Why we should be worried about Arctic ice
With Arctic sea ice falling near or just below its lowest level on record, there's more evidence than ever before that the dwindling ice cover in the Arctic is connected to manmade global warming, and that it brings potentially serious consequences for global weather patterns and wildlife.
Sea ice decline is a concern to more than just polar bears, since a white, frozen Arctic Ocean reflects huge amounts of sunlight back into space, acting as a giant natural reflector of incoming sunlight. When Arctic sea ice melts extensively, as it has this year, it opens up expansive areas of open ocean that is darker in color, and which absorb huge amounts of heat from the Sun. This in turn activates a feedback effect that can melt yet more sea ice, and may be altering global weather patterns in surprising ways.
Depending on what data you rely on, Arctic sea ice extent has either plummeted to its lowest level on record or the second-lowest level seen since the beginning of satellite monitoring in 1979. Regardless of whether a new record is set during the 2011 melt season, the long-term decline in Arctic sea ice cover is clearly continuing. A recent study by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that manmade global warming is responsible for about half of the decline in Arctic sea ice from 1979 to 2005, with natural climate variability accounting for the rest.
Including this melt season, the five lowest sea ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the past five years, according to Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.
A research group at the University of Bremen in Germany reported late last week that the sea ice cover had in fact set a new record low, breaking the benchmark set in 2007, when the Northwest Passage was open for the first time in human history. As the Bremen group stated in a press release, "It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming..." According to the NSIDC, Arctic sea ice extent is not likely to eclipse the record low, which occurred in 2007, but it has come remarkably close.
According to Serreze, the steep sea ice decline seen this year is an indication that warming air and sea temperatures have primed the system in favour of more extreme melt seasons. Unlike in 2007, this summer did not see the sustained return of weather conditions that would have favored major ice loss. In 2007, it was unusually sunny and mild throughout much of the Arctic, and a unique atmospheric circulation pattern was in place that caused winds to funnel older, thicker sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean and into the North Atlantic. The winds, in effect, flushed the Far North of older and thicker sea ice cover, which was more resistant to melting, leaving thinner and therefore more vulnerable sea ice in its place.
Serreze called the weather setup in 2007 "nearly perfect" for melting sea ice. By comparison, he says, this season was "nothing to write home about."
So if weather conditions weren't aligned in favor of a major melt season, why did sea ice decline so much this year?
Serreze says the key lies in the long-term thinning of the sea ice cover that is "just starting to catch up with us." Studies show that the sea ice in the Arctic has become progressively thinner during the past three decades, and thinner sea ice is more vulnerable to melting from warming sea and air temperatures. With a relatively thin sea ice cover going into this year's melt season, it didn't require unique weather patterns to result in a big melt.
One indication of the thinner sea ice cover is the fact that this year also set a new record for low sea ice volume, which is a combined measurement of sea ice extent and thickness. A group at the University of Washington's Applied Physics Lab uses a computer model known as PIOMAS to estimate sea ice volume, and their information shows that a new record was set this past August, beating the old record established only last year. The University of Washington (UW) estimates August sea ice volume was 62 percent below the 1979-2010 average.
Clearer consequences of sea ice loss
The decline in Arctic sea ice has important implications for human activities and wildlife not only in the vast Arctic region, but also in lower latitudes, since sea ice helps regulate the global climate and influence weather patterns. The past two winters have featured unusual weather patterns that brought very heavy snow to the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states, along with milder than normal conditions in Greenland and other parts of the Arctic, and scientists have been investigating a possible sea ice connection.
The sea ice and snow on the planet, collectively known as the cryosphere, are responsible for reflecting back to space some of the sunlight beaming down on the planet. When sea ice cover is lost, some of this reflectivity is lost as well, and the newly open ocean absorbs more heat from the sun. A study published earlier this year, based on observations of changing levels of snow and sea ice and trends in the reflectance of snow-covered regions over the past 30 years, suggests the overall loss of reflectivity from the Arctic region is more than double than what models have predicted.
Other research has linked declining Arctic sea ice cover to changes in wintertime atmospheric circulation patterns across the Northern Hemisphere. With the reduced sea ice coverage in the later summer and fall during recent years, both air and water temperatures in much of the Arctic have been unusually warm. Some scientists think this may be redirecting the flow of Arctic air down towards North America and Europe. This “Arctic paradox,” where warming in the Arctic may be accompanied by cooler than average winters on the continents, may become more common if the Arctic continues to absorb more heat.
