NEW NORMAL: Scientists say a return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely
Image: U.S. Geological Survey
Warming continues to shrink the snow and ice cover that defines the Arctic, signaling the region's shift to a new climate pattern, scientists said yesterday.
The area covered by sea ice hovered near its historic low this summer. In Greenland, record-high temperatures this year have helped accelerate the melting of the country's massive ice sheet. Throughout the Arctic, permafrost is warming and the blanket of snow is shrinking.
Those changes appear to be long-lasting, said an international team of climate experts who wrote the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report.
Its blunt headline? "Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely."
"The Arctic is a system, and the system is changing," said Don Perovich, a sea ice expert with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who worked on the report. "It's not just that sea ice is being reduced. There's changes in Greenland, the atmosphere, the ecosystem, and these changes are affecting human activity."
That includes densely populated areas of the globe that lie outside the Arctic.
More cold air blasts head south
The polar region acts as the world's air conditioner, helping to regulate weather patterns worldwide. Now there is evidence that Arctic warming is affecting conditions in other regions of the globe, said NOAA oceanographer Jim Overland.
The unusually heavy snows that blanketed the eastern United States, northern Europe and parts of Asia last winter were a consequence of the shift to a warmer Arctic, he said.
"This connection was one of the real surprises that we've seen over the last decade or so," he said. "Normally, the cold air is bottled up in the Arctic, but we had two experiences last year where rather than winds blowing from west to east, they strongly blew from north to south. So first last December and then last February, we actually had cold air blowing from north of Alaska and in northern Canada blowing all the way in the central eastern U.S."
The seeming paradox of Arctic warmth sending blizzards to mid-latitudes has occurred just three times in the past 160 years, including last year. But it is likely to become more common as polar sea ice shrinks, Overland said.
That's due in part to a powerful feedback loop scientists call "polar amplification." Warmer Arctic springs and summers increase the amount of sea ice that melts each summer, leaving huge swaths of dark ocean water that trap heat. That warmth cycles back into the atmosphere each fall, when the amount of sunlight dips and sea ice re-forms.
Meanwhile, Greenland's melting accelerates sea level rise
That's driving Arctic ocean and land temperatures higher, which scientists believe helped cause the unusual weather patterns observed in mid-latitudes last winter.
Meanwhile, historic warming observed in Greenland this year has implications for sea level rise, said Jason Box, an Ohio State University glaciologist who also worked on the new report.
Conditions have been warmer this year in Greenland's capital, Nuuk, than at any other time since record-keeping began there in 1873.
The effects of that heat are evident in the behavior of the glaciers that connect Greenland's massive ice sheet with the sea, Box said.
The massive Petermann Glacier calved a chunk four times the size of Manhattan in August, the largest single glacier area loss ever recorded in Greenland. But it was not an isolated event. Box says three other glaciers lost more than 10 square miles of area this year, and Greenland's ice sheet is melting faster than it has since at least 1958.
"There is no doubt that Greenland ice loss has not just increased above past decades, but it has accelerated," Box said. "The implication is that sea level rise estimates will again need to be revised upward."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add Comment"In Greenland, record-high temperatures"... "since record-keeping began there in 1873." Of course 1873 is long after the place was named "green land." I suspect it wasn't given that name because of all the snow and ice! The evidence can be interpreted to indicate that the climate is returning to conditions common when the island was a more hospitable place. Strange, I didn't hear anyone complaining about how cold it's been.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recall hearing in school that it was called "Greenland" as a PR move to encourage settlers to come there, but by 1500 or so the population had all starved to death.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAside from the concept of "normal" being a purely human and completely fallacious concept, the weather patterns describe in this article have been see before. Years ago the late Reid Bryson, founder of the Uni of Wisconsin meteorology department, encountered a dilemma in his research on the last Ice Age. He realized that under current weather patterns it was impossible to accumulate the amount of ice needed to explain the extent of the Ice sheets. He hypothesized that one would "need to discover a new ocean" to provide the moisture needed to explain the volumes of snow required. His new ocean is the periodic and predictable thawing of the arctic ice pack that we are witnessing. The shift to more open water for longer periods of time explain the deep penetration of arctic air deep into eastern NA. Eventually we will also begin to see higher snow totals accumulating in eastern Canada. Once the accumulation begins to exceed the amount that can be melted we begin the next Ice Age cycle. Prof. Bryson left us with a telling quote: "you can tell me the temperature is going up and I might believe you. You can also tell me its is going down and I might believe that too, but the truth is folks you are headed into the next Ice Age".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@PsySciGuy, wow, you used your lack of knowledge of Greenland's history to make an idiotic assumption about its climate in order to refute a science you clearly don't understand. Do you always put this much effort into criticizing things you haven't taken the time to understand? If you are going to be ignorant about a subject why not go all the way and having nothing to say about it? Or do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is correct, that we were heading into the next ice age, but you have to know, that this statement was mainstream science about 25 years ago. An ice age would mean about 5 degrees C lower global average temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the last hundred years we have made plus one degree C and are predicted to have a few more, because of the greenhouse effect, which was neglected in the climate studies 25 years ago. We are clearly heading into a new 'hot age' at least for the next 100 years. Once humans are extinct, the planet will likely have a few more cold periods.
