Climate change: Arctic ice melting faster, sea level to rise more, report says

Sea levels will rise more dramatically than was predicted nearly four years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a new study of arctic conditions concludes.

The Arctic ice study by the International Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, titled Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA), says that the feedback loops scientists have been warning about already are accelerating glacial melting in the Arctic, which accounted for 40% of sea-level rise chronicled annually from 2003 through 2008.

The executive summary of the report says:

The greatest increase in surface air temperature has happened in
autumn, in regions where sea ice has disappeared by the end of summer. This
suggests that the sea is absorbing more of the sun’s energy during the summer
because of the loss of ice cover. The extra energy is being released as heat
in autumn, further warming the Arctic lower atmosphere. Over land, the
number of days with snow cover has changed mostly in spring. Early snow
melt is accelerated by earlier and stronger warming of land surfaces that
are no longer snow-covered.

These processes are termed "feedbacks." Snow feedbacks are well known. The sea-ice feedback
has been anticipated by climate scientists, but clear evidence for it
has only been observed in the Arctic in the past five years.

Sea levels are expected to rise by 35 to 63 inches by 2100, far more than the 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches made by the IPCC, the report says. Temperatures from 2005 through 2010 have been the highest since records began in 1880, the study shows.

The melting will not only affect sea levels; it has the potential to alter sea currents that regulate climate, the report warns:

All the main sources of freshwater entering the Arctic Ocean are increasing -- river discharge, rain/snow, and melting glaciers, ice caps, and
the Greenland Ice Sheet. Recent calculations estimate that an extra
7700 km3 of freshwater -– equivalent to one meter of water over the entire land
surface of Australia -– has been added to the Arctic Ocean in recent years.
There is a risk that this could alter large-scale ocean currents that affect
climate on a continental scale.

The report will be presented to the foreign ministers of Arctic nations next week, and is likely to stir more controversy over stalled efforts to curb planet-warming greenhouse gases.

"It is deeply concerning that these latest scientific findings blow previous estimates out of the water," Lou Leonard, managing director of the World Wildlife Fund's Climate Change Program, said in a statement Wednesday. "I'm not sure what is more alarming, the glacial pace of Congress to reduce carbon pollution or the astounding rate of melting Arctic ice."

RELATED:

Bubbles of warming, beneath the ice

The melting Arctic: a bigger-than-estimated impact on climate

Arctic sea ice reaches historic summer low

-- Geoff Mohan

Photo: An iceberg melts off Greenland in 2005. Credit: John McConnico / Associated Press

Comments

[harpon]

The only thing that has really slowed down Global warming the most is it's own excessive moisture- from the artic ice.

It is that moisture that fills the atmosphere and then forms the clouds that block the suns rays- Increasing air traffic on cooler days aids that process too, by forming unnatural jet trail cloud cover. the moisture then stays on land longer- resulting in the INCREASE of widespread floodsing seen all around the world.

I think the icemelt moisture has now peaked- with less to melt there will be less blocking the sun- and the actual warming trend will overide it's own mess.

This is why it's so marked a difference in Autumn. The warming "overides" it's own moisture earlier now in summer. After the land dries from the last summer's melt, the warming grows stronger again- It's a discernable cycle if you'll notice.

watch out- I think the skeptics will disappear soon. This is a real problem.

Once

[affableman]

"Who are you going to believe, the bible, or your lying eyes?". Best line yet...

[Tom]

Artic ice and glaciers have been melting since the last ice age. Evidence has been discovered at high elevations of sea creatures from thousands of years ago. Evidence of cities along coasts have been discovered now under water, some just few feet and others a hundred or so feet. Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. All of these reported by scientists and climatologists.

Ice will continue to melt and seas will continue to rise. Purchasing property on a coastline would not be a wise long term investment for one heirs.

This will continue until the next ice age, when ice will stop melting and seas will drop.

Nothing new, as scientists have discovered evidence of multiple ice ages and climate changes throughout thousands of years.

A couple of large volcanic explosions or a large meteor impact could cause rapid change again.

Political spin cannot change the evidence of what has happened and what will eventually happen again.

[RUJoking?!]

Truth,

'Just because you don't understand something does not mean it hasn't been proven. It has been proven many times over "like a law of thermodynamics", only it's called "quantum mechanics". '

??? The article's about climate. If you want to link quantum mechanics to that, then do it. That's YOU that needs to support your claim, not me.

'not cite false "proofs" while claiming that true principles of physics (that underly all modern technology) are still unproven.'

Are you OK? If YOU contend that CO2 is warming the planet then YOU need to support that. Sling all the mud you want, it doesn't prove your point. I cited no proofs, because I'm not enough of a liar to say this issue is 'proven'. I did SUGGEST some alternate causes of climate change like Milankovitch cycles & volcanoes, per centuries of physics, history & other science.

Take your nose off the tree of CO2 & step back to observe a forest of other reasons Earth's climate can change, like solar variation or plate tectonics, meaning more or less heat enters the Earth. Open minds can be good.

'Any reasonable thinking person will look at the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the underlying mechanisms and come to the only logical conclusion.'

??? The logical conclusions being that: rising CO2 is solely responsible for climate change, that temps & CO2 are accurately measured for millenia, that most of the CO2 comes from human activity, that global warming is always detrimental, that humans can effectively change CO2 levels & that means to change CO2 are suggested for adoption. Those conclusions? You have many links to write to support any science behind that path.

Start small, separate human-made CO2 from natural CO2 coming from plants & volcanoes. In past Ice Ages CO2 has been several times higher than now. Please, enlighten us.

[affableman]

It's like the Birthers, no matter how much evidence you present it never good enough.

Some folk just don't like to recognize reality and they always seem to be Republicans.

[Again...]

Seriously, I am all for genetically engineered people with high IQ's, docile emotions, and near perfect health. All Frigg in for it, but who's going to kill all the religious people who want to give birth to "gods children" as they say in Gataca, so we don't have to deal with morons?
What do you expect from the borderline intellect masses?
Look around people- we are stupid as hell.....seriously, we eat and have sex to have babies and have no idea why. Like unconscious robots with emotional incontinence.
We are gross and we should die off!!!

[okaynow]

First- I watched PBS for over 25 years and I Have been hugely aware of climate change, but I also am aware of how overly conscious I have been. PBS caused me to have anxiety and depression and guilt and I stopped watching it about two years ago. I do not have children, and keep my foot print low. So, I am on board, a believer as you would say. I have seen no real disasters that are going to make anyone care a hoot about it- so #78k it.
Second- So what if we ruin the world? We are a disgusting parasite who has neither the IQ or insight to change significantly to make any difference. So what if we do not exist? I do not see what the big worry is over us becoming extinct and HELLO, neither does ninety percent of the people on earth. And, education, as people love to blather on about, will not change one mind. No one cares!!!

[Truth]

RU: "If you think CO2 warms the Earth, then prove it, like a law of thermodynamics. No emotional assertions, odd insinuations, abstract correlations or eco-guilt, but science. You can't, because if you could you'd win a Nobel Prize for physics. Go ahead, show me I'm wrong & prove rising CO2 is warming the Earth. Please, I'd like to see it."

Just because you don't understand something does not mean it hasn't been proven. It has been proven many times over "like a law of thermodynamics", only it's called "quantum mechanics". Quite a few Nobel prizes have in fact been handed out for advances in that field. That you suggested in your earlier comment that atmospheric N2 or O2 may be involved shows your lack of understanding on this issue. N2 and O2 cannot absorb photons at the proper frequency, the quantized energy is the "wrong" value for this to occur.

If you believe that the current warming trend is not human-related, that is your chosen delusion. But you should be honest about the matter and not cite false "proofs" while claiming that true principles of physics (that underly all modern technology) are still unproven. You should say "I don't believe in human-caused global warming because I simply choose not to.". This is at least an honest statement.

For anyone else reading, consider the essence of what we observe today:
1) Burning fossil fuels emitts CO2. - Indisputable
2) We burn fossil fuels on an enormous scale. - Indisputable
3) CO2, a product of combustion, is an efficient absorber of IR energy. - Indisputable
4) The greater the amount of energy absorbing gas emitted into the atmosphere, the greater the atmosphere will warm. - Indisputable and is being directly observed.

