Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Study: Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Expected
WASHINGTON - Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be gone in 30 years. A new analysis of changing conditions in the region, using complex computer models of weather and climate, says conditions that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much sooner.
In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. (John McConnico / AP) A change in the amount of ice is important because the white surface reflects sunlight back into space. When ice is replaced by dark ocean water that sunlight can be absorbed, warming the water and increasing the warming of the planet.
The finding adds to concern about climate change caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, a problem that has begun receiving more attention in the Obama administration and is part of the G20 discussions under way in London.
"Due to the recent loss of sea ice, the 2005-2008 autumn central Arctic surface air temperatures were greater than 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above" what would be expected, the new study reports.
That amount of temperature increase had been expected by the year 2070.
The new report by Muyin Wang of the Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean and James E. Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, appears in Friday's edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
They expect the area covered by summer sea ice to decline from about 2.8 million square miles normally to 620,000 square miles within 30 years.
Last year's summer minimum was 1.8 million square miles in September, second lowest only to 2007 which had a minimum of 1.65 million square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The Center said Arctic sea ice reached its winter maximum for this year at 5.8 million square miles on Feb. 28. That was 278,000 square miles below the 1979-2000 average making it the fifth lowest on record. The six lowest maximums since 1979 have all occurred in the last six years.
Overland and Wang combined sea-ice observations with six complex computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reach their conclusions. Combining several computer models helps avoid uncertainties caused by natural variability.
Much of the remaining ice would be north of Canada and Greenland, with much less between Alaska and Russia in the Pacific Arctic.
"The Arctic is often called the Earth's refrigerator because the sea ice helps cool the planet by reflecting the sun's radiation back into space," Wang said in a statement. "With less ice, the sun's warmth is instead absorbed by the open water, contributing to warmer temperatures in the water and the air."
The study was supported by the NOAA Climate Change Program Office, the Institute for the Study of the Ocean and Atmosphere and the U.S. Department of Energy.
- Posted in
71 Comments so far
Show AllThe National Snow and Ice Data Center has daily updates on arctic ice. Until now, this year's melt has not been quite as bad as last years, it is again beginning to quickly melt. See:
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
In addition to NOAA and NSIDC there's the Extreme Ice Survey. If you missed their FrontLine show, check the webstie. Check the wetsite anyway.
http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Poetic justice would have the global warming deniers and causers homes flooded first. Unfortunately, the world does not work that and everybody suffers instead. What would appropriate would be reparations from polluting industries. FAT CHANCE!
Maybe they'll run down to the beach and buy a house.
And your point? Why can't this just be part of the natural ice age cycle? Google 'dynamics of ice age cycles' and see what NOAA has on this. The arctic ice melts, it is supposed to for now. What a lot of floridians and other low lying areas don't want to experience is huge parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melting or sliding off into the ocean. That would cause a real rise in sea levels.
Apparently the google doesn't get you there so here is the link:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html
You can believe NOAA or not.
The melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is covered in the Extreme Ice Project. Apparently they are melting and they are melting at rates that should be considered alamring since they're rates we've NEVER seen before.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
What's your point. You are just trying to 'show' the shrinking ice fields where the research I try to point to explains it as a reocurring event every 100,000yrs or so. Basically, a 90,000 year build of ice sheets then a 10,000 year of warming melt of that ice. The ocean levels go down as the ice builds up, the ocean levels rise when the ice melts. The ice age cycle has been repeating for millions of years and will continue for who knows how long. The greenland and antarctic ice sheets will just be a factor if and when big portions slide off the land mass in really big volumes which is very possible and probable.
The only other part of the cycle is the unpredictableness and severity of the changes. So far as I know, historical data is the only way to have determined this as recorded history of humans has not lived through the ice sheets. This era of humanity doesn't know squat about anything that isn't climit weather. Supposedly, the next ice sheets will begin to build in about 2000yrs. So, have a nice day, there are plenty more to come and enjoy.
"Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be gone in 30 years."
This statement leaves me bemused and nonplussed. All one need do is go to 'google earth' and take a look at the north pole. Do so, and then tell us all how much arctic ice you see.
Nothing to worry about, however, because the property values of those of us on high ground will rise right along with the sea level. I mean after all, isn't that what really counts the most, the parochial bottom line?
-- ekaton
Nothing to worry about ekaton? I beg to differ. If you look at the ice level of the North pole in April you will see it covered with ice. Funny that, winter is just ending up there and it's still cold enough for the ice to cover the area. But if you look at the historical data of where the ice was at this time ten, twenty or thirty years ago you'll see that there's noticably less ice now than there was then. Moreover it's not just the arctic ocean that's melting. so too is the antarctic; there's also all those glaciers on the land that are moving into the ocean. Then there's the glaciers that provide water in summer to millions in North America, they're disappearing too. If you don't have water to drink, you will die.
RE Antartica from CNN today:
[http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/03/antarctica.ice.shelf/index.html]
QUOTE
CNN) -- A large ice shelf is "imminently" close to breaking away from part of the Antarctic Peninsula, scientists said Friday.
Satellite images released by the European Space Agency on Friday show new cracks in the Wilkins Ice Shelf where it connects to Charcot Island, a piece of land considered part of the peninsula.
The cracks are quickly expanding, the ESA said.
Scientists are investigating the causes for the breakups and whether it is linked to global climate change.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf -- a large mass of floating ice -- would still be connected to Latady Island, which is also part of the peninsula, and Alexander Island, which is not, said professor David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey.
The ice shelf experienced a great amount of changes last year, the ESA said.
In February 2008, the shelf dropped 164 square miles (425 square kilometers) of ice. In May it lost a 62-square-mile chunk.
Unquote
Well, now, that's something new right there.
As if that really matters. Who cares? Obviously
not people that have nothing to eat, no shelter
and no future.
So one more time 'breaking ice news' in a world
of melting grounds and rising levels.
Go meditate. BE in the Now. Breathe. Believe in
miracles, because that's what we need. A bunch
of them.
I intend to be in the Now regardless of what happens---I could hardly BE any other time.
So the Earth's lungs (rain forests) are disappearing - can't claim that's not man made, and the Earth's refrigerator is breaking down. How's the air quality coming along? You know, that old O2 - CO2 ratio?
Five years ago they were talking about 100 or more years before the arctic ice was gone. Last year it was going to be 60 years. This year, 30 years. What's next? And after that? The fact is, we don't know what we're dealing with. Our computer models keep getting more and more complex, but they can't keep up with nature. We have unleashed a whirlwind we don't even comprehend. And we're trying to diagram it??
Years ago I had a button, until my Rottie destroyed it: "Remember, Mother Nature bats last". Damn right. We need to stop messing with studies and start dealing with the problem.
That recent meteorite near miss came from nowhere, without warning. That's all we need right now, to get slammed by a meteorite. Meanwhile, we're squabbling like a bunch of 2 year olds over our planet's nonrenewable resources when we need to be acting like grownups working together. If the rich think they can hoard the planet's diminishing resources for themselves, they don't know much about genetic contraction and extinction.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"If the rich think they can hoard the planet's diminishing resources for themselves"
The elites can't hoard anything because the people have decided to allocate the land as such: 2 bil acres of tillable land are owned by the people in 6 bil equal shares of 1/3 acre. All food, fuel and materials are produced sustainably on these 2 bil by and for the people. The remaining land (35 bil acres) is natural preserve. This is the law, and anything different amounts to a violation and will be treated as such. Any objections?
And is there a model for what happens when all ice melts and the weight of the water causes a readjustment to the planet's rotation? or am i overthinking this? Seeing the amount of natural gasses being flared (burnt off) in the process of oil extraction might lend one to believe that too might be part of the problem in the Arctic melt down. Seems to me that the continuing push for fossil fuels is the major culprit, and yet, still, they drill. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should...
You need not worry about effects on the planet's rotation, but you are right in being concerned over such drastic changes occurring in so short a time. We have no way of knowing what will happen, and since fossil fuels are finite, it is only prudent to take action now.
It may be a coincidence, but in their book "The Great Ice Age" (2000) Wilson/Drury/Chapman note the Greenland ice sheet melted 4/5 off at the top of the last interglacial maximum. Obtain and study the Gore/IPCC ice core data chart that was used as the basis of the Nobel award.
It is plausible that once we reach that point, something will re-apply snow and ice to the poles and start the temp back down. Possible kicker is that the extra GHGs we've put up will make that point less predictable.
I think it is an interesting math problem to figure the change in angular momentum/torque that must be created by a change in location of so much water mass (land borne ice only).
Not many agree, but the earth is an interconnected system not unlike our own bodies... I've had a mass shift to the middle and it affects how I rotate...
To me what happens is dependent upon how fast the ice melts at,lets just say,the Arctic that is going to destabilize the planet because the planet is more like a pear than any other shape and if you put more weight in one place or shift it suddenly it is going to readjust its equilibrium.It is just logical to me and I don't know shit about physics.Tony
You know, it just might be some intervening mechanical/geological thing that saves us from runaway warming. Say, the mechanical change of forces on the tectonic plates causes quakes, tsumanis, some volcanism or whatever and that throws enough energy and water vapor into the atmosphere that it kick starts the big storms ala Day After Tomorrow. Messy, but effective. Throws down a lot of ice and re-sequesters the methane, and saves our collective bacon.
On the chart, you can see spikes (rapid reversals) in temp and CO2 that mark ice age cycles. Interesting, no?
Experts are often crippled by the conventional wisdom they create. When their careers depend on their having been right, they can only absorb scenarios that validate those career-building assertions. . Except when it is directed at them, climate alarmists love the notion that the truths of science are so profoundly concealed that the only thing we can be sure of is that much of what we expect to happen won't come to pass. Climate study models take into account atmospheric motion and water levels, but regularly discount the chemistry and biology of the sky, soil and vegetation.
Perhaps we are rushing headlong into utopia. The purpose of projecting the future is to raise people's hopes, not to dash them on the fears of what will happen unless the people with the least access to resources concede to have even less. Since the masses of India and China and the governments that act for them aren't going down that path any longer, I'm glad that carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields.I'm glad we have carbon banks of fast growing trees which make it quite feasible to remove all carbon from the atmosphere. I find it fascinating that throughout the history of the planet, the higher the carbon dioxide levels, the more lush the vegetation grew. I'm fascinated that for most of earth's history, the Arctic has been completely free of ice. I'm wondering why we must tinker with trying to stop that reality? Oceans will rise, beach front property owners and dwellers will move. Other areas will become abundant paradises. If it happens really fast and there is major upheaval, human society may get a lot of positive change it has no motivation to create.
I'm glad that with global area warming we might now be able to, at least in theory, avert the impending ice age. Presently, any restricting of C02 immediately hurts the poor, but assuages the anxiety of the "environmentalist," who has never had to worry about where his food will come from. Not surprisingly, in Greenland where area warming is the strongest, people love it. Now they can grow their own cabbage... much to the consternation of those who dread the possibility of deserts getting hotter, which they aren't.
You may be right, but if you are not, how do we start over?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your statement or question. Please elaborate. I may be right about what? Who is the "we" you refer to, and the "what" that might need to be started over?
What: That global warming may be beneficial.
We: The people on planet earth
What: Human existence
Many people living in the coldest climes already experience the benefits of global area warming. Granted they are currently fewer in number than population clusters in tidal areas which might face terrible scenarios with rapid rising sea levels. But those worst case scenarios are just as likely to be addressed with massive relocation plans as by attempts to curtail C02, which genders no significant 3rd world cooperation, and would render their lives as an even greater, unlivable torment, anyway . If we consider that the "we" includes the several billion people who's energy allotment is increasing and will continue to do so within the framework of any projections, be they hopeful or catastrophic, then cleaning up the toxins becomes a separate issue from lowering the C02 levels. Likewise, I'm not aware of any realistic projections, scientific or theoretical, that suggest humans will C02 themselves out of existence.
I think maybe you are smarter than me, but I still think I am right.
The delusional always do.
Do you think I am delusional? It seems to me that I see things very clearly, but then the delusional always do.
He's just typing faster. Note the lack of paragraphing and the refusal to accept scientific literature except where it serves his pre-judgement. He can use a computer but Global Warming is a scam. A variation on guns are good; abortion is evil by the same crowd.
I didn't say, nor do I believe global warming is a scam. If you read my comments in this same thread (one is just two posts above yours, and the others are throughout the posts on this article) you wouldn't make such an overtly asinine assertion. Mostly I'm asking a lot of questions that you apparently don't like, not because you think I refuse to accept scientific literature, but because I bring up scientific literature and ideas for consideration that your mind is far to dull to parse.
Next, you have no idea on my opinions of guns or abortion since I haven't expressed them. But to indulge your lumping distraction, I'll digress briefly to tell you that I abhor the former and think the latter is a matter of choice. I'm not sure what crowd that makes me a part of, if any, but it does make your own prejudgment idiotic on its face.
As for your criticism of paragraphing structure in this exchange, one can only hope it points more to the pettiness of your character than to the paucity of your own ideas.
As for your speculation on my typing speed, I type with two index fingers. Since it would appear nearly impossible to overestimate your comprehension, I'll explain that those are located between the thumb and middle finger on each hand. The effort results in a typing output of about 25-30 word per minute. Unfortunately for me, this is a little less than a third of the speed of normal human conversation. Unfortunately for you, it's infinitely faster than you're able think.
As for my using a computer, yes, I am. And apparently, you manage to use one yourself. Assuming you are fairly conscientious about your energy usage, and you are sitting in a sun-drenched building, using no other appliances but the computer, the energy you just used to post your comment exceeds the energy used by most third world inhabitants in a two week period. So, unless your energy usage plan includes not only all known green sources, but all non-renewable sources as well, and those plans are already being implemented in a way that would immediately bring the energy usage levels of billions of poor people up to at least your level, then your very activity in even posting a comment is too hypocritical for further discussion.
"Likewise, I'm not aware of any realistic projections, scientific or theoretical, that suggest humans will C02 themselves out of existence."
Maybe you're not looking very hard.
I think I am, but if you have pertinent info that goes beyond the speculative horrors of methane burping and what might prevent them or cause them to happen, could you post it?
Automobiles are equipped with airbags and many other mandatory safety provisions based on "speculative horrors". So are dams, building codes, bridges and power plants designed to withstand purely speculative storms and earthquakes.
So, aren't measures to address these "speculative" catastrophic global warming concerns warranted? Except they are not so speculative, as such triggered-runaway global warming events have occurred in the geologic past.
---USAn---
I have no issue with global warming being real and the possibility it might at some stage become a runaway phenomenon of epoch proportions. But my speculations are not idle and they go back to the questions I entered in my longer post above at 11:49 a.m. What about the horrors that could occur if we do not facilitate C02 buildup, rather than curb it. What about the tremendous advantages that may never occur if we do curb it? Assuming that we really know what measures to take to prevent or create global warming or global cooling, and that is a huge assumption, which scenario do we want to engineer?
As a comparison to safety measures, do we even know if we are putting an airbag in, or taking one out? And if we can agree that we are putting one in, do the expense and effort required eliminate the ability of most living passengers to ride at all?
No need. It's ubiquitous. Just Google "global warming" and be wary of polluting industries' "studies".
Yes, need. It's not ubiquitous. I did your search. It's not even suggested in the first dozen or so entries in Google, which do include reports on global warming featured in the New York Times, the EPA reports, climatehotmap.org, globalwarming.org, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If you think you have something serious to contribute, I might try to help you make your case. But you give no indication that you are.
Jesus H. Christ!
taking the Lord's name in vain isn't the same as making a cogent reply :)
Your Invisible Man might be more concerned about what polluters and their shills are doing to his creation.
I don't see any indication he's concerned about anything. If he's not dead, and it's just a long nap, perhaps he'll make your case clear when he wakes up.
@JHC "I'm not aware of any realistic projections, scientific or theoretical, that suggest humans will C02 themselves out of existence"
here is one:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3647
quote
A temperature increase of merely a few degrees would cause these gases to volatilize and "burp" into the atmosphere, which would further raise temperatures, which would release yet more methane, heating the Earth and seas further, and so on. There's 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - enough to start this chain reaction - and the kind of warming the Arctic Council predicts is sufficient to melt the clathrates and release these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Once triggered, this cycle could result in runaway global warming the likes of which even the most pessimistic doomsayers aren't talking about.
An apocalyptic fantasy concocted by hysterical environmentalists? Unfortunately, no. Strong geologic evidence suggests something similar has happened at least twice before.
The most recent of these catastrophes occurred about 55 million years ago in what geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when methane burps caused rapid warming and massive die-offs, disrupting the climate for more than 100,000 years.
Unquote
an ole KEM PATRTIC link
complete with some supporting evidence Here:
--http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/23-0
"Many people living in the coldest climes already experience the benefits of global area warming"
Sure, poor seal hunting due to the thin ice not supporting the hunter's weight.
In keeping with your cheery outlook, the best part could be that global warming will kill 5 billion people and restore nature's balance.
or a new ice age might save it?
[Experts are often crippled by the conventional wisdom they create. When their careers depend on their having been right, they can only absorb scenarios that validate those career-building assertions.]
That depends on the 'expert', certainly all of those rightwing economic 'experts' who have been so wrong over the last few decades aren't in much danger of losing their jobs. For a scientist to be wrong isn't a career killer, usually, unless the mistake kills them...
One point you're also missing is that humans have evolved to live in a world that doesn't have the level of co2 that we're now reaching. Can we adapt to the new environment, if we can't breath? I think it's related that the rise of co2 pollution also sees a rise in the number of people who are dying of lung cancer. (but have no evidence to back that up.)
Interesting. Sadly, I know a guy at work who has had 1/3 of a lung removed due to cancer. He has never smoked; he grew up in a household of non-smokers...
I think there is a question of balance and carrying capacity regarding the carbon cycle. Can the carbon be absorbed by green plants in the same way as in the past? Or have we tipped the balance? Some big differences from the past:
* We have paved over and built on so much of the land that could have supported forests, particularly in the industrial and urban areas that need them most.
* We cut down existing forests at an alarming rate to feed our needs for fuel, furniture and construction.
* Billions of human beings have invaded temperate zones with their automobiles, aggressively heated and cooled homes. There are so many of us burning gas, oil, coal that the amounts of CO2 produced are higher.
* In some areas, clouds of industrial smoke block the sunlight, which is needed for carbon absorption by green plants.
For these and other reasons related to health, economy and peace, we need non-carbon burning sources of energy. We also need to promote voluntary family planning.
Joe
"any restricting of C02 immediately hurts the poor."
In the long run?
Regardless of climate change, things like oil and coal will exhaust themselves eventually. Wind, Solar and a plethora of other alternate energy sources will in the long run make energy less expensive, and are inevitable when facing the exhaustion of non- renewables.
A greentech boom, could have a positive effect in a short run like the computer boom of the 90s, economically, with a future savings dividend in energy costs.
Regardless what scientists say about whether putting noxious gases into the environment is detrimental (can't believe I'm actually giving that a serious argument concession), we need to get onto something to deal with the resource problem.
Why do you think that what scientists say about putting noxious gases into the environment as detrimental is a "concession?" Unless, of course, you believe scientists aren't saying it is detrimental, and the rest of your comments seem to lean away from that sentiment. Hopefully it is your phrasing and not your thinking that needs clarification.
A green technology boom needs as much support as it can get for greening the environment and greening the economy of the world. This, of course, is neither a green concession nor a green qualifier. I'm just adding it now at regular intervals for several dull-minded, self-perceived, "green" posters in this thread for whom the word "green" is the first, last and only word in their gospel.
"Immediately" is an antonym for "the long run." I agree with you that we need to get on to "something" to deal with the resource problem, and that green technology loosely defines that something. But, if you're content with immediately heaping even greater misery and devastation on several billion poor for your "long run" energy conversion then surely you must have one hell of a plan that convinces them too.
I may be wrong, but I'm not going to just assume you have clearly articulated that plan elsewhere and have received all the concessions you need from the leaders of China, India, Russia, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, and the rest of Asia, and they are all on board with whatever your plan is. But, if they are, then I'm curious as to how are you going to shut down the oil wells, nuclear plants, and the coal and natural gas mines without creating civil devastation and the human holocaust I'm guessing you do not want, and do know how to avoid? If on the other hand, some governments still have energy agendas that don't mesh with yours, does your plan give them a free hand to proceed at a rate of their own choosing in depleting non renewable resources (which will, as you say, eventually exhaust themselves anyway)? Or, do you have a deadline to stop the mining, drilling, burning and generating? What are you going to do about it if they don't or can't cooperate?
climate change is a big problem, but not an aggressive one...of greater concern to me is human behavior regarding resource depletion, species reduction, genetic alteration, and general radiation, among others not occurring to me right now...in order to have a world, you need a large variety of organisms and an ecosystem to support...passive climate change doesn't necessarily preclude those things, but many aggressive human behaviors certainly may...also, of the two, human behavior seems to be much more within the realm of human influence, even though the outlook there isn't great...
plant food, plant hemp...reduce energy use...share houses...good luck...
Might I offer a shift in perspective? What has the "industrial age of man" been other than unchecked aggression against the ecology of our home planet? Climate change is the direct result of this aggression, like a patient on life support after a thorough beating, passively dying.