Best
PsySciGuy - go back to school. The Vikings named Greenland - Greenland so other people would think it was nice and go there INSTEAD of going to Iceland - which is nicer cause they wanted it for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is no doubt that Greenland ice loss has not just increased above past decades, but it has accelerated," Jason Box (an Ohio State University glaciologist) said. "The implication is that sea level rise estimates will again need to be revised upward."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this=====================
It just never ceases to amaze me how rabid the DENIERS have gotten over the past few years, especially as real climatologists and glaciologists continue to publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Not only is their work showing a decline in Arctic sea ice extent, but also in thickness and the accelerated decline of older Arctic ice. The ramifications of this powerful feedback loop scientists call "polar amplification," as well as the "extreme negative oscillation phase" with relatively high pressure over the polar region and low pressure at mid-latitudes, causing a warmer Arctic and a colder mid-latitude in winter like last winter. It appears this will become more common in the decades ahead with much more unpredictable weather patterns.
It's sad, some people don't recognize reality and will not get help for their problem. They deny that too!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight on! The global warming idiots are pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with the cyclical temperatures the earth has gone through since the birth of the planet. The real agenda is submission of the general populace to the global elite New World Order.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can check satelite photos of the ice caps on a daily basis and even do comparisons between the same date in different years going back to 1980. I look myself regularly and, while 2007 was a low point for this 30 year period, since then the arctic ice pack has rebounded in a big way. The Antarctic ice sheet is growing at an even faster rate. You just have to check for yourselves instead of taking someone elses word on it. Government scientists, any government, have to make the results match the theory or they risk losing funding, but the raw information is out there if you dare to look.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" I look myself regularly and, while 2007 was a low point for this 30 year period, since then the arctic ice pack has rebounded in a big way"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently you haven't looked in a few months.
As it said in the article, Arctic ice coverage is near its record low. Also, it seems that the ice is much thinner than normal.
Take a look at these sites if you need confirmation, or better yet, search for others on your own. You really do need to learn to check your facts a bit better.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://arcticfocus.com/2010/01/28/melting-arctic-ice-what-satellite-images-dont-see/
There is also a very useful graph here :
http://www.science20.com/files/images/20100817_Figure2_0.png
Taken from this site:
http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_ice_september_2010
I just wont to say that when i was studying Marin microbiology in Umea, North of Sweden, we notised a big problem with the fact that icesheets are disapearing. The producing of all primary-coal, needs for the ecosystem to build up, and for the creation of a fantastic nature, with all sorts of animal, from small to enormous, the artic pool needs a sheet of ice. Way? It´s becouse the main production taking place in the ice, in gaps, holes and craps. If the ice melts. there is no surrounding with enough green plants that can do this job. A lot of our food is from that important ecosystem. It is going extinct, I have seen it with my own eyes in Svalbard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake care
What I was trying to get across is, Look at the raw data for yourself, Not someone's interpretation. If I bring up today's satelite image alongside the one from the same date in 2007, it is easy to see that the extent is much larger and the area of thicker, multi-year ice is also much larger. You can interpret that how you wish, but the only explanation is More ice. The same goes for the Antarctic, but on an even larger scale. Just look at the photos, they speak for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Postman1, "Government scientists, any government, have to make the results match the theory or they risk losing funding", you are suffering from severe paranoid delusions if you really think that scientists falsify testable and publically available data in order to secure funding. The best way to lose funding and your career is to deliberately violate the scientific process. You conspiracy nut jobs really need help. The fact that you would accuse science of corruption in pursuit of financial gain while ignoring the financial incentives, deep pockets and lack of oversight of the fossil fuel industry demonstrates just how irrational and out of touch with reality you are. Get yourself medicated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how warmists always go to name calling. By the way, have you not heard of the climate gate? Those government scientists were skewing the "facts" to meet the theory. I repeat, 'look at the evidence for yourself', unless you are too closed minded to care.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's just amazing how the left is represented by attack haters quoting lefty text books filled with made up "facts" twisting history to support their nonscientific beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreen Land was pretty green before the climate got colder and the glaciers covered alpine villages and mines. The Church even sent out priests to stop the glaciers advancing.
