Despite a Slight Recovery in 2009, Arctic Sea Ice Remains on Downward Trend
07 October 2009
Despite a slight recovery in summer Arctic sea ice in 2009 from record-setting low years in 2007 and 2008, the sea ice extent remains significantly below previous years and remains on a trend leading toward ice-free Arctic summers, according to the University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. (Earlier post.)
| Multi-year Arctic sea ice changes. Credit: Courtesy C. Fowler and J. Maslanik, University of Colorado at Boulder. Click to enlarge. |
According to the CU-Boulder center, the 2009 minimum sea ice extent was the third lowest since satellite record-keeping began in 1979. The past five years have seen the five lowest Arctic sea ice extents ever recorded.
It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.
—NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, also a professor in CU-Boulder’s geography department
The average ice extent during September, a standard measurement for climate studies, was 2.07 million square miles (5.36 million square kilometers). This was 409,000 square miles (1.06 million square kilometers) greater than the record low for the month in 2007, and 266,000 square miles (690,000 square kilometers) greater than the second-lowest extent recorded in September 2008.
The 2009 Arctic sea ice extent was still 649,000 square miles (1.68 square kilometers) below the 1979-2000 September average, according to the report. Arctic sea ice in September is now declining at a rate of 11.2% per decade and in the winter months by about 3 percent per decade.
Sea surface temperatures in the Arctic this season remained higher than normal, but slightly lower than the past two years, according to data from University of Washington Senior Oceanographer Mike Steele. The cooler conditions, which resulted largely from cloudy skies during late summer, slowed ice loss compared to the past two years. In addition, atmospheric patterns in August and September helped to spread out the ice pack, keeping extent higher.
The September 2009 ice cover remained thin, leaving it vulnerable to melt in coming summers, according to the CU-Boulder report. At the end of the summer, younger, thinner ice less than one year in age accounted for 49% of the ice cover. Second-year ice made up 32% of the ice cover, compared to 21% in 2007 and 9% in 2008.
Only 19% of the ice cover was more than two years old—the least ever recorded in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 summer average of 48%, according to the CU-Boulder report. Measurements of sea ice thickness by satellites are used to determine the age of the ice.
Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 2.2 feet between 2004 and 2008.
While Arctic sea ice extent varies from year to year because of changing atmospheric conditions, ice extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past 30 years.
A lot of people are going to look at the graph of ice extent and think that we've turned the corner on climate change. But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome.
—NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos of CU-Boulder’s CIRES
Is this enough to convince the unbelievers hard core?Northern shipping lanes will open on a regular basis within one or two decades, if the trend keeps up.
Another side effect is more humidity = more rain and snow, north of the border. This is good for Hydro e-power production but repeated flooding have negative effects in some places.
All this extra fresh rain water could eventually be sold to drier hot areas south of the border. There may be new business opportunities based on reduced polar ice.
Posted by: HarveyD | 07 October 2009 at 02:06 PM
Harvey,
good for some? bit like nature indiscriminately confiscating and redistributing of common wealth and a tax rate or revauation somewhere above 50%
Posted by: arnold | 07 October 2009 at 03:39 PM
arnold:
Yes, global warming could benefit people currently living in cold areas and do the opposite to those living in already hot and dry areas and low lands.
Since fewer people presently live in cold areas, there will be more loosers than gainers. Many people may have to move north in the next century or two.
Posted by: HarveyD | 08 October 2009 at 05:56 AM
Oh dear... It seems we're always having to deliver the WHOLE story to the die-hard alarmists. Here's is NASA's own Antarctic lead author Marco Tedesco and the latest report on ice:
"Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era"
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/
Since Marco is the senior guy on Antarctic - why have we not seen a word of this in the dying main stream press? Hmmmm.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 08 October 2009 at 11:54 AM
Oh and here's comes Reel$ with the denialist speel.
What does this have to do with the Arctic ice? Well nothing. Nice try at trying to imply something especially some sort of conspiracy but of course there is no such thing.
