Arctic summer may be ice-free in 30 years
New studies show floating sea ice more vulnerable to sudden melting
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
The frozen ocean of the Arctic might disappear far sooner than scientists have previously predicted with the first ice-free summer occurring within the next 30 years – three times earlier than estimated.
A study of computer models of the Arctic region has found that the vast expanse of floating sea ice that covers the region is far more vulnerable to rapid melting than earlier studies had assumed. The latest analysis found that virtually all the sea ice in the Arctic will have melted during the summer months by 2037, and that it may even disappear as soon as the summer of 2020. Previous studies had suggested that this was unlikely to happen until at least the end of the century.
An ice-free Arctic would spell disaster for the polar bear which uses the summer ice pack to hunt seals. It could also increase regional temperatures because open ocean absorbs more heat from sunlight than the reflective surface of the sea ice.
The latest study was carried out by scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Washington in Seattle using the six most sensitive computer models of the Arctic region.
The findings, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that the ice cover was likely to melt rapidly in the next couple of decades, culminating in an open sea, except for a band of ice bordering the shores of northern Canada and Greenland.
"The Arctic is changing faster than anticipated. It's a combination of natural variability, along with warmer air and sea conditions caused by increased greenhouse gases," said James Overland of NOAA, who carried out the research. The scientists estimate that by the end of summer 2037 there will be about 1 million square kilometres (about 620,000 square miles) of sea ice left in the Arctic region, compared with the 4.6 million square kilometres (2.8 million square miles) today.
Much of the remaining ice is likely to be blown by the prevailing winds against the shorelines of Canada and Greenland where it will be forced into thick layers that could remain frozen despite the increasing temperatures.
Much of the ocean will become easy to navigate in summer, raising the prospect of the exploration of the sea bed for is wealth of minerals and oil. "But it could also cause an eco– system upheaval," a spokesman for the NOAA said. The six models used by the NOAA scientists were taken from 23 analysed by scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who predicted a slower melting rate for the Arctic sea ice. All six showed that once the ice at the end of the summer melting period drops to 4.6 million square kilometres, there is a rapid increase in the rate of further melting.
Scientists fear that this "tipping point" may already have been reached given that in 2007 the summer sea ice fell to an all-time record of 4.3 million square kilometres, and in 2008 it reached 4.7 million square kilometres – the second lowest on record.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Paid lobbyists, your turn now.
The bears have survived much hotter periods, why would they die out now?
Another may-be was when Al Gore predicted it would be 2013.
Yet another may-be was the IPCC predicted that it would 2100.
Now NOAA are saying that the Artic may-be ice free come 2039.
The trouble with scientific "may-be-s" is that public cynicism increases after each may-be falls flat.
Further, you know when there is an attempt to mis-lead the public when people resort to the phrase "tipping-point". The over use of this alarmist term simply demolishes the science.
May-be the Artic will become ice free one summer, may-be never, who knows, but as ever with climate science seeing-is-believing.
Deal with the plethora of scientific predictions from 2008-2013-2039-2100, and many more. They can't all be correct, but they can all be wrong.
Lets take Al Gore's prediction of 2013, what will be his and our reaction if this proves to be false. Are we to say, "better luck next time All", or will Al simply move the goal posts by saying that he has mis-spoken Clinton style.
Every may-be that falls flat does damage to the AGW arguement. Recognise the danger and deal with that because we are reaching a "tipping-point" on public cynicism over the growing number of scientific may-be-s that have proven to be false predictions.
AGW is just a hypothesis that is used to create projections based on what-if scenarios, usually resulting in misleading catastrophic and alarmist statements. It is faith based.
Spectrophotometers are not 'faith based', but are reliable scientific instruments that have been in use for well over a hundred years,. Tyndall carried out the fisrst spectrophotometric analysis of CO2 analysis in 1859. Over a century ago the Swedish chemist Arrhenius proposed that combustion of coal would increase the greenhouse effect and raise the average temperature of the Earth (probably over hundreds of years: he had no idea how quickly the world population would rise, nor did he anticipate the massive shift toward fossil fuel use that has taken place, especially since the Second World War).
In the late 1960s there were concerns that the world might enter a mini-ice age: the best projections of the time certainly indicated that the Earth's natural cycle would produce a mini-ice age. However, by the late 1990s it was very apparent that the effect of anthropogenic emissions was causing heating that was rapidly overtaking any natural cooling cycle.
The oceans have a huge capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, but it is now very clear that the oceans capacity for further absorption is limited. Indeed, warming of the oceans could well result in a surge in CO2, just as the death of the Amazon could.
The Sun coming out of a minimum activity phase and moving towards a manimum may well result in very frightening effects by 2013. We really do not know, since we are in uncharted territory entering such a phsae with such a high ;levle of CO2 and such a low amount of ice cover. Temperatures in the Arctic region (particulalry deep in the permafrost) are already at levels which are unprecendeted.
The climate system is extraodinari;lyy complex and there are still many unknowns, so totally accurate predictions are quite impossible. But that does not mean that warnings based on best possible evidence and anayliss should be lampooned.
Your complacent disregard for the future of planet the next generation will have to try to live on really is quite astonishing.
Don't confuse the observed and the underlying physics with IPCC projections and AGW propaganda.
CO2 is blameless, an innocent bystander, in this arguement.
The culprits are water vapour, the oceans, the sun, cosmic rays, clouds, albedo, and IPCC false assumptions over equilibrium, non-linearity, radiative forcing, stabilsation, use of constants, greenhouse regulation, global patterns, dynamic exchange, absorption and first-order relationships.
What we are dealing with is man-made man-made global warming (MMMMGW), basically a computer game. A virtual world no different from all the other popular and catastrophic computer games. Unfortunately the players, the IPCC, have not made it to Level 2.
This explains why warmer temperatures can lead to greater snowfall, which is counter-intuitive to many people.
Interestingly, despite so many climate 'skeptics' claiming that the Earth is cooling, it has just been reported that another large 'chunk of 'Antarctica' is almost adrift and about to break off. Okay, no sea level rise involved this time, but it symptomatic of a very serious problem which is not being addressed.
and you're wrong that the amount of water vapour is dependent on temperature. we are talking about a planetary scale here, not a local scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmos
You seen to be very mixed up here with you thermodynamics. Water vapour content is NOT a function of temperature. Dew points or relative humidity are partly a function of temperature AND pressure AND vapour content.
Or to put it simply take 1 cubic meter of air and heat it 10 degrees keep the pressure the same. If there was 3% water vapour to start with then there will still be 3% at the end. Conclusion: water vapour content is not a function of temperature.
Water vapour content varies in the atmosphere and is therefore classed as a greenhouse gas. It is responsible for 95% of the effect of all greenhouse gases (Not of all gases - just greenhouse gases) CO2 is responsible for 3%, Methane 1% and trace gases the remainder.
if "since the water vapour content of air is a function of the temperature. As soon as the temperature drops the water vapour level drops" was true the Earth would have overheated long ago.
Back to school for you I think.
What has a closed system to do with the argument? In the real world, the Earth's surface and the oceans release water vapour as a funcion of temperature and photon impact rate(the higher the tmeperature the greater the tendency of water molecules to break the hydrogen bonds that give water its unique properties) and the higher the amount of water vapour in the air.
Convection moves air masses upwards where the temperature drop results in phase reversal.
Maybe it's you who needs to go back to school.
There are no so blind as those who choose not to see.
And now I think about it my 3 years studying Thermodynamics was a complete waste of time.
i think you're confusing "atmospheric water vapour" with "humidity".
water vapor in a global scale is NOT a function of temperature. unlike humidity, which generally decreases when local temperatures drop, global water vapour has relatively remained constant over the past geologic era.
it simply has to, if the percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere varies by even less than 5%, it would result in the extinction of most mammals.
among the gases of primary influence on radiative forcing, water vapour IS incontrovertibly the most important one.
However, in the upper atmosphere temperatures are so low the saturated water vapour pressure is miniscule and tends towards zero.
'global water vapour has relatively remained constant over the past geologic era'
You previously claimed that water vapour is a driver of global warming. Now you contradict yoruself.
I see no point in continuing with this.
'water vapour is a driver of global warming'
these two statements are NOT contradictory. in fact, it points out to a conclusion that AGW alarmists are reluctant to admit -- that there is NO significant global warming within the present geologic era, or at the very least not during the time humans have existed in this planet.
So explain to me how you can have 100% relative humidity with 1% water vapour in cold low pressure area like the Arctic and 25% RH with 2.5% water vapour content at the tropics. Humidity is NOT the same as atmospheric water vapour.
Start posting on things you understand. Everything you have posted on this thread so far seems to be a figment of your imagination.
Humidity is the relatiuve amount of water vapour in the air conmpared to the amount when the air is saturated, (normally expressed as a percentage) as I previously stated.
