NSR- Scary Report on sea Ice levels

[MassLiberal]

For all the climate change haters out there, it seems like things are beginning to speed up, to a point where things might get out of control. From the UK's Independent:

Climate change 'irreversible' as Arctic sea ice fails to re-form
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 14 March 2006

Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.

Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few summers.

Scientists are now convinced that Arctic sea ice is showing signs of both a winter and a summer decline that could indicate a major acceleration in its long-term rate of disappearance. The greatest fear is that an environmental "positive feedback" has kicked in, where global warming melts ice which in itself causes the seas to warm still further as more sunlight is absorbed by a dark ocean rather than being reflected by white ice.

Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, said: "In September 2005, the Arctic sea ice cover was at its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and probably the lowest in the past 100 years. While we can't be certain, it looks like 2006 will be more of the same," Dr Serreze said.

"Unless conditions turn colder, we may be headed for another year of big sea ice losses, rivalling or perhaps even exceeding what we saw in September 2005. We are of course monitoring the situation closely ... Coupled with recent findings from Nasa that the Greenland ice sheet may be near a tipping point, it's pretty clear that the Arctic is starting to respond to global warming," he added.

Although sea levels are not affected by melting sea ice - which floats on the ocean - the Arctic ice cover is thought to be a key moderator of the northern hemisphere's climate. It helps to stabilise the massive land glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland which have the capacity to raise sea levels dramatically.

Dr Serreze said that some parts of the northern hemisphere experienced very low temperatures this winter, but the Arctic was much warmer than normal. "Even in January, when there were actually record low temperatures in Alaska and parts of Russia, it was still very warm over the Arctic Ocean," he said.

"The sea ice cover waxes and wanes with the seasons. It partly melts in spring and summer, then grows back in autumn and winter. It has not recovered well this past winter - ice extent for every month since September 2005 has been far below average. And it's been so warm in the Arctic that the ice that has grown this winter is probably rather thin," he explained.

Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, who was the first Briton to monitor Arctic sea ice from nuclear submarines, said: "One of the big changes this winter is that a large area of the Barents Sea has remained ice-free for the first time. This is part of Europe's 'back yard'. Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so it is a sign that the changes that were predicted are indeed happening, but much faster than predicted."

Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.

Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few summers.

Scientists are now convinced that Arctic sea ice is showing signs of both a winter and a summer decline that could indicate a major acceleration in its long-term rate of disappearance. The greatest fear is that an environmental "positive feedback" has kicked in, where global warming melts ice which in itself causes the seas to warm still further as more sunlight is absorbed by a dark ocean rather than being reflected by white ice.

Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, said: "In September 2005, the Arctic sea ice cover was at its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and probably the lowest in the past 100 years. While we can't be certain, it looks like 2006 will be more of the same," Dr Serreze said.

"Unless conditions turn colder, we may be headed for another year of big sea ice losses, rivalling or perhaps even exceeding what we saw in September 2005. We are of course monitoring the situation closely ... Coupled with recent findings from Nasa that the Greenland ice sheet may be near a tipping point, it's pretty clear that the Arctic is starting to respond to global warming," he added.

Although sea levels are not affected by melting sea ice - which floats on the ocean - the Arctic ice cover is thought to be a key moderator of the northern hemisphere's climate. It helps to stabilise the massive land glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland which have the capacity to raise sea levels dramatically.

Dr Serreze said that some parts of the northern hemisphere experienced very low temperatures this winter, but the Arctic was much warmer than normal. "Even in January, when there were actually record low temperatures in Alaska and parts of Russia, it was still very warm over the Arctic Ocean," he said.

"The sea ice cover waxes and wanes with the seasons. It partly melts in spring and summer, then grows back in autumn and winter. It has not recovered well this past winter - ice extent for every month since September 2005 has been far below average. And it's been so warm in the Arctic that the ice that has grown this winter is probably rather thin," he explained.

Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, who was the first Briton to monitor Arctic sea ice from nuclear submarines, said: "One of the big changes this winter is that a large area of the Barents Sea has remained ice-free for the first time. This is part of Europe's 'back yard'. Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so it is a sign that the changes that were predicted are indeed happening, but much faster than predicted."

[Core Shot]

We are all fucked.

[MacDaddy]

what now?

Should I start worrying about it? what can I do to help? do we need to kill about 2 billion people

[MassLiberal]

2 billion might be overreacting a little bit. But I think that actually trying to pay attention to the problem, even a little bit, might help the chances of things going a little better.

[bossass]

what now?

Should I start worrying about it? what can I do to help? do we need to kill about 2 billion people

Ride your bike more?

[fez]

my real fear is that we may be the last generation to ski powder in many places on earth.

[Dr. Gaper]

Perhaps they could make an environmental treaty that EVERY country in the world would have to sign. I would dig that.

[MassLiberal]

Unfortunately, that would never happen. It would be nice if the world's largest consumer could take the lead on something of worldwide importance instead of blowing all of our entire reserves of political capital on self serving, and ultimately dead end, causes.

[Blurred]

The argument is whether global warming is directly linked to the actions of man.
Everyone knows that the Earth has been warming up since the last ice age.

[seatosky]

The argument is whether global warming is directly linked to the actions of man.
Everyone knows that the Earth has been warming up since the last ice age.

Whatever happened to 'better safe than sorry'?

[MassLiberal]

I don't think anyone, with the exception of exxon, truly believes that global warming is not related to the activities of mankind. The whole "warming since the last ice age" argument has been thoroughly debunked by every university and research scientist over the past two years.

[robokill1981]

The argument is whether global warming is directly linked to the actions of man.
Everyone knows that the Earth has been warming up since the last ice age.

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Or are you counting that as the last ice age?

[Sensisnow]

my real fear is that we may be the last generation to ski powder in many places on earth.

Haven't you seen The Day After Tomorrow? There'd be pow EVERYWHERE!

[Blurred]

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Or are you counting that as the last ice age?

so you're saying that the Earth warms up AND cools down with or without man or Exxon.

How interesting.

Gotta love how their graph display is using tiny fractions of a degree for a more dramatic representation...I wonder what their slant is.

[MassLiberal]

yeah dude, all you'd have to do is survive the -130 degree deep freeze

[Tippster]

Tipp's Reporter to well known Scientist after he scared the bejeesus out of us about Global Warming:

"How do we reverse the trend?"

"We don't know."

"Is it feasible without going to pre-Industrial Revolution levels of Carbon Emission?"

"No, probably not."

"What effect would implementing the Kyoto Protocol have had on your data, including projections for the next 50 years?"

"None... well, nothing discernable."

"What would you recommend?"

"Plant more trees."

[Falldise]

Haven't you seen The Day After Tomorrow? There'd be pow EVERYWHERE!

Ya but then when the super cold upper jetstream air came down through the hole in the superstorm right in the middle of a huge cornice launch you would freeze solid

[KevinDineen]

For all the climate change haters out there, it seems like things are beginning to speed up, to a point where things might get out of control. From the UK's Independent:

Link...?

[MassLiberal]

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle351135.ece

here ya go, also, the reason I use this source is that it is undeniably non-partisan as it relates to US politics.

[MeatPuppet]

Perhaps they could make an environmental treaty that EVERY country in the world would have to sign. I would dig that.

That might be something I could support. Maybe, under the right circumstances. But the worlds largest polluters would have to have the tightest restrictions placed on them, it only makes sense. That simply isn't going to happen. China will never accept restrictions on their production. Even if they signed a treaty it wouldn't be followed, and if people thinks that the western world has a problem with pollution, just wait a decade of so and let China get geared up. They are going to dwarf anything the western world has done. So unless the world is willing to go to war with China over this issue, a global treaty is, and will continue to be, meaningless.

[MassLiberal]

However, China is already looking to offset the environmental costs of it's industrialization. There was an article in the atlantic (i think)a year ago that referred to this. It had also mentioned that the Chinese had realized that there was a lot gain in the eye of world wide public opinion if the made certain environmental concessions.

(I would search for this, but my Expanded Academic Index access is restricted currently)

[Blurred]

Blurred - it's anthropogenic. Deal with it.

http://www.realclimate.org/
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

So you're saying the only reason for global warming is man. Gotcha.

[robokill1981]

so you're saying that the Earth warms up AND cools down with or without man or Exxon.

How interesting.

Gotta love how their graph display is using tiny fractions of a degree for a more dramatic representation...I wonder what their slant is.

Slant in an article covering the little ice age? Please explain. Or is the idea of the Dutch ice skating on the canals in the 1600's really too much for you to handle? Thanks for the knee jerk reaction, it's pretty damn funny.

[vinzclortho]

So you're saying the only reason for global warming is man. Gotcha.

I'd say he's dealing with it pretty well.


I do like the idea of killing 2 billion people, if it doesn't solve global warming at least the lines at disney world would be shorter.

[MeatPuppet]

offset the environmental costs of it's industrialization.

This could mean a lot of things. Do you remember any specifics?

It had also mentioned that the Chinese had realized that there was a lot gain in the eye of world wide public opinion if the made certain environmental concessions.

I have heard this before. But I am sceptical. I think China will take care of China above all else. Anything they can do along the way to improve their image they will probably do, but not at the expense of their own progress. There is nothing in their history, recent or otherwise, that contradicts this.