The threat that sea ice loss poses for wildlife, such as the iconic polar bear, is well known, since certain species depend on sea ice for sustenance and shelter. During the past two years, large numbers of walruses have been observed on Alaska's rocky Arctic shoreline in late summer, having hauled themselves out of the water once sea ice cover retreated too far offshore for them to safely reach it. The U.S. Geological Survey released video footage this week of thousands of walruses that congregated in August near Point Lay, Alaska, in a repeat of a mass haulout event that occurred in the same area last year.
As the USGS explains, female Pacific walruses and their calves usually spend summers diving for feed in the waters of the Chukchi Sea, where they use sea ice cover for rest between their hunts for food. However, the loss of sea ice cover can cause them to come ashore in large numbers, which poses a danger to young walruses that can be crushed to death underneath other members of the herd.
Data Sources Account for Different Rankings
Serreze said the NSIDC's data shows the current difference between the 2011 sea ice minimum and the record year of 2007 is it too large to make up in any remaining melt days. "We are sitting at number two and I am pretty confident we're going to stay at number two," he said. Whether this season hits the record mark or not is irrelevant, he says, since studies show that sea ice decline is accelerating due in part to manmade climate change.
The Bremen group based its analysis on data from a sensor on the NASA Aqua satellite, while the NSIDC researchers rely on a satellite run by the Defense Department. According to the NSIDC, the Bremen group's data incorporates more small ice and open water features, and since the sea ice is more dispersed this year than it was in 2007, that may be contributing to their finding of a new record low. The differences between data sets are minor, however.
"While the University of Bremen and other data may show slightly different numbers, all of the data agree that Arctic sea ice is continuing its long-term decline," an NSIDC statement said.
This article was originally published on Climate Central – www.climatecentral.org. Reproduced with permission.
Comments on this article
I am researching this topic
I am researching this topic for use in a future business I am thinking about starting. Thank you for this information, it has been educational and helpful to me. orthodontist Olney MD
A little warming is a lot bad
Peter Lang asks if I believe an Australian carbon tax will affect sea levels. Thanks for the question, Peter, I'm glad that you ask; however, it's a meaningless question.
An Australian carbon tax is a necessary mechanism for transforming the Australian economy away from fossil fuel use. We know this is necessary; fossil fuel deposits will be depleted sooner rather than later, so we may as well attend to this matter now.
You ask how a 4 mm pa sea level rise can be problematic when a 2 mm pa rise isn't. Thanks for the question, Peter, I'm glad that you ask.
1. Sea level rises are cumulative; that is, this year's sea level rise is ON TOP of last year's rise, which is on top of previous years.
2. What makes you imagine that sea level rise is going to stay at only 4 mm pa? It may have been 2 mm pa 20 years ago, and 4 mm pa now. Extrapolation of your figures means it will be 8 mm pa by 2050, and 12 mm pa by 2090, to give a sea level rise by 2100 of 825 mm over 1990 sea levels. If you don't think this is a problem, you'll be investing in Tweed Coast real estate.
Having done a degree in Physical Chemistry (NOT economic geology) I've been aware of this issue since the 1970's. I don't need to listen to folk like Mr Gore and Dr Flannery.
It's about more than sea level
The Arctic melt is the canary in the coal mine.
Once we start talking about climate change we are talking changing weather patterns that make storms more intense, droughts longer and hotter and climatic conditions that will profoundly impact the food productivity of our main agricultural centres. I don't know how much you like paying $13 a kilo for bananas, but that will extend to a variety of other foodstuffs if our agricultural sectors are put under climate pressure.
Then could we talk about acidifying oceans and the consequences to our fisheries, the impacts on urban environments - the list goes on.
Climate change is even more pervasive than that carbon tax Peter is so terrified of.
Carbon price is an economic question Peter
A carbon price for Australia is a long term economic neccessity. With the rest of the world moving towards low carbpn options, high carbon exports, like coal, will no longer be in demand.
This is argued very nicely by Ben McNeil - an eocnomist and climate scientist - at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/we-cant-look-beyond-coal-without-pri... .
