Home / Blogs / Business / The Bulletin
Follow this blog:
RSS

U.S. sized ice sheet melts in Arctic

By | December 7, 2012, 4:30 AM PST

There she goes. The Arctic is melting in front of our eyes.

–

An area of Arctic ice the size of the United States has melted so far this year.

That’s according to the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which described a threatening rate of accelerating, real time climate change to negotiators this week at the UN  climate talks in Doha, The Guardian newspaper reports.

“Climate change is taking place before our eyes, and will continue to do so as a result of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which have risen constantly and again reached new records,” WMO’s secretary general Michael Jarraud said.

Some scientists have warned that the world could be closer to a global warming tipping point than previously thought.

Soon after Jarraud warned Doha, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported a record loss of Arctic ice and snow from Oct. 2011 through August 2012, the Guardian wrote. That included the loss of almost all of Greenland’s surface ice over four days in July.

In more alarming signs of change from NOAA, the Guardian notes that “Blooms of algae sprouted beneath the permanent sea ice in the middle of the Arctic ocean, feeding off the sunlight filtering through melt pools. The report cites a massive bloom of phytoplankton beneath the Chukchi sea ice stretching for more than 60 miles, as well as algae blooms near melt holes in the central Arctic.

“On land, shrubs are spreading across the lower Arctic because of a longer growing season.”

Some tundra plants like moss and lichen are declining.

Perhaps most staggering of all: Conditions are building for Arctic wildfires, the article states.

Watch it melt on this NOAA video:

-

Photo: Screen grab from NOAA video.

More chilling news about warming, on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
26
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+4 Votes
+ -
Why not present the whole story
Wouldn't it be nice if this article had presented the short, medium, and long term cycles of glacier activity in this area over say the last 100 years. A totally different picture would have resulted. Let's look at what's happened at this melt area in say 2-3 months, toward the end of winter and endless nights. The algae etc won't survive without light during that period!! I will give credit the article is written to be factual, just misleading. For example, it didn't say this was the first time "a massive bloom of phytoplankton beneath the Chukchi sea ice stretching for more than 60 miles, as well as algae blooms near melt holes in the central Arctic" had occurred, nor did it report how many times similar activity has occurred in climate cycles over the last century. But that wouldn't frighten uninformed readers re climate change.
Posted by calmtnbkr
7th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Eat, drink, and make merry.
The NOAA video said the Arctic algae bloom was a first time event. Not scary, but very interesting. What happens, happens. Short of a super CME direct hit that shuts everything down, it will continue and even then will continue for some time to come.
Meanwhile, Season's Greetings -- eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow is just a promise while today is to be enjoyed.
Posted by Rudy Haugeneder
7th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
It's all about the push
It's all about the push.
Posted by DarthTater
7th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
Climate Change news reporting - its own worst enemy.
2012 may indeed be a record ice melt for the Arctic. However, you will note that neither Guardian article - or the multitude similar media parrots, nor this article never actually numerically quantified the area of the melt, but only make a generalized comparison of the area that melted - which was off by more than 200% - 2X+ mathematically. The 2012 record Arctic melt was estimated at about 1,400,000 sq. miles (Sept. 16, 2012 - 1.32M sq. mi.). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs).

However, when you compare it to the area of the United States as headlined in the climate media and this equally unqualified article - you see the actual quality of typical climate media reporting. The area of the United States is (drum roll please) 3,794,101 sq mi. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states).

With this kind media exaggeration and failure to verify their information is it any wonder that climate change skeptics and deniers find the topic so full of error and so easy to dismiss as alarmist hysteria? SP and the general media are so fixated on selling advertising they attract readers by using sensationalized headlines followed by incompetently researched and or unverified reporting. They have zero journalistic and professional integrity.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
Updated - 7th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
The error is yours
The reference to a US sized area of melt in the Arctic this past summer includes both land based snow and ice an sea ice. Your Polar ice packs reference includes only the sea ice portion of the melt.

That said it's a poor headline. The term "ice sheet" is specific to large area land based glacial ice and the story is about more than that.

Also the sentence "That included the loss of almost all of Greenlands surface ice over four days in July." is misleading. While there was melting over the whole of the Greenland ice sheet which is unusual, especially near the summit, it meant a most a few inches of ice melted from the surface of an ice sheet with an average depth over 2 km. More ice of course melted at lower elevations and around the periphery of Greenland.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 7th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
wikipedia not a valid source for scientific data
fyi - wikipedia is not a valid source for scientific data - that is what official sources such as scientific journals, government data, and other publicly available - and vetted - sources are for.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, anytime, with no creditials at all. There is no official "editor" or "verifier" either. Read Wikipedia's terms of use to re-discover this info.
Posted by bressennuit
8th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
How to use Wikipedia
You read the footnotes to corroborate facts/statements in the article.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
10th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
Here we go again. The usual suspects, the UN and the doom-and-gloom
writers trying to scare the ignorant readers with disastrous predictions.

The scare tactics are only meant to scare people into giving the authorities, especially the UN, more power and control over their lives.