Please do not reply, as I intend wasting no more time corresponding with an arrogant moron.
Try to get it right because you are still wrong. Humidity or relative humidity is NOT the same as water vapour content.
Absolute humidity: The quantity of water in a given volume (g/m3) affected by pressure but not temperature
Water vapour content or specific humidity: ratio of water vapour in the air by weight usually expressed as a percentage. Affected by pressure but not temperature
Relative Humidity: ratio of pressures of the partial mix to the saturated mix. Usually expressed as %. affected by temperature and pressure.
With a name like someofusknow you should be very familiar with arrogance but obviously not the truth.
I'll pick one out though. Solar Cycle 24 (ie your manimum!!) is very very late to start. So late in fact it has similarities with the Maunder period which was a very cool period. The modeled predictions of the start and strength of this cycle have embarrassed the scientists and institutions involved (including NASA) because they cannot get it right. They cannot predict it. You do not know the strength of this cycle - nobody does - yet you tell us it 'may well be very frightening'.
Why not just get out there on the street with your sandwich board and tell everyone "the end of the world is nigh"
Sorry, but Physics is based on precise calculation, I think you've got it mixed up with 'Fortune Telling'!
I presume people like Philip Stott (Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, London) is also a numbskull or flat-earther because he thinks that the IPCC Models are wrong because they do not allow for the Atlantic multi-decadal Oscillation?
Arctic Sea ice extent on July 16, 2008 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers. The ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 million square kilometers but was 1.05 million square kilometers above the value for July 16, 2007.
Now Mr Connor lets quote some more garbage from you
"It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this summer.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic -and worrying- examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer." The Summer of 2008!
The article appeared in The Independent on June 27, 2008.
Those who believe in the numbers predicted by computer models are deluded.
" A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover.....
Scientists fear that the Arctic has now enterd an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice...
They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly...
The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically...
So Mr Connor what do you have to say regarding the latest data from The National Snow and Ice Data Centre? Because in view of the reported data your articles have been comprehensively discredited.
"... all the sea ice in the Arctic will have melted during the summer months by 2037...."
"... by the end of summer 2037 there will be about 1 million square kilometres (about 620,000 square miles) of sea ice left in the Arctic region...."
Is this multiple choice? If so, may we choose "None of the Above"? Good grief.
Just to say to all these skeptics out there. The point of this article is to raise awareness. This is DELIBERATE. His predictions are based on credited research and data. If no one raises awareness then we would continue to carry on as normal. The fact is the climate is changing, it is not a faith, a faith is a belief based on something without evidence.
"Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal"
Just to get back to the facts This was a direct quote from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. This is the latest data and it is dated April 6 2009. Please read this for eveidence supported facts on sea ice shrinkage in the arctic http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2
If you go to the NASA website also you will see that they support the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in saying that shrinking sea ice is real over the Arctic. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur
Climate change is not a faith, it is happening. Whether we attribute it to man made fault or natural events or even both it must be accepted so we can move forward and address the problem.
And water is wet. So what?
In your sources one finds that "scientists have typically used estimates of ice age to approximate its thickness." Expecting some great new breakthrough in ice measurement, we then find that using the new improved method the "team estimated thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean ice cover for 2005 and 2006." Another estimate. Sigh.
We also are terrified to find that "Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record."
Happily, we learn that the data covers only the last 30 years which, even by hysterical standards, must be acknowledged as but an ice cube on the vast glacier of time and hardly evidence of impending doom.
Come'on Canadians and Greenlanders, say BRING IT ON!
I prefer to base my argument on facts and evidence rather than "models"
If you want, I can quote multiple cases where the Scientific Consensus has been wrong in the past - how do we know, for certain, that it is not wrong now? The correlation between climate knowledge and thinking AGW is proven is just that - a correlation, not proof.
Presumably people like Philp Stott (Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, London) are part of the 5% who disagree with the IPCC Model because it does not include the Atlantic multi-decadal Oscillation which he thinks will cause a temperature drop for decades (thus making a mockery of the IPCC prediction of 5/7 deg C rise in X years time). Lo and behold, temperatures since 1997 have been flat or slightly declining! He also, approvingly, quoted the work of another Scientist in Mexico (Dr Ferreira, from memory) who thought that we were were going back into an ice age.
I suspect that there is a CO2 component to Climate Change since WW2 but that does not mean that I believe some of the more alarmist IPCC predictions.
CO2 can be both a feedback and a forcing component and, I suspect, so can H20,