Vast Expanses of Arctic Ice Melt in Summer

Scientists Watch for Possible Record Low of Polar Ice Cap

(AP)  The Arctic Ocean has given up tens of thousands more square miles of ice on Sunday in a relentless summer of melt, with scientists watching through satellite eyes for a possible record low polar ice cap.

From the barren Arctic shore of this village in Canada's far northwest, 1,500 miles north of Seattle, veteran observer Eddie Gruben has seen the summer ice retreating more each decade as the world has warmed. By this weekend the ice edge lay some 80 miles at sea.

"Forty years ago, it was 40 miles out," said Gruben, 89, patriarch of a local contracting business.

Global average temperatures rose 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Arctic temperatures rose twice as much or even faster, almost certainly in good part because of manmade greenhouse gases, researchers say.

In late July the mercury soared to almost 86 degrees Fahrenheit in this settlement of 900 Inuvialuit, the name for western Arctic Eskimos.

"The water was really warm," Gruben said. "The kids were swimming in the ocean."

As of Thursday, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported, the polar ice cap extended over 2.61 million square miles after having shrunk an average 41,000 square miles a day in July - equivalent to one Indiana or three Belgiums daily.

The rate of melt was similar to that of July 2007, the year when the ice cap dwindled to a record low minimum extent of 1.7 million square miles in September.

In its latest analysis, the Colorado-based NSIDC said Arctic atmospheric conditions this summer have been similar to those of the summer of 2007, including a high-pressure ridge that produced clear skies and strong melt in the Beaufort Sea, the arm of the Arctic Ocean off northern Alaska and northwestern Canada.

In July, "we saw acceleration in loss of ice," the U.S. center's Walt Meier told The Associated Press. In recent days the pace has slowed, making a record-breaking final minimum "less likely but still possible," he said.

Scientists say the makeup of the frozen polar sea has shifted significantly the past few years, as thick multiyear ice has given way as the Arctic's dominant form to thin ice that comes and goes with each winter and summer.

The past few years have "signaled a fundamental change in the character of the ice and the Arctic climate," Meier said.

Ironically, the summer melts since 2007 appear to have allowed disintegrating but still thick multiyear ice to drift this year into the relatively narrow channels of the Northwest Passage, the east-west water route through Canada's Arctic islands. Usually impassable channels had been relatively ice-free the past two summers.

"We need some warm temperatures with easterly or southeasterly winds to break up and move this ice to the north," Mark Schrader, skipper of the sailboat "Ocean Watch," e-mailed The Associated Press from the west entrance to the passage.

The steel-hulled sailboat, with scientists joining it at stops along the way, is on a 25,000-mile, foundation-financed circumnavigation of the Americas, to view and demonstrate the impact of climate change on the continents' environments.

Environmentalists worry, for example, that the ice-dependent polar bear will struggle to survive as the Arctic cap melts. Schrader reported seeing only one bear, an animal chased from the Arctic shore of Barrow, Alaska, that "swam close to Ocean Watch on its way out to sea."

Observation satellites' remote sensors will tell researchers in September whether the polar cap diminished this summer to its smallest size on record. Then the sun will begin to slip below the horizon for several months, and temperatures plunging in the polar darkness will freeze the surface of the sea again, leaving this and other Arctic coastlines in the grip of ice. Most of the sea ice will be new, thinner and weaker annual formations, however.

At a global conference last March in Copenhagen, scientists declared that climate change is occurring faster than had been anticipated, citing the fast-dying Arctic cap as one example. A month later, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted Arctic summers could be almost ice-free within 30 years, not at the century's end as earlier predicted.

[Professor_Mandia]

<a href="http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/" title="Global Warming: Man or Myth - The Science of

Climate Change">Global Warming: Man or Myth - The Science of Climate Change</a>

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority
of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is
unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little
serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still
think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role
that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above
summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their
overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by
climate change skeptics and denialists.

The only plausible explanation is that today's warming is primarily due to
human activities. The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account
for this warming. There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming.
There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed
modern climate change. People that claim there is no warming or that the
warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate
hypotheses. Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood
up to scientific scrutiny.

Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel
it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter.
Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is
discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is
easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media.
Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute
that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations
are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others
that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

It is fine to be skeptical, but it is never fine to be a denialist. A
skeptic is willing to hear both sides and is honest with his assessment of
the information. A denialist blindly accepts everything that supports his
opinion and immediately discards everything that does not. Carefully read
my Global Warming site with an honest, open mind. Then weigh what I am
discussing with what you have heard and where/who you have heard it from.

[troutfishyman]

NEWCO123


LOL!

Why are you talking about solutions? After all, according to you, there is no problem. AGW does not exist .... right?

You are right about one thing though. There is no "middle ground". This is a thoroughly examined subject - the science is settled on what is happening and why. The ONLY unsettled questions are a) how bad will it be, and b) what we should do about it.

[troutfishyman]

by NEWCO123 August 10, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
Questionews

Thanks, ole trout fisher and I go way back. He use to present evidence so we could have a civil debate but now just attacks people.


It is not an "attack" to point out what a fool you are. Merely stating the obvious, like the increasing temperature, increasing acidity of our oceans, declining ice levels, etc. There is no point in debating the actual facts with you. The debate is over.

You see, the discussion has already moved past "what if" and is at the "what now" stage. And people like you are totally clueless about that. It must be kinda like back in the day when 99% of the population finally understood the earth was not flat. But of course there was the knucklehead 1% who were sure it was not so. Some things never change.

[AK-47_Justice]

NEWCO123
The New York Times' remarkable front page article on July 31, 2009 titled "In New York, It's the Summer That Isn't"
**********************************


Yeah...yeah...yeah....just more "weather-related" propaganda, since it appears that the DOG DAYS of summer are just hitting NYC today!

You're just wasting everyone's time here with the same fossil fuel industry propaganda and DENIALIST rants.

[AK-47_Justice]

NEWCO123
Don't you realize I'm ignoring you?
*******************************



NO, you're just ignoring scientific data and swallowing the typical propaganda spewed by the conservative stink tanks and exxon/mobil.

[AK-47_Justice]

The hard facts simply show you following the pied piper of exxon/mobil and the fossil fuel industry into submission as a juvenile anarchist.

[AK-47_Justice]

by NEWCO123
"Coolest July on record......"
***********************


Sorry, but your regional warming/cooling statistics is weather and hardly CLIMATOLOGY, since that is showing WORLDWIDE warming being accelerated by 7 billion people on the planet all needing more fossil fuel burning as can be seen by exxon/mobil record profits!

Regional weather is not climatology, but your handlers on the hannity/beck/rush network sure have you trained in DENIAL.

[Questionews]

Oil & petroleum have a finite supply & the increase in demand can be forecast quite easily. There ain't enough & according to many sources (one being Scientific American) the world has already passed the point of peak oil production. The vast majority of countries have keyed in on petroleum as a power source & those countries have spent considerable wealth on infrastructure the revolves petroleum, so resistance to phasing out petroleum & oil as a power source will be considerable. The status quo is very hard to change. About the only way to get people to change their acceptance of the status quo is to introduce a theory that threatens with harm. This is where the climate change may come into play. Most fully realize that petroleum production is in decline while demand is increasing & that an overnight conversion to alternative energy would be devastating to an economy & create widespread hardship. The transition is necessary & the threat of climate change could be enough to get a portion of the population to begin the transition. Whether climate change is man made or a natural oscillation of solar radiation is something won't be known conclusively for quite awhile. (Could it be a convenient & convincing coincidence?) Is the theory of MMGW just a mechanism to influence a population to change their habits & condition them to a new energy reality?? Because in the end- Drill, Drill, Drill is only going to last us for so long.

[AK-47_Justice]

NEWCO123
"You might find this surprising, but I'm all for alternative energy."
**************************************


Surprising isn't the word, since that is impossible to believe, especially after you rant about an idiotic 3,000 years of any fossil fuel use that would just create more warming through greenhouse gases!

[AK-47_Justice]

Questionews
"The status quo is very hard to change."
*******************************


This is exactly true, and can also be seen in our needed health care reform that the vast majority sees as a for-profit system completely out-of-control.

Why is it always the rabid rightwads that fight for keeping the broken status quo, just like supporting both the for-profit insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry while neither one is sustainable?

[troutfishyman]

by NEWCO123 August 10, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
Well foolish me, LOL.


Exactly. Foolish you.

There are extensive scientific studies in support, and the empirical evidence increases every year. You could try reading some of those studies, or getting off your couch and visiting Glacier National Park for example. No, guess that might make your tiny head explode.

[AK-47_Justice]

That one is certainly foolish, and has swallowed the fossil fuel industry propaganda, hook, line and sinker along with the Kool-aid.

[Questionews]

troutfishyman

I think he was just asking for the information in which you base your argument. (Yeah, a bit snarky, but who on this board isn't?) You could have just posted a link to www.Algore.com & that would have been enough.
There's alot of conflicting data out there that can be referenced to support whatever side of the issue that you are on. At one time I was fully on board with MMGW, but in resent years there have been an ever increasing number of scientists that have provided legitimate evidence to the contrary. One thing that most scientists will agree on is that the climate model that they have been basing their theories on has changed several times in the last decade as have many of their former conclusions. I'll continue to keep an open mind & listen to all sides & make up my own mind. (Radical concept I know, but it has served me well so far.)

[troutfishyman]

The evidence is overwhelming that global warming is occurring, and will have negative consequences for most life upon this planet. Only a great fool would continue to deny the reality.

[AK-47_Justice]

"Or are you just another hippy dippy weatherman?"
************************


NICE! That certainly makes you look 'scientific.'........NOT!

I guess you just have your 'normal' ailes/murdoch republican't network of DENIALIST propaganda, when the rest of us thinking Americans can watch other channels like National Geographic, History, Science, etc...and see REAL scientists showing videos of the accelerated warming worldwide.........but I'm sure the bozos still think that is Al Gore trick photography.

YOU DENIALISTS certainly have thick skulls that intelligence cannot penetrate in your usual rants with the same funding by the API.

[lloydbest1]

Posted by AngryMobster August 9, 2009 6:10 PM EDT, by socalsage August 9, 2009 7:59 PM EDT, by cbs4111 August 9, 2009 9:31 PM EDT, by duckalou August 10, 2009 3:55 AM EDT, by NEWCO123 August 10, 2009 8:33 AM EDT and also at 8:42 EDT.

O.K. let's assume for the moment that Global Warming is just so much hot air. Let's say, for the sake of arguement, that the broad concensus of scientists who believe that the climate shifts we are experiencing are man caused have it completely wrong. Let's even go as far as to declare that all those observations are faulty and there is NO climate shift to begin with. Let's attach those tin hats firmly on our skulls and state that all the screaming about "Global Warming", "Greenhouse Effect", "Rising Sea Levels" and all the other catchwords describing this controversy are nothing more than a clever (or not-so-clever) scheme to gain money or power or whatever by those evil liberals - or whoever happens to be evil at the moment.

Let me state unequivocably what I do not necessarily believe myself:
Global Warming (Climate Change) is a fallacy, an observational artifact, even a hoax. With me so far?

Climate change - if it is happening - is only one facet of a FAR more serious issue. The REAL elephant in the boudoir is the fact there are nearly seven billion of us competing for resources that are sufficient only for a small fraction of that number.
dkhorse11 August 9, 2009 6:41 PM EDT made the ethically bankrupt suggestion of slaughtering a few billion to combat this issue, but his/her statement of the underlying problem is accurate...Not enough stuff for way too many people.
So what's this got to do with melting sea ice? Maybe nothing, we agreed that global warming isn't happening. We did NOT agree, however, that CO2 and Methane levels are static. They are rising at an increasing rate. That's indisputable. What is also indisputable is mankind's activities are responsible for the rise in both. They are rising because we are pulling and using way too much fossil fuel. They are rising because we, in the developed world, insist on maintaining our impossible-to-sustain living standards and those in the third and fourth world are ramping up their expectations of the good life. Whether this CO2 and Methane spike has anything to do with putative global warming is completely irrelevant: We need to cut back our usage of this unrenewable resource.
And it isn't just fossil fuel, either. We don't have enough arable land, timber, strategic minerals, fisheries, fresh water (in spite of all that melting), wetlands...in short we are rapidly running out of everything that makes life, or at least civilization, possible given the numbers we have now.

Bottom line........Whether Global Warming is now happening or not is irrelevant, meaningless. We need to implement those mitigation procedures suggested by the AGW people to combat climate change REGARDLESS of whether it is changing or not; REGARDLESS of whether we are warming up, cooling off or staying the same. Put bluntly, I don't give a rat's (*) WHAT the climate is doing, our society is going to have to spare the expense of damage control.

We are going to have to separate the the rise in gasses attributable to global warming from their effects and work to combat that. If we save our climate, great! If it has no effect on our climate, then so what? We've gained the benefit of slowing down our rampant resourse usage rate. We will have to simplify our living standards and your none-too-well-off-to-begin-with Jeremiah, Lloyd, is none to happy about that but given the numbers we have today, if we are to save anything for our children or theirs, we can not do otherwise.

[AK-47_Justice]

duckalou
"Please stick with the scientific facts. The Arctic ice extent has actually been increasing"
************************


Maybe in your DENIALIST delusions it is quite ducky, but those of us that rely upon scientific facts from NASA/NOAA/NSIDC and not republican't rhetoric and fox propaganda, the Arctic ice/snow is melting in record quantities and has been in the 21st century.

Puleeze stop your anal rants and show some scientific proof that refutes these graphs that even a 5th grader can understand:

www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews

[AK-47_Justice]

NEWCO123
"AHHAHAHHHAHA you mean from the same government that gave us WMD"
********************************


Nah....that was from the bushevik PNAC NEOCONS -- just more republican't DENIALISTS from an OIL-soaked dictatorship!

[ass_u_me]

Earth has been cooler, and hotter, no one disagrees. But, we got 6, 7 billion people who manipulate our environment unlike any other animal has ever done. We all know that for humans, a 72-degree room temperature is best. However, for earth's eco-system to function well and support us ("carrying capacity"), it seems like the temperature hasn't been too bad for awhile. Now look, and the temperature of earth changed real fast over the past decades (decades being minute moments on earth's time scale), many times faster than 'normal' for global temperature change. The thing seems not, "does earth's temperature change?", but, "why?", and very importantly, "at what rate?".

[Joe_NY_15]

Vast Expanses of Arctic Ice Melt in Summer

--and---

Vast Expanses of the Artic Freezes again into Ice in the Winter

This is not news..... this is the Left desperate to further their liberal agenda

[AK-47_Justice]

joey -- no agenda, just scientific fact that the planet Earth is getting warmer and warmer, and not only is the carbon dioxide level increasing, but now the methane in the permafrost is being released at unprecendented levels.

You DENIALISTS are the only ones with a hannity/beck agenda from the republican't network, and are showing your anti-scientific ignorance!

While the Arctic indeed does form ice again during the winter, there's more and more first-year ice that melts faster as warming accelerates due to the increasing population and increasing emissions!

[the74blaster]

Joe,

What do you know about the effect of mass transfer and latent heat when dealing with phase changes?

AK-47_Justice is running circles around you in regards to this debate.

[AK-47_Justice]

National Snow and Ice Data Center

We support research into our world's frozen realms: the snow, ice, glacier, frozen ground, and climate interactions that make up Earth's cryosphere. Scientific data, whether taken in the field or relayed from satellites orbiting Earth, form the foundation for the scientific research that informs the world about our planet and our climate systems.

August 4, 2009
Arctic ice melts quickly through July

Arctic sea ice extent for the month of July was the third lowest for that month in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2006. The average rate of melt in July 2009 was nearly identical to that of July 2007. A strong high-pressure system, similar to the atmospheric pattern that dominated the summer of 2007, brought warm winds and clear skies to the western Arctic, promoting ice melt.

The average pace of ice loss during July 2009 was nearly identical to that of July 2007. Ice loss sped up during the third week of July, and slowed again during the last few days of the month.

www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews

[AK-47_Justice]

"At a global conference last March in Copenhagen, scientists declared that climate change is occurring faster than had been anticipated, citing the fast-dying Arctic cap as one example. A month later, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted Arctic summers could be almost ice-free within 30 years, not at the century's end as earlier predicted."
**********************************


It just amazes me how these moronic republican'ts have a need to bypass scientific analysis of satellite images, showing exactly how fast the Arctic is melting, and that the majority of these scientists do indeed join in a consensus that mankind has helped accelerate the warming of our planet by burning fossil fuels in such huge quantities.

