New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Arctic Sea Ice Is Getting Thinner, Faster

Scientists try to piece together exactly how fast Arctic sea ice is thinning

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

While the steady disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic has been one of the hallmark effects of global warming, research shows it is not only covering less of the planet, but it’s also getting significantly thinner. That makes it more susceptible to melting, potentially altering local ecosystems, shipping routes and ocean and atmospheric patterns.

New data compiled from a range of sources—from Navy submarines to satellites—suggests that thinning is happening much faster than models have estimated, according to a study aiming to link those disparate data sources for the first time. University of Washington researchers Ron Lindsay and Axel Schweiger calculated that in the central part of the Arctic Ocean basin, sea ice has thinned by 65 percent since 1975. During September, when the ice reaches its annual minimum, ice thickness is down by a stunning 85 percent.

The information is key in determining when parts of the Arctic may become ice-free for at least part of the year in the coming century.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


While the ice’s extent is readily visible from satellites, ice thickness has been more difficult to measure, and it is arguably the more important dimension in measuring the volume of ice being lost. In estimating ice thickness, satellites must try to gauge thickness differences of just a few feet from hundreds of miles above the planet’s surface. “It’s a tricky business,” Lindsay said.

But several satellites do take those measurements, as do various airborne missions, anchored moorings and submarines passing below the ice. Each of these instruments uses a different method, though, and produces data that isn’t always easy to sync with the others.

In the new study, Lindsay and Schweiger tried to resolve some of those differences in what Lindsay called “an attempt to get all the ice thickness measurements into one place.” The goal, he said, is “to get a broad picture of what the sea ice is doing in the Arctic Ocean that is based more on observations than on a model.”

What they found was that annual average sea ice thickness over the entire Arctic basin was decreasing about 18 inches per decade since 2000.

Since 1975, the annual average thickness in just the central part of the basin had dropped from about 11 feet to 4 feet—a decline of 65 percent. That was nearly double the 36 percent decline that a previous study calculated over the period from 1975-2000.

The study’s estimates of the sea ice thinning, detailed in the journal The Cryosphere, were more dramatic than what most models currently show, but overall, Lindsay said, the models are capturing the decline in thickness fairly well.

 

Julienne Stroeve, a sea ice researcher with the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., said in an email, “It would be great to have a long-term sea ice thickness dataset,” like the one Lindsay and Schweiger compiled, but there are inherent and varying biases in the data that make conclusions from such combined data hard to trust. Stroeve was not involved in the new study.

In the study, Lindsay and Schweiger acknowledge the potential for error in the combined data.

“This is just one attempt to put it together,” Lindsay said. “I think it is just a first step.”

This article is reproduced with permission from Climate Central. The article was first published on March 4, 2015.

Andrea Thompson is senior editor for Earth and environment at Scientific American, covering the environment, energy and Earth sciences. She has been covering these topics for nearly two decades. Prior to joining Scientific American, she was a senior writer covering climate science at Climate Central and a reporter and editor at Live Science, where she primarily covered earth science and the environment. She has moderated panels, including as part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Media Zone, and appeared in radio and television interviews on major networks. She holds a graduate degree in science, health and environmental reporting from New York University, as well as a B.S. and an M.S. in atmospheric chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Follow Thompson on Bluesky @andreatweather.bsky.social

More by Andrea Thompson

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe