Comments on: Arctic sea ice drops below 2007 levels

By: jcunningham

jcunningham — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:51:56 +0000

Maybe should take that bet that the arctic won’t be ice free in 2020.

By: Neil Hampshire

Neil Hampshire — Tue, 05 May 2009 08:01:43 +0000

The NSIDC April report states

“Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000).”

“The decline rate for the month of April was the third slowest on record. The Arctic lost sea ice cover at a rate of 27,300 square kilometers per day (10,500 square miles), compared to an average of 41,600 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day for 1979 to 2000.”

By: Neil Hampshire

Neil Hampshire — Sun, 03 May 2009 03:17:55 +0000

Hmm! “The day by day meanderings of Arctic sea ice extent are not overly meaningful yet, but I think they are worth reporting because it bugs the deniers to see any evidence whatsoever that the world is not undergoing global cooling”

The situation up in the Arctic seems to have changed somewhat since your comment in January 2008.
To ensure reporting balance would it not be appropriate to run a headline “Arctic sea ice extent approaching 1979 – 2000 average”

By: ventana

ventana — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:19:31 +0000

This chart has evolved some. It did seem as if the 2009 sea ice extent wanted to flirt with the 2007 levels a few times. Now it seems to want to go flirt with the 1979-2000 average.

By: Tom Hurley

Tom Hurley — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:43:07 +0000

Wait… It’s all wrong. The NSIDC now admits the sensor on the satellite used to make those figures has been faulty for perhaps two months and finally broke. The sea ice extent is increasing as JAXA data shows. Even the NSIDC admits the sensor used by JAXA is much more accurate. The only reason they do not use it is because they want to compare data to past data which also was not as accurate as JAXA. There is no denying the growth of 2009 arctic sea ice. It’s time to start looking at the real pssiblity of global cooling. The Russians surely are.

By: Rick Gamble

Rick Gamble — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:26:00 +0000

Earlier post by Will K. makes excellent point about the “reverse of the coin”: as Arctic ice thins and recedes and opens Churchill/Hudson Bay to a longer shipping season, the warmer weather will also soften the tundra permafrost and throw the railroad tracks out of alignment. Perhaps all of the unemployed auto workers can get jobs as gandy dancers for OmniTrax, straightening the rails? The whole “Arctic Bridge” is a marketing concept pitched by a company-owned town (Churchill) and the Murmansk Shipping Company. Exporting wheat out of Churchill is the easy part: finding cargo for in-bound ships is the tricky part. Murmansk is not necessarily the best route in/out of Central Asia and the ‘Stans.

By: P. G. Dudda

P. G. Dudda — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:59:12 +0000

@Will Korluk: Yes, that’s part of what I meant about “beefing up infrastructure”. Sorry I wasn’t more explicit about that. There’s also not enough people *IN* Churchill (only 1,000 – give or take) to handle the kind of loads Murmansk would like to see. But the thawing of Arctic Ocean ice has them salivating at the possibilities…

By: jorleh

jorleh — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:35:25 +0000

3 degrees Celcius up 2100 makes 0,03 C per year.

The last decade in the Arctic shows that we are going much more faster, perhaps 0,1 C per year in this moment. And the pace is accelerating.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:34:28 +0000

Big difference is a lot more new/young ice this year than 2007-8, which means that it can melt fast

By: Will Koroluk

Will Koroluk — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:18:57 +0000

@P. D. Dudda:
The Murmansk-Churchill link is an idea that has been kicking around for years, so I’d wait a while before starting to clink glasses. For a start, there is one single, solitary surface link leading to Churchill–a rail line that, for quite a bit of the way, is built on permafrost. We all know what’s starting to happen to permafrost as the climate warms: It thaws, buckles, heaves (and emits methane as the frozen vegetation slowly rots in the warmer temperatures). In fact, if you’ve ever ridden the train dubbed the Polar Bear Express, you’ll know it gives a whole new meaning to “rock ‘n roll.” It’s a long time and many dollars away from being a viable commercial link.