• More Blogs
• Observations »
• Bering in Mind »
• Cross-check »
• Extinction Countdown »
• Solar at Home »
• Expeditions »
• Guest Blog »
• Anecdotes from the Archive »

The long, frigid Arctic autumn and winter began late last week—and the shrinking sea ice has begun to expand anew. That's good news for starving polar bears waiting for the ice to come in so they can hunt. But the dwindling ice pack—courtesy of global warming—bodes ill for Earth's future.

"The continued drastic melting of the Arctic sea ice is a disaster for the polar bear and a harbinger of what's to come for the rest of the world if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions," says Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, who led the charge to list the polar bear as an endangered species.

This year's ice shrank to just 1.74 million square miles—860,000 square miles less than the average extent since 1979—and only slightly more than last year's record 1.59 million square mile icepack. In fact, the ice retreated so much that for the first time since record-keeping began ships this year could circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean.

Plus, this happened despite cooler temperatures that should have allowed much more ice to survive summer warming. Translation: the climate is shifting fast towards a total loss of sea ice in the Arctic in summer, something that hasn't happened during the extent of human civilization.

10 Comments

1. 1. Fearless Bear 05:31 PM 9/17/08

   Let's see now, it melted less than in the past, and the Earth's temperatures are cooling. Aha..it must be because of global warming. Wake up SA, and stop passing on alarmist interpretations.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Individual 113 08:14 PM 9/17/08

   It's way past time that we got past the lunatic notion that concern about climate change and the environment is somehow "liberal" or left wing. That's complete mindless nonsense. Furthermore there is lots of money to be made in the engines and power sources of the future if we can somehow think more than five minutes ahead. Odd that "fearless bear" is afraid of science.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Equality 7-2521 09:07 PM 9/17/08

   "This year's ice shrank to just 1.74 million square miles860,000 square miles less than the average extent since 1979and only slightly more than last year's record 1.59 million square mile icepack"
   
   1. The average since 1979...anyone care to ask why they picked that date? If you do, here's the answer: there was a cooling scare in the 70s. And then it began to warm...there was much less ice in the 40s I believe because that was the end of a warming period...
   
   2. It has increased since last year. I think it will be funny if/when it continues to increase...then global warming alarmists (which is a legitimate term, btw) can and will claim that they made a difference by cutting emissions when we all know that these cuts have been offset by India/China etc.
   
   Responses to Individual 113:
   Environmentalism today is a farce. First of all, by saying that everyone agrees in global warming you are committing argumentum ad populum--a logical fallacy. Second, there are many scientists who recognize a significantly smaller effect on the environment than the "everyone". But if the world is ending (hence global warming alarmists) then will they get funding? Will cap and trade laws be put in place? No. Yes, there is money to be made...but bad things happen when government interferes in economy. It should be historically obvious that Herbert Hoover was an interventionist in economy, and since then the actions of Greenspan and Bernanke (combined with government pursuing ethanol) have resulted in global inflation and starvation. There was money to be made in the housing market too, but you shouldn't oversimplify.
   
   Fearless Bear is not afraid of science. He is stating the simple result of objective reason: that global warming alarmists do not care if global warming is real. It is simply too convenient to be otherwise. Because if it is then there may be justification for getting "lots of money" through carbon taxes etc. It's time to call BS on bureaucrat and environmentalist scare tactics.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Equality 7-2521 09:09 PM 9/17/08

   typo: "But if the world isn't*** ending"

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Individual 113 09:44 PM 9/17/08

   Equality: Who said "the world is ending????" (certainly not me). That's "alarmingly" hyperbolic.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Individual 113 09:54 PM 9/17/08

   Equality: I also never suggested the government interfere in anything, although if the truth be known they "interfere" all the time by deciding who to tax, who not to tax, who to give helpful loopholes to. etc. etc. Why do you imagine corporations spend so much time and money on lobbying?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Individual 113 10:09 PM 9/17/08

   Equality 7-2521: I also never said "everyone agrees on global warming" or "everyone" agrees on anything. Did you just make that up? And no offense, but I don't know Latin or any other skills from the Middle Ages. Argumentum ad populum? How about Pompousum verbosi Acroboti Nonsensum? I honestly do not intend any rudeness here, but your post is sort of odd.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. vonnieglen 11:51 PM 9/21/08

   The Northwest Passage was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906 in the a converted 47-ton herring boat Gjøa. Could they have made the same voyage in the Gjøa anytime since 1979? Most likely the answer is no. From the records existing from Amundsen's and other expeditions and other historical records both before and after we know that arctic ice has been at much lower levels than the “record” set last year.
   
   It is very possible that despite the global cooling trend that satellite data has confirmed over the last several years that arctic sea ice could reach lower levels. It is well known and an irrefutable fact that the recent decline in arctic ice has had almost nothing to do with the temperature of the planet and everything to do with changing ocean current and wind patterns.
   
   It has been predicted many times in the past century that all arctic sea ice would melt.
   
   This is a link to an article from 1922 that appeared in the Washington Post:
   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
   
   This is a link to a 1933 report from the US Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C.,
   http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf
   
   This is a link to a 1969 New York Times article:
   http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NYT.gif
   
   Please see the article seen at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/20/deja-vu-all-over-again-climate-worries-today-also-happened-in-the-20s-and-30s/
   
   Worries about climate change have been part of the human experience since the beginning of civilization. At least we are not still sacrificing animals and humans to appease the Sun God.
   
   The biggest joke here however is the reference to “starving polar bears”. Polar bears have been thriving over the past several decades. Their numbers have dramatically increased during that time. We know from arctic paleontologists that polar bears have survived through several periods when arctic sea ice completely disappeared.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. DJM 12:01 AM 11/29/09

   Well, here we are just one year later and um, well. Guess what? The sea ice is recovering just fine thank you. As for the notion that there has never been an open ocean in the Arctic during human time? I think the Vikings would disagree!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. DJM 12:07 AM 11/29/09

    "It's way past time that we got past the lunatic notion that concern about climate change and the environment is somehow "liberal" or left wing."
    
    Um sure!
    
    Now as to that sea ice thingie. Here we are a little over one year later and unless a volcano erupts soon to offer some cover (literally) for the AGW scientists, they are going to be scratching their models and putting in new and improved "data" because the sea ice extent change from last year will be pretty significant.
    
    If a tree is cut down in the forest for a global warming study does anyone hear it? Oh and does the cutting factor into AGW?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this