All these delusional DENIALISTS keep repeating is the same idiotic rants of 'global cooling' and the 'increasing sea ice,' when in reality, it is easy to see and understand that the Arctic and elsewhere like Glacier National Park are melting at unprecedented rates which are accelerating throughout the 21st century.

Get over it.....your non-scientific rhetoric funded by exxon/mobil and every conservative stink tank is just getting old and crusty!

[longtree-2009]

if it is global warming, and many argue pro or con, no one is doing anything about it. average people still fly, drive, cruise at sea needlessly. ships at sea dump waste in the ocean, think of all the cruise ships, navies of any nation. one state will have strict emissions laws while others don't. one state ships out electronics to garbage dumps out of state while another state takes it in and buries it or it is shipped to another nation that buries it. it's a huge problem but there are no global, enforceable, solutions to date.

[AK-47_Justice]

Whether or not you want to admit it, the U.S. military is the world's largest user of energy, which includes the largest user of fossil fuels.

As America continues to dump trillions upon trillions of dollars into our WAR machine of the military/industrial complex, we still use more energy than all the other militaries combined in the world! We need to set an example for once, before we expect others to do so.

The U.S. still has only 3% of the world's OIL reserves, yet uses 25% of the worldwide daily production of OIL. That's unsustainable!

[duckalou]

Please stick with the scientific facts. The Arctic ice extent has actually been increasing again since 2007 and it is also now more than 2005. Now 2009 has now got the fourth largest ice extent since 2002 and will very likely not even get close to the 2007 minimum! The self serving global warming Alarmists are full of hot air and few facts. Significant manmade global warming is a hoax since the only .6C degree global warming which has occurred in the last 100 years. This is not significant and could all be attributed to natural climate change. The earth has generally been warming up since the last ice age 20,000 years ago.

[duckalou]

Please stick with the scientific facts. The Arctic ice extent has actually been increasing again since 2007 and it is also now more than 2005. Since 2002 for this time of year 2009 has now got the fourth largest ice extent and will very, very likely not even get close to the 2007 minimum! The self serving global warming Alarmists are full of hot air and few facts.

[democracy1]

Your comments are based on what has occurred since 2002?

Not too bright, are you there, Sparky?

Let's say that the levels of 2002 were at "x" (whatever). Anything above "x" is an "improvement". But if "x" was absurdly low to begin with, that's not saying much now, is it?

Do NOT attempt to grow a brain; it is beyond your ability.

[jayteefive]

The total area covered by ice is trending down when looked at over the last 20+ years. There are some temporary increases but generally the maximum area (winter) is decreasing. I agree that the maximum area last winter and the winter before recovered to the levels seen in 2004. However, the minima reached in the Summer season in 2007 and 2008 are dramatically low. This shows up in the anomaly plots also in large negative anomalies for summer 2007 and 2008. One problem is that the new ice that reforms in the winter is now first year ice. This ice is thinner and melts faster than multi-year ice. Subsequently, while the ice coverage may recover well in the winter, the ice free areas in the summer tends to increase.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

[michaelm07]

How are ancient sea levels determined? It's with corals. They act as bathtub rings. Ancient reefs now exposed can be dated and placed in time. Sea level has been 100m higher than present, when there were no ice sheets, and about 120m lower than present during glacial periods. The whole mantle of the Earth adjusts as stresses change. The last time sea level was higher, it was 4-6 metres higher, and at that time, the arctic was 3-5 degrees hotter. 125,000 years ago, the reason was changes in the Earth's orbit. So if the same degree of warming was to occur this century, as predicted, a sea level rise of 4-6 metres would be expected. But this time, there'll be contributions from Antarctic melting as well.

[rightiswrong]

Ohh, don't worry. The ocean's just like a giant glass of coooca-cola, and the melts are just lake real big ice cubes a'meltin'.

[Joe_NY_15]

Exactly, have a coke and a smile !!

[ass_u_me]

It would work for me, however, some of us have kids that we love, and we want them to be able to live decent lives in the future.