Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Ice At The North Pole: Polar Scientists Reveal Dramatic New Evidence of Climate Change
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic - and worrying - examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.
Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.
This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during thesummer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeksshows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when therewas an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.
"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the NorthPole is covered with extensive first-year ice - ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze.
Each summer the sea ice melts before reforming again during the long Arctic winter but the loss of sea ice last year was so extensive that much of the Arctic Ocean became open water, with the water-ice boundary coming just 700 miles away from the North Pole.
This meant that about 70 per cent of the sea ice present this spring was single-year ice formed over last winter. Scientists predict that at least 70 per cent of this single-year ice - and perhaps all of it - will melt completely this summer, Dr Serreze said.
"Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season startedwith even more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last year's sea-ice minimum. We'll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August," he said.
Ron Lindsay, a polar scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, agreed that much now depends on what happens to the Arctic weather in terms of wind patterns and hours of sunshine. "There's a good chance that it will all melt awayat the North Pole, it's certainly feasible, but it's not guaranteed," Dr Lindsay said.
The polar regions are experiencing the most dramatic increase in average temperatures due to global warming and scientists fear that as more sea ice is lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine, said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.
"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which hasnever been experienced before. People are expecting this to continuethis year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer - it's not happened before," Professor Wadhams said.
There are other indications that the Arctic sea ice is showingsigns of breaking up. Scientists at the Nasa Goddard Space Flight Centre said that the North Water 'polynya' - an expanse of open water surrounded on all sides by ice - that normally forms near Alaska and Banks Island off the Canadian coast, is muchlarger than normal. Polynyas absorb heat from the sun and eat away at the edge of the sea ice.
Inuit natives living near Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland are also reporting thatthe sea ice there is starting to break up much earlier than normal and that they have seen wide cracks appearing in the ice where it normally remains stable. Satellite measurements collected over nearly 30 years show a significant decline in the extent of the Arctic sea ice, which has become more rapid in recent years.
© independent.co.uk

110 Comments so far
Show AllSo what does this mean in terms of rising sea levels? Millions of people live within just a few feet of sea level, so we need to take this very seriously - instead of looking at it as another "economic development" opportunity, as if any of that will matter once we're flooded from rising seas. Anyone know how much this will raise the world's oceans? If at all?
Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean
ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean
This ice is floating, so it won't rise much from the melting. However, ice is white and reflects 90% of the heat back into space, but water is dark blue and absorbs 90% of the heat from the sun (albedo effect)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
That means the oceans (and the earth) will heat up faster than before. this will start to threaten the Greenland Ice shelf and the Antartic ice shelves.
according to the USGS: if the Greenland ice shelf goes sea levels will rise about 6m or 20ft. if the antarctic ice shelves melt the rise (in addition to GreenLand) 74m or 240 ft.
http://www.smith.edu/libraries/research/class/idp108USGS_99.pdf
Got canoe?
btw, the elevation of the Zero Mile Marker on the Elipse across from the WhiteHouse in DC is 27.5ft asl.
cleanearth-
Gottagetoff... is correct - ice which is already afloat will not change sea levels once it melts. Only ice sheets located upon solid ground such as Greenland and South Pole will cause sea level rise.
I have heard that if enough people just keep repeating the chant: "this cannot be happening" ...things will be OK.
As a member of the human race, I command the ice in the north to stop melting. There, lets see, hmmmmm, I think I'll look at some porn.
With sun spots/turbulence and heat radiation at the nadir of their 11-12 cycle, global warming is temporarily mitigated.
By about 2014, all hell may start breaking loose.
~ S A N T A __ C L A U S ~
Sorry about that,
maybe you can move to Antarctica before Xmas ?
Namaste
RoR -- thank you for the important info about volcanic activity, which indicates there is something important going on other than 'global warming' on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere
Actually, this volcanic activity would be REAL 'global warming' . . . and i think it's happening in Antarctica too
this would explain why the ice is melting so fast
While the thawing Arctic Ocean will not raise ocean levels, it will create very different conditions for the coastlines of the circumpolar north, which are very vulnerable to erosion and have not been subjected to the wave action of open water for a long time . . . Greenland's melting ice WILL cause a significant rise in sea levels, as well as reroute the Gulf Stream . . .
L.M. Boyd (for those of you who remember the Trivia King) once asked "which is farther north, New York City or Rome, Italy ?" Altho i realized the answer must be Rome or there would be no purpose in asking the question, i had to look at a globe to convince myself . . . Yes, all of Europe is THAT FAR north, and it's climate has been moderated by warm ocean water for a long time, but that may change . . .
This is not just 'a canary in the coal mine'.
This is the entire Vienna Boys Choir screaming their heads off!
This is the big tipping point. No going back.
