Advertisement

Science Friday
Arctic ice more vulnerable than ever
Ocean’s ice cap is smaller than long-term average and thinnest yet as melt season begins
font_down font_up Text Size
access
THINNING OUTThis spring, a larger fraction of sea ice in the Arctic is much thinner than average, a sign that the ice may be more likely to melt this summer. Light orange areas are covered by brand-new, first-year ice, which typically is less than two meters thick. Darker orange and red areas are covered by multiyear ice, which usually measures three meters or more thick.National Snow and Ice Data Center, courtesy of J. Maslanik and C. Fowler/Univ. of Colorado

The spring melting of the Arctic Ocean’s ice cap has already begun, and data suggest that the ice is more vulnerable than ever: The ocean area covered by ice is one of the lowest ever measured by satellites, and a record high fraction of that area is capped by thin, first-year ice that’s more prone to melt than older, thicker ice is.

Recent satellite images reveal that for March 2009 an average of 15.16 million square kilometers of Arctic seas were covered by ice, says Walt Meier, a remote sensing analyst at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. That’s only 730,000 km2 more than the record low ice extent measured in the spring of 2006 but about 590,000 km2 — an area slightly smaller than the state of Texas — less than the long-term average, as tallied between 1979 and 2000, he announced during a press teleconference on April 6.

access
GOING DOWNThe proportion of Arctic sea ice that formed more than one year previously — the so-called multiyear ice, which typically is thicker and more resistant to summer melting — has been decreasing steadily in recent decades.National Snow and Ice Data Center, courtesy of J. Maslanik and C. Fowler/Univ. of Colorado

Although in the past year the ice extent has recovered slightly, its average thickness is way down, largely because much of this year’s ice formed just this last winter, Meier adds. While the average proportion of multiyear ice in Arctic seas is about 30 percent, this spring the proportion of ice older than 1 year old is a record low 9.8 percent. The region’s floating ice “is much younger and thinner compared to previous years,” Meier noted.

Thinner ice is more likely to melt over the course of a summer, says Ron Kwok, an analyst at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. While multiyear ice is often three meters or more thick, first-year ice measures only two meters thick or less. In recent years, wind patterns have driven large amounts of multiyear ice from the Arctic Ocean into the North Atlantic, and winter refreezing hasn’t caught up with that ice loss, he commented at the press conference.

Although some small parts of the Arctic were cooler than normal this winter — including the Bering Sea, where ice extent actually increased this year — long-term trends for the entire region show an overall loss of ice, Meier notes. “We’ve lost about one-third of the ice cover that we had in the 1980s,” he says.


Found in: Earth and Environment
Comments 3
  • It appears that on the short term, at least, that the Arctic ice is increasing as the 2 year ice area is greater than the previous (>2year) patch. If this trend continues and we do, in fact, experience another solar Maunder Minimum as some expect, we should see the sea ice continue to grow in volume for some time.

    I have yet to hear of any remediation efforts to increase the albedo issues around the arctic. These would include reflective artificial (Styrofoam?) islands, removal of tundra brush, high altitude contrail enhancement, etc.

    Thanks!
    glenn
    gripley@myspclstitches.com gripley@myspclstitches.com
    Apr. 7, 2009 at 11:30am
  • Are you really certain of these figures? Given that NASA had misplaced 193,000 square miles of Arctic Ice, don't you think that these reports need to be reevealuated. If you have trouble visualizing that size of an area, imagine California disappearing from all geological records. Teh data loss was attribued to a "failed sensor". Don't you think that someeone would have noticed that much data being missing?

    How about the figures from Central Asia last October because the Russians were late reporting the temperature data? They used the September numbers because they happened to be in the folder the data was supposed to be for October and they reuse the folder repository month to month. As I recollect they said it was the second warmest October on record until they discovered the error. The corrected figures showed it to be in the top 20 coldest on record. There are other collection errors that pertain to the Antarctic Ice Sheet which will be he subjectof another letter.

    This is reminiscent to the Ozone Hole scare which was never peer reviewed before the report was released and the meteorologists at NASA found some problems with the interpretation of the data. Seems to me that they have a problem with scientific process and data collection and handling. Is Anthropogenic Global Warming going to be discovered to be just sloppy data handling? Is the sloppy data handling more due to an eagerness to prove points on a political agenda?
    michael Stanton michael Stanton
    Apr. 12, 2009 at 12:55pm
  • It is absolutely true that human error in data collection or analysis is a problem, but it is also true that the great majority of such errors are found and rectified by scientists comparing their results with those of others conducting similar work. The scientific method relies on reproducibility of experiments, or on resolving inconsistencies in observations when the experiments are conducted once (in nature, for example). The comments above (by Michael Stanton) raise the issue of error, but fail to recognize that the errors are generally detected and rectified in the normal course of business. Someone must indeed have 'noticed' that data was missing, or that a sensor had malfunctioned, otherwise the example couple not have been used by Mr. Stanton to make his point.

    I suggest that one can minimize the potential for skewing major trends by any given inaccuracy by looking at long term trends while expecting there to be some uncertainty, and asking what the likely impact of an outlier might be. In both examples used above, the size of the ozone hole (e.g., see ), and the historical record of minimum Arctic ice cover (see ), the long term data trends far outweigh the pull of a single year's data point. If you worry about the validity of 2007's reportedly very low ice cover, wait until next year and the year after to see... but why the mistrust? Are you really suggesting that ALL years' results contain falsification?

    It always amazes me that some people (primarily from outside science) see scince as an endeavour with a political agenda. Scientists do worry about keeping their jobs (many do not have any sort of tenure and must compete with each other for very sparse resources) but I know of no one in the trenches who acts out of a "political agenda"; rather the success of a proposal requires formulation of rational hypotheses that can be tested with good scientific technique: it is both the importance of the goals and the quality of the procedures that are evaluated by peer review.

    I do assert that until the Bush administration, there were relatively few political hacks in science, but the neo-cons consistently and in large numbers tried to undermine the data-driven case for Anthropogenic Global Warming by falsification and omission (and they had motive to do so that involved far more money than any scientist will ever see). It seems to me that Mr. Stanton's efforts parallel those of eager politically-driven actors. Why, he even uses the well worn FOXNews tactic of posing rhetorical questions that themselves impugn the integrity of true scientists without offering a shred of evidence to back up the slight. Object on scientific grounds sir, but otherwise kindly cease and desist.

    Peter Kaczkowski
    PKaczkowski PKaczkowski
    Apr. 12, 2009 at 7:36pm
Post a comment (Please note: All links will be removed from comments.)

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator