Every summer the sea ice in the Arctic shrinks, usually reaching a minimum around early September, and every winter at least some of the ice reforms as temperatures drop. But in the three decades since records began in 1979, the area covered by ice in early September - the 'sea ice minimum' - has been decreasing, shrinking by around 13% per decade. To date, the record sea ice minimum was in 2007.
That is, until last weekend. While some of us were enjoying the only really sunny day of the August bank holiday, the Arctic sea ice passed the 2007 record, and it's not yet reached its minimum. So 2012 is definitely a new low for the melting of the Arctic ice. We'll see over the next couple of weeks how deep the new low goes.
Clearly the impacts of changing sea ice patterns, and the possibility of ice-free summers in the foreseeable future, have major consequences for the Arctic wildlife and people whose lives and livelihoods have evolved around the ebb and flow of the sea ice. And it is lamentable that some people view the melting Arctic as an opportunity for oil and gas exploration - activities that have made such a great contribution to global warming in the first place - rather than as a portent and a glimpse of the future that awaits us in a climate changed world.
Because the Arctic is the 'canary in the coalmine' for our warming world; the poles warm more quickly for several reasons, with the result that the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula warm up most quickly, serving as an indicator of things to come and a warning to the rest of the world. Already we are seeing increasing 'global weirding' - changing weather patterns and more extreme weather events as climate change exerts its influence.
In addition, as this year's American drought begins to hit world food prices, climate change ceases to be an issue that can be batted around without consequence or responsibility in the British press, and becomes a very real part of people's lives - particularly the world's poorest and most vulnerable.
Over the past few years governments and policymakers have talked about a target of limiting climate change to 2oC [above pre-industrial levels]. But recent science has shown that two degrees of warming isn't nearly as 'safe' as people thought ten years ago, which is why WWF and many other countries and organisation are calling for a target of 1.5oC.
And last week Professor Sir Bob Watson - a highly respected UK scientist and currently Chief Scientific Advisor to Defra - warned that the chances of keeping the global temperature increase under 2oC (never mind 1.5oC) were 'largely out of the window'.
So we have a choice now, and much of that choice is linked to our awareness, and whether or not we choose to act now on that awareness. We can either work very hard to protect the Arctic, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our energy use and from deforestation (which is perfectly possible to do) and learn to adapt to a world of moderate climate change. Or we can follow the current example of our own UK Treasury, concentrating on the short-term and doing as little as possible.
But if we take the second path we can't pretend we didn't know, because the Arctic has just given us another clear warning of what is happening. We will have to acknowledge openly that young people today, and certainly their children, will not be able to aspire to the same safe and beautiful world to which we have aspired. We'll be seen as the generation that knew but didn't act - the ones who watched the devastation of our natural world, and did nothing to stop it.
Follow Jon Taylor on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jon_taylor_wwf
Rod Downie: There Can Be No Doubt, the Arctic and Antarctica Are Warming Rapidly
Kassie Siegel: 3 Ways Arctic Meltdown Threatens the Whole World
Rod Downie: Arctic Sea Ice Breaks Record Low
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with ...
Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low—Extreme Weather to Come?
Arctic sea ice 'hits record low' - Americas - Al Jazeera English
'A less polar pole': Arctic sea ice at record low
Classic climate feedback: Arctic Sea Ice Extent lowest on record and still ...
Arctic becoming a "giant slushie," says scientist
Humanity has a death wish.
They don't even look before they cut!
Thank you for the fave on my comment btw
Love and light to you my fellow earth friend! :-)
What happened to the Arctic ice is instructive. There were modest decreases in ice volume loss until significant amounts of open water began to appear. This opened the door to every conceivable phenomenon for positive feedback synergies kicking in, and the downward spiral has started to accelerate. This may be how Nature will operate in effecting climate change: add in as many positive feedback loops as possible, to finish the job in record time. If this is true, as it appears to be, the past will be an extremely conservative indicator of the future, and the downhill climate slide will turn into an avalanche.
