Less Artic ice today than recent geological past.

[lazarus]

“The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in the early 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years -- appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years,”

This is the conclusion of an international group of researchers, who have compiled the first comprehensive history of Arctic ice and the current extent of Arctic ice is at its lowest point for at least the last few thousand years.

Report here;
researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sedcore.htm

Research here;
www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4YKFMY0-2&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2010&_alid=1454830201&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=5923&_sort=r&_st=13&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=10&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a16e9ed3c01d37be008225892dbaef86&searchtype=a


Also found this related research on Arctic amplification published in the same issue;

"Arctic amplification, the observation that surface air temperature changes in the Arctic exceed those of the Northern Hemisphere as a whole, is a pervasive feature of climate models, and has recently emerged in observational data relative to the warming trend of the past century ... the Arctic temperature change consistently exceeds the Northern Hemisphere average by a factor of 3–4, suggesting that Arctic warming will continue to greatly exceed the global average over the coming century, with concomitant reductions in terrestrial ice masses and, consequently, an increasing rate of sea level rise".

www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4YXKFVW-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2010&_alid=1454904468&_rdoc=7&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=5923&_sort=r&_st=13&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=21&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=07db2115c9fe71191571ab9ef756b366&searchtype=a

[marchesarosa]

thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=31

All the above events happened within the relatively recent past NOT 6,000 years ago. Don't these researchers ever look at the history books before they start their computer modelling so-called "experiments"?



So what if the Arctic ice is reducing somewhat? We are in an interglacial, aren't we? Anyone who looks at the ice-core temp record knows that change is not unidirectional on the smaller scale. Everyone knows that trends are different in different parts of the planet, most notably between the two hemispheres.

Up and down, up and down.

It says nothing about causality.

[havelock]

This is a very interesting site for those interested in arctic sea ice extent. It is updated daily to show the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.

nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The current report dated 7th Sept says

"Arctic sea ice generally reaches its annual minimum extent in mid-September. This August, ice extent was the second lowest in the satellite record, after 2007. On September 3, ice extent dropped below the seasonal minimum for 2009 to become the third lowest in the satellite record.
The Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route are largely free of ice, allowing the potential for a circumnavigation of the Arctic Ocean. At least two expeditions are attempting this feat, the Norwegian explorer Borge Ousland and the Peter I yacht from Russia.

Average ice extent for August was 5.98 million square kilometers (2.31 million square miles), 1.69 million square kilometers (653,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average, but 620,000 square kilometers (240,000 square miles) above the average for August 2007, the lowest August in the satellite record. Ice extent remained below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea near Svalbard.

The minimum ice extent for the year will probably occur in the next two weeks. NSIDC scientists are closely monitoring conditions and will report the minimum when it occurs. "

[lazarus]

Sept 9, 2010 9:29:44 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

So what if the Arctic ice is reducing somewhat? We are in an interglacial, aren't we?

From the report you seem to have not read - it mustn't have made the news on Watts Wrong With That.

“The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in the early 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years -- appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years,”

Scientists have evidence pointing to why this has happened and it isn't just because we have been in an interglacial for thousands of years..

[marchesarosa]

Oh, can they detect CO2 in the sediments, then? Is that what you are "hinting" at?
I don't think so!

[lazarus]

Sept 9, 2010 12:56:07 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

Oh, can they detect CO2 in the sediments, then? Is that what you are "hinting" at?
I don't think so!

Still not read the report?

Whenwe look carefully at various chemical and biological components of the sediment, and how the sediment is distributed -- then, with certain skills and luck, we can reconstruct the conditions at the time the sediment was deposited.”

For example, scientists can search for a biochemical marker that is tied to certain species of algae that live only in ice. If that marker is present in the sediment, then that location was likely covered in ice at the time. Scientists call such markers “proxies” for the thing they actually want to measure -- in this case, the geographic extent of the ice in the past.