Update: Arctic Sea Ice Trends

The National Snow and Ice Data Center is reporting that the Arctic Ocean is covered with young sea ice. The problem is that young ice is less thick than ice older than 2 years and thus more prone to melting. Recent years have seen the lowest recorded extent in Arctic sea ice.

 The Center reports:

First-year ice in particular is thinner and more prone to melting away than thicker, older, multi-year ice. This year, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10% of the ice cover at the end of February. From 1981 through 2000, such older ice made up an average of 30% of the total sea ice cover at this time of the year.

Instead of reflecting sunlight back into space and cooling the planet, open water absorbs more heat. This additional heat contributes to keeping the Arctic warmer than usual. Model simulations suggest that Arctic ocean warming can extend 900 miles inland where it can melt permafrost and provoke the release methane. Methane is a much more powerful warming gas. It will be interesting to see what happens to Arctic sea ice this summer. 

In response to a H&R reader comment I include below the March sea ice extent trend below:

Of course, astute H&R commenters could have RTFA to which I linked to find this out. 😉

Comments

[Warren]

Sea ice floats and so doesn't matter to ocean levels whether it melts or no.

Are the antarctic glaciers still galloping into the sea?

[phalkor]

Reduced permafrost and release of natural fertilizers could make northern Canada liveable in about 100 years. By then we will have crops capable of growing fast enough to adapt to the shorter growing season. Invest in Canada!

If my mercator projection is correct, then Canada is friggin' huge!

[Blue]

We're doooomed

[SpongePaul]

By then we will have crops capable of growing fast enough to adapt to the shorter growing season
__________________________________________
already do its called hemp, just needs a 3 month growing season, and it can grow just about anywhwere. cannabis sativa (tropical) cannabis Indica (indian sub cont.) cannibis pakastani (pakastan) and cannabis rudderalis (artic)

[Mango Punch]

They're pretty good staying inside the lines when drawing with crayons. I don't think I was ever that neat of a drawer.

[SpongePaul]

hmm, bad science here. a 20 year avg compared to a 1 year event. not even close to being scientific, not even close. an 8th grader would get a F if he tried to pass that off at a science fair

[Ron Bailey]

phalkor: You're right of course. Two things--all things being equal methane produces more warming and a warmer Arctic might increase melting of Greenland's glaciers, thus increasing sea levels. I'm not saying it's time to panic, just getting readers apprised of relevant scientific data.

[SpongePaul]

Sea ice floats and so doesn't matter to ocean levels whether it melts or no.
____________________________________________
actually it is bouyant but does not all float. just like adding ice to the glass raises the level of the water, because some of the ice is below the water line, and there is a set amount of displacement due to the density of the ice. now in sea levels, the ice is already there, so correct it will not raise the sea levels. the only way for sea levels to raise is to get more water from landmases, now melting glaciers can raise the sea level, melting sea ice not so much

[SpongePaul]

as far as the methane release, well it was put there and will be released cyclically throughout time. yes it will be released, but the new vegatation will use some of it up, and will remove CO2 from the air. that is if we let vegatation grow.

[Taktix?]

Funny, all this ice thinning seems to be happening primarily on the Russian/Chinese side.

And we're getting ready to deliver the coup d'?tat to our economy because we're the polluters?

[FTG]

Model simulations suggest that Arctic ocean warming can extend 900 miles inland where it can melt permafrost and provoke the release methane.

Ohhh, so THAT is one of the highly touted problems that Ron was so concerned about - a farting planet.

hmm, bad science here. a 20 year avg compared to a 1 year event. not even close to being scientific, not even close. an 8th grader would get a F if he tried to pass that off at a science fair.

Or give a cushy job at NASA to a mediocre scientist.

[Isaac Bartram]

If my mercator projection is correct, then Canada is friggin' huge!

Canada is huge, but not nearly as big as it appears on a mercator projection.

[Ed]

If we can somehow speed this up, then we won't have to worry about ever paying back all this borrowed money.

[Pro Libertate]

Now, Greenland, Greenland is friggin' huge.

[domoarrigato]

Wait, so the conclusion here is that ice is re-growing, but it's still recently deposited ice. So why is the fact that it's "new" ice an issue at all? I would have thought this is welcome news - signs that the recent ice level declines aren't permanent. But no, the environmentalists are determined to fit their narrative to the facts, whatever the cost. New ice, bad, old ice good.

Notice the catagories are "first year ice, 2nd year, and older" conveniently, next year they will be able to show the same graph, and draw the same conclusions simply by updating the legend to read, "2nd year ice, 3rd year ice, 4th year and older."

Sheesh.

[map geek]

Canada is huge, but not nearly as big as it appears on a mercator projection.

Transverse mercators solve this problem handily.

[Alan Vanneman]

"Methane is a much more powerful warming gas. It will be interesting to see what happens to Arctic sea ice this summer."

It will also be interesting to see what happens to George Will, also a powerful warming gas, this summer.

[Taktix?]

This story smells strangely like the "Old Growth Forests" bullshit reasoning for not being able to log forests.

"We're losing ice/trees!"

"But they grow back. Look, its/they're growing back right now."

"But it's new ice/trees, we're losing old ice/trees!"

"So?"

"Facist!"

[Cool Cal]

But in terms of real scientific data, what is the fact of increasing young ice to suggest even if it is offset by decreasing old ice, which you say is more relevant to warming? I would say, the increase of new ice replacing old ice (perhaps a philistine oversimplification), albeit more prone to melting, might suggest that conditions are persisting to create ice. This might in itself suggest that warming may possibly be a natural trend.

If climate as it relates to water temperature is as fragile a balance as they say, then couldn't nominal melting that occurs merely as a result of solar cycles itself contribute to a feedback loop, causing this ice to behave as it does today, and increasingly so tomorrow? I mean, I'm just suggesting that the idea of exponentially increasing warming as a result of water and sunlight, as is one of the many theories bandied about now, might support the theory of natural global warming rather than refute it. What say you?

[ed]

By then we will have crops capable of growing fast enough to adapt to the shorter growing season
__________________________________________
already do its called hemp

Being too stoned to care has its advantages.

[Jon H]

"Sea ice floats and so doesn't matter to ocean levels whether it melts or no. "

But melted sea ice lets the water absorb heat from the sun, so it heats up, which probably would result in warmer air over neighboring landmasses, which I'd think would cause any ice on the nearby land to melt more than has been seen in the past.

ie, warmer arctic waters = warmer inland air = melted inland ice = sea levels that are higher to some extent.

[Isaac Bartram]

It will also be interesting to see what happens to George Will, also a powerful warming gas, this summer.

The question for me is, how much of the gas that George Will emits this summer will be devoted to malarkey about basebal?

[J sub D]

Of course, astute H&R commenters could have RTFA to which I linked to find this out. 😉

Nag, nag, nag. Ron, H&R staffers ask so much from us and what do we get?

An opportunity to snark and the chance to opine on subjects wee are eminently unqualified to discuss? That's just not enough anymore. We demand more photos like this one accompanying articles before squadering our bandwidwidth to RTFA.

AGW deniers to the right.
Cliumate change doomsayers to the left.
No kicking, gouging, hitting below the belt. In the event of a knockdown, proceed to the nearest neutral corner and await instructions.

Now shake hands and comne out hyperbolizing.

*Ding*

[J sub D]

Screw spell check.

[crimethink]

We need to find a cartographic projection that makes the area covered by old ice bigger than the one covered by new ice. Problem solved!

Seriously though, don't we have the technology to produce a map of relative ice thickness, rather than coupling a map of "ice age" with a bunch of handwaving about how it relates to thickness?

[Jon H]

" I would say, the increase of new ice replacing old ice (perhaps a philistine oversimplification), albeit more prone to melting, might suggest that conditions are persisting to create ice."

Yeah, the conditions that are persisting is called winter, it rolls around every year and freezes some water.

But then some of it gets melted away in summer.

Think of the old ice as invested principle. You have $100 invested. For two quarters, you make money, and your balance goes to $110. But then for two quarters, you lose money. If you lose $10, your principle is okay. If you lose more than $10, then you're starting to eat into your principle.

Let's say you lose $15. So after four quarters you made $10 and lost $15, leaving you with $95. Then you have two more good quarters, and you make $10 again, leaving you with $105. But then you have two more bad quarters, losing $15 again. Now you have $90.

If this +$10/-$15 cycle continues every year, eventually it's going to eat all your principle and you'll have bupkis.

The deal with the melting ice is basically the same.

[Jon H]

"Seriously though, don't we have the technology to produce a map of relative ice thickness, rather than coupling a map of "ice age" with a bunch of handwaving about how it relates to thickness?"

I believe there's a team walking north right now, on the ice, dragging a radar unit behind them and swimming through gaps in the ice.

[domoarrigato]

...+$10/-$15 cycle ... The deal with the melting ice ...

I think the point is that recent events indicate that while the recent cycle was +$10/-$15 and the principle was down to $60, now it seems to be +$15/-$10. And in response, you guys say, "yeah, but this year the principle is still $60!"

[Jon H]

"I think the point is that recent events indicate that while the recent cycle was +$10/-$15 and the principle was down to $60, now it seems to be +$15/-$10. And in response, you guys say, "yeah, but this year the principle is still $60!""

It's a pretty clear trend downward, which suggests it's $+10/-$15. The 'princple' has gone from near 40 to near 10.

[JW]

The National Snow and Ice Data Center is reporting that the Arctic Ocean is covered with young sea ice.

What!? Water can refreeze? When did this start to happen?

[ChicagoTom]

It will also be interesting to see what happens to George Will, also a powerful warming gas, this summer.

Reporters at his own paper is calling him out...

Washington Post reporters Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan write:

The new evidence -- including satellite data showing that the average multiyear wintertime sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2005 and 2006 was nine feet thick, a significant decline from the 1980s -- contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will that sea ice in the Arctic has not significantly declined since 1979.

[Sam Grove]

At the solar incidence angle in the Arctic, what is the energy absorption compared to the lower latitudes?

[Johnny Nowhere]

The big issues with losing Arctic sea ice have less to do with rising sea levels as they do with lowering the planet's albedo and disrupting the formation of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW).

Whether or not you believe the loss of sea ice to be due to human influences, both a lower albedo and reduced flow of NADW could be part of a nasty feedback loop that raises the rate of warming.

[Lost_In_Translation]

To quoth the Warren...

"We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!"

[SpongePaul]

i wonder what effect the earths polar wobble has. since the earth rotates around its axis, but did you know it also wobbles completing a polar wobble every umpteen thousand years or so. So the angle of the pole to the sun actually increases/decreases but this long peroid wobble. that could more than explain it away.think of it as a top just starting to have its spin deterioat. see the wobble up top, same thing with the earth. oh and the magnetic N/S flips as well. we are trying to study and fix things when we hav eonly the last 100 years of a 100,000 year cycle to go off of. not a complete data set. and not very good for predecting long term changes, wether caused by humans or not.

[Ron Bailey]

Sam Grove: I don't know the answer to your question, but a recent article (March 28) in the New Scientist reports that snow covered sea ice absorbs 10 percent of the sun's energy per unit area, while open ocean absorbs about 94 percent of the sun's energy per unit area.

[NAL]

Reporters at his own paper is calling him out...

Washington Post reporters Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan

To which George Will wrote a reply. I'm too lazy to link to it. Just go to DrudgeReport and click on his "George Will" link

[Bobster]

Humans look at the last 10 years of data and think they see a trend. Look back far enough and most of the Earth was covered in Ice.

[SpongePaul]

Bobster | April 7, 2009, 6:10pm | #
Humans look at the last 10 years of data and think they see a trend. Look back far enough and most of the Earth was covered in Ice.
_________________________________________
look farther back and it was a hot gaseous swampland, look even further its ice, further still hot again, anyone else see a f-ing pattern that has nothing to do with humans

[Kilroy]

"...+$10/-$15 cycle ... The deal with the melting ice ..."

Oh great, now they're going to be proposing an ice bailout. Everyone, empty your freezers! The government will reallocate your ice to where it is needed most!

