6 September 2011
2011 Arctic Ice Reaches Second Lowest on Record- One or two weeks of melting left.
Posted by Dan Satterfield
The NSIDC updated the Arctic ice numbers today and announced that the ice melt has now reached the second lowest on the satellite record.
From NSIDC:
Overview of conditions
Average ice extent for August 2011 was 5.52 million square kilometers (2.13 million square miles). This is 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the previous record low for the month, set in August 2007, and 2.15 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles), or 28% below the average for 1979 to 2000. Sea ice coverage remained below normal everywhere except the East Greenland Sea. In addition, several large areas of open water (polynyas) have opened within the ice pack.
On August 31, 2011 Arctic sea ice extent was 4.63 million square kilometers (1.79 million square miles). This is 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) higher than the previous record low for the same day of the year, set in 2007. As of September 5, ice extent had fallen below the minimum ice extents in September 2010 and 2008 (previously the third- and second-lowest minima in the satellite record). If ice stopped declining in extent today it would be the second-lowest minimum extent in the satellite record.
Higher-resolution Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) data processed by the University of Bremen showed ice extent on September 5 as falling below the same date in 2007.
UAH Satellite Record
Climate expert Dr. Ben Santer at Lawr. Livermore Nat. Labs pointed out in email today that “even the UAH TLT (lower troposphere temp) data now show a signal-to-noise ratio of nearly 4 for global-scale changes in lower tropospheric temperature over the satellite era. In other words, UAH’s lower tropospheric warming is four times larger than our current best estimates of climate noise on the 32-year timescale.”
If this is confusing, think of this way: the signal to noise ratio is comparing the natural fluctuations you would expect to see in the lower atmosphere (over a 32 year period) with the actual data from the satellites. We know that weather happens, and this kind of analysis is a way of making sure that the warming seen is not a natural fluctuation.
Ben Santer explains it this way much better: “We are looking at the “signal” (the observed lower troposphere temperature change) and the “noise” (the unforced (no greenhouse effect variability estimated from model runs with no changes in external forcings) on the same timescale. So we are comparing the observed 32-year increase in Temperatures in the lower troposphere with model estimates of natural fluctuations on the 32-year timescale.”
I try to write this blog for those who have no science background so if your response is well duh!- please understand. The short version is that the myth that the satellites do not show as much warming globally as the surface temperature record is long gone. There are still some inconsistencies, but they are most likely mainly from the difference in methods used to gather the data of both sets. Dr. Santer has a new paper out that dispels another claim recently made in testimony to Congress.
More on that soon.
Note I revised my explanation (oversimplified) and added Dr. Santer’s additional comments from the initial post.
Will the ice stop melting?
It will begin to refreeze for the winter in a few weeks, but the long term decline will almost certainly continue. Weather patterns also affect the amount of melt each year besides the rising greenhouse gases, and we may even see a few years when the ice looks like it it recovering. (from recent science here: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121359&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click).
The long term trend, however, is down and most scientists now believe that Arctic ice will essentially disappear during the summer by late in the century and many feel it may go sooner.
The IPCC said in its 2007 report the ice would be gone in late summer by around 2060.
The arctic is responding to CO2/ and climate sensitivity far quicker, The ice could be mostly gone in late summer now as early as 2020.
There is a lot of uncertainty on just how soon the Arctic Ice will disappear.
How much methane are we envisioning will be released as the permafrost progessively warms and methanogens get a chance to eat the strata of partially decomposed plant and animal material stored over the years, and the methane clathrates warm to release their methane, when the entire arctic melts in summer sometime soon?
With the loss of albedo and the extra methane – this may be just the push needed to “cross a threshold” and get multiyear drought in the rainforest, which can then all burn down.
As Exxon and friends build their tar sands pipeline, and fund their skeptics /(see google: NAMI Grassley and Vera Sharav) heartless industry actions and P.R. psi-ops/ they do have their Seed Vault in the Svalbards – Moral: be smart and plan ahead.
Sorry Dan
I hate to disagree- but with C02 levels this high (391ppm) and rising rapidly- I feel Dr. James Hansen’s call on arctic ice / C02 and climate sensitivity have been just about perfect.
Most scientists now see a basically ice free arctic by 2020-
I may also add that right now there is a 50/50 chance of the arctic minimum this year surpassing 2007.
Oh, I am not really disagreeing and there are quite a few who think it may very well go by the 2020’s. Just checking out the latest on the ice and it sure looks like the record is in jeopardy.
‘Go up’ in the 2020’s? Only if we see a massive reduction in greenhouse gases- and if we stopped burning all fossil fuels now- the same climatic inertia that we are seeing now- the slowness of the warming to be seen by the ‘average person’ will go into reverse.
By 2025 C02 should be over 420ppm- staggeringly high- and By then we will be seeing the effects of C02 at 390ppm!
I wish you and others are right- but there is simply too much warming in the pipeline- and more coming.
We are basically ‘screwed’ at this point with the climate-
The recent paper showed that even in a model where the sea ice disappears by late in the century, there are still periods of up to a decade where the ice appears to recover and actually increase. This is because about half of the year to year swing in due to natural fluctuations from weather and ocean patterns. The natural variations in climate combined with the increasing greenhouse gases and the forcing it imparts on the Earth-Atmosphere system make this possible.
Quotes: “The degree of self-regulation posited in the original formulation of GAIA (Lovelock and Margulis 1974) was complete (homeostasis). “Margulis set forth her own revision of Gaian self – In her view, Gaia, “like the physiology of an embryo, is more homeorrhetic than fixed-from-the-outside setpoints” (Margulis 1990).” Earth as a cybernetic system is not fully a life form that will strive to make things right – it doesn’t seek a written-in–stone Homeostasis. It’s fortuitous it developed the ice age/interglacial oscilation. By our Pushing it so far that it BREAKS through into a New Phase Space; Gaia will no longer Want to establish the previous “set points,” for values such as CO2 and temperature. Pushed over an edge to a new attractor what looked like the old superintelligent homoeostasis seeking behavior is gone gone gone gone; because Now, with the New Mother Nature taking over, there are the new phase states and “new set points” and Gaia wont remember or care about the old ones. Gaia, the cybernetic system, is not That alive. Actually 400 ppm CO2 is painfully low – that’s why the Ice Ages happen so that the CO2 can go up and the plants can breath better for a while. The sun is Brighter now than in the first age and therefore the CO2 set points are Low ~ 250 ppm, but plants would enjoy More if we could just turn down the Sun. Too bad that we as the big brains are useless to do anything except break stuff.
I find the fact that this almost makes sense to me very disturbing.
The sea ice should be 80% gone within a decade.
I have seen no evidence of that and if anything it may actually increase somewhat for up to ten years before dropping back down again. Recent research has shown just that possibility. No doubt the long term trend is downward but just how quickly it will go is still very much a scientific question.
I think you need to ‘rethink’ your conclusions
they are simply wrong with C02 levels this high- and what they where in earths past geologic history.
CO2 levels where this high (near 400ppm)20 million years ago there was NO ice in the arctic or Greenland
tell me how I am wrong and you are right
20 million years ago in the Miocene- CO2 levels where dropping after the Eocene Optimum- now they are rising-
The burden of proof is on you- let’s see some citations to support your conclusions. The best science says it will take decades for the ice to disappear in the summer. There is not one published paper that indicates the ice will be gone in ten years. That is patently ridiculous.
There is no burden of proof on me buddy
go back to the Paleo climate records- the USGS on climate change and earths climates of the past
or I suggest you read Dr. James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’ there in lies the burden of empirical science- something deniers like you seem to ignore.
There will be NO ice in the arctic in late summer no later then 2030- C02 levels this high- and the warming in the pipeline will not allow any kind of recovery-UNLESS you see C02 levels drop- and then the climatic inertia will not kick in for decades to see ice rebuild.
C02 levels as reported by the USGS – NASA/Goddard
will support everything I have said here. That is where I have gotten the data!
Well, being called a climate denier on this blog is a real first. I read Hansen’s book and think it was excellent (and likely spot on). He doesn’t think the ice will be gone in a decade either because he reads the science. The best science says that it will disappear (in summer) sometime around mid century and perhaps the 2040’s, at the earliest. Which is way too soon in any event. The real science is scary enough without the need to make ridiculous claims that have no basis.
Hansen’s book was excellent- and is a primer for anyone new to climate change- all that is needed is a basic understanding of science, geology and astronomy.
Hansen who is the nations chief climate scientists at NASA/Goddard relies more on paleo climates of the past then models via computer for the future. climate models can be partially wrong- as in the case of the IPCC stating an ‘ice free arctic’ in late summer by ‘2060’ they now admit they where ‘around 30-40 years off in their models which failed to reflect feedback’s in the arctic and anonymous weather events
Actually as far as the weather in the arctic this year- it was less favorable then in 2007.- yet we still almost reached the extent level 4 years ago. The 2007 very warm weather favorable wind was a one in 20-25 year event.
I write at many other blogs- try Dr. Joe Romm over at Climate Progress http://thinkprogress.org/romm/issue/
Also Neven’s Arctic blog at http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
Real Climate – edited by Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt (2 renowned climate scientists- and others) also has good stuff on the arctic and climate change
http://www.realclimate.org/
last but not least John Cooks Skeptical Science- and excellent Australian blog which disputes skeptics
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
good luck here by the way- I hope you get more people to join the discussion- and also visit the fine sites above.
As for Dr. Hansen- his book almost 2 years old now has been slighly updated- the science of climate change becomes ever more refined-
we are out of time now to prevent catastrophic climate change- as says Hansen- unless in the future we try risky Geo-engineering.