The shipping companies and oil companies will be overjoyed.
Briefly.
But as the climate changes direction on a dime, storms intensify, methane deposits erupt, and formerly fertile areas desertify, our civilization will scream to a sudden bloody halt.
Get your bug-out bags ready NOW, folks!
Gee, this news item is almost a year late in reporting an ice free North Pole: A Brit swam there last year. You can watch it on You Tube.
RoR,
Ther is deep-ocean volcanism a lot of places - the entire length of the center of the atlantic - the mid-atlantic ridge - is in continuous eruption. The heat from the volcanism, compared to other forcings has no effect on sea-surface temperature.
As the earth is flat, any extra water will just spill off the sides. Just like after the Great Flood, where do you think all that water went? This is just God's way of letting us use the oil wells in the North while He fills up the ones we're using so well in the rest of the world.
RoR says "Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean
ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean"
We better hope those volcanoes aren't related to the big ones on the west coast i.e., Mt. Shasta, Mt. Ranier WA, Mt. Hood, Mt. St. Helens, and the big one under Yellowstone. I've heard that one alone could wipe out the world if it goes off.
Maybe the ice disappearing on the north pole is an indication of the supposed pole shift in 2012?
historical satelite images of polar ice caps...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
from the above site this is a comparison of ice Sept 20 1979 to Sept 20 2007
the dark blue is open water...
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=20&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=20&sy=2007
Can't help but notice that the ScienceDaily article cited contains no information as to /when/ they think the eruptions occurred. OTOH, they certainly can't have been occurring while the scientists were up there; if they were truly as violent as described, they probably wouldn't have returned from the trip. After all, the explosions were violent enough to eject rock over an area of ten square kilometers... which is a real feat under the pressures of 4000 m of water.
You are all missing the point. Who will die with the most toys?
~ NIETZSCHE ~
Obviously Santa Claus, when he drowns …
Somebody has to get a buoy on the water at the north pole this summer and take a photograph - that photograph should be plastered everywhere and kick us all in the ass.
The amount of Co2 we humans emit annually by burning fossil fuels is equivelant to 17,000 volcanoes the size of Mt Kilauea in Hawaii. It is not volcanic activity causing the 'current' global warming. It's us humans burning fossil fuels.
It is also apparant by reading the comments already posted here, that most here do not realize just how significant and dangerous the melting Arctic ice is.
As Kathy Walter of the U of Alaska's Institute of Arctic Biology stated: "The melting Arctic's perma-frost is a __'ticking time bomb' __ a global tragedy of momental proportions is now unfolding at the top of the world and the human race is all but OBLIVIOUS to what's happening."
Those are 'HER' words, which are backed up by hundreds of other highly respected geologists and atmospheric scientists who know what they are talking about, in regads to the addition of millions of tons of methane gas suddenly releasing into our atmosphere. They have been arguing about how much time we have left to attempt to correct the problem. They obviously have erred with the wrong time frames.
Read geologist Michael J. Bentons's book, "When life Nearly Died". It describes in detail, of how "almost all life", down to the microbal level on Earth died off, when massive amounts of methane gas "burped" into the atmosphere millions of years ago. Some bacteria and deep sea life lived through it.
Methane is 25% more potent as a Greenhouse gas than Co2 is. It is perfectly normal to have up to 200 or so PPM of Co2 in our atmosphere and a small amount of methane is natural.
When either Co2 or methane are excessive, as they currently are, life as we know it is in dire danger of "obliberation" when massive tons of methane burp out as expected when the planet warms suffeciently to allow the "Ocean's methane" to burp. When that event transpires, life on Earth will cease suddenly, ____ like within hours.
The Arctic's methane burping out won't kill us, it will however create global warming on a scale which the vast majority of humanity have never imagined. Earth's ambient temperature will increase by tens of degrees. Then the Ocean's methane will release, that will be it.
You may find hundreds of articles on the subject by Googling arctic methane gas. Here is just one of those articles and it shows what is now occurring at just one of hundreds of lakes in the Arctic.
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/09/26
Most of those Arctic lakes have been ice bound for millions of years. It has always been common to have some methane seep out in some of the more southern lakes, but now they are boiling with spewing methane.
We have a very serious problem and I for one am not sure we can do anything whatsoever to correct it. We may have gone too far and time has run out on us. ___ Hope none of you have children. I don't know what to say to our grandkids, except, "I'm very sorry we screwed it up for you." I suppose we can comfort them somewhat, by explaining that some deep sea life and bacteria may survive. ___ This really sucks.
And now for the global warming denyers to post their wisdom.
If you Google Arctic methane gas you will find a hundred or more articles on the subject. Most are witten by highly qualified and respected geologists and scientists.
One article which is written by Kathy Walter of the U of Alaska Institute of Arctic Biology states:
"The melting of the Arctic's permafrost is a TICKING TIME BOMB. A global tragedy of momential proportions in now unfolding at the top of the world and the human race is all but oblivious to what is happening."
As to the volcano eruptions? The amount of fossil fuel we burn annually, is equivelant to eruptions of 17,000 volcanos the size of Hawaii's Kilauea. Earth's current global warming is caused by us.
If the Arctic does not totally melt this summer, it surely will next year. I hope none of you have children for their sake. I have no idea of what to say to my grandkids, except perhaps: "I am so sorry that we adults screwed it up for you, we had ample warning."
Now I wrote this a few minutes ago and was blocked by "Word Press". If it happens again, this will be my final post here and the global warming denyers can have their fun here at Common Dreams without any more of my interferance.
Those who seek material wealth will overcome all obstacles to achieve that wealth.
Sheets of ice are obstacles.
I ask - what is, exactly, the 'evidence of volcanic activity'?
Volcanic activity is a most convenient means of removal of such obstacles, but uncontrollable and unreliable.
Nuclear activity would be not only convenient but also more controllable and more reliable.
Those who seek to overcome all obstacles to acquire material wealth are unlikely to rely on unreliable means such as volcanic activity, are they?
I'm just sayin ...
1
So now both posts show up. This Word Press feature CD has is crap. Sorry for the double post.
Melting sea ice won't raise the sea level, but it will change the salinity levels. The fresh water dillutes the salt water. The lower the salt content, the "lighter" the water.
Our climate is driven, in part, by ocean currents that are a part of a cold-water-sinking, warm-water-rising heat transfer machine. Those currents are already being effected by the changes in salinity and that change destabilizes climate even further.
And the melting glaciers are not sea ice and when Greenland thaws out, sea levels will rise 20 feet. When the fresh water in Anarctica melts, sea levels will rise another 180 feet. ___ It's rapidly melting. Gu-by Disney World.
"Methane is 25% more potent as a Greenhouse gas than Co2 is."
KEM, that's 25 TIMES (on a per-molecule basis), not percent. Twenty-five percent difference would hardly be worth mentioning.
Kem, its even worse. According to the USGS the Antarctic ice sheets will raise the sea level by 240 ft.
I posted the link near the top.
Guess its "bend over" time all around. We are such a noble species!
Slip sliding away.
I, for one, keep waiting to hear some good news on SOMETHING, ANYTHING!!!!
Madrone,
Yeah, I was going to mention the salinity factor. It's been a while since I looked at the info on all of this, but if I recall correctly, wasnt the shutdown of the global ocean current system a major factor in the Permian dieoff?
Anyway, I am sorry but I just have to laugh when people in denial say we arent facing global catastrophe and that we are going to techno-fix our way out.
We flaunted our way of life in everyones face and now they want the same life. So, in the next 10 years, how many cars are India and China going to put on the road? I dont remember the exact figure, but it is probably at least 100 million.
If the US had had any kind of sane and intelligent leadership over the past 40 years, we could have influenced the world in a sustainable direction. Now I fear, it is too late.
Hi Brian, I understnd methane is from 23 to 30% more potent than Co2 as a Greenhouse gas. If you had one PPM of Co2 and one PPM of methane, the methane would be equivelant to 25 PPM of Co2.
Currently the Co2 in our atmosphere is 385 PPM, or 35 above the tipping point. Methane rose 6% last year, after being stable for many years. When the methane goes beserk we won't have a prayer. However we say it, the Arctic's methane is the major concern.
I mis-typed the feet there ~Gotta get off the Grid~. Sorry.
Shit, 240 feet? Well, there goes Disney Land too.
Nobody wants to hear this, especially Bush and the oil and coal men. They're like kids, who think they will live forever.
Also,
One of the main problems, IMO, is the human Ego's refusal to face the overpopulation problem.
People in affluent countries who should be aware of the population overshoot problem still rationalize the ego-NEED to reproduce, to fulfil themselves by having children despite the fact that a US child consumes 20 times as much energy and generates 20 times more pollution that an average child on this planet.
Everyone assumes that they have the right to reproduce no matter what. Does anyone here see any way to challenge this deep-seated ego-demand, and insist that people grow-up beyond it? Just imagine the uproar! Another reason why I feel it is too late.
"If you had one PPM of Co2 and one PPM of methane, the methane would be equivelant to 25 PPM of Co2."
I agree, KEM. Current methane concentration of 1.7 PPM is equivalent to 42 PPM CO2.
What you have stated above is that methane is 25 TIMES as potent per molecule as carbon dioxide, NOT 25 percent more potent.
