Report From the Arctic
EmailThe National Snow and Ice Data Center reports that the earth’s Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its minimum for the year. It’s "the second-lowest amount recorded since the dawn of the satellite era," they say. The record was set a year ago. "On September 12, 2008 sea ice extent dropped to 4.52 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest point of the year, as sea has now begun its annual cycle of growth in response to autumn cooling," says the NSIDC. "The 2008 minimum is the second-lowest recorded since 1979, and is 2.24 million square kilometers (0.86 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum." There’s more information and a map HERE. NASA’s Aqua satellite provided the data for the visualization above; more HERE, and a Quicktime animation HERE to show how the polar ice cap has receded since spring. Shrinking ice means more of the Arctic is open to oil drilling and shipping. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, quoted by AP today: "The use of these energy reserves is a safeguard for Russia’s energy security," he said. "It is our duty to our descendants, we have to ensure the long-term national interests of Russia in the Arctic."
(Image credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio; Blue Marble Next Generation data courtesy Reto Stockli (NASA/GSFC)) ======================= Note added Wednesday afternoon:
For some extra perspective, here is a graph of this year’s ice cover, month-to-month, compared to last year’s (the lower line) and the 1979-2000 average. Click on the graph to enlarge. Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center.
TechBytes (02.10.12) 
Steve Jobs' FBI File: Bomb Threat? 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Can Palin see that from Alaska?
Posted by: Thinking | September 17, 2008, 1:49 pm 1:49 pm
Palin=Hotair melting Artic ice cap.
Posted by: Ernest T Bass | September 17, 2008, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
Hey guys, lets say something about Palin here because it really matters to everyone. Grow up and get a life. I have heard that antarctica is actually gaining more ice? Could this have anything to do with how the earth has shifted on its axis? One gains and one retreats? seems fishy to me? But makes sense. Let’s tilt it back.
Posted by: Eric | September 17, 2008, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
What exactly is the “normal” size for the ice caps?
Posted by: Jayson | September 17, 2008, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm
Jayson
Depends on your definition of normal. If you refer to all of the time of earths existance the answer is ice free.
If you narrow that down to only since life began the answer is ice free.
If younarrow it farther down to within the current ice age then the answer is ice covered but with large variations within the interglacials.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
” I have heard that antarctica is actually gaining more ice”
Unfortunately, destruction of our planet is no joke. While no one knows for certain if global warming is man made, almost all the scientific evidence proves that it is.
So we have a choice:
Assume that the science is wrong, and elect republican leaders who care zero about our planet, and see what happens after another 8 years.
or,
Assume that the science is right, and elect a leader who believes in science and is determined to not allow our planet to be destroyed.
Stop and think about this for a minute. Our Planet. Who cares about it, and who does not.
Posted by: clifton | September 17, 2008, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
Eric- It has more to do with the current changes to the Tranatlantic current due to increased global warming, specifically the temperature and salinity of the water it moves around the globe and past the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. P.S. Palin sucks
Posted by: M.Alto | September 17, 2008, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
It’s all Bush’s fault…. oh yeah, and that guy Carl Rove… It’s all his fault. It’s that bald headed guys fault too… What’s the vice presidents name?
Posted by: Leonidas | September 17, 2008, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm
Not like it’s going to raise the sea level, since it is already covering the ocean and it is not sitting on land and melting into the sea. Oh Yeah (P.S.) Obama sucks… and so does his Obamabots….
Posted by: JWOS | September 17, 2008, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
” almost all the scientific evidence proves that it is. ”
The “scientific evidence” is a series computer models with one data point…
Posted by: Jeff | September 17, 2008, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
And? it’s been melting since the end of the ice age…. I think thats why they refer to it as the end of the ice age…
Posted by: Lumberman_63 | September 17, 2008, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
Um folks, it melts, it grows back. It NEVER is at any one level at any given time. What’s with the hysteria. There is no typical climate anywhere. That’s why they went from global “warming” to “climate change”. Climate ALWAYS changes. And the data shows hat the Earth is cooling and has been cooling for the last two years. (But thant’s not good enough for the alarmists, they say that proves the effect of global warming, REALLY?) You can’t win with these folks. And their solutions:Carbon tax/credits/offsetts don’t even solve anything. Except transfer even more wealth to the rich from the middle class and the poor. You think the economy is bad NOW, just wait til the surcharges and “carbon footprint” fees kick in. (Google video Great Green Smokescreen) Goodbye fulltime employers, goodbye healthcare, hell goodbye national defense. but maybe you’ll be given a job with the enviropolice. Would you like to get paid 6.00 to sift through your neighbors trash bins like they are already doing in Britan? (BBC) Now, there’s a plan for ya.
