The Arctic could be ice free during the summer within the next 20 years. This will open it up to all sorts of shipping and explorations. Some may recall the search for the Northwest passage. Well, the more likely route looks to be straight over the north pole. Mariners have known for thousands of years, that there is too much ice in the arctic and now in our lifetime it is possible that that will change.

Arctic sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by the most advanced computer models, a new study concludes:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

In addition, current arctic sea ice is trending towards yet another record low amount:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

The TOTAL arctic sea ice is about 2 million square kilometers below normal for the August 1st.
I would expect to see record or near record lows for minimum ice this season in the Arctic.

Unfortunately, there are people living in denial that will choose to ignore such data and instead focus search for something that supports there own point of view while claiming some sort of conspiracy by all the reputable mythologist of the world.

Sad, very sad. But also rather entertaining to see how silly people think and behave when living in denial.

We must oppose them at all costs! First more oil & gas reserves will allow "DON PUTIN" to continue his mafia like rule & extend this mafia influence globally. Second, the thought of Russian military bases in the Artic is downright frightening.

I wonder how the AGW crowd will feel about oil wells being put into the "pristine" artic? Also, can't wait to see the reaction from Russia to the horde of Greenpeacers, AGWers, ELFers et al who will probably try to sue somebody to stop it. I'm sure that Russia will study the threat to the Polar bear as a result of their exploration, right?

Besides, not sure what they are thinking, don't they know that there is no more oil out there? Apparently, they are not tuned into the AGW channel. Send the Goreacle, he'll fix it.

Great. As the Arctic warms, Russians will drill more for more oil, which in turns adds even more CO2 emissions that accelerate the warming.

Yet another feedback.

Wonder how hard it would be to make the titanium flag stand disappear? :)

We should be spending our money and efforts claiming the energy reserves for ourselves rather than legislating ourselves into poverty. This does not need to be reserved to the Earth. The moon has vast amounts of Helium 3, which is a better fuel for Fusion than Hydrogen.

The Chinese and Russians are not going to bow to all these AGW sissies, they also have their eyes set on the Helium 3, why would they? Why should we Americans? Because half of our nation and a good deal of our allies, liberals, are a bunch of sissies? I think not. They have their hands in the rest of our wallets because we have allowed them to whine their way into them.

CO2 does not cause GW, the Sun does.

Oyyy...the tired lie about the Polar bears facing extinction. Never mind the populations are at record numbers...polar bears are thriving.

Climate models have drastically underestimated the level of warmth we've seen in the Arctic. Deniers, who seem to automatically assume that if a model will err, it will err on the side of overestimating the warmth, have not addressed this to me yet.

It's just as likely that our climate models will err on the side of underestimating warming in future years, a possibility that deniers, in their ignorance and naivety, don't acknowledge.

Andrew - are you admitting the precious models all of the AGW predictions are based upon are, gasp, WRONG? And what about the ice in Antarctica?

The NSIDC is going to have to talk to some of their own people, who are more honest about this issue: http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_

Or they can talk to NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html

An excerpt: "The researchers are examining what caused the rapid decrease in the perennial sea ice. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Boulder, Colo., suggest that winds pushed perennial ice from the East to the West Arctic Ocean (primarily located above North America) and significantly moved ice out of the Fram Strait, an area located between Greenland and Spitsbergen, Norway. This movement of ice out of the Arctic is a different mechanism for ice shrinkage than the melting of Arctic sea ice, but it produces the same results - a reduction in the amount of perennial Arctic sea ice.

Researchers indicate that if the sea ice cover continues to decline, the surrounding ocean will get warmer, further accelerating summer ice melts and impeding fall freeze-ups. This longer melt season will, in turn, further diminish the Arctic ice cover.

Nghiem cautioned the recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain. "It's vital that we continue to closely monitor this region, using both satellite and surface-based data," he said."

It's called the Arctic Oscillation. Now this IS science.

Andrew,

The Arctic could be ice free during the summer within the next 20 years.

Then again, maybe not. Care to place a small wager on these models?

Mariners have known for thousands of years, that there is too much ice in the arctic...

Thousands of years? How about a reference for that remark? And what's with this too much ice comment? I thought you AGW cheerleaders wanted the Arctic to be ice bound year round.

The TOTAL arctic sea ice is about 2 million square kilometers below normal for the August 1st.

What's normal? 1979-2000? What was the sea ice extent between 1920 and 1940? What was the sea ice extent between 1000 and 1020? 1200 and 1220?
What was the sea ice extent 8,000 years ago? What was the sea ice extent 20,000,000 years ago? During earth's history (all 4.4 billion years), what percentage of the time was there any ice at all on the planet? Now you're telling us what normal is? Hah!! Who's in denial?

Mark,

I thought only us ExxonMobil funded types could destroy the world and now you've added the Russians to our exclusive group. How dare you?!??

Andrew, great comment! That's the most accurate description of a denier.

They choose to live in denial, ignoring scientific, true and reliable data or facts that indicates a trend towards warming. They are happy if London is gloomy, rainy and cool, because "that proves AGW is a lie". But they ignore the rest of the world. They are happy if NE US is not having record-breaking temps, but ignore what has happened in recent years. They love to hear that Greenland has never been above freezing so far this Summer, but ignore the fact that ice cover in the arctic diminishes every year... That's the abc to understand a denier.

