Arctic melts away as sea ice likely to be declared third lowest on record

Posted by christian - 17 September 2009 at 12:47pm - 18 Comments

Scientists aboard our ship the MV Arctic Sunrise measure the thickness of the Arctic sea ice.

Today we're expecting an announcement from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre - the US body that monitors the Arctic - about the 'seasonal low' of Arctic sea ice for 2009.

Every year, the Arctic sea ice - the floating cap of frozen ocean that sits over the north of the planet - shrinks and grows with the seasons. In the Arctic summer it melts away and gets smaller, in winter it grows and get bigger. It being mid-September we've just passed the height of Arctic summer, and today the NSIDC will tell us how small the ice cap got this year.

Over the past 30 years, seasonal fluctuations haven't masked the serious changes in the sea ice since scientists started measuring it properly in 1979. Since then the ice cap has shrunk - not every year, but with a strong downward trend - because of an outside influence: The warming sea and air which cradles the floating ice cap.

The shrinking sea ice is a clear signal that climate change is happening faster than we though it would. In 2007, the IPCC suggested that we could see an Arctic ocean completely free of ice by the end of the century - 2100. Now, scientists are saying that this could happen by the 2030s.

In 2007 researchers who specialise in studying the Arctic were shocked at the particularly rapid rate of ice melt. 2007 saw the lowest ‘extent' or area of ice we have ever seen. This year, 2009, we expect the sea ice minimum to be the third lowest on record.

It could sound like things have improved over the past two years, but it's unfortunately not the case. The downward trend in ice levels is clear - but this year scientists have concluded that strong winds have helped spread the floating sea ice out further. Although its area may be bigger than 2007, it's thinly spread, which means it's now more vulnerable to future melting.

The Arctic ice cap disappearing is a bad thing, both for the animals that live on it, like polar bears and seals, and for the climate. At the moment it acts like a white hat on the top of the planet, reflecting a chunk of the sun's heat off into space. If the sea ice disappears, the planet will absorb energy more quickly, leading to even faster climate change.

One way of viewing the Arctic is as the early warning system for the planet. Changes in the average temperature of the planet impact twice as heavily on the Arctic, because of where it is on the planet, and because it is such a delicate and finely balanced climatic system. The disappearing sea ice is a clear signal, (if we didn't know it already), that we have to act speedily to cut out the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the planet to warm.

Our ship, the MV Arctic Sunrise, has been in the Arctic, with the crew bearing witness to the changes there and hosting independent scientists who have been monitoring what's going on. We'll update with comments from them after the announcement, expected at 4pm our time.

UPDATE:

The NSIDC have published their update, stating:

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent since the start of satellite measurements in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent is above the record and near-record minimums of the last two years, it further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years.

If Arctic Sea Ice is the key indicator of the existence and severity of Anthropogenic Global Warming ....

What circumstances with regard to Arctic Sea Ice would indicate that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't happening?

In a thirty year record record of sea ice extent, how many years of consecutive up-turn would indicate an upward trend?

If Arctic Sea ice extent were to return to the 1979-2000 average would that mean that Anthropogenic Global Warming wasn't happening?

(As an aside, sea ice decline is not 'the key indicator' - it's just one good indicator. The behaviour of lots of elements of the climate system is changing.)

I'm not quite sure to respond to your questions because the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community is that human activity is causing climate change, which is why we're seeing the changes in the Arctic sea ice that we are.

But to frame your further enquiries, here's what the NSIDC have to say in their excellent FAQ:

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007. So far in 2009, it looks like the minimum extent will be greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Sea ice in 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and so far 2009 is poised to continue this lower trend. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. In the spring of 2009, Arctic sea ice was even thinner than in 2008. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice.

I go to this lot for their analysis - they're the scientific experts. So I hope that informs your questions! More at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html

Christian, the question asked was about the condition of Arctic as an indicator of AGW, not of global warming. AGW is merely a hypothesis that is far from being verified. Lots of research is underway to try to remove the enormous scientific uncertainty about climate processes and drivers, one important part of which is the work at CERN by Dr. Jasper Kirkby into the impact of solar activity on cosmic radiation. The current phase, CLOUD -09, should reveal some very interesting facts about how the sun, not humans, is the prime driver of global climates.

Our impact is insignificant and we should not be doing anything to reduce our use of fossil fuels. These are an essential form of energy through which we power our growing economies and will continue to be so for decades yet. This applies in particular to the developing economies in Asia, Africa and South America.

I predict that the UN's Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will be a flop.

Keep enjoying life. Best regards,

Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Who say...

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations

In their terms 'very likely' means with greater than 90% certainty. (And anthropogenic means human-caused.)

For an interesting discussion about Copenhagen and whether pessimism is misplaced, see here:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-16-cop-15-climate-talks-copenhagen-optimism/

Whether humans are the main cause of global warming, or not, the important thing here is to do as much as we can to put things right.

Small changes can make a world of difference. Simply turning your heating down by 1 degree can help you stop wasting energy, which in turn will help combat climate change.

If you want to stop wasting energy, visit the Energy Saving Trust. There's green tips on everything energy related - from home improvements to renewable energy; energy grants to generating your own power.

If everyone did something, we could really make a difference.

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/

Clare
The Energy Saving Trust

How does one leap from less ice to proof for anthropogenic GW? In the last two years of the sunspot minimum the ice has increased.

Leap of faith?

Have a nice day.

Please take the time to read the post by Clare above. This is what Global Warming is all about ... self interested parties and their religious beliefs.

"Whether humans are the main cause of global warming, or not, the important thing here is to do as much as we can to put things right."

Absolute nonsense, she's saying it's not important whether we have a problem or not, we should just join her in her crusade.

Yes, I'm not sure if I'd agree with Clare's presentation of the issue. (As an aside, I phoned the Energy Saving Trust and, er, they didn't really know who or where this post came from...)

The consensus view from the climate science world is that human activity is causing climate change. So it's not responding to a religious belief - it's responding to a scientific judgement made by an independent body of peer-reviewed scientists.

We do have a problem. So we need to act. It's fairly clear-cut.

If Arctic Sea Ice is the key indicator of the existence and severity of Anthropogenic Global Warming .... What circumstances with regard to Arctic Sea Ice would indicate that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't happening? In a thirty year record record of sea ice extent, how many years of consecutive up-turn would indicate an upward trend? If Arctic Sea ice extent were to return to the 1979-2000 average would that mean that Anthropogenic Global Warming wasn't happening?

(As an aside, sea ice decline is not 'the key indicator' - it's just one good indicator. The behaviour of lots of elements of the climate system is changing.) I'm not quite sure to respond to your questions because the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community is that human activity is causing climate change, which is why we're seeing the changes in the Arctic sea ice that we are. But to frame your further enquiries, here's what the NSIDC have to say in their excellent FAQ: In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007. So far in 2009, it looks like the minimum extent will be greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover? Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Sea ice in 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and so far 2009 is poised to continue this lower trend. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline. In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. In the spring of 2009, Arctic sea ice was even thinner than in 2008. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice. I go to this lot for their analysis - they're the scientific experts. So I hope that informs your questions! More at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html

Christian, the question asked was about the condition of Arctic as an indicator of AGW, not of global warming. AGW is merely a hypothesis that is far from being verified. Lots of research is underway to try to remove the enormous scientific uncertainty about climate processes and drivers, one important part of which is the work at CERN by Dr. Jasper Kirkby into the impact of solar activity on cosmic radiation. The current phase, CLOUD -09, should reveal some very interesting facts about how the sun, not humans, is the prime driver of global climates. Our impact is insignificant and we should not be doing anything to reduce our use of fossil fuels. These are an essential form of energy through which we power our growing economies and will continue to be so for decades yet. This applies in particular to the developing economies in Asia, Africa and South America. I predict that the UN's Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will be a flop. Keep enjoying life. Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Who say...

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations

In their terms 'very likely' means with greater than 90% certainty. (And anthropogenic means human-caused.)

For an interesting discussion about Copenhagen and whether pessimism is misplaced, see here:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-16-cop-15-climate-talks-copenhagen-optimism/

Whether humans are the main cause of global warming, or not, the important thing here is to do as much as we can to put things right. Small changes can make a world of difference. Simply turning your heating down by 1 degree can help you stop wasting energy, which in turn will help combat climate change. If you want to stop wasting energy, visit the Energy Saving Trust. There's green tips on everything energy related - from home improvements to renewable energy; energy grants to generating your own power. If everyone did something, we could really make a difference. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/ Clare The Energy Saving Trust

How does one leap from less ice to proof for anthropogenic GW? In the last two years of the sunspot minimum the ice has increased. Leap of faith? Have a nice day.

Please take the time to read the post by Clare above. This is what Global Warming is all about ... self interested parties and their religious beliefs. "Whether humans are the main cause of global warming, or not, the important thing here is to do as much as we can to put things right." Absolute nonsense, she's saying it's not important whether we have a problem or not, we should just join her in her crusade.

Yes, I'm not sure if I'd agree with Clare's presentation of the issue. (As an aside, I phoned the Energy Saving Trust and, er, they didn't really know who or where this post came from...)

The consensus view from the climate science world is that human activity is causing climate change. So it's not responding to a religious belief - it's responding to a scientific judgement made by an independent body of peer-reviewed scientists.

We do have a problem. So we need to act. It's fairly clear-cut.