NASA: Arctic sea ice at second-lowest level on record
NASA has issued a preliminary report confirming environmentalists' fears of disappearing sea ice at the Arctic.
Sea ice is the thick permanent ice formed by frozen ocean water that remains even as seasonal ice melts away in the summer. In the past, it has covered about 60 percent of the Arctic.
The sea ice at the Arctic has now been found to have melted away by as much as half, according to a preliminary report issued Tuesday by NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado.
"According to NASA-processed satellite microwave data, this perennial ice used to cover 50 to 60 percent of the Arctic, but this winter it covered less than 30 percent," NASA said in a statement.
It is the second-smallest amount of coverage since NASA began monitoring the situation in 1979. The Artic's sea ice coverage this September is about 33 percent below average, compared with the record low of 39 percent below average recorded in 2007.
At this time, neither NASA nor the National Snow and Ice Data Center have made suggestions as to the possible cause for the change. A thorough analysis of the data is scheduled to be released the first week of October, according to NASA.
NASA image showing ice levels (in white) for September 12, 2008, at the Arctic. The orange line indicates the average amount of ice coverage for that day between 1979 and 2000. The black cross is the geographic North Pole.
(Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center)
In a software-driven world, it's easy to forget about the nuts and bolts. Whether it's cars, robots, personal gadgetry or industrial machines, Candace Lombardi examines the moving parts that keep our world rotating. A journalist who divides her time between the United States and the United Kingdom, Lombardi has written about technology for the sites of The New York Times, CNET, USA Today, MSN, ZDNet, Silicon.com, and GameSpot. E-mail her at candacelombardi@gmail.com. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. 
How dishonest can you guys get? Next you'll be reporting that the winner of a two person race came in "Second to Last".
In all honesty there can really be no one or just one cause for the ice melting as there are too many variables to consider. However, Humanity does have a responsibility to take care of this world as we are thus far incapable of moving to a new one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419241/
Ms. Lombardi, Could you kindly provide a chart of this data over the 29 year period? Shouldn't be too difficult.
You might be hilarious.
-nai-
The dirty little secret is that you need to take physics class. The density differential between liquid water and frozen water is on the molecular level; it is not macroscopic at all! Prove it for yourself. Take a glass and fill it up as much as you can with ice, then pour water over the ice to the brim of the glass. Come back a few hours later and you will see that the water level is still at the brim of the glass, the melting of the ice will have no net affect on the total water level. Not to mention the fact that a third of the arctic ice mass sits upon land! If the arctic ice melts, ocean levels will ABSOLUTLEY NOT go down!!! THEY WILL RISE!!! It is a ridiculous assertion in which you purport. Furthermore, the disparity of volume between liquid water and water ice world wide is astronomical. You trying to tell people that the melting of the ice caps will cause sea levels to drop; is tantamount to me telling you that if you throw a handful of ice cubes into a bathtub, that the water level in the tub will go up by a quantifiable degree due to the displacement of water caused by the ice cubes! Who knows, you would probably believe me.
In fact, sea levels have already risen noticeably in the last 10 years. If you don?t believe me; show yourself simply by googling "Papua new guinea", the affect of oceanic water level increasing is obvious on this at sea level island. Water levels have risen there by over 2 meters since 2001, it has resulted in population displacement (btw, this is an example of real displacement) and loss of viable farm land. The evidence is all around you!
My hero!
I've been saying this for years.
Here's another one I like to throw out there.
If the planet is on it's way to a global meltdown, wouldn't the daily weather reports on your local news station show new "record highs" on a regular basis?
Yet they don't. Every time I catch the local weather I make sure to check and it's always seems to be some date back in 1910.
But I applaud Jack for his analysis. It is not what you say, but how you say it that puts bias into a report. Back in the Cold War days they had a race between a Ford and a Russian car which the Ford won. The headline in Russia read: The Russian car finished second while the Ford finished next to last, with no mention being made that it was a two car race.
"Here's the dirty little secret that nobody tells you: Imagine that all the ice in the arctic ocean were melted instantly. How would that affect ocean levels worldwide? No change! The ice floating in the Arctic Ocean is displacing the ocean water upon which it floats. Since water expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts, the net effect would be a slight drop in ocean levels."
The dirty little secret is that you need to take a physics class. The differential in density between water ice and liquid water is on the molecular level. it is not macroscopic at all. See for yourself, fill a glass as much as you can with ice and then pour water to the brim, come back a few hours later and you will see there is NO net change in the total water level in the glass, it will be at the brim just as it was when the glass was full of ice. In addition, the desperety between the volume of liquid water verses ice world wide is astronomical. You trying to tell people that the water displacement of the arctic sheet is signifigant is like me telling you that if I fill up my bathtub with water and throw a handful of ice cubes in to it that the water displacement will be quantifiable. Its a ridiculous assertion. Water levels will absolutly NOT go down !! The reason that sea levels will rise is because over a 1/3 of the arctic ice mass sits on land!! Not to mention the fact that sea levels have already risen signifigently in the last 10 years. The proof of this you can see for yourself simply by googling "Papua New Guinea " sea level rises are obvious on this at sea level island. sea levels have risen over 2 meters there since 2001!
My hero!
I've been saying this for years.
Here's another one I like to throw out there.
If the planet is on it's way to a global meltdown, wouldn't the daily weather reports on your local news station show new "record highs" on a regular basis?
Yet they don't. Every time I catch the local weather I make sure to check and it's always seems to be some date back in 1910.
Yes, Jack's critique was very succinct, and clever, and wrong. The record low area (so far) was set last year, that's true. Because of the thinning, the record low volume is almost certainly this year. But neither is nearly as important as the trend over time. Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski from the US Navy Postgraduate School has predicted the complete loss of perennial ice by 2013. Let's remember that the US Navy has the ability to scan the ice from underneath--and their scientists therefore probably have better knowledge of ice thickness and change over time than the rest of the scientific community...who are also predicting near-term complete loss of perennial arctic ice, albeit by 2030 or 2050 rather than 2013. The setting of records isn't something that proceeds in a perfect stepwise fashion, because there is weather noise superimposed on top of the trend. But hey, don't let little things like the truth and the considered opinion of experts in the field with intimate knowledge of the data get in the way of your arrogant self-assured BS.
Also, dpeterson--the reason people don't talk much about your"dirty little secret" is that it's not a secret--everyone knows this. Sea level rise happens through thermal expansion and loss of land ice. No one (other than people like you, setting up straw man arguments) has ever said otherwise. The more immediate problem with the loss of arctic sea ice is albedo change. Ice reflects sunlight back into space quite well. As sea ice is lost in greater amounts, earlier in the melt season when the sun is still shining on the arctic, the arctic absorbs more heat and warming accelerates. But again, don't let the facts get in the way of your preconceptions or anything.
This is exactly the case. I recently saw an analysis of the frequency over time of record highs vs. record lows, and record highs are increasing in frequency and magnitude over time whereas record lows are decreasing over time. So yes, that's what you would expect, and yes, that's what's happening. I've got to run, but I'll try to find the link and post it here later.
Jack K1 - Great post!! Instead of worrying about what the article was actually saying, worry about the title. Good to know you have your priorities straight..
And everyone else is correct. The complete melt of every ice flow/cap/berg in the world would actually decrease the ocean levels. Water is backwards from every other material. It expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts. That's not the problem either.
The lack of reflectivity is also correct. But it would probably raise average temps by a degree, maybe two. Big deal? Yes. Catastrophic? *Probably* not. THat's not the problem either.
THe problem is the currents in the ocean are based on salinity (salt). The water closer to the top of the ocean is warmer and has higher salinity. The farther down you get, the layers get colder and therefore less salinity. Since water (and all liquids) strives to keep an equality in salinity through the entire medium, the water flows in one big current (think up and down not side to side). Almost like a convection current in a thunderstorm.