Posted by: argh! | September 17, 2008, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
What! And Florida is not under water. I thought Al Gore said our sea level was going to rise to catastrophic levels. Hum, I guess he miscalculated. Common mistake
Posted by: Doug | September 17, 2008, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
Must be from Palin overusing her tanning bed in the Governor’s mansion at tax payer expense.
Posted by: Sean | September 17, 2008, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
Hmm, I think the headline should be “Arctic ice recovers after unusual 2007 melt”.
Posted by: Arbie | September 17, 2008, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm
Probably George Bush’s fault.
Posted by: Scuba | September 17, 2008, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
everything is fine. No go back to listening to Rush L, et al.
Posted by: dave | September 17, 2008, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
Damn Republicans. They’ve melted all the snow with their SUV’s. Good thing Al Gore flew over in his private jet to check it out. Otherwise we probably wouldn’t have noticed.
Posted by: Doug | September 17, 2008, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
The earth has been around a long time and seems to handle its business well enough not to have to worry about plastic wrappers left on the streets/parks, never mind a warmer climate. We’ll have to adjust … and if we don’t, we don’t.
Don’t get hysterical over something you can’t change. Global warming … I welcome it, but doubt I’ll be around to have to worry much about it. In fact, I doubt the next 10 generations (or more) will have to worry.
Calm down. Then drink a beer and deposit the empty in a garbage pail not because the earth is going to fall apart someday … because it’s the right thing to do.
Posted by: Charlie Stella | September 17, 2008, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
Is this the “change” that mccain is talking about? Did palin forget to turn the tanning bed off when she left Alaska? I wonder if palin can see Ice from her House?
Posted by: pt | September 17, 2008, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
It isn’t the current rate of ice melting that worries scientist, it is the increasing rate at which the ice is melting.
An apt analogy would your car starting to slowly roll down a hill. Looking at the car, it isn’t moving all that fast right now, only a few inches a second. The reason you run to your car a set your parking brake is because you know how fast it will be rolling at the bottom of the hill.
For global warming, the car has just started rolling down the hill. Scientist are trying to tell us that we need to start running to hit the break now before it gets moving too fast. What I’m hearing is that people don’t feel like moving because the car is not moving all that fast now, what’s worst that can happen?
In short- Scientist want us to stop that car BEFORE it’s freely rolling down the hill. Prevention is the best solution.
Posted by: Calis | September 17, 2008, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
Maybe Obama can sweet talk mother nature AND Ahmedinajad.
Posted by: Doug | September 17, 2008, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
01.20.09 The END of an ERROR!
Posted by: pt | September 17, 2008, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
All these Global Warming deniers, I bet their all old dudes who don’t give a crap because, hey, it ain’t going to effect me cause I’m going to be dead by then anyways.
Posted by: Jim Bob | September 17, 2008, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
I am so looking forward to this country re-entering the scientific age. Hopefully it won’t be too late. Yes, the earth is older than 10,000 years old. Yes, it is round. And yes, it has been scientifically proven that the earth is warming and we’re to blame.
Posted by: plantain11 | September 17, 2008, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
Normal is defined in meteorology as a 30 year average.
The Earth’s tilt is not the cause of the current melt.
The Arctic ice has been receding since the last ice age maximum (about 20,000 years ago) but the rate of melt has recently accelerated.
Earth is presently in an ice age. Two continents are encased in ice (Greenland and Antarctica).
The Earth was ice free during the age of the dinosaurs 93 million plus years ago. At that time there were few mammals and the land masses were joined together.
The ice age was brought on by the re-distribution of land mass across the Earth.
Industrialization and rapid human population growth have changed the composition of the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth.
There will be consequences to changing the atmosphere and surface that has nurtured human life for the last 20,000 years.
One likely consequence is a rapid and radical change of global climates over the next 200 years.
Another likely consequence will be a fifth major mass extinction.
The rapid climate change is likely to stimulate war, starvation, disease and the redistribution of populations.
Given the resistance of human kind to social change, reason and co-operation it is unlikely that rapid global climate change can be avoided.
Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2008, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
What is keeping this ice cap in place? It worries me that it could become one of the largest icebergs to make its way down the North American or Asian continent in recent history. Not too mention the affect on the spin of the Earth.
Posted by: MBell_TX | September 17, 2008, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
So, am I the only one who notices that the polar ice is better than last year? . . . because of a cooler summer? Isn’t this good? Maybe not great – and maybe not a trend, but the Titles of all these articles seem misleading.
