Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record

[donsutherland1]

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):

Arctic sea ice cover melted to its lowest extent in the satellite record yesterday, breaking the previous record low observed in 2007. Sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles)...

NSIDC scientist Walt Meier said, "By itself it's just a number, and occasionally records are going to get set. But in the context of what's happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it's an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing."

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic Sea Ice Breaks 2007 Extent Record

At last word, the daily value for the NSIDC sea ice index had fallen just below 4 million square kilometers. At the same time, another index (JAXA) had fallen to 4.067 million square kilometers. On the JAXA Index, the 2007 record was 4.255 million square kilometers. On 8/27, the value was was 1.854 million square kilometers below the average for the date for the 2000s and 1.117 million square kilometers below the 2007-11 average for the date. It was also 707,187 square kilometers below the 8/27 figure for 2007.

In recent years, the declining minima have resulted in a larger share of thin ice. Thinner ice is more vulnerable to warmth (sea and air temperatures) and storminess. Winter maxima, which has been more stable, doesn't really matter if the ice isn't thick. The thin ice will melt out during the summer. Hence, the question going forward is whether the 2012 melt will have long lasting repercussions much as the 2007 one did.

The average minimum during the 2003-06 period was 5,728,399 square kilometers. The 2007 minimum was 4,254,531 million square kilometers or 25.7% below the 2003-06 average. The average minimum for the 4-year period after 2007 (2008-11) was 4,827,227 square kilometers. That was nearly a 16% drop from the 2003-06 average. In other words, the average figure for the succeeding four years (2008-11) came to just over 60% of the difference between 2007 minimum and the 2003-06 average minimum. Put another way, a large portion of the 2007 drop recurred going forward. Thin ice was very likely a key mechanism for that outcome.

Were the same ratio (~60%) to hold for the difference between the 2012 minimum and the 2008-11 average minimum, one would get the following average minima for the 2013-16 period (scenarios for a 2012 minimum in the 3,700,000 sq. km. - 4,000,000 sq. km. range):

2012 Minimum: 4,000,000 sq. km.: Approximately 4,320,000 sq. km.
2012 Minimum: 3,900,000 sq. km.: Approximately 4,260,000 sq. km.
2012 Minimum: 3,800,000 sq. km.: Approximately 4,200,000 sq. km.
2012 Minimum: 3,700,000 sq. km.: Approximately 4,140,000 sq. km.

In sum, if recent experience with the previous abrupt decline in summer sea ice extent (2007) is representative, the "new normal" average minimum for the next few years could wind up somewhat below the previous record figure set in 2007. One or more years would also likely see another minimum below 4 million square kilometers. Taking into consideration declines in ice volume, the above figures might have a higher risk of being too conservative rather than too aggressive.

Finally, a question would concern whether the edge of the thicker multi-year ice would be eroded each summer (greater spring/summer melt than autumn/winter recovery and/or fragmentation). If so, the stage could be set for another abrupt decline at some point in the future, perhaps even during the latter part of the 2011-2020 decade, much had occurred in 2007 and again this year.

 

[flogger]

And given the length of our record exactly why should we be caring about this ? :roll:

 

[Manc Skipper]

"Out, Out! Damn'd science!

 

[EagleAye]

And given the length of our record exactly why should we be caring about this ? :roll:

It's important because of this...

Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.

That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.
[...]
Because saltwater is denser and heavier than freshwater, this "freshening" of the North Atlantic would make the surface layers more buoyant. That's a problem because the surface water needs to sink to drive a primary ocean circulation pattern known as the "Great Ocean Conveyor." Sunken water flows south along the ocean floor toward the equator, while warm surface waters from tropical latitudes flow north to replace the water that sank, thus keeping the Conveyor slowly chugging along. An increase in freshwater could prevent this sinking of North Atlantic surface waters, slowing or stopping this circulation.
[...]
If the Great Conveyor Belt suddenly stops, the cause might not matter. Europeans will have other things on their minds--like how to grow crops in snow. Now is the time to find out, while it's merely a chilling possibility.

A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science

 

[longview]

One of the reasons I am so skeptical about all of the alarmist AGW claims is actual observation.
In May 2009 on a flight back from Europe, I took some pictures from the plane window of the
edge of the sea ice. The flight passed the southern tip of Greenland and crossed into Labrador.
A news piece a few days later was saying the Arctic was nearly "ice free". this did not match with
what I had just seen.
Here is the NSIDC google earth image from May 2009, and my photo.

The photo of the coast is a unique mountain on the Labrador coast (shows the path)
The main idea, is the NSIDC image shows the sea ice being 1000 miles further north than photographed.

 

[donsutherland1]

Small issue...

The NSIDC image is labeled "2009 Sep." The ice extent at the end of May was around double the September minimum.

 

[longview]

Small issue...

The NSIDC image is labeled "2009 Sep." The ice extent at the end of May was around double the September minimum.

The date on the slider bar at the top is 5/2009.

 

[donsutherland1]

The date on the slider bar at the top is 5/2009.

Longview,

Sorry about the delay. The Board was down for a time. What you have is definitely the September Map.