When the ice melts (fresh water) and is added to the ocean (salt water) it will strive to maintain a balance. Since water expands when it freezes, there is enough water in all the ice flows/bergs/caps to lower the salinity in the ocean by more then the percent or two needed to acquire the balance it seeks, and stop the ocean currents. Not only will animals (specially plankton, which provides most of the oxygen for the planet, and most of the nutrients for most of the animals in the ocean (either directly or indirectly)) that rely on those currents cease to exist, the weather patterns (which are dependent upon the ocean currents) will also cease to exist. The two jet streams that we have a duly dependent. approx 50% on the atmospheric winds (not the surface winds as those are created by the jet stream) and approx 50% on ocean currents throughout the world. Without that percentage from the ocean currents, the jet streams wouldn't exist. Our clouds and weather and winds would cease. Nothing on the surface would be able to achieve the balance it currently gets by creating storms to balance imbalances, winds and rain to clean air, etc etc.
THAT, my unlearned friends, is the real problem with the ice caps melting. This world is one big balancing act. Nature balances everything. Big things depend on little things. Vice versa. When one of those things are gone, it effects everything down the chain. Since everything is interconnected, it effects everything else. Just like if you were to remove plankton from the ocean. Everything in the ocean would cease to exist. THere wouldn't be enough time for evolution to adjust to the situation of not having oxygenated water. That is the catastrophic end the environmentalist nuts preach.
And the kicker is..There is NO scientist on the face of the planet that will disagree with what I just said. That's how the currents work. That's how the jet stream works. That's how the weather works. And if you add enough fresh water to the ocean, you'll get water to achieve the balance it has been trying to, but for us to survive, absolutely cannot achieve.
I'll check this for the rest of the day and see if anyone can provide me with PROOF, not just conjecture, and crybaby mentality of "Your'e wrong I'm right" arguments. Have a nice day.
Thanks
Dustin
This is the big issue. The ocean currents! If those stop moving, we are in deep trouble.
I look forward the responses by the ?so called? Nay-Sayers to your well articulated article.
Thanks!
1. You presume earth to be a closed system, a zero sum game. Not true.
2. A Climatic Optimum that lasted from ~ 8000BCE to 5500BCE saw average temperatures about 2 degrees C above the current high (which may be actually on a downward trend). For the whole period. Sustained. Doomsday (full stop of currents, dying out of ocean fauna, as you've proposed) did not happen. Also, the Medieval Warm Period was in average 1 degree C above current high. The name Greenland is a witness to that fact. Again, half-doomsday did not happen either.
You correctly note that there is a balancing going on. But for some reason, you define just a narrow margin for the balancing to work and whenever whatever situation gets out of your narrow range model, it spells doomsday for ya.
Throughout the history and prehistory, there have been hair-raising events that shifted the equilibrium into the doomsday zone. Far beyond our puny "influence" on the environment, in many degrees of magnitude. By your model, the planet should be alt.dead.dead.dead for eons.
We just started to study the subject not that long ago. It is an extremely complex system and to presume that we understand it in a meaningful degree, based on reductionist modeling that assumes a closed system, is rather arrogant.
Your mini-lecture on the effects of changing the salinity of the oceans was good, and aligned well with other treatises I have read on that subject; however, your statement that ?The complete melt of every ice flow/cap/berg in the world would actually decrease the ocean levels.? is incorrect. You probably realized that after you wrote it since you undoubtedly know that the effect you mentioned would not apply to ice melting from a land mass, from which the water would flow into the oceans. (That would increase the amount of water in the ocean and not be offset by any displacement of this ice?which originally resided on land and not in the ocean.) Another ***** in your ?learned? pose.
Then we get to the nub of the matter. You state, ?THe (sic) problem is the currents in the ocean are based on salinity (salt).? I would beg to differ. As stated in other responses, you have set up a strawman you find convenient for your purposes. The real issue being debated, though not stated explicitly, is whether ?global warming? is causing this ice melting effect (and whether man is causing this global warming). Otherwise, I doubt that the amount of ice in the Arctic would get such prominence in our news.
