Study: Arctic Ice Will Melt in 10 Years

British Explorers Return from North Pole with Ice Data Suggesting it Will Soon Disappear in Summer Months

(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.

[prohb]

Well, it's nice to come back again and see all the rantings of the naysayers..same old, same old. I'll repeat what I posted in another article. Please, though, if you are one of those deniers who does not believe the earth is older than seven thousand years..go no further. And if you deny that carbon in the atmosphere has heat trapping capabilities, go no further. Anyway, during one of the previous eras of the earth (hundreds of millions of years ago)the earth was hotter and wetter with more carbon and water vapor in the atmosphere (they work sinergistically). A lot of this extra carbon was sequestered in the abundant plant life (which included the phytoplankton) at the time over millions of years falling to the bottom of the huge swamps of the era. This led to the creation of ....you guessed it....."fossil" fuels. We are now burning these fossil fuels and releasing this carbon back to the atmosphere in a mere two hundred years where it can again work synergistically with the water vapor. So we are turning the earth into a warm and wet one again. Logic works, naysayers.

[ubrew12]

Thats a good point and bears repeating. I heard one person put it this way: we are releasing in 150 years the same amount of carbon it took nature several million years to fix. What did we THINK was going to happen? Nothing?

[troutfishyman]

by jankebenzone October 17, 2009 3:54 PM EDT
by troutfishyman October 17, 2009 1:37 PM EDT
Just curious, what other "junk science" do you not believe? Let me guess:

LOL ... bet it stuns you every time your microwave heats food, huh?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess away, you're not alone in the masses who do likewise in their assumptions.
Nah, I don't need a microwave,when there's so much "hot air" coming from the global warming fanatics.



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?

[jankebenzone]

by troutfishyman October 17, 2009 1:37 PM EDT
Just curious, what other "junk science" do you not believe? Let me guess:

LOL ... bet it stuns you every time your microwave heats food, huh?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess away, you're not alone in the masses who do likewise in their assumptions.
Nah, I don't need a microwave,when there's so much "hot air" coming from the global warming fanatics.

[robham777]

What's Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.

Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.

Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

What is certainly true is that no one knows to what extent mankind effects the environment. My guess as a layman is that what scientist think they know today will be quite different from what they actually know in the next few decades. The AGW movement will ultimately increase our knowledge of the ecosystem which enables all life on the planet and therefore will be a significant turning point in our ability to foresee and adapt to future changes.

[louiville2_5]

garyl615 said: "I was at a job a couple of years ago and the subject of global warming came up and a fellow worker did not believe it."

Over two-thirds of Republicans don't believe in Global Warming. That means only 33% of Republicans believe in Global Warming. And yet 84% of American Scientists believe in Global Warming. That's of all scientists, not just climatologists. What is going on here?

If you want to know why America doesn't take AGW seriously and take action against it, its because AGW policy was being set by Republicans who, for some reason, think their opinion on what is essentially a scientific subject is MORE EDUCATED than that of American Scientists!

How this half of America got to be so egotistical is anyone's guess. But their oft-touted 'direct line to God' may have something to do with it.

========================================================================

Got a source because that information looks fabricated especially since several scientific groups have removed or reversed their belief in AGW.

Oh that's right your quote just mentions GW not AGW "84% of American Scientists believe in Global Warming" I'll bet those same believe in Global Cooling (GC) right?

A little slight of hand on your part, right? Otherwise please provide a source!

[ubrew12]

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

[robham777]

by ubrew12 . one thing that you did not mention is that 55% of democrats are opposed tho nuclear power and that 62% of republicans are in favor. Funny on this front the repulicans who do not believie in global warming agree with the 73% of scientist who think expaning nuclear power is a good idea.

[ubrew12]

robham777 said: "55% of democrats are opposed to nuclear power and... 62% of republicans are in favor...[along with] 73% of scientists"
Nuclear power is not a scientific issue. The science was worked out decades ago and many people hate it anyway. So, unlike global warming, this issue is one your 'ordinary joe' has an opinion that matters as much as a scientists. But people debate global warming. Its important to know that AMONG SCIENTISTS, this scientific issue is essentially settled. The people who want a debate are the rightwingers and their corporate sponsors.

I'm in favor of expanded nuclear power, although it still has issues (waste). I'm also amused that we would try so hard to create a sun here on earth when a much bigger one is just 6 light-minutes away. I believe the large support nuclear gets from the conservative community is because they are the most compromised by corporate propaganda. And why would the corporations seek to propagandize people about nuclear? Corporations push nuclear because nuclear has a fuel. Any energy technology which has a fuel comes with the means to enslave the rest of society by monopolizing the resource (as oil has been monopolized). Solar, Wind, Wave, OTEC, Geothermal, the tax dollars thrown at researching these technologies is a mere fraction of what we've spent on nuclear. That's because they don't have fuels that are easily monopolized.

Nuclear fusion research has been on the brink of success for 30 years. Unless fusion power can come up with some kind of fuel which can be monopolized, it'll never mature as a technology. The corporations won't let it. And so much for my anti-corporate rant!

[ubrew12]

robham777 said: "55% of democrats are opposed to nuclear power and... 62% of republicans are in favor...[along with] 73% of scientists"
Nuclear power is not a scientific issue. The science was worked out decades ago and many people hate it anyway. So, unlike global warming, this issue is one your 'ordinary joe' has an opinion that matters as much as a scientists. But people debate global warming. Its important to know that AMONG SCIENTISTS, this scientific issue is essentially settled. The people who want a debate are the rightwingers and their corporate sponsors.

