Scientists Project No Arctic Summer Sea Ice By 2070 - Financial Times

"The Arctic ice-cap is melting at an unprecedented rate, with potentially dire consequences, according to one of the most authoritative studies on global climate change. Arctic ice is half as thick as 30 years ago, the report found. In the same period the distribution of ice has shrunk by 10 per cent, according to the report, produced by 250 scientists over the past four years and commissioned by the Arctic Council.

A warmer Arctic could cause sea levels to rise nearly a metre by the end of the century, flooding many coastal regions and perhaps halting the Gulf Stream, which brings warmer water and weather to northern Europe. Pal Prestrud, vice-chairman of the steering committee for the report, said: “Climate change is not just about the future; it is happening now. The Arctic is warming at twice the global rate.”

If present rates of change continue, there may be no ice in the Arctic during summer by 2070, according to the study, to be discussed on Tuesday at an international conference in Iceland. The report is the most comprehensive undertaken on the Arctic region, and is the product of the eight countries with Arctic territory: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the US.

EDIT

Warming could be slowed by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, he said, but that would would need to be done urgently. As Arctic ice melts, global warming is likely to accelerate. As the ice reflects much of the sun's heat back into space, so a shrinking ice cap will mean more heat is absorbed by the earth. A warming Arctic could enhance shipping, as the journey between the UK and Japan could be shortened by 10 to 12 days by a route through passages that are ice-bound today, said Mr Prestrud. The Arctic region is believed to have 25 per cent of the remaining oil and gas reserves, and melting ice may increase accessibility. Nicola Saltman, climate change programme leader at WWF, the environmental organisation, said: “This research provides incontrovertible proof that climate change is happening in the Arctic. It highlights the urgent need for Arctic governments to take action now by reducing their CO emissions.”

EDIT

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/626fa6be-2c35-11d9-8339-00000e2511c8.html

I loved that last paragraph - since the ice is rapidly disappearing it will allow access to more oil & gas, which we'll then extract and burn, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere . . . brilliant.

confirmation of the utter destruction we are headed for with our dependence on hydrocarbons.
the end is nigh for the petroman.
thanks for the post.

That seems to be the only way this will slow down, let alone stop.

If not, perhaps we'll make the place inhospitable for thousands of years.

JAMES LOVELOCK AND THE GAIA THEORY

James Lovelock has developed the "Gaia theory" over the last twenty-five years as a scientific claim that the earth's "biota", tightly coupled with its environment, acts (and has acted since life on earth developed any complexity) as a single, self regulating living system in such a way as to maintain the conditions that are suitable for life. The system includes the near-surface rocks and atmosphere. In particular, it regulates the chemistry of the oceans, composition of the atmosphere and surface temperature.

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/philosophy/mave/guide/gaiath~1.htm
___________________

The Gaia Theory

In science, a Gaia theory is a class of scientific models of the biosphere in which life fosters and maintains suitable conditions for itself by affecting Earth's environment. The first such theory was created by the English atmospheric scientist James Lovelock in 1969. He hypothesized that the living matter of the planet functioned like a single organism and named this self-regulating living system after the Greek goddess Gaia.

Gaia theories have non-technical predecessors in the ideas of several cultures. Meanwhile today, "Gaia theory" is sometimes used among non-scientists to refer to theories of a self-regulating Earth that are non-technical but take inspiration from the scientific models.

Among some scientists "Gaia" carries connotations of scientifically unrigorous quasi-mystical thinking about Earth, and Lovelock's own hypothesis was received initially with much antagonism by the scientific community. No controversy exists now, however, that life and the physical environment significantly influence one another.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Gaia_theory_(science)
__________________
On Edit: Gaia, in essence, says that if we (humans) became harmful to the planet body, it would "shake us off like a bad cold."

Other reports I have read point out that the Arctic Ocean is NOT an Ice Sheet but one huge Ice Shelf. An importance difference for an Ice Shelf floats on water while an Ice Sheet is grounded on land. The significance of an Ice Shelf is that it is already displacing the water it will become if it melts. This is called the "Rule of Displacement". If and when the Ice Shelf melts it may mean a net increase is about a 1 cm (i.e. 1/2 inch) in world wide ocean levels, but no more. When ice melts it becomes water and since the Ice Shelf is already displacing the water it will become no net increase in Water will occur from the melting of the Arctic Ocean.

Now Ice Sheets are a different matter. While Ice Shelves float on top of water, Ice Sheets are grounded on land and thus build up and up over the millenniums. Ice sheets are the glaciers in the World along with the Ice Sheets of Greenland, West Antarctica and East Antarctica. While the Glacier's melting will have an affect on world wide ocean levels, the amount of water that would be added to the ocean is small and manageable (Less than the meter predicted in the article but more than the 1cm the melting of the Ice Shelves will do). Thus the real concern are the ice Sheets of Greenland, West Antarctica and East Antarctica.

The big Ice Sheet is East Antarctica but it is considered relatively sable for it is ground ed above sea level (and thus raising ocean temperatures have little affect on it) AND located within the Arctic and/or Antarctic circles and thus the affect of higher temperatures in the Temperate zones have minimal affect on it. In fact some models indicate that increase world wide temperatures tied in with Global Warming will actual INCREASE the depth of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

This brings me to the two REAL problems of global warming and raising sea levels, The West Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets. Greenland's ice sheet touches the Arctic Circle But than stretches south over the entire island of Greenland. Given it is located SOUTH of the Arctic Circle it is subject to warming air within the Tempered Zones. Greenland is feared for it may slowly meant away and raise world wide ocean levels about 20 feet. Another fear it is may break off huge parts of it sheets and stop the flow of Gulf Stream causing European temperatures to DROP to that of Newfoundland.