Al Gore and his UN cronies claimed that they had 2,500 scientists who supported their claim that man is causing global warming by producing increased amounts of carbon dioxide, which is their real culprit. Therefore, they declared the debate ended, despite many scientists who not only dissented but have provided sound rationale for the debate to continue. Unfortunately for the man-made global warming crowd, more than 31,000 scientists?more than 9,000 of whom have earned PhDs?recently said that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is not the culprit. (Note that Al Gore made wild claims that the oceans would rise about 20 feet, as well as temperatures would increase unprecedented amounts, which have since had to be revised drastically downwards?even though he and his cronies still maintain that most of their other claims are valid.)
And, finally, even though what you stated about the salinity in our oceans causing all the effects you claimed agrees with what I have read elsewhere, I would hasten to add that it is only the latest theory. That doesn?t mean that it is wrong; however, it does not mean that it is either correct or complete. Scientists learn new things every day that influence what we thought we knew before. Recall that some of the leading physicists of his time would not accept Einstein?s Theory of Relativity because it challenged the then-popularly accepted Newtonian physics, showing that Newton?s understanding was incomplete?even wrong in some cases. So, I would caution you to be more accepting of your ?unlearned? friends since time may show that some of your learning was incorrect and/or incomplete.
You must be new here.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080904_Figure5_thumb.png
Anyone who claims that last data point is evidence things are turning around needs to go back to school.
The first is the amount of CO and CO2 trapped in the ice. When people find out what the weather was like 20000 years ago, they dig down in the ice and take a core sample. Its like looking at the rings on a tree and the way they know what the weather was like is by looking at what is in the ice, primarily the amount of CO2. When the ice melts, all that lovely CO2 will be released into the air. I forget the exact location I read it but there is something like 700 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and like 1700 billion tons trapped in the ice. I have a feeling that it?s going to be a little bit harder to breath with all that extra gas.
The second is that ice reflects most of the light that hits it, allowing for all that to go back out into the universe instead be being absorbed by the planet. Water on the other hand will only reflect some light and absorbing the rest as heat. Trees have a natural ability to reflect light that it does not absorb which is why sitting under a tree feel nice and cool on a hot day. But if you cut down that tree and lay down some pavement that absorbs and holds heat that same area is going to get much hotter.
Maybe the Chinese and the Aztecs had a thing going when they ended there calendars in the year 2012. And for those that don?t believe that we can effect things on a large scale, do some research on chaos theory and the butterfly effect. The earth breaths and has cycles and anything we do here on earth can and will effect that cycle.
Right now people are worried about our crashing economy, the terrorist, whoever and wherever they may be, homosexuality and other dumb things in the long run. Nations rise and fall and the only thing all of these things have in common is that they all take place on planet earth and if there is not a livable plant to live on, then we all die and then there won?t be nations to fight between, there will be no economy and the terrorist will because they will be gone with the rest of us.
For those bible people out there, G-d created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. He/She create man and woman in his image and gave them the gift of life and told never to eat from the tree of knowledge. What was the first thing they did? Eat from the tree. Since that day man has been left to take care of the world with the knowledge the he was given. Most of that knowledge has been lost and it is up to us to relearn what we can and take care of the planet that is given to use to use while we are here and to make sure our children and our children?s children have it too.
The plant does not belong to us, was here before us, it we be here after we are gone, but how we treat it will reflect how it treats us.
I could go on longer but I think I have made my point
Eric McCormick
This is the big issue. The ocean currents! If those stop moving, we are in deep trouble.
I look forward the responses by the ?so called? Nay-Sayers to your well articulated article.
Thanks!
"this September is about 33 percent below average, compared with the record low of 39 percent below average recorded in 2007"
That is a 4% drop figuer out the numbers people before you speek your sheep riden rederik. You people follow the government and talk radio like blind sheep in a medow of unwanted flowers that you are the only ones that want to eat them only becuase you are told "ITS GOOD FOR YOU" by your leaders or afforidies
The global warming religion has created the PERFECT scam and there are those like Gore and his ilk who will reap huge profits from the global warming industry. The scam is perfect because no matter what happens in the future the invirowackos will win. Global temps naturally come down? They'll say see, we were right, all those CFL's, carbon credits, and mercury we poisoned our environment with saved the planet so we must continue with the crusade. Or, global temps continue their rise and they'll say were not doing enough!!!
