each summer thereafter, apparently due to global warming, dropping to about five million square kilometers in 2007. Since that year the minimum ice cover has declined rapidly, dwindling to an all-time record low of 3.4 million square kilometers on September 16, 2012.
The graph below shows how much area the ice covered when it was at its summer minimum, for each year from 1979 to 2012. The animation of satellite data shows the physical extent of the ice cover for each of those minimum dates, ending with the record low. Both the graph and animation were produced by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add Comment"...or at times unusually warm ones, in the northeastern U.S. and Europe"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Wow. Cold or warm or average. Wow! quite the climate models.
Example of past winters in Britain (1600's).:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1616: Hot summer with drought similar to that of 1612
1620-21: Frost fair held on the Thames
1626: Dry and hot summer
1635: Severe winter, Thames froze over
1636: Severe drought, rainless for months (reputedly)
1638: Not linked so much to winter, but tornadoes were reported in the South West.
1644: Late January snowfall, lasted 8 days
1648: Interestingly was very wet, and the summer was described as "worse than some of the past winters" ie. It was cool and wet!
1648-49: Thames froze over
1657-58: Beginning a period of long lying snow, lasting from December through until March!
1658: A 'wild stormy night' when roofs were blown down, as well as Chimneys. Noted as the night Oliver Cromwell died.
1662-67: 3 of 5 winters in this period were described as cold, with severe frosts. Skating was launched on the Thames, for the pleasure of King Charles 2nd.
1664-65: Reputedly the coldest day ever in England, with a severe frost lasting about 2 months.
The comments regularly posted on these climate stories are consistently negative. I don't know how Americans expect to get educated-- let alone be competitive-- when they believe that scientists are truly ignorant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA recent poll of the National Academy of Sciences found that 97% of its members thought climate change was real.
The Scientific American helps foster distrust of the scientific community by its willingness to post the baloney that climate "skeptics" believe. And by the way in Greek skeptikoi means 'to think'. That is something climate change deniers have yet to do.
Your editors edit your fine magazine for scientific rigor. I suggest you do the same with your comment page.
Scientific American could probably go a long way to improving the intellectual level of the discussion online by requiring people to identify themselves with their real names in their posts. There might still be folks who would choose to be nasty anyhow, but fewer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe good news is that, having been visiting the online comments on climate change for a little while now, it is a select and not large group that consistently mocks and ridicules. Santa could make a list and check it twice to see who is naughty and who is nice!
Although I feel bad about this, Melting Icebergs make for some Spectacular "Wonders of the Ice World" Images! Beautiful. http://bit.ly/UHaznx
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShouldn't that be Recorded Low, I have it on inside information that we also have Recorded High Glacier Ice in Antarctica but we won't report that one!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.fcpp.org/blog/like-doren-and-zimmerman-the-pnas-denier-black-list-paper-also-falls-flat/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat number is easily dismissed. It comes from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Strangely, the researchers chose to eliminate almost all the scientists from the survey and so ended up with only 77 people, 75 of whom, or 97%, thought humans contributed to climate change.
There are plenty of investigations that show this survey is yet anther example of AGW fake science.
@dubay.denis Why not start an internet register of climate change deniers, they can all proudly register and state how they intend to do nothing to abate greenhouses gases or protect the environment in any way. They can of course do this in full confidence that there will never be anything for them to be accountable for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you indicate that you are prepared to back up your convictions by advocating an all out effort to convert all power generation by fossil fuel to nuclear I will give you some credibility. dubay.denis has, by the way offered qulified support for nuclear energy on an earlier post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think you have studied the subject in sufficent detail to give an informed opinion & you believe the facts speak for themselves, you might explain the email scandal for those of us who think that if the science is so compelling why the cheating & lies. You might also explin why so much of the media distorts & lies about what sceptics say. You think that it is not so or do you think it is so but you approve? After you have studied the following, I would be interested to hear your comments.
ABC Doco “UnCut”: Evans, Nova, Minchin and Rose — the full unedited video
Finally two hours of entertainment unlike any you’ve seen on TV
The Media IS the Problem – Part I
When the Smith and Nasht came to our house (on behalf of the ABC) to take footage for the “I can change your mind” documentary, David and I asked fellow skeptic and camera-man Barry Corke if he could film them filming us, so we have our own copy of what happened. He agreed — it was obvious to all of us that we needed some insurance against biased edits.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/abc-doco-uncut-evans-nova-minchin-and-rose-the-full-unedited-video/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who don't know about the intense lobbying against climate science by the fossil fuel industry should watch the Frontline program that was broadcast on October 23, 2012. It can be viewed online at pbs.org.
The same people who wanted you to believe cigarettes are safe are now lobbying us to believe that climate change is not happening.
Could you update with a graph of Antarctic Ice Pack! Is the Ice shifting South?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like an interesting story. Maybe Scientific American will do a story on corals and include this report in it. When is the last time they did a story on threats to coral reefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell there is yet another alarmist report out about Antarctica. Antarctic ice warming faster than thought
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom: AAP
December 24, 20129:53AM
Antarctic ice warming faster than thought http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/antarctic-ice-warming-faster-than-thought/story-fn3dxix6-1226542824300
How did they come to this conclusion?