I'm in favor of expanded nuclear power, although it still has issues (waste). I'm also amused that we would try so hard to create a sun here on earth when a much bigger one is just 6 light-minutes away. I believe the large support nuclear gets from the conservative community is because they are the most compromised by corporate propaganda. And why would the corporations seek to propagandize people about nuclear? Corporations push nuclear because nuclear has a fuel. Any energy technology which has a fuel comes with the means to enslave the rest of society by monopolizing the resource (as oil has been monopolized). Solar, Wind, Wave, OTEC, Geothermal, the tax dollars thrown at researching these technologies is a mere fraction of what we've spent on nuclear. That's because they don't have fuels that are easily monopolized.

Nuclear fusion research has been on the brink of success for 30 years. Unless fusion power can come up with some kind of fuel which can be monopolized, it'll never mature as a technology. The corporations won't let it. And so much for my anti-corporate rant!

[troutfishyman]

by jankebenzone October 17, 2009 1:11 PM EDT
Glad to see that there are others who are not so easily duped into sucking up the global warming junk science propaganda. Either they're very gullible as most are, or some of the posters here are involved in the political agenda to propagate the masses into believing that carbon taxes will solve the "problem".



Just curious, what other "junk science" do you not believe? Let me guess:

* evolution
* rock age-dating techniques
* an earth that is billions of years old

LOL ... bet it stuns you every time your microwave heats food, huh?

[on_alert247]

by doc_holliday76 October 17, 2009 9:41 AM EDT
Temperature record since 1880
Jul 30, 2009 ... These years could be the warmest years for the last several thousand years according to the temperature record, not just since 1880, ...Each of the last 12 years (1997-2008) was one of the warmest on record
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880


************
And 2009 is likely to be warmer than 2008, and 2010 warmer than 2009 because your looking at GISS data. The satellite data doesn't show this level of warming with consecutive record years. If you accept that it is now warmer today than over the last several thousand years, you have to explain why frozen tree trunks, cow and sheep dung, and timber for dwellings is now in permafrost.

[garyl615]

I was at a job a couple of years ago and the subject of global warming came up and a fellow worker did not believe it. So I asked "Well you don't believe the earth gets hotter, do you believe it gets colder?" I was trying to determine if he believed in the ice age but he never answered.

[ubrew12]

garyl615 said: "I was at a job a couple of years ago and the subject of global warming came up and a fellow worker did not believe it."

Over two-thirds of Republicans don't believe in Global Warming. That means only 33% of Republicans believe in Global Warming. And yet 84% of American Scientists believe in Global Warming. That's of all scientists, not just climatologists. What is going on here?

If you want to know why America doesn't take AGW seriously and take action against it, its because AGW policy was being set by Republicans who, for some reason, think their opinion on what is essentially a scientific subject is MORE EDUCATED than that of American Scientists!

How this half of America got to be so egotistical is anyone's guess. But their oft-touted 'direct line to God' may have something to do with it.

[jankebenzone]

Glad to see that there are others who are not so easily duped into sucking up the global warming junk science propaganda. Either they're very gullible as most are, or some of the posters here are involved in the political agenda to propagate the masses into believing that carbon taxes will solve the "problem".

[louiville2_5]

ROTFLMFAO!!!.....jimmy, you must be king of the "cherry-pickers," and just needed that little zinger, which only proves you failed science back in 5th grade and cannot use data properly yourself!

Instead of "cherry-picking" like all you DENIALISTS must do in order to make any case whatsoever against AGW, you should have just looked at the NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA graph of Global Mean Temperature over Land and Ocean, with figures between 1880 and the present.

It shows clearly the TREND between different years as a bigger picture for you slower learners, and clearly the TREND from about 1980 to the present has been a huge acceleration of warming, after about 40+ years of stagnation. Much like the 11-year solar cycle, it takes a few years to SMOOTH the graph from upward and downward spikes of sunspots and CME's as well as low solar output and reduced or non-existent sunspots.
It's completely delusional to look at that data and use one or two years like you tried to do (especially with 2008) after saying "Yes they are all above the norm," without looking at the 30-year TREND!

As a matter of fact, many scientists are actually a bit worried about the lack of sunspots here towards the end of 2009, when Solar Cycle 24 should already have been upon us, but we're seeing an extension of the solar LOW. I imagine, as Solar Cycle 24 progresses, you'll continue to see the upward trend in a warming Earth well beyond the extremes of 2005 and the other warmer years. all since the 1996-1997 LOW of Solar Cycle 23.

When you DENIALISTS stop "cherry-picking" the data for your own BIG OIL propaganda show, you will begin to learn a little science for once in your knee-jerk life!-doc_holliday76
==========================================================================

Yawn,

GW been over for the last 10 years, this article is a fraud to science because it's based on "38" data points not the 100's of thousands promised. Why, because their equipment broke the first days but they never told anyone for 44 days of their 73 days on the Ice.

Extra fuel for the planes was brought in and staged on the ice along their planned route. A route they never made so the toxic waste is ether still up there on the ice like a ticking time bomb or has fallen throught the ice and is killing marine life.


Nearly all of their route was on first year ice so there was noting to compair it to.

The germans sent a plane over the Ice with intruments to measure ice thickness, their report found MUCH thicker ice then previous visits and they didn't have to be rescued.

This report is what the scientist call junk science but the AGW crowd like DOC, Trout, Ubrew laps it up like a dying of thirst men would a mud hole.

It would be funny but it's really pathetic any more watching those to proud to admit they were wrong. last sixty years we have seen 40 years of cooling 10 years of warming and 10 years of flux, but the self loathing hate humans Flagellants crowd endears.