[nobody]

As a trained geologist, the data I've studied and papers and books I've read clearly support the fact of global warming. Moreover, as a trained geologist, I don't really care. Your global warming alarmists tend to see warming as an evil (Evil Hurricanes! Evil Tornadoes! Evil Drought!). More realistically, things will just be different. The earth doesn't care. We can't hurt its feelings. The rapidity of change may cause problems for humanity, yes, but the change itself is morally neutral.

However, there are those among the set of people posting on this thread (and on HnR in general) that nearly make me pine for an Intelligent Designer or two. SpongePaul, seriously? You believe the Polar Wobble theory you just heard about "could more than explain it away"? Jesus Fucking Christ on a barge, people. It's embarrassing. People rant all day on these threads about how 'libtards' don't know shite about economics and then when the discussion turns to global warming they start writing things like this?

[ed]

"The National Snow and Ice Data Center is reporting that the Arctic Ocean is covered with young sea ice."

"What!? Water can refreeze?"

Not only that: it can get its own Facebook account.

[I ain\'t gonna RTFA!]

Second chart looks like it's about kiddie porn. Go trap someone else.

[Joe K]

Here's a snippet of a post on the NSIDC report that I would have expected from Reason:

In past years, NSIDC has referred to "declining multi-year ice" as the problem which the Arctic faces. Mark Serreze at NSIDC forecast a possible "Ice Free North Pole" in 2008, based on the fact that it had only first year ice. This year, multi-year ice has increased and NSIDC is now referring to declining "2+ year old" ice as the problem.

Due to the record minimum in 2007, it goes without saying that there isn't a lot of three year old ice in 2009. Maybe next year they can raise the bar to 3+ year old ice, as the multi-year ice ages one more year?

[anonymous coward]

As a trained geologist, the data I've studied and papers and books I've read clearly support the fact of global warming. Moreover, as a trained geologist, I don't really care. Your global warming alarmists tend to see warming as an evil (Evil Hurricanes! Evil Tornadoes! Evil Drought!). More realistically, things will just be different. The earth doesn't care. We can't hurt its feelings. The rapidity of change may cause problems for humanity, yes, but the change itself is morally neutral.

However, there are those among the set of people posting on this thread (and on HnR in general) that nearly make me pine for an Intelligent Designer or two. SpongePaul, seriously? You believe the Polar Wobble theory you just heard about "could more than explain it away"? Jesus Fucking Christ on a barge, people. It's embarrassing. People rant all day on these threads about how 'libtards' don't know shite about economics and then when the discussion turns to global warming they start writing things like this?

QFMFT. Jesus Christ, thank you. Look, we don't have to piss ourselves with fear over the global warming thing like some lefties would like, but the libertarian tendency to bend over backwards to ignore the empirical evidence of global warming is so depressing. It seems like we should be better than that.

[James Ard]

How in these warmer days does one year old ice become two year old ice? How old will the ice get before the global cooling crowd tells us we must stop using energy to save the world?

[High Every Body]

Of course, astute H&R commenters could have RTFA to which I linked to find this out. 😉

Not a big supporter of traditions, are you Ron Bailey?

[hagbard]

Not to fear. The Yellowstone super volcano will erupt soon and cover the atmosphere with volcanic dust and refreeze the earth. Which is not so good news for us, but great for the planet.

[tehdude]

Seriously, just think this through. If sea ice is expanding, doesn't that mean that young ice must necesarily be expanding too?

The real problem is that arctic sea ice is expanding this year along with the cooling trend, so they invent new and exceedingly lame excuses for not reporting it in the media. People like you, who otherwise would have a free mind but are awed by Consensus, swallow this bullshit whole.

[R C Dean]

Dammit, domo beat me to it.

This data confirms that the reduction in Arctic ice is temporary and has reversed.

Its a little tautological to note that the new ice is, er, new ice, no?

he libertarian tendency to bend over backwards to ignore the empirical evidence of global warming

I don't know of anyone who would deny that there was a global warming trend that stopped around 8 or 9 years ago.

The argument is over why the climate shifts, and, more specifically, whether human activity is uniquely responsible for current climate shifts and if so, to what degree.

[Vermont Gun Owner]

If my mercator projection is correct, then Canada is friggin' huge!

I listen to this song every time I'm on Autoroute 10 on my way to Montreal.