By filling in gaps in the actual recorded data with manufactured data. It raises the question – how much of their other data is wrong? Why is the data invariably worse than previously thought? How can anyone read these so obviously flawed reports & still keep the faith?
No doubt SCIAM will carry this report. It fits beautifully with their agenda.
You asked about previous articles about coral Reefs:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat Barrier Reef under Clear Threat U.N. Scientific American
This article was saved to my favourite’s folder on 4th June this year. I was critical of it. It has been deleted. I have come across this quite frequently with articles I have criticised. My criticisms are not rebutted. My posts are deleted or the entire article disappears. Now why would that be? The most recent was on the King crab article.
When I previously posted a link I had simply used the search box. I think there may be other later articles that also have been deleted. I had named scientists & reports with contra views.
@ Carlyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems like you're always using references that are sourced to: obvious climate-denier sites, Fox News broadcasts, your cat....etc.
I would be interested in a reference to any peer-reviewed paper in a recognized journal. You seem like a sharp guy (girl?), can you find one for me?
I'd appreciate it.
You don't need to provide a link, just the title of the paper, and the name of the journal.
And please refrain from citing the "Exxon-Mobile Quarterly" or the "British Petroleum Annual Report on Climate Change" or any other organization that has a vested interest in the debate......
Oh, and by the way, who are you currently employed by?
correction...Temperature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlanet x is approaching ,if the reports are accurate.
Another previous article on coral that has not been deleted. Worth reading for a variety of views. 210 comments: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corals-more-threatened-by-temperature-than-acidifying-ocean#comments From Monday, 6 February 2012
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I predicted here it is though they do not have it up under any headlines yet. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=west-antarctica-warming-fast-may-qu
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWest Antarctica warming fast, may quicken sea level rise: study
West Antarctica is warming almost twice as fast as previously believed, adding to worries of a thaw that would add to sea level rise from San Francisco to Shanghai, a study showed on Sunday.
May I remind skeptics who have overwhelmed the comments that the topic at hand is the impact of reduced Arctic ice on the pattern of the jet stream which could subsequently impact weather events in the Northern Hemisphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkeptical or not as to root cause of climate change this topic; the jet stream -is of import to those of us who live in the Northern Hemisphere. It may be tempting to debate root causes of climate change with trolls but debate is what they want to claim and they seldom stay on topic.
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
Happy holidays, SA commenters. Thank you for visiting our site and for being part of scientific conversations this year. We especially thank those of you who have posted constructive comments that have advanced the dialogue on topics directly related to the content posted. We remove name-calling comments, hostile comments, ad hominem comments, and comments that gratuitously mention politics, as you might have noticed on this story. Overall, if you are consistently making the comments section a less enjoyable place to be, your account and your comments may be removed from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Fischetti,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Less sea ice in summer means the Arctic Ocean warms more. It radiates much of that excess heat back to the atmosphere in winter. That release disrupts typical atmospheric conditions, thereby affecting how the jet stream behaves. The net result is a greater chance for unusually cold winters, or at times unusually warm ones, in the northeastern U.S. and Europe..."
That would seem to cover all the bases, even what has all the earmarks of opposite results. Clicking on the hyperlink, "article," produced what seems to be more of the same:
"The past three winters in parts of North America and Europe were unusual. First, during the winters of 2009–2011, the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and western and northern Europe endured a series of exceptionally cold and snowy storms—including the February 2010 “snowmageddon” storm in Washington, D.C., that shut down the federal government for nearly a week. Later that year, in October, the NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC) forecasted a mild 2010–2011 winter for the eastern U.S., based on a La Niña pattern of cooler than usual ocean temperatures in the eastern Pacific. But even with La Niña's moderating effects, very low temperatures and record snowfalls hit New York City and Philadelphia in January 2011, catching the CPC and other forecasters by surprise."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-winters-of-our-discontent
If memory serves (mine often does not), somewhere in my past reading was the written statement (in the context of a rebuke of creationists) that a phenomenon explaining everything explains nothing. What is different with regard to the quotes above?
This video of the disappearing arctic ice shows we are rolling the big dice. If only we were effected, we would deserve the results of our stupidity. But centuries of the not-yet-born will feel the results of our sinfulness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your solution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLast I heard the antarctic ice is growing. This does not exactly contradict global warming. The over all temperature of the Earth seems to be currently rising. Some people don't get the concept that the overall temperature includes both the hot and cold parts and is averaged out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA simple demonstration of this concept is to take a spoon or ladle that has a thermally non conductive handle and have them hold it. Then heat the other end to a painful temperature. The total temperature has increased even though the thermally insulated part hasn't gotten hotter. If they still don't get the idea, have them grab the hot end. Be sure to point and laugh and film the whole training exercise which you must then post on the internet.
And Antarctic sea ice set new records for extent in Sept and Oct:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/Now-theres-ice-South-Pole-So-global-warming-thawing-Antarctica.html
Would it not be effective to build methane farms on land and/or on the sea? If a white sheet of heavy platic were spread over an area where methane gas was seaping from the groud or ocean floor, it would reflect light similar to ice. At the same time it could be shaped like a tent to funnel the methane to collection tanks instead of bleeding into the atmosphere. The methane could be used as fuel to offset the cost of expanding the collection area. Refining the collection process could make it self sufficient or even turn a profit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this