Here's the May 2009 map, which is consistent with your photos:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090603_Figure1.png

Here's the September 2009 map.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure1.png

 

[longview]

Longview,

Sorry about the delay. The Board was down for a time. What you have is definitely the September Map.

Here's the May 2009 map, which is consistent with your photos:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090603_Figure1.png

Here's the September 2009 map.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure1.png

I agree that looks like the Sept 2009 map. I wonder why they showed that
with the may 2009 slider bar, on their google earth application?
I looked again, the slider moves month to month, but the image does not change, it is every Sept.

 

[donsutherland1]

I agree that looks like the Sept 2009 map. I wonder why they showed that
with the may 2009 slider bar, on their google earth application?
I looked again, the slider moves month to month, but the image does not change, it is every Sept.

It looks like NSIDC's Google Earth maps show only the September extent (the one you described) or maximum (March) and minimum (September) sea ice extent.

View NSIDC Data on Virtual Globes: Google Earth

 

[Deuce]

And given the length of our record exactly why should we be caring about this ? :roll:

Why would the length of our record be so important? Does the fact that the Earth once had no ice at all... prove something? How about the fact that the Earth was once a giant snowball? What should we take away from those facts?

 

[Empirica]

It's important because of this...

Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.

That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.
[...]
Because saltwater is denser and heavier than freshwater, this "freshening" of the North Atlantic would make the surface layers more buoyant. That's a problem because the surface water needs to sink to drive a primary ocean circulation pattern known as the "Great Ocean Conveyor." Sunken water flows south along the ocean floor toward the equator, while warm surface waters from tropical latitudes flow north to replace the water that sank, thus keeping the Conveyor slowly chugging along. An increase in freshwater could prevent this sinking of North Atlantic surface waters, slowing or stopping this circulation.
[...]
If the Great Conveyor Belt suddenly stops, the cause might not matter. Europeans will have other things on their minds--like how to grow crops in snow. Now is the time to find out, while it's merely a chilling possibility.

A Chilling Possibility - NASA ScienceA Chilling Possibility - NASA Science

If Global Warming resulted in another Ice Age as NASA scientists has predicted, wouldn't the Ice Age then trigger it's own solution and reverse itself???

Hot-cold-hot-cold-hot-cold-etc-etc-etc__Hey, wait a minute?__Isn't that called Global Climate Change which has been occurring non-stop for 4.6 billion years???

It appears that Global Warming is obviously due to natural occurrences as it has always been and most likely always will be and the human race had absolutely nothing to do with it_

The smart thing to do would be to determine what lies ahead and begin preparing for it instead of listening to all those who are attempting to usurp wealth and power through fear mongering_

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Here we go again with the "on record" thing. When will you warmer cult members realize that "on record" means absolutely nothing? Our records document a period of earth history that would be equivalent to one second in the average human life span of 75 years. Do you really think you can study the last second of your life and reach any conclusions about how the human body functions? I haven't blinked in the last second so if someone obsessed on this and then I blinked they would think my body was coming to an end. OMG, the eye is shutting, RUN!

 

[EagleAye]

If Global Warming resulted in another Ice Age as NASA scientists has predicted, wouldn't the Ice Age then trigger it's own solution and reverse itself???

Hot-cold-hot-cold-hot-cold-etc-etc-etc__Hey, wait a minute?__Isn't that called Global Climate Change which has been occurring non-stop for 4.6 billion years???

It appears that Global Warming is obviously due to natural occurrences as it has always been and most likely always will be and the human race had absolutely nothing to do with it_

The smart thing to do would be to determine what lies ahead and begin preparing for it instead of listening to all those who are attempting to usurp wealth and power through fear mongering_

True, the Earth has gone through many different hot/cold cycles. But just because natural cycles exist, that doesn't mean human activity cannot exacerbate the cycles. That's like saying since gravity naturally pulls a ball to the ground, humans couldn't possibly throw the ball at the ground any faster. And can't we agree that rapid cycles through hot and cold bad for humanity? Don't we want things to stay in pretty much the same climate our agriculture developed in? And wouldn't it be pretty stupid of us to blithely throw world agricultural development into a tailspin (read: failing to produce expected/needed crops) just because one guy on the wrong side of the political fence said we were doing it? If the Earth heats up just a little bit through natural cycles, we won't have doomsday effects. But if we add to that little bit of natural heating, then we've got a problem. So the idea is only to not make a minor problem worse. Does that make sense?

And honestly, I don't know about usurping power because of AGW. If you're thinking about cap and trade, well I don't think that will work anyway. AGW is happening whether someone is making a profit of it or not. If that's the issue, then cut back on CO2 in a way that the wrong people don't make a profit. Who cares? The most important thing is just cut back on the CO2. Everything else is secondary. Who cares how you do it. If we refuse to cut back on CO2 because someone other than the usual profiteers might make some money, well that's like refusing to bandage a slit corotid artery just to spite a bandaid company. Kinda self-destructive.

 

[Muhammed]

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):

Arctic sea ice cover melted to its lowest extent in the satellite record yesterday, breaking the previous record low observed in 2007.

There's only like 30 years of satellite data. And We broke a record! OMFG

The sky is falling the sky is falling!

