E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Few places on Earth have more of a connection to the holiday season than the North Pole: After all, that's where Santa Claus hangs his hat. That's the address most kids write on their Christmas letters. Even NORAD lists that locale as Santa's home base.
But if I were Santa, I'd start thinking about real estate: Over the years, satellite measurements have pointed to a shrinkage in ice extent and thickness in the Arctic, due to rising temperatures. In September, experts at the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that Arctic sea ice had declined to its second-lowest level in the past 32 years, and researchers at the University of Bremen in Germany said the ice coverage had fallen even below the 2007 minimum. This report from the European Space Agency helps put the issue in perspective.
With the approach of northern winter, the ice is returning. The picture above, based on data from NASA's Aqua satellite, shows the maximum and minimum extent of Arctic ice this year. ESA has an animation that illustrates the annual fluctuation in a moving way. Santa shouldn't have to worry about shrinking sea ice between now and Christmas. But once the holiday rush is over, he might want to keep an eye on msnbc.com's Environment coverage. There may well be a "new normal" in the Arctic from now on.
Today's Arctic offering is part of the Cosmic Log Space Advent Calendar, which provides a daily view of Earth from space from now until Christmas. Check out these previous entries on the calendar, as well as other space-themed Advent calendars online. And check in again on Sunday for the next visual treat.
- Dec. 2: The masses in Mecca
- Dec. 1: An ornament in outer space
- The full Cosmic Log Space Advent Calendar, going back to 2010
- Hubble Advent calendar, presented by The Atlantic's In Focus
- 2011 Zooniverse Advent calendar
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Whether global warming is man made, natural, or both is irrelevant. The Earth is warming and we should do everything possible to understand why and try to slow it's progress or reverse it.
What bothers me about Republicans is that they seem unable to look into the future and examine what global warming will do to future generations. What's funny is if we were to find out Al Aaeda was behind global warming the Republicans would want to invade any country that even had one terrorist link to Al Qaeda.
The other sad truth is the right only cares about money. It's no secret that the environment and health issues are not important to them if it means spending money and resources.
Whatever. Must be rough getting paid to write this bull @!$%#.
What's wrong with it? The Arctic ice is clearly melting. If you don't like it, don't blame the messenger.
That's why it was called an inconvenient truth. Co2 is a green house gas no matter how the right wingers would like to spin it. More Co2 means less heat radiated into space by the earth. Ever wonder why Venus has temperature approaching 700 degrees Fahrenheit on its surface. Could it be that its atmosphere is composed of mostly CO2. Nah Rush Limbaugh told me it aint so. He said Al Gore made it all up. Well folks Al Gore is an educated lay person and the scientists that have been studying climate change have been able to show that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will mean an increase in average global temperature. Why are the Republicans so willing to not heed the warning of scientists? Right now our atmosphere is at 394 ppm it is increasing at an alarming rate. Why are we even considering that this is a made up hoax? Its like the movie Ideocracy when the foolish people could not understand that the crops would not grow when watered with sports drink? Get a clue for crying out loud. The real problem will occur when atmospheric levels increase to a point where massive disruptions of climate will begin to take place and we are blindly rushing towards that ultimate goal since no nation wants to come up with alternatives to fosil fuels that is responsible for a large precentage of the increase in global CO2. Yes we know it's caused by old carbon because fossil fuels have a lower precentage of radioactive isotopes than does the atmosphere in general. Living plants prefer the lighter forms of CO2 and have a prefference for it and since coal is fossilized plants and we are buring millions of tons of it.
"Ever wonder why Venus has temperature approaching 700 degrees Fahrenheit on its surface. Could it be that its atmosphere is composed of mostly CO2"
If Rush Limbaugh told you it ain't so, he was right. Are you getting your science from Al Gore, or what dude?
In case you don't remember high school physics, PV=nRT
The Venusian surface is hot because it has a lot of pressure. It has a lot of pressure because it has a lot of mass. If you measure the temperature at the same pressure as earth (high in the atmosphere), guess what? It's the same.