(Or, if you prefer, methane is 2400 % more potent)
kitaj: Actually "white folk" in the the US are doing the same as their Italian and French cousins. The fertility rate is below replacement. The population is inceasing because of immigration and hispanics still have traditional large families. Of course these folks strive to become "regular" Americans - wealthy, overweight and using a disproportionate share of the world's resources. So its really the same thing. Too many people in the world, and way too many spoiled Americans.
Methane is a more potent GHG than CO2 but it doesn't last a fraction as long. A molecule of methane becomes a molecule of CO2 when its oxidized, however. So the end result is someplace between 1 and 24 times, but from a positive feedback source, it would add to what we re already making.
There was a post the other day asking about "latent heat". Water absorbs a lot of heat going from solid at 32F to liquid at 32F. That heat is now going to warm the oceans in addition to the loss of reflectivity. We really could be in bad shape.
Maybe the posts above are right and the supervolcano under Old Faithful will put us all out of our misery.
come children, little minnows
gather round my ancient feet
in your tatty fish-skin coats
give me your sharkest smiles
your salted eyes like wet beach stones
when I was little like you an old man told me
there's metal below
then dirt
then bones
Kem, I've been going to ask for some time about the 'suddenness' of the methane burp. You said there was an increase of 6% in the methane this past year which works out to nearly 1% in the last couple of months average. Is there some place to verify that figure?
.
My thinking is that this is an exponential curve kind of thing. It should be possible to predict within a few months when the massive release of methane will occur by the measurements of the increase year by year. Is there some web location that tells what the percent increase is in each of the past several years or ideally by month? By plotting that curve exponentially ..
.
Oh, and I read the number somewhere as 21 times that of CO2 but I certainly agree with you on the danger, just a slight diff on how sudden. We'll probably see increases of 1 percent a month, then 2 percent the next month then 4 percent as the exponential curve goes wild. Sound about right? There's a few months of lag time as the increase rate increases, just like the warming of the oceans only on a much faster scale of months, right? I'd expect 'foreign' science reports that the methane increased 2 percent last month. Something like that.
Are there science websites which have the actual figures?
Byron
It's too bad that the vast, frozen north is thawing and industrializing. Humans have always known that the vast, frozen north was so large it could never be populated or subdued by man.
In our psyche, the shape of the earth has always been an hourglass, not a sphere.
You cannot provide empirical data to the average human and expect a change in behavior.
Our current average human will continue to contribute to climate change and global warming until they are unable to go about their robotic preprogrammed routines. Only when an obstacle appears before them that brings about a significant emotional response, and that also does not allow them to complete their desired task, will they change only enough to continue their routine.
Even with the mounting evidence of global warming I can look outside and see 90% of the cars, pickup trucks, SUVs and Hummers stuck in traffic with only one occupant. We are seeing more changes in behavior due to gas prices than global warming. It will be this way until global warming becomes a personal problem.
Just checking to see if my new password worked-mine got changed on me somehow. Mildly annoying.
byronw:
Have a ball!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
All the data you want from all around the world.
Just returned from a 2 week trip with the family to Seattle and back (Wisconsin)in our Corolla-averaged 40mpg the entire trip. With five of us in the car, at least we weren't polluting as much as we COULD have been.
Never been out that far and found it interesting to see the wind farms in Minnesota along I 90 and then NOTHING but oil derricks (spelling?) in Wyoming. And all that wind...
byronw-the beautiful thing about methane is that it is 21 times worse than CO2 and THEN it degrades slowly (over 20 some years) into CO2.
We need to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible, in the U.S., and globally. The national network I direct, GlobalWarmingSolution.org, released its emissions reduction proposal, "Rosie Revisited: A U.S.-Led Solution to GlobalWarming", www.globalwarmingsolution.org , in July, 2007. (DVD also available) The report demonstrates the technological and economic feasibility of reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2025. In addition, the straightforward methodology we employed for the U.S. energy system could be applied in countries around the world so that these urgently needed emissions reductions are global. It is the most aggressive emissions reduction proposal of any U.S. national environmental group. Help us make it happen!
Thanks, Kitaj, for mentioning the overpopulation problem. My favorite radio talk show host agreed to discuss it on his program if I could refer him to an expert he could interview. Can anybody suggest someone?
BYRONW writes: "Are there science websites which have the actual figures?"
Try:
www.realclimate.org
There's nothing on the topic you mentioned, but if anything of significance comes up - vis-a-vis global warming - it'll be posted on realclimate.org.
It's a site set up by climate scientists, so don't expect a lot of easy to read articles. Click on "Index" and use the search box for articles of interest.
There's even an article here about this article!!!:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/#more-576
No physical precautions will work. Start (or keep) meditating. Good luck (and good-bye).
Those who want to witness the ice disappear can watch here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/index.html
But will it actually disappear?
for more info on the subject:
http://oldsecretsandlies.blogspot.com/