Arctic Ocean On Track For New Record Low Sea Ice Cover - NSIDC

[hatrack]

Is the Arctic in for another record low sea ice year? It is starting to look like it. The recently released June 2004 ice extent and concentration are much lower than normal (Fig. 1-3), indicating that annual minimum ice extent, which occurs in September, is likely to be well below normal. If so, this would be the third year in a row with substantial below-normal ice conditions in the Arctic, an unprecedented event in the 30+ year record of satellite observations of Arctic sea ice.

After a record minimum sea ice extent in September 2002, followed by a September 2003 extreme that was nearly as low, early indications are that 2004 will be a very low ice year. May 2004 extent was poleward of the mean extent in virtually all regions of the Arctic (see NSIDC's Sea Ice Index for images). This indicates that ice began melting faster than normal; however, May conditions are not necessarily indicative of conditions at the end of the melt season in September. The correlation between concentration anomalies (Fig. 4) in May and September is low (0.34); however, correlation with June anomalies is much more significant (0.71). Thus, the below normal June extent (Fig. 1, 2) and large negative concentration anomalies (Fig. 3) are suggestive that the Arctic may be in for a third low ice year in a row.

Such low concentrations may be indicative of climate change. While there is substantial interannual variability in the summer minimum ice extent, the satellite record has revealed a significant downward trend of ~9% per decade (e.g., Comiso, 2002) in the summer minimum extent, which corresponds to ~300,000 km 2 per decade (e.g., Cavalieri et al., 2003). This trend could have substantial ramifications for the Arctic region in terms of commerce, wildlife, and the indigenous human population and may be a harbinger of large-scale global changes. If current trends continue, the Arctic may be completely free of ice during at least some of the summer by 2050 (e.g., Flato and Boer, 2001; Johannessen et al., 1999)."

EDIT

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20041607_seaice.html

[phantom power]

1. I bet it will be sooner than 2050

people keep applying linear thinking to these systems that are completely governed by nonlinear dynamics.

And how can they say "may be indicative of climate change". When a continent-sized body of ice is disappearing before our eyes, how the heck can it signify anything *but* climate change???

[opihimoimoi]

2. The Pubs will say this is normal, move on, nothing to see here, move along

[trotsky]

3. Oh no, haven't you heard the latest spin?

They can no longer deny climate change, what with permafrost in Alaska being not so perma- anymore.

So because they can't just simply deny it, the new right-wing mantra is that it comes from NATURAL causes. Such as increased solar radiation, etc.

They will go to any lengths to avoid validating environmentalists.

[opihimoimoi]

4. Head in the Sand Rationalization...whatever happened to Better Safe

Than Sorry???

The Pubs know not How to look at things and THIMK>>>>>>>!

[hatrack]

5. That way it's not our fault - and we don't have to do ANYTHING!!

The "increased solar radiation" is one of my personal favorites.

If such were the case, you'd see a separation between high summer and low winter temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions - that is, if you plotted these temps graphically, they'd grow sharper, since radiation would apply only during summer months, while winter would remain the same. However, what the data have shown for the last 10-15 years is a flattening of the difference between the two. Summer temps have risen, but winter temps (when there is no sun) have risen by huge margins.

Oops. Oh well, that didn't work - try another spin.

[thecrow]

6. Better drill that awl up there soon before it becomes a tropics!

Then we will have to fight all the tourist trade!
</sarcasm>