Peter Lang has his uses
One thing i will say for Peter's incessant ramblings; at least it provides an opportunity for those on this forum with a well developed understanding of the issues and science to hone their responses to skeptics.
I have greatly enjoyed the to and fro, probably more than the article. Thank you for those who contributed.. Even those obfuscating the facts and driving their own stubborn agenda. I'm positive you'll think I'm talking about someone else peter ;)
answer and politicisation of science
Peter,
I did seriously address your question by saying that it was not an appropriate question.
The tobacco lobby used the approach you use with your question to stifle action on acknowledging that smoking causes lung cancer; result, 1000's of people died. Trying to block action on global warming you do the same; result, billions of lives are on the line.
Of course the carbon tax isn't the solution, but it is a start in a toxic political environment. Any action helps at this stage. There isn't much time as climate effects are non-linear, but there is a chance of fixing this.
Re politicisation of climate science, same issue as above. You are using classic denier obfuscation to seek to smear and confuse.
There is NO serious criticism of the science of climate change... nothing (apart from allegations of pseudoscience to shock jocks, which don't count). There were a few loose comments in the IPCC report, a huge document assembled literally by thousands. The science stands, yet you are seeking to smear by acting as if the science is suspect. It isn't, and I stand by the scientists who you are attacking. They are not well paid, they work assiduously and they expose their work to criticism. We are lucky to have such dedicated experts and it is sad that you feel the need to denigrate them.
What is your agenda?
Will an Australian carbon tax affect sea level?
Keith Williams, you didn't answer this question. I am wondering if you will answer it honestly.
Regarding the politicisation of "Climate Science" you are not keeping up, or else you read only what supports your preconceived ideas. Are you aware of the IAC report? It was commissioned by the IPCC to check on its procedures. Here is a useful extraction of what is important:
http://tome22.info/IAC-Report/IAC-Report-Overview-Short.html
attacking scientists
Peter,
Scientists are scientists; the way they make their way in the world is to tear down existing ideas and replace them with better ones. The whole process of science is to grind things very finely and get close to the truth.
Tio argue that there has been little funding spent on checking is pure nonsense. Take for example the evidence of global temperature rise. There have been 3 major attempts to make sense of a massive amount of data and recently a 4th review of the data has been conducted. Each had their own issues about how to approach the data. All came to the same conclusion.
Since climate scientists work in Universities, Research Institutes and Met Bureaus around the world, their is a lot of overlap in their programs. Every scientist wants to change the world, be the person who made the seminal discovery, and they all are very focused on finding out why other scientists got it wrong. This is the nature of scientific progress.
Why would you think that climate scientists are any different from structural engineers who work on bridge design? ... they all deal with facts, develop theories, collect more data to test the theories and so we learn about the world we live in.
The facts stand, they are not exaggerated and the situation is very serious.
Re nuclear, think Fukushima, and why Japan and Germany are abandoning nuclear energy.
rate of sea level rise
To assume a linear rate of sea level rise in an extremely non-linear system is at best naive. As the article referenced here shows (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-corals-provide-record-of-rapid-sea-level-rise), ice sheet melts (land ice that is) can cause sea levels to rise by metres in decades. What drove these rapid changes in ice sheet melts is unclear but one thing is certain: whether you accept man-made or natural causes to global warming, rapid shifts in sea levels are not only possible, they have happened in the not so distant future.
I'll leave the estimation of costs due to such a rapid rate of sea level rise to others better qualified to handle it. However, the estimates are that these rates of sea level were in a world with an average temperature +2C from our world.
Mislead is not the word
Peter Lang your statement "Sea level has risen about 130 m in 13,000 years, or about 10 mm per year." is wrong. The sea level rose around 130m in more like 6000 years and has remained stable for the last 8000 years. During meltwater pulse 1A it rose 20 m in less than 500 years, perhaps as little as 200 years.
Wrong question
Peter,
I'm afraid you are using the typical distractions adopted by the climate denial mob. If you aren't one of them, then think hard about what you are doing.
The issue is that, just like happened with the "smoking causes cancer" denial program, anything that delays action is seized upon ... and so nothing happens.
At least the carbon tax starts to reorient everyone to pay attention to the problem. If it acts like elsewhere, it will get business to start becoming serious about the fact that we need to stop burning carbon (oil, coal, gas) and that there is a buck to be made from it.