I suggest you go "occupy" a physics book. Comparing Venus to Earth is a terribly poor idea, something that only people who don't study climate would say. Next you'll be telling us the center of the earth is millions of degrees, like Big Al.
Michael,
PV=nRT explains why Venus is hot? Really?
So a pressurized oxygen tank here on Earth is twice as hot as the surface as the surface of Venus?
Wow. Just wow. You know enough to fool those without a science background. The real question is: do you understand the flaw in your own logic, or do you really believe that?
Because you are wrong on many, many levels.
The lesson here is , never buy an ice burg .....
In Canada we have our share of anti-GW morons. David knows what he is taklng about.
Just spent two weeks up there. Nice place, and your ratio of non-believers to believers is much lower than ours. There was a recycle bin in my hotel room, all of the bulbs were the fluorescent type, there were recycle bins all over the place, and even many of your conservatives were on board. The US could learn a lesson from Canada on this one.
By the time the anti-intellectual anti-environmentalists get it, there will be consequences that can't be reversed by reducing man-made hydrocarbons. What do you think these photos represent at the ice caps? We have not been good stewards of the earth in many ways. So drill baby drill and frack baby frack!
What ticks me off is people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as well as the rest of right wing radio stomping for the anti intellectual crowd. Put a microphone in front of a blowhard and look what you get. I hope Tesla is a success since the only way we can get away from burning millions of barrels of oil each and every day is having a successful alternative to the internal combustion engine. If Tesla is successful I see a day when CO2 levels will level out and maybe start a slight decline but without pioneers like Elon Musk we are headed for disaster. Scientist's say that excess CO2 will take hundreds to thousands of years to lower naturally by being up-taken by oceans and plant life. We are adding it much faster than nature can remove it
The denial industry is much more than just partisan talk shows. Most people with a clue know to avoid such sources. But the vested interests have gotten very good at making global warming denialism sound like legitimate science, so people who are actually trying to find out the facts can be easily led astray. And for a populace that doesn't understand the nature of uncertainty in science, it's pretty much a lost cause.
If mankind can't deal with overpopulation maybe mother nature can.
Sorry, but this global warming thing is ridiculous. The last known historically recorded instance of noticeable global warming was around 1400 AD, when the N German Plain defrosted and allowed farming to occur, which helped repopulate Europe after the Black Death. IF I am not mistaken, there was no industrialization going on at the time, so what caused it then? Or what caused it the hundreds of times prior before human history according to core samples, etc? Also, why does global warming have to be a frigging disaster? Think of what could happen if the Siberian permafrost would thaw out. You would have the biggest breadbasket the world would ever see!!!! Asia could easily feed itself,etc. On top of that, the Russians could tap into those natural gas and oil reserves that can't be touched now since the ground is too hard for drilling.
Robert, the fact that climate can and does change naturally has no bearing on the question of whether humans can affect it ALSO. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we clearly can.
And yes, you can clearly find ome potential benefits from warming in some places, but on the whole that will be overwhelmed by the negative effects from sea-level rise, tropical crop failures and famine, and other types of disruption.
Even the melting of the permafrost is not always so benign. For one thing, it releases massive amounts of methane, which will increase warming even further in a positive feedback.
Robert,
There was no global warming in the 1400s.
There was some warming in the Northern Hemisphere, but it was offset by equal cooling in the Southern Hemisphere.
In fact, there has been no net change in the planet's climate, globally-speaking, since the Younger Dryas (with the obvious exceptions due to unusual volcanic or solar activity, of course).
Until now. This one's on us.
Physicist-retired:
"There was some warming in the Northern Hemisphere, but it was offset by equal cooling in the Southern Hemisphere."
This is a good example of the IPCC excluding data that is inconvenient to their "truths". If the MWP was warmer than current, that would be a good argument against AGW, and so it must be squashed. (as was admitted in the climategate 1.0 emails). The facts don't matter to them. But fortunately, private researchers have summarized the data for you. You can browse it yourself. Go here:
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html
Then zoom in on any area you like of the SH. You will see a few areas with conflicting data, but this will summarize each area and study in a table so you can see for yourself.
Now. Can you still say that the MWP was NH only? I didn't think so. There are upwards of 600 studies saying otherwise. Inconvenient indeed.
Really? :)
And you'll be posting links or cited information to back this up right?
Michael,
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v48/n1/p5-11/
There's more along that line. This is, as the paper says, anomalous. Unusual. Unprecedented over approximately the last 20,000 years.
Much, much longer than the Younger Dryas.
Oh dear! Looks like santa is going to have to find a new home.
I'm tired of people giving credence to uneducated radio personalities who dismiss the hard work of a couple thousand or more scientists in all fields, climatology, oceanography, etc. who have provided facts that altogether have demonstrated the human impact on our planet. And more than that, to me, it has always been a simple case of cause and effect. Trees eat carbon dioxide, but people have been reducing the planet's forests, especially the Amazon rainforest, by huge chunks while at the same time adding more carbon dioxide to the air with the burning of fossil fuels. Though I doubt we will ever get as hot as gassy Venus, these actions do have an effect. And as scientists monitor these effects, we have a right to be reasonably concerned, a right to ask how damaging these changes could possibly get, and a right to look for solutions. It is called being rational.
What you'll find is that almost everyone agrees that humans can have an impact on climate. Irrigation is a good example. It makes it warmer at night, everywhere that it is done. Because water vapor is a powerful GHG. There is no doubt that the urban heat island affects temperature, locally at least.
CO2? Not a measurable effect. At least it wasn't in 1995 when the IPCC II report was being written. The IPCC expert approved statements concluded that there was no detectable human fingerprint on climate. Not any, from any source. But one of the activists, Ben Santer of LLNL, didn't like what the scientists concluded. So he changed it. By himself. The scientists were outraged, and many have never participated in the IPCC again. You can read about his little stunt here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ben_Santer.pdf
This is why I call the IPCC "a consensus of one". So the experts said in 1995 that no part of climate change could be attributed to human causes. PERIOD. There were some who believed it to be true, and some still think so, but there was NO EVIDENCE to support it. The fact that Ben Santer lies makes no difference to real scientists.
Since then, we've had the super el-nino of 1998, and declining global temperatures ever since, but still, for all practical purposes, an increasing trend as we leave the LIA and return to normal. So despite what some people want to believe, you still don't have any evidence of anything unusual going on.
To those who still believe there will be an impact in the future (since it is not detectable now, and won't be anytime soon), where the argument comes in is how much. The evidence suggests that the effect of CO2 is not anywhere near what the IPCC would have you believe. Is there an effect? It should be about 1.2°C per doubling, taken alone. The problem is that it isn't alone and we don't know the magnitude of other effects, so it is still undetectable. Some studies say more (models), most of the recent ones measuring IR from satellites (observations) say less.
The fact is that most heat is transported by convection in the tropics, and the heat is carried aloft where the distance to radiate to space is much lower, and it travels out so fast that if there were an effect, the clouds would simply rise higher to offset it. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that CO2 may have no effect at all in the tropics, next to nothing at mid-latitudes and possibly only a minute effect at the poles. That would be somewhat controversial, but I'm not alone.
Michael Smith
1995 was along time ago. There have been 2 major updates to the IPCC reviews since then, and 15 years of research by thousands of climate scientists around the world. The AGW signal is more apparent now -- not 100% for sure, of course, but it doesn't have to be.
"super el-nino of 1998, and declining global temperatures ever since"
That is simply a lie and you know it.
Is this suppose to be funny?
Don't bother arguing with the uniformed denialists......They don't care how much scientific proof exists for global weather change......They will continue to cover their heads with tin foil hats and continue their denial because they really don't care about the truth. They will continue in their own misdirected beliefs and ignorance no matter how much poof is presented to them.....Don't waste your "pearls before swine." They are the die hard faux news idiots...