Global warming nutters are hilarious.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Global warming nutters are hilarious.

The envirowhackos are way too obsessed with clean air and water.

 

[code1211]

Why would the length of our record be so important? Does the fact that the Earth once had no ice at all... prove something? How about the fact that the Earth was once a giant snowball? What should we take away from those facts?

That the climate changes just fine with no influence from man?

 

[Deuce]

If Global Warming resulted in another Ice Age as NASA scientists has predicted, wouldn't the Ice Age then trigger it's own solution and reverse itself???

Hot-cold-hot-cold-hot-cold-etc-etc-etc__Hey, wait a minute?__Isn't that called Global Climate Change which has been occurring non-stop for 4.6 billion years???

It appears that Global Warming is obviously due to natural occurrences as it has always been and most likely always will be and the human race had absolutely nothing to do with it_

The smart thing to do would be to determine what lies ahead and begin preparing for it instead of listening to all those who are attempting to usurp wealth and power through fear mongering_

NASA scientists didn't predict an ice age. Neither recently nor in the 1970s. (edit for clarification: they did not predict an imminent ice age)

You've been fooled. Stick to primary sources instead of what journalists tell you.

 

[Deuce]

That the climate changes just fine with no influence from man?

Yes, it does that. Climate has been changing naturally for as long as there has been a climate. Nobody disagrees there.

Is that proof in of itself that mankind cannot influence climate?

 

[Deuce]

Here we go again with the "on record" thing. When will you warmer cult members realize that "on record" means absolutely nothing? Our records document a period of earth history that would be equivalent to one second in the average human life span of 75 years. Do you really think you can study the last second of your life and reach any conclusions about how the human body functions? I haven't blinked in the last second so if someone obsessed on this and then I blinked they would think my body was coming to an end. OMG, the eye is shutting, RUN!

See my previous question as to what this proves.

 

[code1211]

True, the Earth has gone through many different hot/cold cycles. But just because natural cycles exist, that doesn't mean human activity cannot exacerbate the cycles. That's like saying since gravity naturally pulls a ball to the ground, humans couldn't possibly throw the ball at the ground any faster. And can't we agree that rapid cycles through hot and cold bad for humanity? Don't we want things to stay in pretty much the same climate our agriculture developed in? And wouldn't it be pretty stupid of us to blithely throw world agricultural development into a tailspin (read: failing to produce expected/needed crops) just because one guy on the wrong side of the political fence said we were doing it? If the Earth heats up just a little bit through natural cycles, we won't have doomsday effects. But if we add to that little bit of natural heating, then we've got a problem. So the idea is only to not make a minor problem worse. Does that make sense?

And honestly, I don't know about usurping power because of AGW. If you're thinking about cap and trade, well I don't think that will work anyway. AGW is happening whether someone is making a profit of it or not. If that's the issue, then cut back on CO2 in a way that the wrong people don't make a profit. Who cares? The most important thing is just cut back on the CO2. Everything else is secondary. Who cares how you do it. If we refuse to cut back on CO2 because someone other than the usual profiteers might make some money, well that's like refusing to bandage a slit corotid artery just to spite a bandaid company. Kinda self-destructive.

There is proof that it's warming right now and has been for about 2000 years. Before that it was cooling for about 6000 years. Before that, warming for about 6000 years.

The amount of warming over the last 2000 years? About 0.7 degrees. This does not sound like runaway warming to me. Sounds pretty stable as a matter of fact.

In this interglacial, we've been about a degree warmer than now and about a degree cooler. We are right now in about the middle.

This is not cause for panic or for drastic actions. It is time for a sensible and prudent plan for energy that includes all sources and we should not be limited by a superstitious fear of some boogey man that cannot be identified or defined.

 

[Alyssa]

It's important because of this...


A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science

Yes, the melting ice caps could reduce the salinity of the ocean thus halting the North Atlantic current which would result in a rapid climate shift. Here is the key word for those who are clearly missing the point: Rapid.

 

[Deuce]

There is proof that it's warming right now and has been for about 2000 years. Before that it was cooling for about 6000 years. Before that, warming for about 6000 years.

The amount of warming over the last 2000 years? About 0.7 degrees. This does not sound like runaway warming to me. Sounds pretty stable as a matter of fact.

In this interglacial, we've been about a degree warmer than now and about a degree cooler. We are right now in about the middle.

This is not cause for panic or for drastic actions. It is time for a sensible and prudent plan for energy that includes all sources and we should not be limited by a superstitious fear of some boogey man that cannot be identified or defined.

Again, is this proof we cannot influence climate?

 

[Empirica]

Again, is this proof we cannot influence climate?

Maybe if humans flapped their arms hard enough, they could fly___________But I doubt it_

 

[Deuce]

Maybe if humans flapped their arms hard enough, they could fly___________But I doubt it_

Ok, so you admit it's not proof. Good.

Now, a reasonable person would then say that we should ask some of the following questions and maybe gather some actual scientific evidence regarding them:

1) Are we affecting climate?
2) If so, how much?
3) What effects can be expected from that?

Can your gut calculate any of those things?