While Greenland is a concern, the real Godzilla of Global warming is the West Antarctic Ice sheet. It is an Ice Sheet but anchored on land BELOW SEA LEVEL. Thus it is affected Directly by raising Ocean temperatures. Unlike Greenland's Ice Sheet, it is possible for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to break away from its anchor and float into the ocean. If that happens you have a overnight raise is Ocean levels of 20 feet. It is believed to happen about 120,000 years ago just before the last ice Age. It is the Main concern.

Now the Ice Shelves of Antarctica may protect the Ice Sheets from direct temperature increase and the disappearance of the Ice Shelves of Antarctica may lead to the dislodging of the Ice Sheet. Thus the Ice Shelves are a Concern, but only in the sense that it will lead to destruction of the Ice Sheets, not in the destruction of the Ice Shelves themselves.

Thus my point is this report on the Arctic Ocean is overblown, for the Ice Shelves of the Arctic Ocean are NOT a problem in themselves, the disappearances of such ice Shelves may lead to destruction of the Ice Sheets which will have a serious affect on World Wide Ocean levels.

http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/summer98/wr_sum98d.htm
http://www.imaja.com/as/environment/can/journal/madhousecentury.html
http://www.fathom.com/feature/122557/

Greenland, Axel Heiberg, etc, but sodden and inept reporting didn't clearly outline the differences you point out in your posts.

Which may have been the purpose of the Article, for it was in the Financial Times which is aimed at investors not environmentalists.

Aside from people like Laurie Garrett, Paul Brown at the Guardian and Andrew Revell at the NYT, I can't really think of very many.

Antarctic cruises.

I can't stand them - they're a waste of my time.

One crew from US News and World Report did a report about the effects of global warming on the Antractic Peninsula.

It was a cover story.

The interviewed everyone at Palmer Station.

When the story was published, however, it was full of quotes from the boat maintence guys, the carpenters, the cooks and the GA's, but only had one quote from the scientists actually working at the station.

I was amazed.

The report, unfortunately, is dead-on.

Sea ice is rapidly disappearing in the Arctic and melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet will result in a significant rise in sea level by the end of the century.

Air temperatures are also rapidly rising on the Antarctic Peninsula and glaciers there are retreating.

and all the feedbacks are positive.

It's an absolute tragedy....

You will see I addressed what the Article addressed i.e. the melting of the Arctic Sea Ice would increase world wide Ocean levels. It Will not.

As to Greenland's Ice Sheet, it may or may not be affected by the melting of the Arctic Ice. Greenland's ice sheet is FRESH WATER and as such melts at a higher temperature than the Salt water of the Arctic. Thus it is possible for the Arctic ice to Melt at temperatures where the Fresh Water in Greenland's Ice Sheet will stay solid. Today most of the water around Greenland are Ice free, for this very reason. The question than is how much will the surrounding air temperature rise to affect the Greenland Ice Sheet. I do not know but the article did NOT go into the issue of Greenland (Or if it did it would have mentions the 20 feet or EIGHT meter raise from the melting of Greenland Ice Sheet not the one meter raise mentioned in the Article).

My point here was to address the claim made in the Article, which is NOT what most Climate watchers believe will happen. The REAL concern is whether the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets will melt away, NOT whether the Arctic Ocean will be frozen in 2070.

in sea level during the last interglacial...

K. M. Cuffey and S. J. Marshall (2000) Substantial contribution to sea-level rise during the last interglacial from the Greenland ice sheet. Nature 404: 591 - 594

...and there is evidence that melting of the GIS has begun in response to climate warming...

W. Krabill, E. Frederick, S. Manizade, C. Martin, J. Sonntag, R. Swift, R. Thomas, W. Wright, and J. Yungel (1999) Rapid Thinning of Parts of the Southern Greenland Ice Sheet. Science Vol. 283 pp 1522-1524.

Dorthe Dahl-Jensen (2000) The Greenland Ice Sheet Reacts. Science. 289: 404

W. S. B. Paterson and N. Reeh (2001) Thinning of the ice sheet in northwest Greenland over the past forty years. Nature 414: 60 - 62

E. Rignot and R. H. Thomas (2002) Mass Balance of Polar Ice Sheets Science. 297: 1502-1506.

H. J. Zwally, W. Abdalati, T. Herring, K. Larson, J. Saba, K. Steffen (2002) Surface Melt-Induced Acceleration of Greenland Ice-Sheet Flow Science 297: 218-222.

Sea level will rise in response to Arctic warming as stated in the report...

Of course, nothing is more dangerous than nuclear power, eh, Jpak?

What does it matter what form doom takes though?

It is far too late for thinking now, far too late to argue the finer points.

Personally no matter what the mechanism, I can't wait for Disneyworld to go under water. It will represent a perfect opportunity to market the new Atlantis Ride.

It also should make the Fort Lauderdale Noah's Ark Bible Study infinitely more popular.