Study: Arctic Ice Will Melt in 10 Years

(CBS/AP)  The North Pole will turn into an open sea during summer within a decade, according to data released by a team of explorers who trekked through the Arctic for three months.

CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports that the explorers walked - and swam - 280 miles across the Arctic ice of the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, drilling hundreds of ice samples as they went.

The Catlin Arctic Survey team, led by explorer Pen Hadow, measured the thickness of the ice as it sledged through the northern part of the Beaufort Sea earlier this year during their research project. Their findings show that most of the ice in the region is first-year ice that is only around six feet deep and will melt next summer. The region has traditionally contained, thicker multiyear ice which does not melt as rapidly.

"With a larger part of the region now first-year ice, it is clearly more vulnerable," said Professor Peter Wadhams, part of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge which analyzed the data. "The area is now more likely to become open water each summer, bringing forward the potential date when the summer sea ice will be completely gone."

Wadhams said Wednesday that the Catlin Arctic Survey data supports the new consensus that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within 20 years, and that much of the decrease will happen within 10 years.

Martin Sommerkorn of the World Wildlife Fund said the Arctic sea holds a central position in the earth's climate system. "Such a loss of Arctic sea ice cover has recently been assessed to set in motion powerful climate feedbacks which will have an impact far beyond the Arctic itself," he said.

He added: "This could lead to flooding affecting one-quarter of the world's population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions from massive carbon pools and extreme global weather changes."

Global warming has raised the stakes in the scramble for sovereignty in the Arctic because shrinking polar ice could someday open resource development and new shipping lanes. The rapid melting of ice has raised speculation that the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans could one day become a regular shipping lane.

The results come as negotiators prepare to meet in Copenhagen in December to draft a global climate pact.

[daffy64]

Hmm. This is good and bad for Canada. Bad that all our wildlife up north is dying from being stranded on ice flows.

Good that this so called "arctic passage" goes RIGHT THROUGH Canadian territorial waters. i guess we can charge whatever we feel like for foreign ships to use it.

That, plus the global warming will give us the USA's climate and turn the USA into Mexico.

Baked over desert, anyone?

[JakeofClubs]

These strings are hard to follow, not many people making much sense. One of the problems with this discussion is that it has become partisan. So if I say, "based on the evidence we currently have, we can't tell if there is global warming cause by humans," I am automatically lumped in with the Right-Wing that believes in Creationism. Neither is good science. Many of the things said on the global warming side are just pop science, at best. Does anyone know the warmest year on record? How about in the last 150 years when we have data? Does anyone know what the temp was 12,456 years ago?

There are methods they can use for approximating the temperature but these have uncertainty. When these numbers are used in forecasting, which it self is uncertain, the other uncertainty is compounded. All measurement has uncertainty even the data we collect today. People don't understand how much there is. It is like trying to measure a distance in a fraction of an inch with a car odometer. But as soon as I say it, I get the "84% of Scientists agree, you must believe in Creationism" argument. Well, near the turn of the 20th century, most physicists believed that they were very close to a perfect understanding the atom and that within a few years, Nuclear Physics would be complete. And I only wish I believed in Creationism so I could hope you will burn in hell for saying I believe in Creationism (and if you don't like the circular logic in that, may Ra help you). In good science, you never stop looking, you never assume you are right and you never forget you could be wrong with the next breakthrough. Amazing how few people understand that.

[jankebenzone]

by on_alert247 October 17, 2009 11:24 PM EDT
jankebenzone,

It has been funny reading your posts and then seeing the reaction of trouty and ubrew. Like yourself, I tried several times to get them to read a paper or look at a graph but I think these two aren't really concerned about what we or other scientists have to say against AGW because they've completely bought into the alarmist AGW camp
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes some people have a grasp of reality while most others are grasping for straws in the form of whatever is currently in or popular. Finding the truth about alleged global warming takes sound rational and methodical research instead of drawing hasty conclusions because of some melting ice.

[troutfishyman]

by on_alert247 October 18, 2009 12:05 AM EDT
I'm too busy counting my money from Exxon, BP and Royal Dutch Shell. Besides, I'm sure you would deny as factual any signed petitions by scientists, including some of the IPCC reviewers disagreeing against alarmist CO2 positions.



Yes, petitions such as those circulated by Inhof have already been shown as fraudulent.

Glad you conceded.

[on_alert247]

by ubrew12 October 16, 2009 12:34 PM EDT
Weather prediction (meteorology) is applied fluid dynamics. Climatology is applied thermodynamics. These REALLY ARE different fields of study; hence the fact that weather predictions are poor past 10 days has NO BEARING on climatological predictions over 100 years.

**********

Once I read this comment of yours, I LMFAO. You obviously don't know what the h*ll you are talking about. The GCM are BASED on the Navier-Stokes equations knucklehead.

[troutfishyman]

on_alert247


Here is your challenge, since you seem sure of your position:

Find a single scientific organization or agency that supports your denial position, and post that information right here. Just one will do. Not a blog by some wingnut ex-weatherman. Not a website run by a couple of dudes funded by the fossil fuel industry.


tick tock, good buddy

[on_alert247]

I'm too busy counting my money from Exxon, BP and Royal Dutch Shell. Besides, I'm sure you would deny as factual any signed petitions by scientists, including some of the IPCC reviewers disagreeing against alarmist CO2 positions.

[troutfishyman]

by on_alert247 October 17, 2009 11:24 PM EDT
jankebenzone,

You seem to have some background in science.



LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!

[on_alert247]

jankebenzone,

It has been funny reading your posts and then seeing the reaction of trouty and ubrew. Like yourself, I tried several times to get them to read a paper or look at a graph but I think these two aren't really concerned about what we or other scientists have to say against AGW because they've completely bought into the alarmist AGW camp. Some of their replies were getting personal and others were just plain weird as though they couldn't understand what either of us were trying to say. I guess you never know whether certain people have a grasp of the actual science or scientific method and they just assume anything touted as science or published in a journal is the absolute truth.

You seem to have some background in science. I don't know whether you've ever taken a look at this website: http://www.climatedata.info They have a lot of raw proxy data and have some charts created. But you can download the data yourself for study. Not all of the antarctica data is here but you can find that at NCDC.

[troutfishyman]

by jankebenzone October 17, 2009 10:28 PM EDT
by troutfishyman October 17, 2009 7:24 PM EDT
LOL, no doubt you are a fundamentalist who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible, too. How old is the earth? What happened to Noah's ark? How do you explain the fossil record? Why did the biblical flood leave no worldwide evidence in the geologic record?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well fishyman , the answers to all your questions are probably too much for you to digest in one shot and would only promote added confusion. Sort of like all the confused global warming chicken littles running around in a panic while the sly fox (govt.) will feast on their folly.
Tell you what, maybe we could address those topics in future news stories about new found evolutionary links between man and monkey, bird ,crawling fish, sea slime, rock, ect, ect. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.


All of which you will immediately label as "junk science", since it conflicts with your political and religious ideology. Gotcha.

[jankebenzone]

by troutfishyman October 17, 2009 7:24 PM EDT
LOL, no doubt you are a fundamentalist who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible, too. How old is the earth? What happened to Noah's ark? How do you explain the fossil record? Why did the biblical flood leave no worldwide evidence in the geologic record?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well fishyman , the answers to all your questions are probably too much for you to digest in one shot and would only promote added confusion. Sort of like all the confused global warming chicken littles running around in a panic while the sly fox (govt.) will feast on their folly.
Tell you what, maybe we could address those topics in future news stories about new found evolutionary links between man and monkey, bird ,crawling fish, sea slime, rock, ect, ect. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.