Sensational headlines do trick the people to click on the article, but, the articles and the writers and the UN, ALWAYS FAIL to point the people to other stories which might contradict their doom-and-gloom "science" and predictions. It's ALWAYS a one-way street with the UN and the doom-and-gloom global-warming shysters and the complicity liberal media writers.
Posted by adornoe
7th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
Predictable
Another predictable rant from you adornoe.

Maybe the reason you don't see contradictory stories is because they simply don't exist. In science unlike other fields there is no balance, just describing reality as best we can.

I've asked you in the past to provide links to your claims but invariably you provide links to stories that have already been debunked or to sites that have no scientific credibility to begin with.

Unfortunately for you I think you will have to live with frustration and anger the rest of your life because your ideology blinds you to a reality that you just can't accept. As I said before I feel kind of sorry for you in that regard.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 8th Dec
-3 Votes
+ -
Actually, the "FEAR ideology" is always coming from your side,
which needs to use fear in order to get people in line for the radical agenda which the liberals want to implement. The only "science" that the left and their "researchers" have on their side, is junk aided by their agenda, pure and simple.

And, get the heck out with that link garbage. You already know that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary when it comes to the global warming junk. Do you think that everything is fixed or rebutted by a link or a source? All sources and links will be conveniently dismissed by you as "deniers" and bad science. Yet, you can't admit that, if any part of any science has evidence that refutes any research, then that research is either flawed or not subjected to peer review. With global warming "science", the problem is the denial on the part of the proponents of that junk that, there really is research that proves it to be crap science. You are a proponent of crap.
Posted by adornoe
8th Dec
+5 Votes
+ -
Both sides use fear.
I really meant to write "frustration" instead of "fear" but screwed up when I translated my thoughts to written words. Sorry. I have gone back and fixed it.

But both sides use fear. It's a fundamental motivation for human beings. Your side uses fear of how much it will cost to address climate change or fear that we all have to go back to living in caves or fear that it's a plot by the UN and "communists" to control your lives. I fear that ignoring the problem will cost us far more in the long run in both money and lives than doing something about it now. I'm confident that human ingenuity can solve the problems cost effectively and we will have a cleaner more sustainable world as a result. Like it or not humans are part of the interdependent web of life on Earth and we disrupt it to our own peril.

You can call climate research "junk science" all you want but the fact remains that they're getting it mostly right and many of the things they said would happen are happening, in some cases much faster than expected. Actual observations support the case for climate change and ocean acidification.

I cite scientific evidence for my positions. If you can't cite actual physical evidence for your position why should I listen to you? If you even cited such contrarian climate scientists as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer or John Christy I'd have more respect for you but you have no scientific argument other than to call it junk science.
Posted by riverat1
8th Dec
-5 Votes
+ -
Your "science" is still very flawed, which thenn makes it "junk" science,
and, when the researchers fear subjecting their "science" to peer review, then you know for certain that what they are proposing is not science.

Every time there is research which effectively debunks the global warming "research", the warmists start labeling those researchers as "deniers" and dangers to the climate.

You claim to not want to use the word "fear", but everything you did above was to promote more of your fear tactic when you claim that warming is happening and faster than predicted. That's baloney, and a tactic meant to instill fear into the hearts and minds of those who don't understand or can't be bothered to get informed on the issue. It's quite easy to instill fear into the ignorant, because they'll buy into any argument which seems to sound "responsible", like "clean air" and "clean environment" and "clean water" and "stopping the rising seas and oceans". Yet, the vast majority of people are not equipped to understand and analyze the subject, and the fear mongers are counting on that.

People are not smart enough or educated enough to catch the phony numbers and the manufactured and massaged data that the global warming shysters use to try to confuse people into action. But, there are still researchers and scientists and informed people who are still asking the questions which the shysters will not confront.

This link presents an area where the "science" is proven to be very flawed:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/claims-of-more-severe-weather-with-warming-are-based-on-ipcc-errors-and-omissions/
Posted by adornoe
9th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
All science is flawed ...
... in that you can never have perfect knowledge. That doesn't mean it isn't useful.

" when the researchers fear subjecting their "science" to peer review,"

Where the heck did you come up with that? I'm not aware of any significant work in climate science that has not been peer reviewed. I can't imagine that scientists would allow that to happen.

"Every time there is research which effectively debunks the global warming "research", the warmists start labeling those researchers as "deniers" and dangers to the climate. "

And yet contrarian climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer continue to get published.

I held my nose and took a look at your WUWT cite. Tim Ball noted that in the IPCC AR 4 report they were very explicit about what they know and what they don't know. Isn't that part of the essence of good science? He brought up some points worth investigating but none of it refutes the fundamentals of climate science.

So what about climate science scares you so much that you reject what it finds?
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 9th Dec
-3 Votes
+ -
If there is no perfect science, then global warming is not "settled",
like the global warming shysters want to convince the world that it is.

Did you get that???

But, the "science" of global warming is "deliberately flawed" in order to advance an agenda, and it's not like the other sciences, where nothing is declared as settled until the rest of the scientific community in their specific branch of science agrees with the research.