For it to be prevented, the planet's population would have to agree to massive cuts in energy usage. That won't happen until it is too late, and probably not even then.
I'm retired, and hopefully will miss the worst of these effects, although I will start to experience far more of them than I had thought possible only five years ago. The millenial generation can look forward to a world of increasing struggle for survival.
http://grist.org/news/yet-another-ship-makes-it-through-the-ice-light-northwest-passage/
Too many alarmist scientists cry wolf with insufficient data for their hypothetical scenarios! Satelite records have only existed for 33 years, a mere pinprick in time! Ice levels have been low in this transient region many times in the past!
Roald Admunsen navigated the North West Passage in a wooden rowing boat in August 2005! The passage was also successfully navigated several time during the 1940's
Antarctica, contrary to your statement, is LOSING ice mass, not gaining it: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
You are confused about Roald Amundsen. He used a small sailboat to navigate the Northwest Passage in a 3 year journey that lasted from 1903 to 1906. As the passage wasnot opened continuously, it took him 3 years.
Since then the occasional icebeaker has made the journey but it was 2007 before the passage was thawed enough to allow a cargo ship through.
So there are fluctuations back to normal, but not above normal unlike the fluctuations to ever lower levels. Are you going to ignore a trend or rely on a single year?
Quote: "Very little is spoken either regarding the expansion of the Antarctic ice cap of approximately 1.8% per decade!"
Because what you (and Wiki) are referring to is the extent of the Antarctic sea ice which is relatively unimportant. The amount of ice on the land making up the Antarctic ice sheet is the important factor in global warming and that is declining.
August 29th, 2012
An international team of scientists have shed new light on the world's history of climate change.
The findings are published in the latest edition of Nature.
: "Nowadays we often discuss global warming induced by man-made carbon dioxide. However, on geological timescales of millions of years other processes determine the carbon cycle."
Volcanoes are one major source of carbon dioxide input to the atmosphere.
"The interesting point in our study is that the carbonate boundary is fluctuating over time. It shallows during periods of warm climate and normally deepens when ice age conditions prevail."
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-climate-stories-abyss.html
If every country reduced it's emissions every year (like the USA is doing), there might be a chance to reduce CO2 emissions globally. Otherwise, nothing we do will make a difference.
Unless you consider millions of Americans losing their jobs, homes, families, and way of life as progress.
In modern times, human CO2 emissions are roughly 100 times greater than emissions from volcanoes.
I see no way out!
This is the site for jokes and mockery.
There are 6 million SETs in the United States. That's Scientists, Engineers and Technitians. If each one were to give a thousand dollars to organizations to publicise this problem, there would be 6 billion dollars for the effort. a thousand dollars isn't to much to save people from the problems of a to warm a planet in the future. But there is just not enough organization and caring from to many people.
I'm planning on building a house with 2 foot thick wall insulation and 3 foot thick ceiling insulation that doesn't need a furnace.
Go to the National Renewable Energy Labratory (NREL) website and their recent report that 80 of our electrical power can be produced by renewable energy.
Would sacrifice help, sure. But it can be done without it. Instead of building carbon fuel consuming machines and buildings, build non carbon fuel consuming machines and buildings.
One group of alarmists are scientists who are telling us about the dangers to the planet climate from greenhouse gases.
The second group of alarmists are those who are telling us we can't get along without carbon fueled energy.
My opinion is that the scientists are right that there are dangers to the planets climate and to the people living on the planet to global warming.
My opinion is that the group of alarmists telling us that we can't get along without the high level of carbon fuel consumtion are wrong. There are substitutes. But to this second group of people, it would be bad if people were to use less of the product they sell. it's about the money.
It's hard to find an honest broker about many subjects and this is not different. But reports have shown that if we were to build non carbon energy, it could be done.
cyclically there were palm trees and crocodiles at the poles..
and there will be again