Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low
Extraordinary melting of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has shattered the all-time low sea ice extent record set in September 2007, and sea ice continues to decline far below what has ever been observed. The new sea ice record was set on August 26, a full three weeks before the usual end of the melting season, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Every major scientific institution that tracks Arctic sea ice agrees that new records for low ice area, extent, and volume have been set. These organizations include the University of Washington Polar Science Center (a new record for low ice volume), the Nansen Environmental & Remote Sensing Center in Norway, and the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. A comprehensive collection of sea ice graphs shows the full story. Satellite records of sea ice extent date back to 1979, though a 2011 study by Kinnard et al. shows that the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years (see a more detailed article on this over at skepticalscience.com.) The latest September 5, 2012 extent of 3.5 million square kilometers is approximately a 50% reduction in the area of Arctic covered by sea ice, compared to the average from 1979 - 2000. The ice continues to melt, and has not reached the low for this year yet.
Figure 1. A sunny, slushy day at the North Pole on September 1, 2012. Webcam image courtesy of the North Pole Environmental Observatory.
Figure 2. Sea ice extent on September 5, 2012, showed that half of the polar ice cap was missing, compared to the average from 1979 - 2000. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Why the Arctic sea ice is important
Arctic sea ice is an important component of the global climate system. The polar ice caps help to regulate global temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. White snow and ice at the poles reflects sunlight, but dark ocean absorbs it. Replacing bright sea ice with dark ocean is a recipe for more and faster global warming. The Autumn air temperature over the Arctic has increased by 4 - 6°F in the past decade, and we could already be seeing the impacts of this warming in the mid-latitudes, by an increase in extreme weather events. Another non-trivial impact of the absence of sea ice is increased melting in Greenland. We already saw an unprecedented melting event in Greenland this year, and as warming continues, the likelihood of these events increase.
Figure 3. August set a new record for lowest Arctic sea ice extent. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Figure 4. Arctic sea ice death spiral as plotted by Jim Pettit using data from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.
Huge storm pummels Alaska
A massive low pressure system with a central pressure of 970 mb swept through Alaska on Tuesday, generating hurricane-force wind gusts near Anchorage, Alaska that knocked out power to 55,000 homes. Mighty Alaskan storms like this are common in winter, but rare in summer and early fall. The National Weather Service in Anchorage said in their Wednesday forecast discussion that the forecast wind speeds from this storm were incredibly strong for this time of year--four to six standard anomalies above normal. A four-standard anomaly event occurs once every 43 years, and a five-standard anomaly event is a 1-in-4800 year event. However, a meteorologist I heard from who lives in the Anchorage area characterized the wind damage that actually occurred as a 1-in-10 year event. A few maximum wind gusts recorded on Tuesday during the storm:
McHugh Creek (Turnagain Arm)... ... ..88 mph
Paradise Valley (Potter Marsh)... ... 75 mph
Upper Hillside (1400 ft)... ... ... ... 70 mph
Anchorage port... ... ... ... ... ... ... .63 mph
The storm has weakened to a central pressure of 988 mb today, and is located just north of Alaska. The storm is predicted to bring strong winds of 25 - 35 mph and large waves to the edge of the record-thin and record-small Arctic ice cap, and may add to the unprecedented decline in Arctic sea ice being observed this summer.
Figure 5. An unusually strong storm formed off the coast of Alaska on August 5 and tracked into the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it slowly dissipated over the next several days. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA's Aqua satellite captured this natural-color mosaic image on Aug. 6, 2012. The center of the storm at that date was located in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. Image credit: NASA.
Arctic storms may be increasing due to climate change
This week's Alaskan storm is the second unusually strong low pressure system to affect the Arctic in the past month. On August 4 - 8, a mighty storm with a central pressure of 963 mb raged through the Arctic, bringing strong winds that helped scatter and break up Arctic sea ice. According to a detailed post at NASA Earth Observatory, that storm was in the top 3 percent for strongest storms ever recorded north of 70 degrees latitude. A study of long-term Arctic cyclone trends authored by a team led by John Walsh and Xiangdong Zhang of the University of Alaska Fairbanks found that number and intensity of Arctic cyclones has increased during the second half of the twentieth century, particularly during the summer. Dr. Zhang explained that climate change has caused sea ice to retreat markedly in recent decades and has also warmed Arctic Ocean temperatures. Such changes may be providing more energy and moisture to support cyclone development and persistence. The strong storms of this week and a month ago would have had far less impact on the ice just a decade ago, when the sea ice was much thicker and more extensive.
A sea ice decline double-whammy
The monster Arctic storms like we've seen this year have sped up the rate of sea ice loss, but increased water temperatures and air temperatures due to human-caused global warming are the dominant reasons for the record melting of the Arctic sea ice. A July 2012 study by Day et al. found that the most influential of the possible natural influences on sea ice loss was the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO has two phases, negative (cold) and positive (warm), which impact Arctic sea ice. The negative phase tends to create sea surface temperatures in the far north Atlantic that are colder than average. In this study, the AMO only accounted for 5% - 31% of the observed September sea ice decline since 1979. The scientists concluded that given the lack of evidence that natural forces were controlling sea ice fluctuations, the majority of sea ice decline we've seen during the 1953 - 2010 period was due to human causes.
Joe Romm has a more in-depth look at the new Arctic sea ice record and what it means for the future over at climateprogess.org.
Angela Fritz and Jeff Masters
Beautiful orographic formations over the mountains on a windy evening.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 — Blog Index
Quit pushing the fallacy that global warming is only based on 33 years of satellite data.
Now. we have started this feedback loop all by ourselves, so we are sending our climate into a different stable state, like throwing a switch.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperat ure.htm
(If you want real and unbiased science, go to real and unbiased scientists, not websites with an admitted bias, such as ones with the tagline "Our stringy universe from a conservative viewpoint")
Free to bash both parties huh??..yeah thanks but no thanks..
Angela giving the ok to talk politics here is like leaving an unattended box of krispy kreme donuts at Gold's Gym..you guys can have it..it will be nothing but bickering and vicious attacks on both sides
I'm referring to steering if there is a lower latitude wave that what models are calling for. Of course if they spin up to TS strength way east, they are going to recurve on Coriolis effect regardless. Models had Isaac recurving out to sea early on if you recall. I'm just looking for *persistent* troughiness over the US east coast and am not seeing it, but instead see high pressure setting up.
And with a 30% wind threat.
Looks like all the global models develop it..another one to add to the total
The big Arctic storm could push the sea ice extent down around or perhaps below 2 million square kilometers, a truly remarkable feat.
So what, we ignore it? Saying humans are the cause is valid as currently it is the only thing that explains the increase in temperature. When something else gives us a stronger statistical correlation, we can modify our hypothesis. This is how science works.
Yes it does. However what is happening now is outside of "the cycle". The Earth is accumulating excess energy, and the only appreciable global scale change that has occurred to influence this are the global impacts from human activity.
Basic thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry.
What he said was true.
Most larger land mammals do very poorly in high temperatures, while reptilians do very well and have their growth and reproductive rates accelerated.
Acidification of the Ocean should begin killing many types organisms with exoskeletons (from the microscopic to macroscopic,) within 20 to 30 years. The primary causes of this acidification are man-made Carbon Dioxide and man-made Sulfur compounds.
Not really. It didn't happen that way. There were some good discussions that were mostly all on topic.
Dr. Masters was right about Isaac tar-balls. Just don't know for certain if the source is the BP spill or the extent.
This excerpt was something, he didn't predict, and likely neither did anyone else: "...Hurricane Isaac washed ashore tens of thousands of dead "swamp rats" in the Gulf."
Tar Balls, Oily Pelicans Found in Isaac's Wake
UPDATE: Some sources are confirming that at least some of the tar-balls are from the BP spill. BP themselves are researching the issue currently.
Sorry to be a little off topic but the Climate Change/Global Warming debate is often more political/economical than scientific, and is professed with almost religious fervor by both sides.
I did/do. I'm very data-driven. Show me the data that says that the global climate isn't being driven to higher average temperatures due to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, largely due to anthropogenic causes.
Here's what we already know from the data that's already been collected:
It's not due to rates of volcanism.
It's not due to changes in the Earth's orbit.
It's not due to variations in solar output.
It's not due to bad placement of thermometers.
It's not due to a handful of scientists pushing some agenda to get research funding.
So what's the alternative?
Yes, fallacy. Let me retype it for you. Global warming is not based on only 33 years of satellite data. We use a cumulative data set that includes records that go far back beyond 33 years of satellite data. Sea ice is not the only measurement we use.
I was on last night and I saw bashing of President Obama..
Im out guys..I got a paycheck to earn..
Talking about both parties and elections are not hand on hand with Global Warming.
Move from the coasts, as those areas have the greatest risks.
So what, we ignore it? Saying humans are the cause is valid as currently it is the only thing that explains the increase in temperature. When something else gives us a stronger statistical correlation, we can modify our hypothesis. This is how science works.
So since we have no proof, just blame humans, eh? Doing that is like investigating a crime, say a robbery, and not knowing what exactly happened. However, since there was a teen at the site when the the police arrived, they blame it on him.
Yeah, but we've had world-wide reliable weather stations for over 120 years, and reliable local weather in some locations for nearly 200 years.
Then you have proxy data like historical anecdotes, ship reports, and captains logs from the age of exploration and colonial era.
Please point me to the science claiming that man-made acidification will kill many types of sea life in 20 to 30 years. I have to see that one myself. 3/4 of the earth is deep ocean, enriched with basic salts and minerals that you say will lose the ability to buffer the pH of ocean water solely due to man's emission's of sulfur dioxide and CO2. That seems like BS.
GW and politics be leve it or not do play a roll here. On tv I here them at the whit house talking about GW. Some times
I don't know Nea, but my 3 acres serves my family quite well!! ;)
Also on a side note these things here are pretty sweet... Definitely wouldn't mind one!
Earthships
----
The earth warming is not just about AGW. Yes, everyone wants to politicize it, but by politicizing it, you basically invalidate any arguments you have - either way.
Lets state a few facts (I define "facts" as something that is stated as truth, and not disproven in an equally rigorous manner)
1. Arctic ice is at its lowest point since 1979.
2. CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas, along with methane.
3. CO2 is at its highest point in several hundred years (if not more) based on scientific measurements from several locations.
4. The burning of fossil fuels creates CO2 as a chemical result of combustion.
I challenge each and every one of you to disprove these 4 facts with the same weight of evidence that has been collected to prove them.
What is missing in there? Well, a lot. there is no direct connection between man and increased CO2. Conjecture, yes. But no die-hard direct link. Also, in logical terms, the lack of a direct link based on current evidence does not disprove the lack of *any* link. For an analogy, when a car stalls on the freeway and is pulled to the shoulder, traffic tends to back up. While the stall itself does not block a freeway lane, traffic backs up. One could say that the stall did not directly cause the traffic, since there is no physical impediment to cars moving on the freeway.
So what the heck am I trying to say?
Blasting scientists, personal agendas, the individuals spreading information, and science itself is the definition of a "straw man" argument. You are detracting from the issue, in an effort to ignore the situation. Most level-headed people aren't really on board with man being the sole cause of global warming and Arctic ice melt. Many climate scientists know that there are factors in play (even if we can't identify them directly) causing warming and ice melt.
But at the same time, we realize that we have a part to play. Even if that part is tiny, it is something we control. We can't burn hydrocarbons like they are going out of style, and just hope some economically viable alternative materializes out of nowhere before we run out of fossil fuels. We control our future, and the debate about global warming is just a proxy for the debate about the continued use of, and government subsidies for the use of fossil fuels.
The debate should be about our future. Not your future. Not my future. Our society's future. Do we want our children's children to live in a world where plastics are a novelty? Where wars are fought over fuel supplies (wait, we're already doing that)? Where there is still rampant pollution in the air shortening our lives? I don't. Do you?
Ok... so I really didn't answer the question of what I'm getting at...
We need to live sustainably. We need to conserve what we can, reuse where possible, recycle as much as possible, and find more sustainable ways to live. I'm not saying we should shun all trappings of modern society and live in a cave. I'm saying that instead of buying that bottle of water and throwing it away once you drain it in 15 seconds, refill it (or recycle it). Don't turn all the lights on in your house at once to find your keys... turn on only the lights where you currently are, then turn them off when you leave. Don't leave the water running when you brush your teeth - the 0.2 calories burned to turn the faucet back on won't kill you - it may burn off part of the super-mega-triple burger that you ate for lunch with your diet drink.
As a society, we waste a lot. We discard much that is useful, and then whine about not having enough. We are greedy, and selfish, but press others for responsibility and accountability. There is a saying, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Maybe we should take our own advice?
Why not? Sun's getting hotter as it cycles towards it's death soon.
The part about a vast majority of sea life being in the top 100m of ocean.
Soon = 4 billion years, give or take a few hundred millenia.
Anyways, I'm out... I've had enough GW talk, I don't find it very enjoyable. True, live weather is more interesting.
Well, there are people in here (very few) that are Christian Conservative like me who believes in Global Warming, but is not caused by man. Scientists have proven that GW is real, but I believe it is an aging/natural issue as the world gets older in time. If you think this is bad, read the book of Revelations, the world is going to get worse in time (if you believe in the word of God)
If it developps...it will go out to sea....not to change!!!
Wrong.
From the Skeptical Science website:
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
"Disingenious questions will go unanswered."
Who is the oil company shill? Not me. I was in grade school in the 1970s. Science was my favorite subject, and the basis of my 25 year career as a computer engineer. I remember the 'ice age' predictions well from that time. I would suspect there is a lot of paper shreading going on now to cover that up, but those of us in public school still remember what we were told about the coming ice age and what we read in publications.
Right. But your entire argument can be simplified in a single analogy. "Because I've only been alive for 32 years (in my case), Pearl Harbor was never attacked in 1941, the Revolutionary war never happened, millions didn't die to Bubonic Plague in the 1400s, and dinosaurs never roamed the earth." Just because we didn't have satellites in 1850, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Thank you. :)
Viewing: 701 - 751
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 — Blog Index