E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Seymour Laxon / University College London
This is an Arctic sea ice ridge at one of the sites used to validate ice thickness measurements from the CroySat-2.
Thick sea ice is disappearing from a broad swath of the Arctic, according to new satellite data that confirms estimates from computer models and suggests the region may be ice free during the summers sooner rather than later.
The Arctic sea ice reached a new record minimum extent in 2012, when it covered nearly half the average area it did from 1979 to 2010. The new data show the Arctic sea ice volume in the fall, when it is at its lowest, has declined more than a third between 2003 and 2012. Ice volume in the winter has declined 9 percent.
"Not only is the area getting smaller, but also its thickness is decreasing and making the ice more vulnerable to more rapid declines in the future," Christian Haas, a geophysicist at York University in Canada, told NBC News.
Sea ice extent can change in response to melting from warmer ocean and air temperatures as well as getting shifted around by winds and currents, which can push it into thick piles.
"The latter process would not change the volume of the ice," explained Haas. "But now we know that not only the area decreases, but also the thickness and therefore the total volume decreases."
The new observations are the first data analyzed from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 satellite, which was launched in 2010. It uses a technique called radar altimetry to measure the thickness of the sea ice, which reveals the volume of the ice there, not just how much of the Arctic it covers.
A NASA satellite collected similar data between 2003 and 2008 and helped researchers verify a computer model used to compute ice volume based on weather records, sea-surface temperature and satellite imagery.
Axel Schweiger / UW
Monthly sea ice volume anomalies from 1979 to the present calculated using the PIOMAS system.
In recent years, that model, called the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), has generated some controversy because of the substantial ice loss it showed, according to the University of Washington, where it was built.
"These (new) data essentially confirm that in the last few years, for which we haven’t really had data, the observations are very close to what we see in the model," Axel Schweiger, a polar scientist with the university’s Applied Physics Laboratory, said in a news release.
"So that increases our confidence for the overall time series from 1979 to present."
In a follow-up telephone interview with NBC News, Schweiger added that for the eight-year satellite record, the estimates from PIOMAS have actually been less than what was observed.
"We knew that our system was conservative, we had a sense of that," he said, "but this confirms it."
Going forward, researchers will use the PIOMAS to forecast when the Arctic will be ice free in the summers, a phenomenon that may impact everything from global shipping to weather patterns. Some studies indicate that could come as early as 2040.
"As the satellite measurements show that not only the area decreases but also its thickness, it is actually becoming more likely that the ice will disappear sooner rather than later," Haas told NBC News.
John Roach is a contributing writer to NBC News. To learn more about him, check out his website.
Leave a Comment:
Arctic sea ice at its highest level for this data in five years.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Yeah and previous studies claimed it would be ice free in 2000, and 2005, and 2007 and 2010. Oops. They were all wrong. There is no reason to believe this guess will be correct either.
What has been reported this year is that Polar Bear numbers are doing fine. That Alaska has been cooling at a rate of 2.4 degrees per decade since the year 2000. That Bering Sea ice is increasing.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html
“Seven of the last 10 years have produced above-average freezing in the waters west of Alaska, Cole said. Last year, seasonal sea-ice cover and thickness in the Bering Sea were higher than any time since record-keeping began four decades ago.”
Kathleen Cole, Alaska National Weather Service, Dec. 6, 2012.
http://polarbearscience.com/quote-archive/
Sure doesn't look so bad when you look at actual data instead of listening to people with an agenda.
It sounds like you have an agenda
Of course he has an agenda. He always jumps on these stories with the latest cherry-picked factoids or outright lies from the denial industry.
"Arctic sea ice at its highest level for this data in five years"
Glad to know everything is fine now, problem gone.
Dear economy killer
you state that 2013 ice is high and provide a link
I followed your link, and I don't htink it shows that ice is low in 2013 - infact, it doesn't have data for 2013 at all, the big "2013" in th garph is totally misleading, but appears to be related to when the graph was made (a fail on the part of whoever made the graph)
anyway, perhaps you can post a link with some better data
Well, is the Arctic the only place with ice on Earth? How about the Antarctic?