To now claim, as RU does, that a warming trend has not been shown or that the underlying physics that have been proven to be true in experiment after experiment for 100 years (conceived by people like Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie and Schrodinger) are somehow as-yet unproven is equivalent to saying "If I punch you, how do you know I punched you?" Any reasonable thinking person will look at the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the underlying mechanisms and come to the only logical conclusion.

But that's just not as much fun as believing in some grand conspiracy is it?

To now

[Joe Below]

To reiterate:

The entire "sponsored" and promoted "green" policy was designed to lend to the deindustrialization of the USA. It has NOTHING to do with helping the environment. The "polluters" are moving their operations elsewhere, still polluting, while Americans are being left behind to deal with rising debt and unemployment.

You'll notice that only insider and crony companies are being allowed to do business in America. If you're not in with the government, forget about it. As you'll notice, smaller outfits are having trouble getting contracts for clean coal yet G.E. has carte blanch to do what it wants. American companies are being banned from drilling for oil off shore (in the Gulf) while foreign companies are being allowed.

This is all about economic warfare. And it's being waged against the American public. While Americans are allowing their rights to be stripped away in the name of fighting manufactured terror, they will also loose their jobs in the name of fighting phony environmentalism.

You all need to wake up to these facts. Every time the purveyors of this nonsense are encountered in a fair debate, they loose. Why is that? I liar can't stand up to the light of the truth. Al Gore (or any other scientist) has yet to be able to defend his argument in a fair and equitable meeting with people on the other side of the fence.

It has come down to this farce being just like any other propped up religion.

Let's not give in to this madness.

[Joe Below]

Ice usually melts in the Spring and Summer time. This is nothing to worry about. Let's ask the chief climate wizard Al Gore why he is buying property at sea level.

I suppose that Osama Bin Laden is causing the Earth to warm from beyond the grave. BTW, he's been dead since late 2001. Don't fall for the garbage from the White House. So, get a clue people! Why not go after REAL issues such as all the aluminum, barium and strontium being dumped into the atmosphere in order to combat this debunked hoax called global warming? The data these morons spew out was designed to fool the "intellectuals" just as the WMD alerts were concocted to sucker the right wing. You fell for it hook, line and sinker.

9-11 pulled in the right. AGW duped the left. In the end, it's the power elite that will not only take away your rights in the name of fighting terrorism but also your health, personal property and right to breath in the name of fighting this fictitious warming. The last time I checked, it wasn't getting any warmer, other than the two times a year the sun allows it. That's your climate change. Four times a year. It's called the "seasons."

For some reason, I don't recall the folks from the church of climatology commenting on depleted uranium being spread around the world, the toxins from the geo-stratospheric engineering "testing" and GMO strains making their way into the food supply.

Fight some real battles, people. Don't fall for this non-sense. In any event, even if this concept was indeed real, there's nothing that mankind can do to reverse it in short (or long) order. Even if we all went back to living in caves. You all should know that the "scientists" were propping up the idea 30-40 years ago that we would be in an ice age today. It's not far from the truth. However, since government is run by eugenicists, they had to come up with a different plan. The answer was to make "carbon" the enemy. Tax carbon and they'll achieve their goals of smashing industrial society.

So, who's supposed to pay the price? Any of you "warmists" know how the battle is supposed to be fought? You're going to loose your jobs as all manufacturing will be sent overseas where there are no environmental controls. China, India, etc will be building new polluting factories while America will be deindustrialized. You guys won't complain just as you won't complain about the TSA sticking their hands down your pants because the government/corporations/scholars will have done a fantastic job at convincing you that the terrorist threat is real and that global warming is a fact.

And what will you do in the future of the deindustrialized and terror-panicked America? You'll get jobs for the government ratting out your neighbors. Those who collect rain water and have their lights on past the imposed curfew will have a price on their heads. Since you'll be starving as the price of everything will go up (thanks to the carbon taxes you approved), you'll do anything to get money for a bite to eat as you'll desire to inform on anyone daring to offend the global government which is to be set up to manage your downfall. America will fold and become property of those we fought in 1776.

This is their goal. They just had to find the perfect enemies for the ignorant American and world public to fall prey to. This is as bad as the people who were suckered by the high priests who understood astronomy and told the village-folk that the firey god in the sky would disappear (from an eclipse) if they didn't allow their hearts to be cut out. Since the world public is more sophisticated, they had to dream up something more complex that would fool us. Hence came "anthropogenic global warming." Complete with false numbers and data. All this has been admitted too (ref. "climate gate"). Then you get these garbage websites.. oops.. news sources that get funding for peddling this crap.

I hope you guys enjoy the future you want. Make sure you create some artistic signs to beg for food with. You're going to need them as you allow your nation to be raped.

[michael]

http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml

Here's a good place to start, but of course publications by the National Academy of Science won't sway folks like RU, who prefer to reference Wikipedia and crackpot pseudoscience.

[RUJoking?!]

To my friends having trouble digesting that many probable causes for climate change exist, outside of CO2 levels (a trace gas) & atmospheric changes, please consult Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

Know that CO2 has been several times higher in the past when the planet was colder (Ice Ages).

Take a look at the very basic astrophysics behind variations in planetary orbit (not a perfect circle) & axis wobble that result in seasons & climate change. It's not tough.

Also endeavor to escape media conditioning & see that variations in solar output (sunspots, etc) will effect energy received on earth. The sun's temp varies.

Understand that several summers in history have vanished due to volcanic dust in the air, like after Krakatoa. Much of those eruptions were CO2, Google is your friend. Undersea volcanoes are more common, pumping heat & carbon into oceans for millenia; their output varies.

Please take a good look at planetary temp data, & the flawed models used by frauds like AGW high priest Dr Phil Jones. At best the data go back 150 years or so, but are subject to systemic errors due to urban heat island effects, moving weather stations & varying surrounding uses (factories, airports). At worst (Phil Jones) the data is not available for peer review (lost in his messy office!) or deliberately altered to reach a predetermined conclusion. That's not science.

If you think CO2 warms the Earth, then prove it, like a law of thermodynamics. No emotional assertions, odd insinuations, abstract correlations or eco-guilt, but science. You can't, because if you could you'd win a Nobel Prize for physics.

Go ahead, show me I'm wrong & prove rising CO2 is warming the Earth. Please, I'd like to see it.

[michael]

"They spent all those years in "school" because they were avoiding gainful employment."

Really? How about let's visit some labs at Caltech and talk to some postdocs about how they are avoiding gainful employment while working 60+ hours per week.

What is most fascinating is how the deniers have no clue how science works, but are perfectly comfortable dismissing the science.

[speake]

Let's see... WWF and a recycled 2009 "study"?... nothing wrong here LOL

[SDCyclist]

It's amazing how easily you can gauge someone's education level in this area by reading what they post in the comments section here. LOL! Those of you who believe that man-made climate change isn't real and that there's nothing to worry about need to take a few earth science classes. There's so much you can't and won't learn by watching TV. Just because you have the Science Channel doesn't mean you have a PhD in Earth Science. LOL! I think it's sad that this topic isn't easily explained to the masses. It does actually take an education in this discipline to really understand what's going on. So, you can't blame the ignorant for not believing what they're not capable of understanding. Briefly, the focus on melting ice alone is so short-sighted. The carbon cycle contains so many other variables. Deforestation plays a HUGE role in global climate change. We've destroyed a huge carbon sink - the forests. A forested land area the size of South Carolina is lost every year on this planet. That's huge. Anyway... this isn't a lecture. It would be nice to see people take the time to learn about a topic before they draw conclusions.

[Truth]

"SHOUT IT FROM THE MOUNTAINTOPS--MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!!!!!" is not an argument.

[Pablito]

Quick! Everybody now...bury your heads in the sand, yell far and wide about junk science, hug your Bible...but whatever you do, DON'T believe these highly-educated researchers and their sound methodology.

[Ron]

The liberals will not let go of this until they are able to tax carbon at every level. SHOUT IT FROM THE MOUNTAINTOPS--MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!!!!!

[Juan Seguin]

Who are you going to believe, the bible, or your lying eyes?

[mschliebs]

michael says, "Don't you all think it's fantastic that people posting in the comments section know more physics than the National Academy of Sciences? I mean, why spend years in graduate school working your butt off for low pay when all you have to do is think about ice melting in a glass?"

They spent all those years in "school" because they were avoiding gainful employment.

[Truth]

To the person who proposes changes in atmospheric N2 or O2 as possible causes: neither molecule exhibits a permanent dipole, and therefore will not absorb energy at the crucial frequency (CO2, on the other hand, absorbs a tremendous amount). Your proposed alternate cause show a stunning ignorance of the most basic scientific principle underlying climate change...unless of course you disagree that N2 and O2 have no dipole moments (in this case Albert Einstein's Nobel Prize should be given to you and not him).

[Jamie Tuesday]

Wow, back to the phony claims of the tinfoil hat wearing deniers. First, there is no research that supports the deniers. Their "science" is based on cherry picking data out of the work of real scientists and using that to poke holes in the conclusions.

Yes, there's been climate change in the past, and life has been extinguished as a result. Apparently the deniers don't care if warfare, death and disease result from their propoganda campaign funded by corporations.

As for RUJoking's comments, they are complete malarkey. There is zero research showing that sunspots, axis wobble, plate tectonics or any of his other supposed causes have any significant effect on climate. This is nothing but the most outrageous lies wrapped up in pseudo-scientific jargon.

[Truth]

Those who point to episodic climate change in the Earth's past as evidence of a natural cause for climate change occuring today neglect to address two issues: 1) The climate is currently changing faster than it ever has before, which is not part of any natural "trend", and 2) there is no known natural cause for the giant surplus of carbon dioxide gas currently building up in our atmosphere. There is, of course, one very obvious man-made source right there for everyone to see.

To those who claim the changing climate is natural and cyclical, I ask you to explain the increasing acidification of the ocean (something that is being directly measured and is irrefutably caused by greater than normal CO2 absorption). Is that part of a natural cycle as well?

Lastly, to those who claim this has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2: there are very basic and fundamental laws of chemistry and physics that tell us what happens when CO2 is irradiated with infrared energy. These are the same laws of chemistry and physics that govern virtually everything you see around you. Do you question the reality of your own surroundings?

[michael]

Don't you all think it's fantastic that people posting in the comments section know more physics than the National Academy of Sciences? I mean, why spend years in graduate school working your butt off for low pay when all you have to do is think about ice melting in a glass? Who needs Caltech and MIT?

[RUJoking?!]

Wow, back to this again. Please note that climate change is constant thru Earth's history & not always bad.

If Earth temp's are rising, & flawed models are suspect, then what is the cause?

An increase in atmospheric CO2 from 0.4% to 0.44%? It's possible, though CO2 levels were much higher in ice ages, per arctic core samples. Perhaps O2 or N levels might do it?

And if we explain ice ages, or climate change, which we can't, we might understand global warming. Current climate change causes are thought to be

1) Milankovitch Cycles - variations in earth's orbit.
2) Sunspots - variations in solar heat
3) Wobble - variations in Earth's axis
4) Volcanoes - on land or under sea, release heat
5) Plate tectonics - shifting earth changes heat flow from core to surface
6) Atmospheric changes - variations in N, O2 or CO2 (though CO2 least likely since it is merely a trace gas, less than 1%).

Win your Nobel Prize in physics from explaining climate change. Or just ask Al Gore & the LA Times.

[DUCK]

Antarctic polar ice has increased over the same period. Anyway you slice it, carbon dioxide is not the cause. Man made carbon dioxide is the equivalent of dumping a pint of water into an 80,000 gallon swimming pool. Jamming a carbon trading scheme down our throats under the guise of reducing global temperatures is getting old. Let it go LA Times. Let it go.

[Native Angeleno]

Take note, Flat Earth Society, which should be the Flat Head Society, as thin as a pancake. Your literally retarded awareness, see below for examples, and know-nothing support for the "leadership" of both corrupt parties responsible for the growing catastrophe will cause your grandchildren to hate you, except you clearly don't care about them either.