Cutting the use of carbon based fuels is a great idea. Burning coal puts more radioactive material into the air than an atomic bomb. Tear down the windmills that are killing the birds and giving the animals E.D., stop government subsidies of inefficient solar sites, tear down the hydro plants that are choking our rivers and killing our fish. Then, build the nuclear power plants to power our electric transportation, homes and businesses and desalinate ocean water for drinking. We all know that liberal Europe is smart enough to go nuclear. Why can't we!!
- by Mister Winky September 17, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
- The fearmongering in this article is incredible. Consider this gem:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by SouthernOregonZealot September 17, 2008 12:46 PM PDT
- The issue with a 500 year cycle verses 28 year?s of data is really a mute point. The fact is that the global climate is shifting. Patterns have changed in the past and will continue to do so. Manmade problem or not, we still have a problem on our hands. Many (did I say many?) people will be effected, adversely, by this climate shift, others will benefit simply by their location. EVERYBODY on the planet will be impacted in some way.
- Like this
-
- by Mister Winky September 17, 2008 1:20 PM PDT
- First of all, it's a moot point, not a mute point. If it were a mute point, you wouldn't be able to hear it! :-)
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (65 Comments)"It is the second-smallest amount of coverage since NASA began monitoring the situation in 1979"
So, NASA has 28 years of data. That's not much in the grand scheme of things. The earth has been around for millions of years and has likely seen climate change and weather patterns that none of us will ever really comprehend because we won't live through it and we don't have measurements of it. 28 years is a blip - it could be part of a 500 year trend. To draw huge conclusions over 28 years of data is comical.
"According to NASA-processed satellite microwave data, this perennial ice used to cover 50 to 60 percent of the Arctic, but this winter it covered less than 30 percent."
Perhaps the perennial ice once covered 100 percent or 0 percent of the Arctic. What's the bigger trend? 28 years of data is interesting doesn't tell us enough to draw macro conclusions.
Also, you have to wonder about using the word "situation" to describe the meting ice. It's a negative, judgmental word which speaks to the bias of this article. It's only a "situation" if it's empirically clear that we should all be worried about melting ice in the Arctic, which is not the case. Sure, the "report confirm(ed) environmentalists' fears" but environmentalists' fears often (usually?) represent a minority viewpoint. If I were hire a cameraman to tape my kid's birthday party, I suppose I could say "he filmed the entire situation." Sounds dumb, right? The use of "situation" is equally misplaced here.
-Mister Winky
Now, the real question is not if, but how much and when. If you say ?the sky is falling? and people look up and don?t see it falling, they think you are a crack pot. But that doesn?t negate the fact that the sky really is falling (simple matter of gravity) even though many people can not see the effects. Thank the merciful God in heaven for forward thinkers like Tycho, Galileo, Kepler and Newton!
But I suppose the earth really is flat too!
The 500 year data vs. the 28 year data is the ENTIRE issue because too many powerful people are immediately associating climate change, whatever the source, with certain disaster and they blame wholly unproven "man made climate change" in a knee jerk, reactive fashion.
I agree with you that we need to seperate the science from the policy and politics, but that's not what's happening out in the real world. Politicians are proposing economically disastrous measures to "stop climate change" as if that's possible or wise. Environmentalists are seizing on the fear factor to propose limitations on our freedoms to further their agenda, regardless of how the changes they propose have any impact on climate change.
What if, over the next 100 years, we end up wasting trillions of dollars on a natural occurrence that man probably doesn't cause to any great extent instead of spending it on fighting cancer, malaria and AIDS, improving education and reducing poverty through economic growth? The logic of trying to stop global warming at all costs is perverse and often self-serving.
There are tremendous real and opportunity costs associated with jumping to unwarranted conslusions over 28 years of data.
-Mister Winky