December 11, 2006 1:43 PM PST

Study: Most Arctic sea ice could disappear by 2040

A new study says that the predictions that most of the ice in the Arctic could disappear by 2060 was optimistic.

Click here to Play

Video: Sea ice shrinking rapidly
At AGU gathering, Marika Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that Arctic sea ice could be completely melted within 25 years.

A paper from the National Center for Atmospheric Research predicts that the erosion of the sea ice in the Arctic could begin to rapidly accelerate starting in 2025. By 2040 or 2045, only a fairly small amount of thinner ice could be left, said Marika Holland, lead author of the paper.

"The ice is quite stable until 2025 and then, boom, it just goes," Holland said Monday during a presentation at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union taking place in San Francisco this week.

The primary underlying cause of the disappearance of the sea ice, she and other scientists said, is human-induced global warming. The Arctic has been rapidly heating up, so much so that the Arctic environment of today is substantially different from that of five years ago. By 2050, human-induced global warming could cause average temperatures in the region to rise by 3 degrees Celsius. That's the average among 12 studies that try to predict future changes in the Arctic caused by human activity.

Naturally induced global warming, however, will also play a role and serve as a tipping point to lead to the permanent degradation of the ice, Holland said. In other words, human-induced global warming gradually thins the ice, and then natural global warming kicks it over the edge.

The Arctic is already in trouble, said Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and a professor at the University of Colorado. Usually, the Arctic ice sheet shrinks until September, when it starts to grow again. At the end of November, there were 2 million fewer square kilometers of ice in the Arctic than normal, he said.

"We are no longer recovering well in autumn anymore," he said. "The effect of greenhouse gas-induced global warming is starting to rear its ugly head."

The economic, political and ecological effects could well be catastrophic, Serreze and others said at the conference. Greenland could begin to rapidly calve off glaciers in the North Atlantic. Ocean water levels around the world could rise 13 to 19 feet during the next several centuries. As the ice disappears and the Arctic Ocean warms, more of the microscopic plant life stays on the surface. Thus, bottom-feeders like crab and shellfish die off. Pollock and salmon, however, would do better. Sea lanes would open up above Russia and Canada.

Serreze joked that Russian colleagues tell him that global warming is good for them. "But on the balance, there are more losers than winners," he said.

See more CNET content tagged:
ice, global warming, scientist, video


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
There is an answer....
There are completely validated, Electro-Magnetic power generation technologies, that in proper operation generate essentially free-energy. These devices gather energy in part by absorbing ambient heat in the surrounding environment. Unfortunately the large energy and oil companies want to suppress this, but the base knowledge of its workings were understood and developed by Nikola Tesla decades ago. These technologies could aid in reducing global warming by several methods. 1. Most importantly its a clean generator consuming no resources, and could displace all other means of electrical generation. 2. The technology actually works better in the small scale, rather than the large, ideal for all kinds of devices to be self powered. 3. It does absorb ambient heat in proper operation (not that it will cool the earth by itself but every little bit helps.) The reason for the small scale working better than the large is a matter of frequency, smaller devices operate at higher frequencies, and the device requires high frequencies to achieve overunity performance. This is a good thing, it means a solution that can not be centrally generated and distributed, and charged for like our current system. Each person would generate their own power as needed, for free. That is also its greatest barrier to implementation, because it will not lend itself to centralized generation and distribution (such that it can be profited from), the energy companies do not even want to acknowledge it. If you doubt any of this, do some research, the truth is out there. Anyone who thinks this violates the 'laws of thermodynamics' doesn't know the laws as they really are, go back and read the conditions the laws are put under and realize those conditions do not exist.
1. There is no such thing as a closed system, that is purely an abstract idea.
2. Everything is in perpetual motion all the time, and has been since the begining of time, you have never observed anything that was not moving (think of how fast the earth moves, etc).
3. The law of conservation still tries to remain true, if you 'break' it, the universe effectively will supply the energy needed to make the 'books balance'.
4. Most importantly the laws of thermodynamics treat all energy forms as behaving just like heat energy, guess what, they don't. We are swimming in a sea of energy all around us, its time to tap into it.

Knowledge is Power, Power to the People, Free Power, Free Knowledge, Free the People!
Posted by chash360 (394 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That's because Crichton's a fiction writer.
There's as much proof for climate change as there is for gravity.
Posted by elsa.wenzel (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That's because Crichton's a fiction writer.
There's as much proof for climate change as there is for gravity.
Posted by elsa.wenzel (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's a good thing...
It's a good thing you "climatologists" have such perfectly
flawless computer models and historical data to make such

Maybe you should lend your computer modeling skills and data
to the team that predicted 2006 as one of the most destructive
hurricane seasons on record.

The National Weather Service could also benefit with some of
your computer modeling skills. My 24-hour local forecast is
sometimes the exact opposite of reality.

Since the entire Earth is so much more complex to accurately
model than local weather patterns or the simple path of a
hurricane, just think about how many lives you could positively
impact today.

So please, I beg you, share your great computer modeling skills
with the rest of the world.
Posted by Sparky672 (244 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Don't Worry
Accroding to Algore, we'll all be dead by then...
Posted by cucko11 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
For an interesting read (or listen on CD) try Crichton's "State of Fear." Unfortunately, much of what the public is served up on global warming is opinion based on things that just aren't well understood or modelled. Hard to separate the facts from opinions. If the consequences weren't so dire, it could just be an academic issue. Maybe the sailboat market will be booming in the next 20 years.
Posted by cswor (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The last article on this said year 2020. That should tell you something.
Don't believe this junk.
The TX sized loss that was reported on many extremist sites was due to a satellite error.
There has not been hardly any ice loss over the last several years.
Posted by rojobaron (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.