Posted by: Bart | September 17, 2008, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
maybe Al Gore’s hot air has diminished for the year…
Posted by: Jack P | September 17, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
Of course Eric, you know that Republicans control the weather and the climate! Bush must have a weather machine right in the oval office.
Bush is responsible for the hurricanes, the tornadoes, and even the earthquakes. We MUST vote Democratic or he’ll destroy the earth!
Posted by: marco123 | September 17, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
Gee, the 2nd lowest in 29 years.
Compared to 10,000 years or more since the last Ice Age and the millions of years the Earth has had polar ice(or not) that seems kinda insignificant.
Posted by: Jerry | September 17, 2008, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
The solution is simple. Get out the big water pumps this winter and create huge mountains of ice. It would not cost much and would solve the problem of a lower ice supply in the Arctic . Yes, it’s OK for libs to claim this idea for themselves. Actually, it would be nice for a liberal to come up with a solution to a problem every once in a while.
Posted by: Bill | September 17, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
M.Alto
I agree (except for the postscript) and it is the answer to Arctic warming but it does not answer the origination of these current changes. Tectonic activity however does.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
Jim Bob
Funny that you should mention it but yes, many of the skeptics are “old dudes”, educated before the standards were lowered and use proper english, grammar and spelling. It’s simply because they have learned enough not to jump to conclusions.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
Mark
The 30 year average is the current norm but definately not normal. In meteorology it is used to determine trends. Being 60 years old it’s only 50% of what is normal for me. It can only be normal for someone under 30.
There is a very large difference between normal and current.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
argh!
There is nothing inconsistent between those NSIDC data and this article.
Posted by: jock59801 | September 17, 2008, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
PS
The Mesozoic ended 65 million years ago, 93 million years ago was the JK boundary.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
I’m 29 is that old?
My questions is why didn’t Algore mention this the 8 years he was in office? (Ask an intern.)
Why didn’t he mention it when he was running for President? (Because the media didn’t care.)
Why don’t we put the climate in a “LockBox” and keep it from the Evil Republicans?
Posted by: Dan | September 17, 2008, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
Re: “Given the resistance of human kind to social change, reason and co-operation it is unlikely that rapid global climate change can be avoided.”
That is a very big assumption based on AGW. Current tectonic activity does not agree with the hypothesis of AGW.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
Jock
You are spot on. The article is a good one and quite accurate. It is some of the conclusions drawn from it that are off the mark.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:10 pm 5:10 pm
Quietman
I don’t get your logic with “Current tectonic activity does not agree with the hypothesis of AGW.”
The sun, volcanoes, ocean circulation, orbital tilt, or any number of other things can, and probably are, affecting the climate. But none of that proves that CO2 is NOT.
Posted by: jock59801 | September 17, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
Bart
Last summer was an unusual but natural occurrence (kay et. al.) and this summer the melt was almost entirely a melt of ice that formed over the winter (new ice is easir to melt than old ice) so the concern is a snowball effect.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
Love hearing snide “witty” comments from people who know jack about geology, climatology, science, or our planet. Oh, you guys are friggin brilliant. “One data point” my ### – we scientists have millions of data points, but no body is listening.
“I have heard that antarctica is actually gaining more ice?” NO! Wrong!
“Could this have anything to do with how the earth has shifted on its axis?”
Again, NO.
You guys win the American Award for Scientific Cluelessness, boneheads.
Posted by: BigTex | September 17, 2008, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
Jock
Of course not. CO2 plays it’s role as a positive feedback device. It simply needs to be put in a proper perspective, ie. what is it feedback to?
This entire argument revolves around climate sensitivity to GHGs. History has shown us that this sensitivity is low and Dr. Spencer has attempted to show us the error in the model but nobody wants to pay any attention.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
no matter how much evidence you show republicans they dont care they are like “let it all burn us evil devil worshipping people love it hot ha ha ha ha ha” vote every republican out before they destroy the world like they destroyed our economy and relationship with our allies.
Posted by: tom | September 17, 2008, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
PS
There is a long list of articles relating to increased tectonic activity and I put some of them in the volcanos thread at Skeptical Science where Patrick and I have continued our discussion on AGW.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
BigTex
The Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica gain ice every winter season. The question is NET GAIN or NET LOSS. The northern ice sheets have a NET LOSS while Antarctica has a NET GAIN.
“we scientists” ? Certainly does not sound like it.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
In defense of Dano, she is dead on describing most Repubs. If Lisa Again takes issue with her, show us legislation or proposals in which your party actually helped the middle or lower class. Under Reagan and Bush economics the middle class has shrunk while the lower class has grown, thanks to “trickle down economics”. This theory works perfectly if you replaced “down” with “up”. Taking from the poor to help the rich.
And all that “nonsense” about man-made global warming just happens to come from right-wingers lambasting the world non-partison scientific community, grouping them as left-wing “nutcakes”. Of course, the right-wingers explain that the world’s resources were put there by God for us to exploit. On the count of three, repeat after me: “Drill baby drill”!
Posted by: Andrew | September 17, 2008, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
So tell me when will we figure out that global warming is causing this? When all the ice is melted? All the networks of the world should take stock on themselves and listen to and report on this matter. Until the world realizes that this ice melt is going to cause some real damage nothing will get done. Tell it like it is. Don’t try to add any fluff to the story.
Posted by: bill Hickok | September 17, 2008, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
bill Hickok
By this time everyone knows that the northern pole and the tropics are warming and that it is causing the melt in Greenland and the Arctic. It’s the root cause that is in question. AGW has failed to be proven as the cause (it does not help though). This entire argument reminds me of the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm
Aaron
Where “normal” = “sample mean” (rather than actual mean).
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm
I just love this Dems vs Reps polital garbage. Both parties are terrible so we vote for the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Quietman | September 17, 2008, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm
It is still largely a natural process, so lets get over it and adapt
Posted by: BTN | September 17, 2008, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
Quietman
Are you qualified to decide who’s physics equations are correct? I’m not. That’s what we pay physicists for. We can’t all be experts on everything. You might be able to find physicists that say CO2 sensitivity is negligible, and I bet I can find more who disagree.
So what do we do? Assume that your physicists are correct and we can go on with business as usual? Yeah!! How convenient. And then what will we tell out grandchildren when it is time to say “oops? This is not our world we are playing with; it is theirs.
Posted by: jock59801 | September 17, 2008, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
BTN: “It is still largely a natural process.”
Whew! I sure am glad you figured it all out for us. Now we can all go back and stick our heads in the sand. It sure does help to know that there is NO WAY that humans could be affecting the Earth. Why even study it? Let’s just make money!
Posted by: jock59801 | September 17, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Wait, let me get this right. 1979 is less than 30 years ago and the earth is 4 billion years old. I’m sure the ice caps have waxed and waned over the coures of the other 3,999,999,970 years. But what do I know? I’m not an alarmist.
Posted by: wowweee | September 18, 2008, 7:26 am 7:26 am
jock, yes they have but if you’ve seen Al Gore’s An Inconvient Truth you’d see that ice trends do go up and down but the last 50 years have blown the normal trends out of the water, no pun intended. Get the facts.
Posted by: A Canadian | September 18, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
jock
Even if the reason was just AGW we still would not be looking at catastrophic change. That’s just Hansen’s “or we are all toast” alarmism. Why do you think that the “consensus” gets smaller every year?
What makes the roughly 600 IPCC “scientists” so much smarter than the rest of the worlds scientists? Did you even read what Spencer said? He is not alone in his opinion (and yes it’s all opinion and hypothesis).
Posted by: Quietman | September 18, 2008, 10:08 am 10:08 am
PS
Think about this logically for a minute. When the IPCC was formed it was assumed that the CO2 induced AGW was fact. That is what a hypothesis is, an assumption used to form a theory. Since then other scientists in many related fields have discovered or uncovered new evidence pointing to other stronger climate forces that also seem to be causing this warming. These are specialists in their own fields. Why are they being ignored?
Posted by: Quietman | September 18, 2008, 10:18 am 10:18 am
Why can’t we all just get along?
Posted by: earthling | September 18, 2008, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
Earthling, sadly, no. We’re human. We can’t even get along with animals, let alone ourselves. We only get along with women, but only when we are in the process of mating. But even then there are troubles.
As for the sea ice. It’s kind of stupid to mark low and high points based on a 29 year average. The planet has had lots of low and high points in terms of ice. We’ve had no ice at all. We’ve also had a planet completely covered in ice.
If the global climate is indeed changing, nature will correct for it. Species that adapt to the new climate, will survive. Those that are too specialized and can’t adapt, will die off. That’s how nature works. And, sorry religious crazies, thats how evolution works. If we humans can’t adapt, we’ll die off, if we can, yippie.
Now, Ned, this was a good post. Got close to the normal Doom and Gloom. Nice job. Now, we just need an evolution post to top it off!
Posted by: Lawrence | September 18, 2008, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm
Lawrence
Actually I tend to get along better with animals but that’s just me.
Posted by: Quietman | September 19, 2008, 11:27 am 11:27 am