So...one picture taken in Winter and one in Summer and they are different? Who woulda thought?
It is an odd choice of photos for demonstrating the question at hand, but the declining trend is clear from the data of minimum extents over the years.
So, all of you deniers smarter than scientists and all of you deniers dumber than rocks, what is your point? Why do you persist in this senseless ranting? It isn't because you actually believe what you are saying, you are just engaging in this dialogue for the sake of unconscious, pointless argument.
Every time there is a headline with the words "climate change", it is like throwing red meat to lions. The same tired comments, ad nauseam , without any hope of variation. At least the earth gives us four seasons mixed with different weather events. The deniers, on the other hand, can only offer one "season" with no variation … spelling aside. Your undefined frustration about everything knows no bounds, except to purposely bore everyone else to distraction. It is time to search for another subject.
What better way to inject fear in the hearts of the little children on this planet. Maybe you will recieve one of those worthleess awards given to the elite morons of the planet. You are truelly the grinch.
What better way to attrack a future audience but pumping fear into the little children, way to go Mr. Grinch
Does this mean they'll cancel Ice Road Truckers?
It's interesting that sea level is falling. I guess all that Greenland melt and melting glaciers causes the sea level to drop at about 2mm per year. All that warming must make the sea leak out of the bottom, huh?
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ScreenHunter_47-Nov.-10-04.45.gif
It's sooo cool that Obama was actually able to make the sea stop rising!!! He even did better than that, he made it start falling!!! He is so AWESOME!!
Hey how come my external links disappear and yours stay?
Really? I guess making stuff up is the same thing as facts in your fantasy world. :)
But again, it is although most is probably due to thermal expansion and not ice melt. For now...
As for the real and current threat. May I suggest you do some reading up on coastal erosion. You might want to look into that.
nwmick, it is because you are still thought of as a 'new user' by the newsvine. If you've been posting for a while, contact the moderators, and they will change your status. In the meantime, be clever, and 'break' the link in an obvious way, we can always repair it, and follow the link.
Sorry Jeff, I didn't make the sea level drop, nor did I cause the Envisat satellite to record it. I do think it's funny that the average sea level rise over the last 20,000 years is +6mm, but the true believers think something bad is happening when it slows to +3mm over the last few hundred years. Like this is somehow evidence of acceleration. Amazing stuff.
I also think it's amazing that people get worked up over a 0.6°C rise in temperatures over a century, which is clearly within the range of natural variability, but think that somehow, this time is different, and is caused by a trace gas that has 1/7th the GHG potential of water, has 80x less concentration than water, and is currently at a mole fraction of about 0.0004.
Then I look at the historical evidence like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/
and I have to conclude that anyone who thinks they picked out this signal from the noise is delusional or on drugs. Anyone who thinks the earth hasn't done this before is ignoring evidence, or they are a climate researcher at Penn State.
The fact is, the tunable models (as the scientists admit in the Cliimategate 2.0 release) have failed miserably, and if you use observations instead, virtually none of the effects that would be required of AGW are in fact visible. Most of the recent studies that actually are observation based, not model based, do conclude that sensitivity to CO2 is either low or negative. Meaning, it's too small of an effect to worry about. Even the WWF / Greenpeace surrogate the IPCC is now admitting that as well (it's just too difficult to continue lying about that - though they are only giving up a few inches at a time).
AGW collapsed a few years ago. Y'all just haven't buried it yet. And it's starting to stink.
I know, I know, you have to think about all the poor climate researchers... What will they do? Don't worry, maybe they could study clouds, since they admit they know virtually nothing about them.
You stated, "It's interesting that sea level is falling." They currently are not. Your link does not prove they are. You need to try harder. :)
Michael Smith
You talk a good game, but you fall for (or purposely promote) the same fallacies as most AGW deniers:
You show one year of infintestimal sea level drop and you conclude that "sea levels are falling," when longer-term data clearly show the opposite.
