Arctic Sea Ice Decline Greatest, Longest In 1,450 Years: Study

Arctic Sea Ice Decline Study

First Posted: 11/23/11 05:27 PM ET Updated: 11/24/11 06:16 AM ET

Research published in a top scientific journal says Arctic sea ice has declined more in the last half-century than it has any time over the last 1,450 years.

The study, which gives the most detailed picture ever of the northern oceans over the previous millennium-and-a-half, also concludes the current decline has already lasted longer than any previous one in that period.

"When we look at our reconstruction, we can see that the decline that has occurred in the last 50 years or so seems to be unprecedented for the last 1,450 years," Christian Zdanowicz of the Geological Survey of Canada said Wednesday.

"It's difficult not to come up with the conclusion that greenhouse gases must have something to do with this," added Zdanowicz, one of the co-authors of the report in Nature.

"We cannot account for this decline by processes that are 'natural.'"

Climate change is thought to be occurring faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth and sea ice is considered one of the main indicators. The ice is crucial in northern ecosystems because it provides habitat for everything from plankton to polar bears.

Its gradual disappearance is also opening previously inaccessible areas to the possibility of resource development, as well as to commercial shipping.

Zdanowicz and his team combined 69 different data sources to determine the extent of sea ice for every decade going back about 1,000 years and every 25 years beyond that.

The team examined tree rings, ice cores from glaciers and lake and ocean sediments. To check the validity of their approach, scientists compared their calculations for the last couple of centuries with real-world observations from satellites, ship logs and other historical accounts.

They found that by the mid-1990s sea ice had fallen even further than in previous lows such as the so-called Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300.

Team members were also able to conclude that sea ice is influenced by more than just temperature. They discovered that ice actually shrank during what's known as the Little Ice Age, a period between 1450 and 1850, due to relatively warm ocean waters moving north.

That's what's happening now, said Zdanowicz.

"In the last 50 years what has really dominated the changes that we see in the Arctic Ocean is the rise in air temperatures and the rise in temperatures of the waters below."

His study didn't look specifically at the impact of feedback loops in which open water absorbs more of the sun's heat than reflective ice. But Zdanowicz said indications are that that is starting to take effect.

"If you take this reconstruction and you put it in parallel with a number of studies that have emerged, the indications are pretty strong that the warming of the Arctic is accelerating."

He acknowledged that although he has been able to get more detail on ice fluctuations than ever before, the time span considered in the paper isn't very long by geologic standards.

However, he points out he was involved with a previous paper that went back 10,000 years. That paper found sea ice was lower between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago — and also explained why.

"At the time, due to changes in the Earth's orbit, the northern hemisphere was receiving more solar energy than it does now," Zdanowicz said.

"That process cannot account for what we are observing now. In fact, we should be heading into a gradual cooling trend right now if our climate was strictly controlled by orbital factors."

By Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

RELATED VIDEOS:
FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Research published in a top scientific journal says Arctic sea ice has declined more in the last half-century than it has any time over the last 1,450 years.The study, which gives the most detailed pi...
Research published in a top scientific journal says Arctic sea ice has declined more in the last half-century than it has any time over the last 1,450 years.The study, which gives the most detailed pi...
Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 353
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
01:52 PM on 11/28/2011
This article finally puts together the right peices from the paper in question so that skeptics can have a clear understanding of why the work is compelling.