Not in the lefty books, apparently. But then neither are the temperature records which the haters don't quote.
@Postman1, climate gate was another example of the radical right lying and distorting the facts to advance their agenda. They misinterpreted scientific jargon as representing some conspiracy when ultimately it had no effect on the published work as indicated by an independent panel. Your cries of "look at the evidence" is a fallacy of presupposition. The evidence clearly indicates AGW and the case only gets stronger the more we look. That you selectively ignore conflicting evidence by claiming conspiracies reflects more on you than the science. A psychopath is one who gladly sacrifices the lives and well being of others to fulfill their wants and needs. You need help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@PsySciGuy, we are already clear about your ignorance. No need to illustrate it further. You are proof that no facts in the world will change the mind of person of low moral character who's intent is to mislead and confuse in order to advance their personal agenda. The fact that you invoke conspiracies rather than providing sound evidence and well reasoned arguments is just another example of how low you and your cadre of die-hard denialists will go in your attempt to deceive the general public. Fortunately, the readers here aren't so gullible. Save your posts for fox news.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you also noticed how the warmers will not even consider looking at the evidence? For myself, I don't like to be led around by the nose by people who consider themselves to be so much better than everyone else. The only reason I bother to post with the warmers is in the vague hope that maybe one will actually think for their self, once in a while.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you heard, the Carbon Sense Coalition in the U K have invited Australians and Americans to join them October 27 in their celebration of Climate Fools Day? A number of British MP's are planning to attend.
If the ice cap goes on melting, oil companies will tow platforms way up north and start drilling. That will be the people causing yet denying climate change betting on it lasting long enough for them to make profits.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a load of crock, trying to justify the cold last year, how about NZ and Australia, really cold winters and low and behold the Antarctica ice cover at record highs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo less ice in the north causes more snow in the north, but more ice in the south causes more snow in the south...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
"There is warming in the southern hemisphere, send me your money", A. Gore
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand why the power and money influences scientists
I understand why politicians and people want fame and fortune
I dont understand why people think of this as a political issue, just follow the money and look at some of the unbiased data.
I dont understand why anyone would believe a politician, any politician.
@scottmc37, another conspiracy theorist. Of course money doesn't influence the fossil fuel industry. You people are insane. This science is testable! This isn't people just making claims. This is hundreds if not thousands of testable, verifiable science. You have nothing except conspiracies, confirmation bias, lies and distortions. What I don't understand is why people don't look at the science instead of listening to paranoid idiots such as yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Postman1, I fully agree that people should look at the evidence as you obviously haven't. And I have no problem with people giving an opinion as long as it is stated as such, but I do have a problem with people who lie, who are incapable of forming a rational argument and who have only read blogs that confirm their prejudices, claiming to be climate experts. Again you use confirmation bias and selective data to try and confuse the issue. In my area there has been an increase in snow along with an increase in temperature. Why? Because when it is warmer the lakes don't freeze over in the winter so there is more evaporation and as a result more precipitation. Arguing against an oversampled or distorted account of your opponents arguments is a strawman fallacy. One of the many fallacies you employ to disinform. Ultimately, your arguments against AGW are as a result of your complete ignorance of climate science, science in general and simple logic. You have nothing to offer here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't worry about smitty, he gets real testy and calls people names when they don't agree with him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmitty- if the science is testable, why will you not advise people to look at the facts and test them for their selves? When you find yourself huddling around your fire on top of the glacier in the new ice age, be sure to continue singing those AGW/Gore hymns. That might keep you warm. LOL.
Truthfully, man, get a grip on yourself, take your meds, and get your mommy to tuck you in.
@Postman1, "why will you not advise people to look at the facts and test them for their selves" I did just that in my first line. Is your reading comprehension as faulty as your logic? "huddling around your fire on top of the glacier", "singing those AGW/Gore hymns" are you capable of any rational thought or are you just the village idiot? Why don't you present some of those obvious facts that you have refuting AGW? We'd be interested in hearing them. Or are you lying about them? "they don't agree with him" another ad hominem attack from the guy who cries about me attacking him. Again, instead of presenting facts you fall back on another fallacy. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I have no problem with people being ignorant. I do have problems with people like you who are ignorant and irrational yet seem to think themselves an expert, that state their opinion as if it were incontrovertible proof. If you have hard facts to share and real arguments I'd love to hear it, but if you are going to lie and misrepresent the facts in order to advance your political agenda, save it for Fox.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@postman1, "South Africa opened a ski slope which had been closed for decades."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this=====================
Just because you read some fairy tales from anthony watts, it certainly does not make it true. You're entitled to your own OPINION, but not your own FACTS!