You note that climate has changed naturally in the past as though you believe that says something about whether humans can affect it also.
You say "Anyone who thinks the earth hasn't done this before is ignoring evidence" as if implying that anybody has ever actually said that.
You use allusions to out-of-context "climategate" lines to imply things that are simply untrue.
You outright lie when you claim the IPCC admits that CO2 sensitivity is negligible.
Jeff - Oops, you're right. It has started to rise again lately. Good catch. Now it is correct to say it has fallen 8.8mm since 2010 :-) That is A LOT of water. Where did all that water go? Filling aquifers in Australia?
ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.txt
Jock -
I didn't say the IPCC would ADMIT it, they are giving it up a small bit at a time. If they admit that, it's game over for them. They're nothing if not dishonest. It will take time and a few more climategate releases for them to paint themselves into a corner they can't get out of. I like watching it happen, they are doing a marvelous job all by themselves.
Don't lie about the climategate emails, I've read all of climategate 1, and am 60% through climategate 2. I've done the timelines. I know the context. I actually look at evidence like this, I don't turn a blind eye as if my funding or university's reputation depended on it.
The fact that climate has changed so much in the past naturally makes it difficult to assign cause today. Did you look at the link I provided? Is it any wonder that it is still impossible to assign cause to the tiny variations we've seen? It's obviously buried in the noise. To claim otherwise is akin to witchcraft, or really bad statistical practices, like the Hockey Stick.
Here is another good editorial on the subject today from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/12/01/salvaging-the-mythology-of-man-caused-global-warming/
Nice to see that Nasa is spending millions in photos so science geeks get their orgasms while USA is in the biggest economical crisis since the big depression. Millions of people are hungry and unemployed and Nasa is playing with its expensive toys, again - shameless! I cring every time I see one of these photos and I think what the government could have done with the money.
txrbt-3516720 asks:
>Melting ice in a glass does not raise the water in a glass so why the ocean?<
Usually, we do not drink salted ice water. If, however, we did, then you would notice that the ice does, indeed, float much higher above the surface; thus, not displacing much of the water in the glass. And, once it does melt, then you would see an increase in the water level of the glass.
In addition, all of the glaciers on land will eventually find their way to the oceans as they melt, too; either through direct flow or through evaporation and precipitation.
When presented with data that shows otherwise, the Fox News crowd just goes with what they are told to think. Not actually thinking for themselves. This goes for this thread and all others I come across.
There is no way to get thru to the brainwashed lost. Hopefully, the rest of us can come up with solutions.
I do not try to talk sense into a rightie. If the facts don't change their mind, I am not going to either.
How many of you people will be alive by the year 2100? I know I won't be. Enjoy your life, this stuff is out of our control. When/should the water level rise in NYC, they will deal with it. Do you REALLY think that by opting for 'paper' in the supermarket will change anything?
You are so right......this is about us..... the heck with future generations.
the me generation? Geez
So tell me, what are you going to do? Its not about me at all, it is BEYOND ME.
Obviously, but the rest of us know that we can change things by our actions.
That's all talk. WHAT ACTIONS are you referring to? Name one thing that you can do that will seriously change the outcome. Oh wow, separate your cans, bottles and paper? Yeah I do that too but really, what does it change? Why not just enjoy life and stop stressing over things that we clearly have no control over. We all like to think we have that control but comon do we? Do you seriously think it matters who is president, governor or mayor? I have live through eight different president's, in all honesty my life has not changed all that much due to WHO is president. Do you seriously think you have Obama's ear and do you seriously think he is concerned about YOU? I hear all you people talk about global warming and politics like you can control the outcome but in truth all of us will never have that power. So why stress it? I prefer to focus on tomorrow's NFL games instead.
Yes, if you wait for presidents to do something, not much will ever get done. The push has to come from the people. Not one person, but many people. It is not just personal actions, but also pressure for policy changes. we can't change everything, but we can change some things -- unless we are watching football.