[Omar]

Of course the melted ice will increase sea level. Most of the ice on our planet is not over the ocean, it's sitting on tope of Greenland and Antarctica. Our country needs more basic geography education, for Pete's sake!

[RichnDifference]

Posters that excoriate 'basic logic failure' in others may wish to consider a correlative bit of logic: that all the frozen water on all the continents, including Antarctica, will also melt under these circumstances, thereby adding substantially to the water level in your 'glass'.

[TronUI]

Models are pretty powerful, by default models are always incorrect because they're abstractions--BUT* they do come VERY close--their predictive power is amazing. I've run simulations/models in university and in research that estimate biological parameters with incredible accuracy and simulations modeling physiological patterns--big pharma and biotech relies on this predictive power to develop effective drugs. And insurance companies!--oh boy, their statistical models are so good. Money talks, so when insurance companies start to accommodate climate change, I listen.

[Solidspine]

Everyone knows this is obama's fault.

[RUJoking?!]

The arctic ice cap could melt entirely & sea levels would not change anymore than melting ice floating in a drink will overflow a glass.

Volume of frozen ice versus melted ice (water) is similar. The writer, & some posters, should try this experiment in basic physics.

Not much to say beyond this basic logic failure.

[RichnDifference]

Every existing shipping port in the world will be under water. Calculate that! Time to take another dose of Snookie.

[Truth]

The claim by one of the readers in the comments section that sea levels are not rising is a complete lie. To see the truth for yourselves (determined via satellite altimetry measurements) go to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Laboratory for Satellite Altimerty page and see the truth as it is being directly observed. Sea levels are in fact rising steadily as a global trend.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php

[lc]

I was bitten by a grizzly bear and a polar bear all in the same day.

[PO]

"It's all MODELS and projections!" says Wayne above.

Really? Wayne wants us to use WHAT instead of using our best-science models, a Time Machine maybe? But, in fact, it is not even true that it's all projections and models. Does this sound like a projection:

"Temperatures from 2005 through 2010 have been the highest since records began in 1880, the study shows."

That's called "history" that's called "we measured it", that's called, "it already happened"

Same for the close to 1 degree C the world has warmed (close to 2 degrees F), that's not projections, that's already happened. Same for the ocean acidity concentrations being 30% higher than before the burning of fossil fuels, that's not a projection either, that's already happened! Same for major parts of the arctic which have warmed by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 40 or so years.

The logic seems to be, deny, deny, deny, no matter what...to what end? So burning fossil fuels can continue, our children's lungs be damned, the climate be damned, the oceans be damned?

[2Sun]

For a reality check, compare the projected rise rate against the actual rate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/04/more-arctic-sea-level-worse-than-we-thought-scare-stories/

[2Sun]

This scaremongering cries 'wolf' that sea level rise 600% of the actual rate of rise for 1992 to 2010 (17 mm/year vs 3 mm/year).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/02/oh-noes-sea...

It claims rapid warming, when global temperatures since 2001 have been flat or even cooling. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/hadley-march...

It claims "warmest on record" - ignoring historical accounts of major melting and Arctic open water.

Greenland's ice melt was faster in the 193os than recently.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/02/a-225-year-reconstruction-of-greenland-ice-melt/

This advocacy needs a bucket full of salt to swallow!
Lets return to robust objective science instead of scaremongering!

[Wayne Delbeke]

Another MODEL! Check the actual sea level rise, the rate is declining and has actually gone flat for the last couple of years. What your are reading is pure PROJECTION based on MODELING, not reality. Also remember that floating ice essentially does not add to sea level and remember that it has been much warmer in the past than it is now - if it warms back up to those levels (we are currently in an inter-glacial period), then you will need to head for the hills - in a thousand years or so.

This "forecast" seems to surface every couple of years.

[surfdogh2o]

This spells doom for the Polar Bear. There won't be any left unless they mate with grizzlies and become land-based animals.

Next will be us. It won't be fun.

[Neil Jones]

Wasn't this report last issued in 2009?

Yes, read about it here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091028192617.htm