If we don't start out on this path, the world will support a population of less than 1 billion by 2050. This is the great moral challenge that we face.
Look in the mirror and see if you want to be part of solving the problem or being the problem.
Will an Australian carbon price affect sea level?
David leComte and Keith Williams,
The real questions I suggest you should consider is this:
Will an Australian carbon price affect sea level? If so by how much. How much difference will it make to sea level in say 2050?
David leComte misleading and deceptive
David leCompte,
Your selection of times scales is an example of the selection bias that has destroyed the credibility of those arguing the orthodoxy. Sea level has risen about 130 m in 13,000 years, or about 10 mm per year. So you can get any figure you like depending where you choose your start and end points. However it is all irrelevant. The point is that the IPCC's projected 4 mm per year, +/- a little, rate of rise is negligible. It is far cheaper to adapt than try to prevent if preventions requires implementing the irrational policies that most who support the orthodoxy want - such as renewable energy and carbon taxes.
How bad is a little warming?
Keith, the problem with your argument about metres of sea level rise occurring suddenly is that the advocates of climate catastrophe have lost their credibility. You say "it is the science", I say no it isn't. It's the politics. The $100 billion of funding that has been spent with strings attached on climate science and related policies was driven by politics. The science hasn't run its course because there has been little funding spent on checking. The funding has been directed to those groups who advocate the orthodoxy. "Climate science" is science driven by politics and enourmous funding.
Tim Flannery warned of a wall water eight stories high by 2010. It hasn't happened and he's bought a house of the sea. Al Gore gave similar warnings and built a mansion on the sea.
Get over it. Global warming exaggeration and alarmism have had their day. It's time to get rational. If you want to cut CO2 emissions, then work on convincing Labor and the Greens to allow low cost nuclear power in Australia.
Peter Lang's making up stuff as he goes along
After the last ice age, sea-levels rose dramatically.
This process is complicated by the fact that land closer to the poles is also rising due to not having kilometre thick ice on top of it.
Over the last 6000 years, and up to 200 years ago, effective sea-level rise was about 0.5mm/yr. The average over the last 3000, has been only 0.1 - 0.2 mm/yr. Ie the post ice-age rise has (until 200 years ago) slowed considerably.
In the 20th century, the average sea-level rise was 1.8mm/yr, but the current 10-year rolling average is now about 3.2 +/- 0.2 mm/year.
Sea-level rise is currently much faster than it was when "cities" first started to form, and the world population of humans could be measured in millions, not billions.
It took me less than 5 minutes to find well-referenced sources for this data. Peter is not only an inventor of fiction he is lazy.
look at the science
Peter,
Point is that an event (ice free summer arctic) that was predicted to happen in 90 years is now predicted to happen within the next 5 ... and the graph of ice volume changes (in the above article) shows why.
This almost certainly means that the story about sea level rise is about to change dramatically and not in 100 years time.
Humans are supposed to be smart because they can draw conclusions and take preventative action.
What is smart about attacking people who are pointing out the facts and advocating an approach (doing nothing) that is frankly disastrous?
How bad is a little warming?
David Arthur,
Do you believe an Australian carbon tax will affect sea levels? If so by how much and by when?
Why do you beleive a 4 mm per year rise will flood the financial centres of the world when the 2 mm per year sea level has been rising for the past 200 odd years is not even noticeable?
I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence, but anyone who swallows the scaremongering of folks like Al Gore and Tim Flannery is a bit short somewhere.
Worried about the arctic
David leComte and Keith Williams you guys deserve a beer, great posts. George Papadopoulos please tell me your post is you volunteering.
Arctic sea-ice pack smaller in 1917 - what nonsense
In response to Andrew Kerber:
Roald Amundsen managed to find a way through the ice pack in the summer of 1906 in a small shallow draught herring boat. It took him three successive summers to achieve this, and in places the water depth was down to just 1 metre - hardly a practical "passage".
I can find no reference to any major "passage" in 1917.
The arctic sea-ice pack was far more advanced in this period, including 1917, than it is now.
The first boat of any size to navigate the channel, without the aid of ice-breakers was in 1984. This boat, the MS Explorer (2398 tonnes) had a thickened hull - it was specially designed for cruise work in arctic and antarctic water.