I don't want to go all the way to the Antarctic for ice, it's too cold there.
""
Link did not show up in my Antarctica comment
Dave, the Antarctic continent on the whiole is losing ice. Some areas have gained ice because of increased snow (predicted by climate scientists) and other areas have pockets of increasing cold, which the deniers love to point to. But the world is warming up. Deal with it.
Hmmmmm, and how do you all equate that with global warming? Perhaps just nature taking her course? Still a concern for all of those people who want a beach house by the shore. Really they shouldn't be allowed to build there. We all pay for them eventually. More of a concern would be the shift in ocean currents due to fresh water rise. You can google this... A slowdown in the Eastern Mid Atlantic could have some very drastic effects for highly populated areas. Look at 'Irene', 'Sandy' and 'Nemo'. All 3 storms are historic. And all 3 in the last 2 years to hit points above North Carolina.
Exactly, it is nature taking its course. Ice caps melt when the temperature rises which cools down the ocean and produces much stronger storms more often. This cools down the planet through rain/snow fall and blocking out the sun in parts of the world leading to a decrease in temperature. However that is not to say only the sun can cause the temp to raise far enough to trigger such an event.
The problem we are facing now is, if the Earth is warming and if we happen to be adding to that process can nature enact its measure for dealing with that before a positive feedback loop can be created.
The fact that the Earth is warming is universally accepted. What that means for us and if humanity is affecting it are what we are being debating.
"The fact that the Earth is warming is universally accepted."
Among scientists, maybe, but many of the deniers are still trying to deny that. Sometimes I think they are getting confused as to exactly what they are denying. Climate scientists are also pretty clear that we are a substantial cause, but that gets mixed up into the knee-jerk denials as well.
Americans, specifically, are exceptionally good at cherry picking whatever science they like and agree with. Computers, medical science (well, most of it anyways), engineering - it's all good, and science is applauded. But OMG: AGW, evolution, cosmology - they're all so darned inconvenient.
900 to 1100 AD Norse sailors sailed the "Northwest Passage" around northern Canada to get to the "Far East". 1492 AD the Portuguese monarchy commissioned Christopher Columbus to sail straight west to find another way to the "Far East" because the Alps and Himalayas were frozen over and impassable. Shipping companies may be able to use the Northwest passage again!! Now how do you explain that Global Warming, Global Cooling and again Global Warming without gas guzzling SUVs???
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice global warming denialism
Because, genius, SUVs aren't the onlt source of CO2, and CO2 is not the only factor affecting climate. Learn the science before putting your foot in your mouth.
Doug, that is your best comment EVER!!!
Luckly, grown-up poems don't have to rhyme ;-D
My only concern is that this study only goes back 32 years, as it must since it is based on satellite data. Understanding the past changes in climate, particularly the more recent interglacial periods, will help to determine the human influence. The other factor is whether warming is good or bad. Animals and plants with restricted habitats, (due primarily to humans), will suffer and in some cases go extinct. Cute cuddly adaptable creatures like Nile monitor lizards and Burmese pythons should do well and be able to spread north out of Florida. Anyway, happy Valentine's Day everyone. :-)
I have been around for over 50 years, and I have seen a change in my life time maybe it is a fluke of Nature but maybe not, I tend to agree we have Some Global Warming going on, How much is the Natural order of things or How much is man made is debatable, but something is not right. I think it is great that a few people are trying very hard to find out what is going on and what can be done about it, We do need to find new way for energy we can not depend on oil forever it is a limited supply, We do need to find ways to stop pollution, We do need to safe guard our food supply's when a field is planted in a place when a highly toxic chemical has been used to control weeds do you not think it in your food? Look at our water more and more chemicals are needed every year just to make it safe to drink. The population is growing everyday ever larger putting more demands. So what is so wrong with trying to protect our earth so far it the only planet we have to live on and without it we are nothing.
We can control population. We know exactly how it works, but chose to deny that it is a problem. Instead we get a bunch of people running around talking about treating the symptoms.