What Reel$ doesn't say because he actually didn't read the abstract was that it was due to a conjunction of meterological events that led to this minimum.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml
"Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM (Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode) trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends."
So in other words, a temporary reprieve only.
Anyone who has read up on the Antarctic situation knows the difference between what's happening in the east and west penninsulas as a whole, and the unexpected cold due to the ozone hole.
Nice try but try reading Reel$. It would be novel. This is the reason why one shouldn't go to the denialist sites. Pure garbage. It took all of 2 clicks to see what they were selling. They don't review, they have nothing but dogmatic blinders on.
For additional reading for others actually looking from a peer reviewed site
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
Posted by: aym | 08 October 2009 at 01:00 PM
There might be benefits from arctic warming especially in Canada but the costs will be huge to change the infrastructure and to take advantage of any climatic changes.
Hard to say if it will be good for hydro. Some hydro uses pass through systems. Wouldn't help with flooding or storing water for dry spells. Know this for a lot of hydro in the Ontario hydro system for instance.
Posted by: aym | 08 October 2009 at 01:09 PM
One thing we can count on is the alarmist denial team clumping to the rescue when the truth becomes inconvenient.
What aym is desperate (and likely paid) to do is deny any mainstream science that proffers a balanced view of "global warming." You see in aym's world balance means admitting that the earth's vast climate system does not march to his and his sycophant's carefully contrived tune. So he uses his two most tired denial tactics:
1) Page 467 from Debunker's Field Manual - "When at a loss for rational reason, claim the opponent is a conspiracist."
2) Re-frame the argument by changing the subject. Focus on irrelevant minutia with grandiose authority and pray no one will notice.
What aym will never address here, or with botched tree ring studies, or minimal sea level rise, or cooling oceans, etc. etc. - is why his cabal of "peers" refuse to publish the good news.
Why is that aym?? Why doesn't the tired old media publish NASA's good news of record low ice melts? Or scientific chicanery with tree ring "studies." Or "researchers" withholding their data, or peer-reviewing their own work?
Well, because that would offer a balanced view of their precious theory - which has been falsified entirely.
Oh, I did read the abstract. Here' the part you left out:
"The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases."
All this as we near the end of the Holocene. Hmm.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 08 October 2009 at 05:40 PM
Then read it again blind man.
"Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January"
So duh yourself. Read it and weep. Stop trying to interpret the study to fit your warped views. It doesn't fit.
I don't get paid for anything. You obviously need english lessions as well as actual science lessons. If frankly, you had any science behind you that was of any integrity, I couldn't so readily and easily blow you away.
There is no mainstream science yet that you presented that supports your position. Certainly not in this case, where you have obvious read your own interpretation into what the paper originally said.
I didn't try to reframe the question. It was the arctic in the beginning. You tried vainlessly to put this into the antarctic.
As for trying to stop good news. By what? The way you're doing it? Twisting and basic falsification? You have little integrity by trying to foist this story and sticking by it. Am I surprised? No.
As for attacking your obvious linking to another denier site which you readily and obviously read as your main source shows how little you believe in actual science which requires actual reviewing.
The only so called peers reviewing their own work are the deniers. They cherry pick and present their information like you tried to do in this article then blindly use as so called proof in other articles. None of which are published except for each other. None of which has ever been used in mainstream science.
The denigration of actual peer review is without merit. It is the same structure that exists on all branches of science and no it isn't perfect but it is far better than the unsubstantiated process which deniers seem to feel it is their right to present their viewpoints.
I easily reviewed your link and found the paper it referred to. Your reference failed miserably and it and you are shown to be basically lazy and easily led. I easily broke the your reasoning chain. Congrats.
Here's in a nutshell what it said
Strong positive phases of both ENSO & SAM confirms that significant negative correlations exist between summer melting and both indices.
So 2 climatological events happened to combine to negatively effect surface melt. And it's supposed to be front page news? No. But the actual explaination is far less important to your viewpoint than the actual fact that less melting occured, even if only temporarily.