At this stage, whilst there have been many small boats and a few small cruise boats that have made it through, I do not believe that any cargo ships have made it through as yet.
Across the top of Russia though, I believe, is a different story - it is my understanding that larger and larger ships are finding passage later and later in the season.
Making up stories to support your cause is such a silly thing to do - useful maybe down at the pub, talking to the "converted", but in this forum, it is just downright silly.
Volunteers required
Population reduction? How do you achieve that? Does this require more people to kill themselves?
Arctic ice melting
Why, with all the evidence available to our political leaders and the public at large, do we not emphasise the need to REDUCE our population and find a way to cope with "reduction" instead of "growth" as an objective?
History isn't relevant
Andrew,
The past is of little consequence here. Point is that over the last 100 years we've built an economic structure that is highly dependent on current sea levels. If these rise, then the disruption and economic cost is a big deal.
To be clear it isn't so much an issue about whether the arctic is ice-free, it is about ice on land melting and raising sea levels very quickly by significant amounts (metres not centimetres). The last decade has shown how dramatically the sea ice melt has been underestimated. A key statistic is the volume of sea ice and that is decreasing dramatically ... this year will be a record low by a big margin.. things are accelerating. So whereas ice-free arctic was predicted at the end of the century, now it is in the next few years.
I suspect the same will be true of the melt from the land, and hence substantial sea level rises are heading our way.
The scientists have been wary about this because they haven't had good data on which to base predictions. Unfortunately this has led to a false sense of security on the issue of sea level rise. I expect the next IPCC report will be much more sober about what is heading our way.
Not seeking to scaremonge here, just trying to give a sense of what's going on.
Lowest level in history? NW Passage open for the first time?
Only true if history begin in 1917. We have historical records from 1917 of the Northwest Passage being open. We only have good records of sea ice level since 1977. So, the claim of the lowest level of sea ice may well be true, but 1977 is only 44 years, its way to early to call this a crisis. Since we know the Northwest Passage was open in 1917, it seems likely that the sea ice extent was at least as low in 1917. Perhaps you should try reporting real news instead of poorly researched stories like this.
What is so bad about coastal inundation?
Peter Lang asks, again and again, what is the problem with a bit of warming?
Again and again, I reply to Peter: SEA LEVEL RISE.
How much coastal real estate and infrastructure will be lost as a result of sea level rise?
I do not wish to personally insult Peter. However, his refusal to acknowledge that there is an issue about which decision-makers and planners should be concerned seems indistinguishable from willfulness.
what consequence a couple of metres of sea level rise?
Peter,
Since most financial centres of the world lie at sea level (eg London, New York, Shanghai, Sydney etc) moving the people & buildings involved with running our economies might be a tad expensive and disruptive... and that's just a start.
Record high temperatures (50C plus) have been recorded in many cities in the Northern Hemisphere this summer. Such temperatures are not consistent with happy human living, not to mention the effect on plants (ie food!!).
What a crazy thing to sit and wait for catastrophe to show we can adapt. The experts say maybe up to 1 billion humans might be able to survive adaptation, that's a massive number of people dying..... and all because ostrich-like we refuse to take action that could mitigate this.
Hiumans have not been around for 500 million years, so the nature of the earth in the past isn't relevant ... what counts is what is going to happen if we don't get our act together now.
It's called science
What is so bad about warming? To bad a slight increase in temperature threatens many species and ecosystems we rely on for a social and economic wellbeing.
What is so bad about a little warming?
This is scare mongering. What is so bad about warming?
The planet has had no ice at the poles for 80% of the past 500 million years. So it is in an unusually cold period. When the planet is warmer life thrives. When colder life struggles to survive.
During the frigid cold house phases, like today’s world, the climate oscillates between glacial and interglacial periods (currently we are in an interglacial). This is due to ice at the poles; extending and retreating ice sheets changing albedo and changing ocean currents. See IPCC AR4, WG1 figure 6 here: http://accessipcc.com/AR4-WG1-6.html#6-3-1
Our ability to adapt to sea level changes is ignored by the global warming orthodoxy. A slight increase in the rate of sea level rise will be easily dealt with.
So what is so bad about warming? Wouldn’t it be better to adapt than to impose any more economically irrational, economy damaging policies on ourselves.