Watch 27 years of 'old' Arctic ice melt away in seconds

Here's something that highlights the continuing loss of Arctic ice, which has diminished greatly in both extent and volume over the last couple of decades. The loss of the older thicker ice equals loss of volume.

Watch 27 years of 'old' Arctic ice melt away in seconds
A video from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows a disturbing trend in the age of Arctic ice
The Guardian
Brian Kahn
21 February 2014
(excerpts)
[video=youtube;H-BbPBg3vj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-BbPBg3vj8[/video]
The total amount of Arctic sea ice is near record low for this time of year. The amount of ice isn't the only big story, though. A video from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows a disturbing trend in the age of Arctic ice. Since 1988, Arctic sea ice is getting younger, and young ice is not a good thing. In 1988, ice that was at least 4 years old accounted 26 percent of the Arctic's sea ice. By 2013, ice that age was only 7 percent of all Arctic sea ice.

In the video above you can see the older ice do a vanishing act as it's replaced by newer ice. The vanishing act is occurring because climate change is helping warm the ocean waters in parts of the Arctic. Those warmer temperatures are whittling away at older sea ice during the summer melt season. Replacing this thicker, harder old ice with young ice, which is generally thinner and melts more easily, is also contributing to the steep decline in summer sea ice extent and could trigger a feedback loop. That's because less ice means more dark ocean water is exposed to the sun, which absorbs more of the incoming sunlight than white ice. That means warmer waters, which could in turn mean even less old ice and ice cover with each passing year.

© 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

the significance of that will be completely lost to denier world...it's the climatic "canary in the coal mine" moment...

 

Granny not feedin' possum beans anymore so he won't poot an' release greenhouse gases...

Warming arctic could cost trillions of dollars
Sept. 22, 2015 - Previous models predict global warming's bill to total $326 trillion by 2200, but the new arctic analysis brings the expected loss total to $369 trillion.

See also:

Caribbean Braces for Worsening Drought as Dry Season Nears
September 22, 2015 — The most severe drought to hit the Caribbean in recent years is expected to worsen despite rains from tropical storms that have replenished some reservoirs.

 

Whales to have easier navigation of Arctic waters...

Loss of Arctic Sea Ice Presents Opportunities, Challenges
December 14, 2015 - The recent extreme loss of sea ice has opened new migration gateways into the Arctic for whales that once headed to the far north only in the summer, researchers announced this week.

 

More evidence of global warming...

Arctic Sea Ice Max Hits Record Lows Again
March 29, 2016 - For the second straight year, maximum Arctic sea ice levels are at the lowest levels ever recorded. The new numbers were announced Monday by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), and NASA.

 

Ah yes the good ole days when man could cross the land bridge across the Bering Strait.

 

I suppose the significance of it being that low in 71 will be completely lost to the true believers. Do you actually think the Arctic started in 1987?

Oh, and now counting satellite pixels is top of the line science but satellite temperatures are not. The disconnect in true believers is strong Luke.

 

No one has claimed the Arctic started in 1987. How silly.

 

No one has claimed the Arctic started in 1987. How silly.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

Arctic ice is simply lower than it has been anytime in the past several thousand years. That is a fact. And there is no natural force that can explain the decrease.

http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf

Read that paper. It will give you a history of sea ice in the Arctic.

 

Climate change is happening. That much cannot even be disputed at this point.

Man may not be the direct cause, but we are certainly helping it along with all our pollution. And that is in addition to the rest of the negative effects we cause with it, like the destruction of environments and health hazards.

The problem is, people don't want to change. And big changes would be required, ones that would be felt by everybody, rich and poor, although the rich would obviously be able to transition easier. We're not going to mitigate man's contribution on a voluntary basis alone. It's just not enough. We need governments to take action, and corporations(which will probably require government enforcement to do it).

Right now, the bad things still lay on the road ahead. But like all journey's, one day we will reach the destination. One day, we'll get to that point in the future that we talk about right now as being in the future. And of course by then it will be entirely too late. "I told you so's" will be meaningless. Who was right and wrong right now will be meaningless.

This is not something as petty as politics and political parties. This is the survival of the human race itself that we are talking about. Sure, climate change isn't going to drive man to extinction. But it will crumble all the systems we've created. It will inject permanent chaos into our societies.

Ask any fire fighter and they will tell you. The first thing you do when you want to put out a fire is stop adding more fuel to it than it already has.

 

BS. Warming is good, cooling is bad. History proves this.

 

So the dispute is over about whether there is warming
Even if there is human caused climate change
It is a good thing to be celebrated

 

It might stave off the next glaciation which will last a very long time and kill more people than any heat ever could. Though I doubt it will.

 

It's not a dispute, it's an observation backed by history. Resources (wealth) dedicated to "keeping warm" in cooler times (LIA) are available for raising the standard of living in the warmer times (MWP).

 

It is a wonderous amazement that so many people have spent so much effort denying such a good thing as human caused warming

 

It is amazing that so many people do not realize the benefits of global warming. Professor Richard Tol acknowledges AGW but also the benefits of global warming. He has had his name removed from the AR5 SPM as explained below.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...-unwittingly-shows-weakness-of-alarmist-camp/

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/289812

 

Which raises the intriguing question of why so many people spend so much energy denying the truth of something funamentally so good

Just curious. In your opinion, Should humans actively try to promote global warming?

 

Humans should actively promote increasing the global standard of living.

 

I'm open to accepting an economic benefit, but it really is killing and harming quite a few animal species. Destroying habitats, forcing mountainous species upwards... we still ought to be reducing it, even if it's benefting us, because we have an obligation to not make things go extinct.

I will be checking those out ideas out, though; it's a position I haven't often heard espoused, and if we aren't cruising on spaceships by 2080 I will be terribly surprised.

 

At any expense? You can't say it. Should we PROMOTE increased global warming?

 

History has not proven that.

Where'd you study history? A welding academy?

 

All of the fastest human expansion and wealth came at times when it was warmer than today like the Roman warm period. The Little Ice Age over 400 years ago devastated crops. Yes, warming is much better than cooling. You don't see retirees moving to Minnesota for the weather.

 

giggle, wow! You really didn't write this right? You don't know the difference in an ice age and warm? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I feel for you s0n.

 

You're the only one bringing up an ice age, child.

 

Why wouldn't one since we are in a 2.5 million year long ice age now, interspersed with these short mild interglacials where ice melts.