Clear skies spell trouble for Arctic sea ice
Arctic sea ice
(Credit: Ash. Some rights reserved.)
Clearer skies over the Arctic are causing more sea ice to melt.
That’s according to research led by Jennifer Kay, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
Jennifer Kay: I think that’s a pretty important story to know about, that there’s change happening and the natural variability in something like weather can accentuate that change and make a very dramatic effect, this huge loss of ice.
The year 2007 saw a record summer melt of ice floating in the Arctic sea, which shrank about 40 percent below the 20-year average. Kay and colleagues found that cloud cover also shrank by 16 percent, letting more of the summer sun in.
Jennifer Kay: When you couple together these unusual weather patterns, but not unprecedented weather patterns, and a very vulnerable ice surface, you end up with a very dramatic loss of sea ice, and that’s what we saw this past summer.
Earth & Sky asked Kay why it’s important to study sea ice.
Jennifer Kay: It can play a really important role in modifying the heat and where the heat is going in the Arctic. I think there’s also a lot of focus on sea ice because it’s one of the most visible manifestations of climate change.
Our thanks today to NASA, in celebration of the International Polar Year.
NEW! Find related content with Sphere
How come you assume global warming is affecting us just because one year was warmer then the rest. I dont want say that you are wrong about global warming but I dont get what the big fuss is about. If you want to fix it make better electric cars. Dont inform the public and exspect them to do something about it. You guys have enough money to monitor how much ice has melted and how much clouds there are in the sky so I assume you guys have enough money to fix or slow down global warming. Also I bet with all the money you spent on writing these articles I bet you could of improved hydrogen powered cars.
Global warming is a fact. Listen to the overwelming number of environmental scientists that tell us that. Look at the long term global temperature details. Look at the history of summer arctic ice melt and antartic ice shelf loss, and the loss of glaciers around the world. Then examine the long term steady increase in atmospheric CO2. And don’t expect anyone besides the governments of each country to agree to solve the problem.
Robert, You have fallen for the greatest con job in the history of man. There is NO EVIDENCE of man’s involvement in the fluctuation of the Earth’s temperature. A group of “scientists” who agree unanimously is more to be feared than trusted. Remember also that a government large and powerful enough to supply all your needs and solve your problems, is also large and powerful enough to strip you of everything you have. Be careful what you wish for. This Earth has stood thousands of years without human interference. Don’t mess it up now.
I would like to add that the arctic sea ice seems to have made a resurgence and is back to levels of 25 years ago. We do not live long enough to see the amplitude nor frequency of nature’s sine waves. Everything rises and falls. Populations, temeratures and economies. That is the way it is. Normative climatology, is, in my opinion, as dangerous and as foolish as normative economics. It is one thing to observe a phenomena, quite another to attempt to control it.
And, it is the height of hubris to think we can.
Of course global warming is a fact. That is what the earth does; it warms and it cools. However, i do not feel as though humans are responsible for the current warming. With or without us, the earth will warm. My statements are not to be misinterpreted; humans are definately having a negative impact on this planet, but our lives and societies are fleeting at best. All that we are cannot compare to the complex systems that dictate our lives. And yes, we need to continue our search for alternative fuels. We need alternatives for many of our exploitations. We need…
re: #3 Mr. Bolin: Are you the same Perry Bolin who gave the Bush-Cheney campaign $1000 for their 2004 re-election campaign? And the same Perry Bolin who is affiliated with the Bolin Oil Company? If so, there are two excellent reasons not to listen to anything you have to say on climate change, IMHO.
BOLIN, PERRY N MR., MC KINNEY, TX 75069, BOLIN OIL COMPANY/REAL ESTATE INVES
Data Provided by the Federal Election Commission as of 5/19/08 at:
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=75069&last=BOLIN&first=PERRY
MeltyMan, No, I’m not that Perry Bolin, I have heard of him but do not know him. I have never made a monetary or material contribution to any politician or party. My comments which are posted on this site are not submitted to pursue any agenda which is political, even though I support capitalism and would love to see Government stop sticking it’s greasy snout into our lives. I make my comments purely as a personal observation, and try to take into account all the facts I can obtain. I love a good argument, and try to be open to other points of view. I try to leave the sparring that we undertake on this site with a respect for all who participate, inthat we have been given a forum in which to express our views, and whether or not they change the view of another, our discussions have enriched others and stimulated thought. I don’t think that it is fair that one should be judged by his politics, we all have a right to support whoever we want, and in doing so should not be categorized in any way. You mentioned President Bush. Recently he stated that man made Global Warming was real, a point of view that any who have read my posts would know that I disagree with. However, I do like Mr. Bush. I do not always agree with him and his decisions.
Maybe this is our human’s nature. Most of people just focus on the current situation what we have and our own value. Hehe, I think some of us in this site should have a right thinking to this problem.
letter to the editor
Chapel Hill (NC) Newspaper
June 11, 2008
Solutions exist if we apply the science.
Humankind is surely experiencing the fulfillment of a Chinese proverb: “We live in interesting times.” Many of our brilliant scientists report that God is a delusion. On the other hand, intuitive and gifted believers regularly tell us that these scientists themselves suffer from a form of delusional atheism. No one knows, I suppose, which of these groups is correct.
I am one of those people who believes the family of humanity can use God’s gift of science to take the measure of any global challenge and find solutions that are consonant with universal values. But, before we can move forward to reasonably address and sensibly overcome a challenge to human wellbeing and environmental health such as global warming, that challenge needs to be openly acknowledged and widely discussed. I suppose it is a function of my life experience to suggest that we accurately “diagnose” whatever the challenge is before proceeding to implement “treatment” options.
If great spiritual and scientific leaders are somehow on the right track when realizing, “The Earth has a human-induced fever and could overheat,” then at least one available treatment option is to carefully and skillfully examine the extant scientific evidence related to global warming and to make necessary changes in human behavior, both individually and collectively.
All of the above serves to set the stage for our consideration of a question. How can politicians and economic powerbrokers in the human community be empowered to muster the “political will” necessary for addressing human-driven climate change as well as for providing the substantial economic incentives and financial capital necessary to overcome this potential global threat to life as we know it and the integrity of Earth?
— Steven Earl Salmony, Chapel Hill