Tiffindell goes bust, Mon, 16 Feb 2009
Tiffindell Ski Resort, the only downhill ski resort in South Africa, located in the Eastern Cape, has gone into provisional liquidation owing a so-far undisclosed amount to creditors.
Tiffski, owners of Tiffendell, entered into the partnership with Nitrochron Investments after the company went into provisional liquidation. The new ownership and management agreement will come into effect in May. http://travel.iafrica.com/bulletinboard/1521882.htm
========
In other words, Tiffindell, a small ski resort in South Africa first opened in 1994, was closed in 2009, but opened under new owners and management. It was never closed for decades since it's only 16 years old, and at 3,000 meters, has very marginal snow but lots of snow-making equipment.
Weather and feedbacks lead to third-lowest extent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn eventful summer sea ice melt season has ended in the Arctic. Ice extent reached its low for the year, the third lowest in the satellite record, on 19 September. Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route were open for a period during September.
September 2010 compared to past years:
Ice extent for September 2010 was the third lowest in the satellite record for the month, behind 2007 (lowest) and 2008 (second lowest). The linear rate of decline of September ice extent over the period 1979 to 2010 is now 81,400 square kilometers (31,400 square miles) per year, or 11.5% per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The Arctic Ice:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearchers often look at ice age as a way to estimate ice thickness. Older ice tends to be thicker than younger, one- or two-year-old ice. Last winter, the wind patterns associated with the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation transported a great deal of multiyear ice from the coast of the Canadian Arctic into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Scientists speculated that much of this ice, some five years or older, would survive the summer melt period. Instead, it mostly melted away. At the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980s. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometers [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometers [722,000 square miles] during the 1980s).
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
@postman1: "while 2007 was a low point for this 30 year period, since then the arctic ice pack has rebounded in a big way."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==================
Maybe in your delusional world with watts and goddard, but in the real world, the true measure of a warming Arctic is sea ice volume, and not extent/area.
As this plot shows, it has been decreasing steadily for decades: Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Lab --
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
Lakota- I must apologize for the error on the S.A. ski slope, I was working from memory on that and, since I can't find the original post, I will have to concede. I do have sources for most of my entries, but will admit when I get excited and make a mistake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLakota- looking at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ , I see a much greater extent of new and thicker, multi-year ice, when I compare 2010 with same dates in 2007. Is there a problem with the satellite data? I believe looking at the actual photos, as opposed to someone else's interpretation into a plot, is the only way one can avoid being duped. I do not take anyone's word from blogs, I try and look up all the footnotes and sources listed and if I find out I have made an error, I will retract. I also refuse to call others liars as opposed to some posters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@postman1: "I believe looking at the actual photos, as opposed to someone else's interpretation into a plot, is the only way one can avoid being duped."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this===================
Maybe so, but that still would only allow you to interpret sea ice extent, and not thickness or volume, which overall has steadily decreased over the past 30 years. I gave you 3 links from Arctic ice experts, which proves you have been duped.
======
The linear rate of decline of September ice extent over the period 1979 to 2010 is now 81,400 square kilometers (31,400 square miles) per year, or 11.5% per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
======
At the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980s. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometers [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometers [722,000 square miles] during the 1980s).
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
=======
As this plot shows, it has been decreasing steadily for decades: Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Lab --
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
@postman1: "Lakota- I must apologize for the error on the S.A. ski slope."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this====================
Since I didn't have time to research the rest of your claims, mostly dealing with weather and not long-term climatology, I thought I would at least check the S.A. ski resort, especially since I live in Colorado with a plethora of great ski resorts. BTW, Ski Apache near Ruidoso, NM, is the most southern ski resort in the U.S., and sometimes has some good snow, but still nothing like the Rocky Mtns., or as consistent.
Try backing-up some of those outrageous claims that certainly sound like they are coming from watt's blog.
@postman1: "The Antarctic ice sheet is growing at an even faster rate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==================
While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since 2002 the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites have been able to comprehensively survey the entire ice sheet. Not only is Antarctica losing land ice, the ice loss is accelerating at a rate of 26 Gigatonnes/yr2 (in other words, every year, the rate of ice loss is increasing by 26 Gigatonnes per year) It turns out that since 2006, East Antarctica has no longer been in mass balance but is in fact, losing ice mass. This is a surprising result as East Antarctica has been considered stable because the region is so cold. This indicates the East Antarctic ice sheet is more dynamic than previously thought.
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE
I. Velicogna
Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
====
Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements
J. L. Chen1, C. R. Wilson1,2, D. Blankenship3 & B. D. Tapley1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html