It also is an alarming corroboration of the changes we're experiencing and the ones to come.
PaulD08
Corrupt GOVT wont promote the General Welfare
07:52 PM on 11/27/2011
I am no expert on this subject but I do tend to believe scientists ,,I have a question for the the more knowledgeable here,,what effect does the increased CO2 have on the ocean water and lakes etc.. I read that the increased CO2 acidifies the oceans ,I do know biology and minute changees in ph affect organisms greatly..Is the increased CO2 endangering the marine food chain,,And if so why isn`t that even a greater and more imminent threat that should spur political change, I would think this is a very dangerous development
brw1970
Repeal the 16th Amendment!
09:37 AM on 11/26/2011
..........and 20,000 years ago northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia were covered with 3-4 km of ice. The climate is always changing. The question should be, is it better for humans to stop it or adapt to it? I lean toward the later.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Milks
Ecologist
10:10 AM on 11/26/2011
We know why the last glaciation ended (hint: look up Milankovitch cycle). We also know that if it weren't for increased CO2 in the last 160 years, our climate would be cooling. CO2 levels are higher now than at anytime in the last 15 million years and are rising toward levels last seen on this planet ~40 million years ago as we continue dumping >30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. So here's the real question: Should we continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere despite knowing that doing so will raise global temperatures by at least 5.1ºC, thereby wreaking havoc on our known climate patterns and ecosystems in the future, or should we stop dumping so much CO2 now, keeping future global temperatures to under 3ºC (still disrupting climate and ecosystems but nowhere near as bad as 5.1ºC)?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
07:40 AM on 11/27/2011
CO2 levels on Mars are 3100x higher than on Earth. Martians must drive real gas-hogs!! I hear it's really, really hot there, ...NA$A is just protecting us from becoming alarmed.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Shan Wells
Sciencey sun venerator + political cartoonist
12:13 PM on 11/26/2011
If we are causing the change, which we factually are, it's better to stop the change to the extent possible. Adapting to even small changes becomes increasing difficult due to the interrelationship of supply chains in this connected world of ours.
04:00 AM on 11/25/2011
While Global Warming is undoubtably true. (I hate when Conservatives say otherwise, gives Conservatives a bad name) I think it's foolish for Canada to sign onto any Environmental protocol, especially when China and India are hesitant in the first place.

Moreover, In order to successfully combat Global Warming, we need to switch from Fossil Fuels all together. And that will not happen soon enough. Nor do I think society will be willing to change that drastically.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shar6jo
04:58 AM on 11/25/2011
Explain why climate change/ global warming zealots can not predict the weather on a daily basis? Please explain why we would care about a 1/2-2 degree change in over all weather. I hate it when communist say it is OK for China and the rest of the world to pollute but not western societies.
06:31 AM on 11/25/2011
Climate describes long-term trends and averages over short-term weather events.

By analogy, I can't predict individual Roulette wheel results, but I can tell you that over time the house will win. The former is weather, the latter climate.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:17 AM on 11/26/2011
You are making a false presumption. Very common among those who get their science from Rush or Glenn or Sean or Anthony et al. You have been had.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
07:48 AM on 11/27/2011
For all this 'unanimous scientific consensus of AGW', you would think that even a tiny cadre of scientists would have done the thermodynamics to show there is NO WAY our civilization can survive solely on wind or solar. Not even close. Just do the math! HS Algebra 1. Already there have been 1093 wind power accidents, including towers collapsing and giant fan blades flying 2000m through the air into homes, with 80 fatalities. Solar power? Ethanol? Energy *negative*.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
04:03 PM on 11/27/2011
False again. Quite a disjointed rant there.

Engineers have done the calculations. You have not. And here you are trying to terrify people. Do you shill for Big Oil or Big Coal? Sure sounds like it with your propaganda presentation of false science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Greatest Darthfruit
So, you the brains of this outfit, or is he?
08:18 PM on 11/24/2011
Job well done, humans
07:37 PM on 11/24/2011
Lies, lies, all lies. I know that because Rush says so.
07:06 PM on 11/24/2011
In the Medieval Warming period , they did not call it Greenland, without a reason. A thriving community
until the climate cooled, once again. There is strong evidence that temperatures were warmer than present. times.
The latest IPCC report shows that they are much less certain about the culpability of mankind, in terms of climate change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheIndependenceParty
Cranky yankee and a rehabilitated ex-Republican
10:22 PM on 11/24/2011
And I see your 14 children agree. But I don't see any links, ... Hmmm?

You can question the details of whether we are warmer or colder, ... or you can question the "culpability of mankind".

But to question them both is quite contradictory.

If we are no warmer, then there is no culpability to be debated. If we are warmer, and all evidence (the melted ice does not lie) points to the fact that we are, ... then we had better find the cause to at least determine what the effects will be, and if it is reversible.

But the rest of the Human Race is pretty clear, ... the effects are real, and the causes are known.

All your arguing otherwise won't refreeze the Polar Cap.
11:27 PM on 11/24/2011
Since when did you become the spokesman for all of Humanity ?

Oh so humble !!!
ktpinnacle
But . . . but, it has electrolytes!
11:35 PM on 11/24/2011
40 years of climate study, but you can easily debunk it (in your nimble mind) in one post. You must be a genius.

Of course climate has changed. But the current rate in unprecedented. And the connection between anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the climate change has never been seen. The effects are apparent, but most folks like yourself need something truly catastrophic to smack you upside your head to prove it because you're too lazy to learn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shar6jo
05:01 AM on 11/25/2011
You are wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
07:57 AM on 11/27/2011
You wouldn't know lead-lag causation if it bite you in your pouf piece, and the proof is a total lack of proof, mathematical or scientific of a politicized financial incentivized AGW. Mars has 3000x CO2 level of Earth and it's so cold there the CO2 comes down as snow.
Rantibus
Cogito, Ergo Rant
05:41 PM on 11/24/2011
What happens when you start dumping massive amounts of fresh water into our salt seas? Apart from slowly raising sea-levels, you also change the albedo (reflectivity) of the ocean surface. This results in more sunlight being bounced back which affects the surface temperature of the ocean, which increases over time until you start affecting the deeper temperature layers. If you screw around with these deep-water currents - such as the Atlantic Conveyer - you will change climate on a global scale, creating droughts in previously fertile areas and mini-ice ages in others.
09:16 PM on 11/24/2011
it's called north atlantic deepwater
10:55 AM on 11/25/2011
Doesn't nature do that every year when both Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Melt?

We know that there seems to be a general retreat of ephemeral sea ice in the Arctic in the past thirty years. That is not the case in the Antarctic.
Rantibus
Cogito, Ergo Rant
03:55 PM on 11/25/2011
Nature does it but not at such highly accelerated rates.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:25 PM on 11/25/2011
Antarctic ice volume is decreasing.
05:25 PM on 11/24/2011
I am amazed at how a complex matter like climate is so oversimplified. The climate change advocates seem to think that the only factor affecting the climate is CO2. This is a case of tunnel vision. They refuse to consider water vapour levels, cloud cover, ocean currents, volcanic eruptions and variations in solar energy output..
If you want to go back 1450 years, that's 561 AD, it was the beginning of a rather warm period period and there were no internal combustion engines and coal-fired generators back then.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gas-Bag
There's nothing endearing about perfection.
05:39 PM on 11/24/2011
"At the time, due to changes in the Earth's orbit, the northern hemisphere was receiving more solar energy than it does now," Zdanowicz said.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shar6jo
05:04 AM on 11/25/2011
Proving that is like finding a needle in a haystack.
07:50 PM on 11/24/2011
Marbou, don't be silly. Of course all of the considerations you listed are taken into consideration and controlled for in the assessments of climate change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AC Fraser
bend before you break
04:08 PM on 11/24/2011
Wonder what the Climate Change Deniers will say to this? God's will, flawed data, natural climate cycles? One thing is certain - they'll come up with an excuse to avoid humanity taking responsibility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gas-Bag
There's nothing endearing about perfection.
05:44 PM on 11/24/2011
Deniers will claim that scientists have financial motives for pushing an agenda, but will never doubt the integrity of big oil investors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
08:00 AM on 11/27/2011
Aptly named handle, keep sending your tithe-taxes to New Rome, but keep off my land.
07:01 PM on 11/24/2011
i'd say what the hell is 1450 years in 10000000000 years? is that a conclusive pattern? no one on earth has any way of telling what the weather is tomorrow and you think they can accurately bring up an image of what the weather was like hundreds of years ago to any kind of freakin accuracy?
09:20 PM on 11/24/2011
weather is fairly unpredictable. Climate however can be predicted fairly well. And we can take ice cores and things like that to determine temperature data, (and presumably ice cover data) from up to 50 000 years ago for temp, and presumably 1450+ years for ice cover.

Think about the climate-weather thing like this. I cannot reasonably tell you how a coin flip will turn out with a better that 50% success rate. However if I averaged 1 million flips, I could give you a very precise answer, as the randomness basically "cancels out" for lack of a better phrase.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheIndependenceParty
Cranky yankee and a rehabilitated ex-Republican
10:32 PM on 11/24/2011
Don't most deniers believe the Earth is 16,000 years old, tops? Sort of a Cliff Notes of Eternity? The number of zeroes in your concoction of Earth's history connotes a desperate unbelief in science, and even in the notion that man can track such times, ... learn the effects before we studied such things. Bagger nonsense.

And what is your erudite explanation for the change, ... and there is an undeniable change! Ice that has been there for over a millenium is gone. Just our bad luck?


Denying the obvious is a sign of the unlearned.
03:58 PM on 11/24/2011
Here's an irrefutable argument for why we should act to combat man made climate change, regardless of whether we believe it is real or not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lives
The Venus Project ... look it up
03:12 PM on 11/24/2011
We do have the technology and resources required to clean up the mess we created over the last couple hundred years. What we don't have is the money. Good thing money is make believe. Surely we won't risk the survival of mankind on some bits on paper and computer entries, right? Oh who am I kidding, billions of us think an invisible man lives in the sky, we are doomed.
03:12 PM on 11/24/2011
and cue the bought and paid for science that will refute all the facts.
03:09 PM on 11/24/2011
Extraordinary how humanity's strengths are also its greatest weaknesses. Technological marvels abound, creative ways to plunder earth's resources also... But wait, that last one sounds like an unqualified weakness, doesn't it. Doesn't it?

Are we really going to exploit fossil fuels in the melting Arctic? Probably. Can we reverse the trend toward utterly pillaging Earth's carbon stores, and move to renewable and safer energy sources? Yes, we can.

Please trade your car's CO2 emissions at www.catagori.com, a website that puts the power to change course into the hands of individuals. Trading and capping CO2 at the individual level, rather than waiting for diffident government leaders to actually lead the way out of global warming (never mind onto dry land) is the way to go. All economic activity starts with the individual. Try it. It works.
09:32 PM on 11/24/2011
The problem with renewables is that economically they CAN'T supply our energy needs, without something making it cheaper. I mean the energy exists, but harvesting it is insanely expensive, compared to traditional sources. This is why I favor nuclear mainly. Supplies larger amounts of energy, so is more practical for large scale power generation. I certainly hope renewable cost goes down, so it becomes more feasable, but for now nuclear looks more promising from a stopping global warming viewpoint.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
05:15 AM on 11/25/2011
I'm going to put a reactor in my pantry.

Nothing fancy, just enough to run the household.

How much should I budget?
06:49 AM on 11/25/2011
Solar energy is now comparable in cost to coal for electricity, and cheaper in some places. If you include the health costs of coal emissions, solar is already far more cheaper everywhere.

California is already producing a gigawatt of electricity from solar (about half of what Hoover dam produces) and could be producing 85 gigawatt within a few decades, which is about 1/4 of the current U.S. electrical consumption.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Connor Alexander
The proper authorities have noted your attitude.
02:55 PM on 11/24/2011
1,450 years? Wow, that's about a third of the earth's history! That's pretty dramatic.

;-)
06:51 AM on 11/25/2011
I guess you didn't read the entire article.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Connor Alexander
The proper authorities have noted your attitude.
03:05 PM on 11/25/2011
I think you failed to detect my sarcasm or notice my wink.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
02:20 PM on 11/28/2011
What's even more dramatic is the utter lack of understanding of the issues involved.