So you tried to report half the story. Bad on you but typical and typical of the sites you go to and where you seem to like where you get your views.
It is obvious that you do not serve science or use rational arguements. You certainly didn't feel the need to present the actual paper when it's conclusions didn't fit your viewpoint. Your very obvious bias is showing and very telling.
Posted by: aym | 08 October 2009 at 07:01 PM
Oh by the way,
Your so called view on the paper not making mainstream news? Me writing on some sort of team? Me especially getting paid?
The logic of the so called debunker's field manual arguements that you used is that, at it's heart, it is an irrational arguement for the allowing of any unsubstantiated charges, no matter how ridiculous or nonsensical, without proof. By allowing any statement to be made, it obfuscates the the topic.
You are implying from your writing, various unsubstantiated positions, especially why I write in this blog, to some ulterior motivation.
What is that, if not conspiracy?
You have also presented without proof some motivation to why your viewpoint on the paper hasn't made it big. I did present a reason. It wasn't news. You only had to read the abstract which Reel$ obvious hadn't and/or not well, to know that there was no story.
Reels put this red herring arguement of the antarctic into an article of the arctic.
It can easily be argued that Reel$ is the one using these same tactics. Unfortunately for him, he's just terrible at it. And obvious as heck.
Lastly, oceans are not cooling. It's called peer reviewing, not reviewing-by-no nothings and ocean level rise is on the upper end of the estimates. Chicanery? Based on the accusations of hugely biased mouth frothing deniers? No.
I have in the past, easily defended my positions but will refrain and tell people to google this site for them if they so wish to see them.
Nice try putting those other red herring accusations in and going off topic though.
As for a balanced view. The deniers have had more than a balanced share of the news. Too much in fact. The large majority of climatologists (90+%) believe in AGW and human influence. Why should minority opinions be given equal time or relevence? Science is a meritocracy. There is little merit to the denialists position. No recognized scientific org in the world doesn't support AGW. No peer reviewed level papers argue against AGW.
You want a balanced view? Present something with equal merit instead of the garbage you continuously foster, Reel$. This was just a case in point.
Posted by: aym | 08 October 2009 at 08:08 PM
aym,
"It can easily be argued that Reel$ is the one using these same tactics. Unfortunately for him, he's just terrible at it. And obvious as heck."
I guess believing in fairies is harmless fun, but most of us never did and the rest grow out of it, but not all.
Even that beleif can have negative consequences. (no offense meant to believers)
Posted by: arnold | 09 October 2009 at 01:32 AM
"When the children blind themselves who are we to offer them light?"
Let's start here: The Antarctic represents 90 percent of the Earth's ice and 80 percent of its fresh water. Which kinda makes it far more important than its tiny little cousin on the north pole.
What part of the lowest ice melt in 30 years of satellite records don't you understand? Just because you grasp wildly at one theory of WHY this is happening - does not change the fact: lowest ice melt in 30 years of satellite records. Say it to yourself a couple times to let it sink in. The brain trust at NASA actually has three theories to explain why the Antarctic ice pack has been growing (about 5% since satellite record start). Here are your NASA friends discussing it for your edification:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html
This aym, and fellow alarmists is the good news. Earth's climate varies naturally via a system of elegant complexity that no man-made computer model even begins to fathom. How could a simple machine programmed by men simulate nature's near-infinite complexity?
But in your angst filled pseudo-reality, good news should be silenced. Why? Because you thrive on negativity. You thrive on fear and alarmism as the engine for your infantile marxist reforms. Trouble is children, your negative view is out of vogue. People don't buy it. Witness the incredible disinterest in "climate change" in worldwide poll after poll.
We here in the reel world believe in transformation. But we believe it can and will be done without alarmist whimpering and tortured science. In fact it is happening. Great changes are already well under way - starting with electrification of transport. And soon - despite the efforts to prevent it, new forms of energy will be introduced. And they will benefit all mankind. This is true. This is the good news. Now, you can follow or get out of the way. You and your cabal of alarmists certainly are not leading.
That's the prize of peace.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 09 October 2009 at 08:54 AM
"How could a simple machine programmed by men simulate nature's near-infinite complexity?"
Would you describe Nature in terms of "God's creation"
But we "simple" humans, that as a legacy of our natural heritage , make sense and uderstand the physics of the world are not a valid part of that near-infinite complexity of the natural world.
Obviously we have eyes to see a fudamentalist religious perspective when we see one.
I know 'Dont feed te trolls.'
Posted by: arnold | 09 October 2009 at 01:47 PM
"Obviously we have eyes to see a fudamentalist (sic) religious perspective when we see one."
As in Gaia perspective?? The theory, notably its name and Lovelock's initial assertion that, 'the quest for Gaia is an attempt to find the largest living creature on Earth.'
"The universal growth project (or the Gaia Project) encompassing the birth and the last purification stage of the earth is a large-scale plan unprecedented even in such an infinite and vast universe." Quoted from http://www.thegaiaproject.net/info/book.php
Or is it Elmer fudamentalists you're seeing?
Posted by: Reel$$ | 09 October 2009 at 11:01 PM
Reel$$,
I do have two of Lovelocks books: the revenge of gaia and gaia. I also found a copy of one of his early works from the sixties? : the greening of mars.
The man is a good read, The latest? revenge is a bit out there but they all show a colorful imagination.
The "largest living organism" also appears in "the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy "HHGTTG" (as used on fan websites) or "H2G2" by Douglas Adams,
as the character Big Think. as the one who comes up with the answer to life the universe and everything.
We seem to be accelerating the rate of change (delta) so the delta of redundant ideas is also increasing. So there are many physiological challenges.
Lovelocks 'the greening of mars" is a child fiction along the lines of Jules Vernes.
It describes the new settlers terraforming and making the planets surface and atmosphere into a habitable.
I am not so sure that he is responsible for the gaia project, but certainly NASA and other scientists still take his terraforming ideas seriously.
Note yesterdays crash probe to the surface of the moon that will determine the future of space travel.
They need to know if they can find water to make the hydrogen rocket fuel and drinking water etc.
So the guy can write books as well as approach these matters from a science perspective. We take from his works what we choose. The laws of science are not set in stone or decreed if you can show a better way or an error you are the 'new black.'
We don't so much wonder this infinitely complex universe as we can see how civilisation and technologies move forward.
I still marvell the complex gadjet many of us drive down the road perfectly well without the slightest idea.
Mankind has accumulated developed refined and built on the past forever - alongside evolutionary selection pressures.
The real world says that that for every action there is a reaction. If we ignore what we know to be true based on the best refined knowledge tools we posses , we do so at our peril..
Posted by: arnold | 10 October 2009 at 12:45 AM
arnold:
Thank you for such a reasoned reply. Terraforming nearby planets it clearly a next step in human evolution. While I have not studied the science to do so, it occurs to me that to encourage chlorophyll-based photosynthesis, a healthy source of the plant fertilizer (CO2) would help. Mars already seems to have plenty of water. The next step might be to warm the place up. I have no idea how this is done on the scale necessary to make it habitable - unless the greenhouse effect is considered.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 10 October 2009 at 10:27 AM
And what part of strong positive phases of both ENSO & SAM confirms that significant negative correlations exist between summer melting and both indices don't you understand. It's a temporary phenomenon.
You didn't postulate the lowest measurement, you postulated a theory on why it wasn't bandied about. The study itself had a valid reason because it was temporary.
And very much like the blog that you seem to get your information, you neglicted to realize that point. Your disinformation campaign delays action but has zero credibility in the science field. Your selling garbage science and wrapping it in with your usual nonsence. No one with any intelligence is buying your stuff and eventually no one is going to be fooled just like no one is fooled by cigarette smoke which is what most of the denialist scientists did before they jumped on the anti-AGW speel.
No recognized scientific org in the world doesn't support AGW. As for the people in the world, no it's just the US which is par for the course.
Posted by: aym | 31 October 2009 at 08:54 PM