Emiliano

Steven,

Sorry to scare you but the Russians have had a number of military bases in the arctic for many years. Many of their submarine bases are there.

For Andrew

This link shows the ice at a low point in 1998. It then went up the next 2 years; then down and up until 2004 when it was almost as low as in 1998. Then it went down fast the next two years.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060404_winterrecovery.html

It looks like they changed the way they measure the ice since they write in your post -

"But newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements, show that the September ice actually declined at a rate of about 7.8 percent per decade during the 1953 to 2006 period."

Did it really decline in 2005 and 2006 or did they "change the rules"?

From the National Post of Canada
"Lee Oliver, a (Toronto) Humane Society spokesman, said the warmer weather appears to be giving cats a chance to mate three times each year instead of the usual two. Cats are now copulating in February, which is supposed to be a really cold month"

Never mind that February was exceptionally cold in Toronto. Why let the facts get in the way of a good global warming story?
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYTZ/2007/2/2/MonthlyHistory.html

Note that Arctic minimum summer sea ice extent has barely changed over the last nine years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

Extrapolating the graph based on a linear fit of the thirty year trend, it would be about 150 years before there was a day when the arctic was sea ice free.

Of course the actual climate moves in sinuous cycles rather than linear - so there is a high probability that there will be more Arctic ice in 150 years than there is now.

That's a nice little "global warming" spin on the issue, but this "claim" is not new and was brandished even before "global warming" was in fashion. I suggest that this is more an exercise in geo-politics than anything. Do note that one of the concerns was that the submersible find the hole it came down because it could not break through the ice on its own.

I think it's a brilliant and pretty bold move myself. It seems Russia is at least being honest with itself. Somebody over there put 'AGW' and 'Making money' on the scales and said, "Hey... making money is good!" I don't see why everyone should be up in arms over it... I mean how many people are cashing in on AGW? Carbon Credits? Cats copulating 3 times? Let's grow more corn? Let me make a movie that gives me the right to jet around the world and tell people how to live their lives? My personal favorite... Flatulence: embarrassing moments or DOOM TO ALL THE WORLD?!?!

If Russia wants to earn their money a little more honestly... who are we to say they're at fault?

As a personal aside to Andrew, I commend you on your courage and amazing amounts of rancor towards those that don't believe. It takes a great amount of commitment to be the pot. It takes a great amount of dedication to say such things about the kettle.

As a personal aside to Emiliano, where do you come up with this stuff? When you were recruited did the application ask if you could chant?

I definitely agree with Patrick about the arctic being covered in ice. This is a much more likely scenario as by then and even before then the climate will have gotten colder once again.

"They choose to live in denial, ignoring scientific, true and reliable data or facts that indicates a trend towards warming."

What you call "denial" is rather an understanding that "facts" and "data" can be interpreted (or "manipulated")to suit the desired outcome (both sides are guilty of this.) Numbers, data, models, are all irrelevant if one already has decided what the outcome is going to be. Name calling and character assasination do not change what the numbers, data, or models really say or how they they were arrived at. This goes for both sides by the way.

"Name calling and character assasination do not change what the numbers, data, or models really say or how they they were arrived at."

Michael J, many supporters have to attack character and start name calling when they can't prove their point or get their way.

Kind of like the little kid on the playground who has to result to name calling when he doesn't get his way.

"ignore the fact that ice cover in the arctic diminishes every year."

It's not diminishing every year, but it is at levels near the lowest man has ever recorded.

What about the ice in Antartica?

At the very least, we should be grateful the AGW crowd is now being forced to admit their precious models are wrong - if we could only get them to take the next step, to committing to the legitimate science needed to truly understand climate.

Call it what you like but this another positive feedback to global warming.

Andrew:

Climate has been changing since the beginning of time and will continue to change, whether we want it or not. Most folks that you call deniers, actually understand that the climate is changing, but don't really care if it does or not. They just don't agree with your particular reason for it.

Some just don't believe it's happening at all and that's their opinion. You believe the IPCC, yet deny any other opinions, which makes you as much a denier as anyone.

Those deniers are the ones that see a lot of problems with "jumping the gun" and "quick fix panic" solutions that will only benefit the few and may cause more serious off-shoot problems than they solve.

There are a lot of so-called deniers out there that have worked their entire careers behind the closed doors of global industry, high government and upper military, who are more than aware of how these institutions work their magic to get folks into frenzies to get the focus off of their wrong-doings on other parts of the planet. It is a daily occurrance.

These are the folks that don't rush into the fire and get burned. They look at the entire situation before deploying the crisis teams, if at all required.

You can't invent a solution, if you have not correlated "all" of the hardcore evidence, from "all" of the studies, from "all" of the scientists and gained a true, across the board consensus to the actual cause of the problem.

The IPCC is only a small concensus with a lot of political friends, news coverage and monetary focus. As for conspiracies, a portion of this warming scenario has become just that and, well, you have obviously fallen for that portion and are helping it along, by denying that anything else is right.