Global warming "science" does not respect the scientific method for research, which therefore, renders it to be a complete fraud.

Here you go; read about the global warming agenda and the agenda setters:

'The American Geophysical Union and Climate Hysteria'

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/12/the_american_geophysical_union_and_climate_hysteria.html
Posted by adornoe
Updated - 10th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Finally read you American Thinker article ...
... and it doesn't have any science in it, just a lot of political arguments. To say that climate science it junk science you have to get past the fact that it's unreasonable to think that so many climate scientists would choose to risk their reputations and careers to endorse a false narrative about climate science, and have successfully gotten away with it for over 50 years now. It strains credibility to think that is possible.
Posted by riverat1
18th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Agenda 21
Global warming/climate change is a MAJOR driver used in this.
Posted by DarthTater
7th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
12000 years ago
12000 years ago (a blink of the eye in geologic time) sea levels rose so fast they created the mediteranean sea. So what is the big deal about Arctic sea ice melting that has already re-frozen. Bangladesh is is not under water, nor Venice, nor the Bahamas nor Bermuda. Relax, climate change is inevitable.
Posted by Arctic Char
7th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
really? venice is one of your examples of "not under water"?
Venice is one of your chosen examples?????

Venice, by its nature, has all its "roads" under water, always has. You can't drive in Venice, you walk or use a boat.

And, officially, Venice is sinking, and the water is rising, and tides are becoming stronger & higher.

If you google "venice sinking", you will see many varied esteemed sources.
Here's one to get you started, but check out the other links too -
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venice/
Posted by bressennuit
8th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
Researchers have found sunken cities and buried cities in deserts,
and, they don't attribute those to global warming, because, the events that killed those cities occurred before man even started using oil for driving or manufacturing or cooking or anything else.

So, what exactly caused those cities to get buried or sunk? The one sure fact that the global warming junk scientists can't deny is that, the earth is in constant change, with the tectonic plates moving land masses and opening up new areas and sinking others, and causing earthquakes and volcanoes, and with that shifting, it stands to reason, the climate WILL change. Heck, the tsunami in Japan last year was caused by an earthquake which changed the position of much of the land masses in the Pacific, which in turn will have caused the climate to have changed, even if by a miniscule amount. But, when one adds a bunch of "miniscule" amounts together for hundreds of years, one ends up with significant changes in the climate. We can't control that, and we will have to change the locations where we live as climate changes. It's happened for eons, and today's changes are no different. Climate change happens, and it happens in spite of what humans do. The earth has warmed and cooled, millions of times throughout its existence. What humans do does affect the planet, but, not in the ways which the junk science proposes.
Posted by adornoe
8th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Yes, but Venice sinking has very little to do with "global warming".
It is sinking mostly because it was built in the middle of a marshy lagoon on very unsolid ground. The continental mass of NE Italy is also sinking because of weight and pressure from the Italian Alps.

Some of Venice's sinking actually is human caused, but not because of "warming"; It's because of decades of industrial pumping of fresh water from the aquifer beneath the city.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 8th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
@adornoe
In your post of a few hours ago you include a link to an article in the American Thinker.

The American Thinker ? !! are you kidding. What a nut site.
See their article "De Facto Shariah Law in America"
Nonsense.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
10th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
The fact remains that, no matter where the information resides or who wrote
it, the material is all that matters.

The contents of the article can't be refuted, and the only thing you seem to rely on, is the attacking of the messenger. Sorry, but, not all the messengers and not all the messages, have to come from someone you approve of.

And, the American Thinker is a well respected source of news and analysis, contrary to your wishes to discredit them.
Posted by adornoe
11th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
adornoe Your link to "article" in American Thinker
The "article" was written by Norman Rogers who is a Senior Policy Advisor for the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is funded by those who profit from ignoring climate change...
Exxon, the Koch brothers, the Illinois Coal Association.

A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
12th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
You continue presenting strawman arguments to deflect from the facts....
And the facts are that, it doesn't matter where they come from. Having a vested interest in an argument, doesn't make the argument incorrect.

When the facts can't be refuted, the dissenting opinion writers always resort to attacking the messenger, and not the argument.

It's like the argument that says that, there is voter fraud aplenty in the U.S,, but, there will always be people who will point at the people making the accusations as being biased and are trying to disenfranchise voters. But, the fact will still remain that, voter fraud does occur. But, by pointing at the accuser of voter fraud as being a republican, might raise questions in the minds of the liberals or in the minds of those who are completely ignorant of the problem.

So, rather than pointing at the people in the article/link as being "not credible", why not make the argument against the points being made?
Posted by adornoe
12th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
adornoe you apparently do not realize you are being lied to
The Heartland Institute lacks integrity. They do not deal in facts. They are liars for hire. They also harass their opponents.
They took money from tobacco companies to deny that second hand smoke is harmful.

Do some searching and read about the Heartland Institute.

Then
go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/
There you can watch a Frontline report about the opposition to climate change. You can hear them in their own words. Listen with an open mind and see what you think.
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
13th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Both sides use fear.
Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.
Posted by babaluuu
17th Mar
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive