Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsThursday, September 6, 2007 5:16 PM CDT
Comments Comments (13) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Scientists project huge loss of sea ice
By Dan Joling
Associated Press
Advertisement

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Computer predictions of a dramatic decline of sea ice in regions of the Arctic are confirmed by actual observations, according to scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Seattle-based researchers reviewed 20 computer scenarios of the affects of warming on sea ice used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its assessment report released this year.

The researchers compared those models with sea ice observations from 1979 through 1999, rejecting about half because they did not match what satellites showed, said oceanographer James Overland.

But using the most reliable models, the NOAA scientists reached the same unhappy conclusion: by 2050, summer sea ice in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska's north coast likely will have diminished by 40 percent compared to the 1980s. The same is likely for the East Siberian-Chukchi Sea region off northwest Alaska and Russia. In contrast, Canada's Baffin Bay and Labrador showed little predicted change.

There was less confidence for winter ice, but the models also predict a sea ice loss of more for the Bering Sea off Alaska's west coast, the Sea of Okhotsk east of Siberia and the Barents Sea north of Norway.

A 40 percent loss of summer sea ice off Alaska in the Beaufort Sea could have profound effects on marine mammals dependent on the sea ice such as polar bears, now under consideration by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for "threatened" status under the Endangered Species Act because of changes in the animals' habitat from global warming.

Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, and Muyin Wang, a meteorologist at NOAA's Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington in Seattle, reviewed 20 computer models provided through the IPCC. Their research paper will be published Saturday in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

In the 1980s, sea ice receded 30 to 50 miles each summer off the north coast of Alaska, Overland said.

"Now we're talking about 300 to 500 miles north of Alaska," he said of projections for 2050.

That's far past the edge of the highly productive waters over the relatively shallow continental shelf off Alaska's north coast, considered important habitat for polar bears and their main prey, ringed seals, plus other ice-dependent mammals such as walrus.

Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, who wrote the petition seeking federal protection for polar bears, said NOAA's retrospective of sea ice projections does not even take into account sea ice figures for this summer recorded by the National Snow and Ice Data Center. As of Tuesday, the center's measurement of sea ice stood at 1.70 million square miles, far below the previous record low for summer ice of 2.05 million square miles recorded Sept. 20, 2005.

The situation is dire for polar bears, Siegel said.

"They're going to drown, they're going to starve, they're going to resort to cannibalism, they're going to become extinct," she said.

As ice recedes, many bears will get stuck on land in summer, where they have virtually no sustainable food source, Siegel said. Some will try and fail to swim to sea ice, she said. Bears that stay on sea ice will find water beyond the continental shelf to be less productive. Females trying to den on land in the fall will face a long swim.

"It's absolutely horrifying from the polar bear perspective," she said.

Less sea ice also will mean a changing ecosystem for commercial fishermen and marine mammals in the Bering Sea, Overland said.

With sea ice present, much of the nutrients produced in the ocean feed simple plankton that bloom and sink to the ocean floor, providing rich habitat for crabs, clams and the mammals that feed off them, including gray whales and walrus.

"If you don't have the ice around, the productivity stays up closer to the surface of the ocean," Overland said. "You actually have a change in the whole ecosystem from one that depends on the animals that live on the bottom to one that depends on the animals that live in the water column. So you have winners and losers."

That could mean short-term gains for salmon and pollock, he said. But it also could mean that fishermen will have to travel farther north to fish in Alaska's productive waters, and warm-water predators might move north.

Overland said sea ice computer models have performed well accounting for how ice melts from global warming and for the albedo effect - accelerated warming due to the presence of dark water that absorbs most of the sun's radiation, warming the ocean and making it harder for water to freeze, in contrast to ice, which reflects most of the sun's radiation.

The models do not do as well accounting for wind and cloud patterns and other factors that may have contributed to recent warming, Overland said.

But the contribution to warming by greenhouse gas emissions likely are set, he said. Emissions stay in the atmosphere for 40 to 50 years before being absorbed by the ocean. The amount put out in the last 20 years and the carbon dioxide put out in the next 20 will be around to influence the half-century mark, Overland said.

"I'm afraid to say, a lot of the images we are going to see in the next 30 to 40 years are pretty much already established," he said.

On the Net:

Arctic sea ice, National Snow and Ice Data Center: http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2007-seaiceminimum/20070810-index.html
Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 13 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Leland Lesher wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:52 PM:

" And we continue to buy massive amounts of cheap products from the largest producer of waste and pollution. And we continue to fund companies that are cutting down the rain forrests. Why? Because that is who pays the Congress and the Parliment. People have very little control over who the government supports and who supports the government. Think about whose products you buy. Are you buying Chinese? Are you buying from companies that are destroying the rain forrests around the world? Do you/we even have a choice in whom we buy products from? "

Crybaby wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:29 PM:

" Right on, " I am so ....scientific naysayers": U.R. Rao, a Space scientist, says that “With six billion people and counting, (more babies?) Earth is very crowded. Optimistic estimates put the population at over 12 billion by 2050. It's time we moved to Mars", Rao tells the 'Times of India' newspaper. Colonising the apparently hostile Red Planet is seemingly simple. We begin by installing 100 sq km of plastic sheets coated with reflective material which will catch the Sun's rays and ( get this!) melt the ice. Then , introduce bacteria and then hardy plants to begin photosynthesis. Says Rao: "Once this is done, greenhouse effect will kick in and we're in business. This is the process Earth went through and it took billions of years. But, humans can accelerate the process." (apparently he’s been following the Computer Modelers) Twenty Space scientists (cadets?) from around the world agreed it was both plausible and probably inevitable. Well ‘Crybaby’, you say, just how do we get there. Easy: with conventional technology, it’s only a six month journey. But wait!! Rao proposes an Elevator. Why not, he says. “Preposterous today, routine in 100 years”. All aboard. "

to:" I love scientists! wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:49 AM:

" Hey here's an idea give em all guns "n" ship em to the poles, so they can see for themselves and then as the ice disappears they can build a bridge from the weapons........ "

Evolution wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:45 AM:

" The cause and effect,theory does not apply here huh? Millions of miles of jungles gone, holes in the Ozone that are getting larger, melting ice, science that is done on core samples that show the highest levels of C02 in the atmosphere in the history of Earth with recorded life, they all must be wrong, everyone one of them huh. There is now way a billions cars running, at any give second could have an effect after all every one of you are rocket scientists too..... Not to even begin to touch all the other pollution...... Doooohhhh "

I am so sick of you scientific naysayers wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:41 AM:

" I love scientists! These people spend their lives working and scrutinizing to make discoveries that benefit the human race. They are very intelligent and hard working and usually unbiased. They report what they find based on their usage of the scientific method. THEY ARE THE ONES TRYING TO IMPROVE THE WORLD! And yet all of you people sit around (completely oblivious and clueless) and have the nerve to act like you know what you are talking about. YOU are the barriers to change. I wish you would all go live in caves and club each other, if you know so much give up everything science has allowed you to have. I have a baby, and I dont want her to live on a doomed planet! "

I THINK ses... wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:34 AM:

" I think that global warming crap is mother nature doing her thing and the world has just now noticed it. Man kind might be making it worse but mankind is not the cause. "

Fatso wrote on Sep 7, 2007 7:19 AM:

" To: " To: JD": " Are they all crackpots"? Of course not. They know exactly what they're doing. And, if they want to keep the Grants coming their way, they'll continue being non-"Crackpots". "

Citizen wrote on Sep 7, 2007 7:00 AM:

" Oh no!!! We're all gonna die!!! "

To: JD wrote on Sep 6, 2007 11:56 PM:

" Actually 25 years ago it was only a couple of scientists who predicted another ice age. Today, over 2000 scientists have warned of the dangers of global warming. Are they all crackpots? I think not. Global warming is a reality that our children and grandchildren, etc. are going to be saddled with for many years to come, but feel free to keep your heads buried in the sand. We won't see any changes that are too dramatic in our lifetimes, so why should we care, right? "

Capt. Smith wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:56 PM:

" About 93 year too late, I'm afraid. "

reader wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:03 PM:

" JD and The Decider said it right .This whole greenhouse global warming stuff is just that a bunch of stuff .Put out by special interest groups to make us feel guilty while they drive their big SUV's and corporate jets and have 3 or 4 homes they have to heat and all the rest.Just live your life. "

JD wrote on Sep 6, 2007 7:21 PM:

" 25 years ago, people just like these scientist predicted we were entering another ice age. I really wish they would make up their minds. "

The Decider wrote on Sep 6, 2007 5:35 PM:

" Good thing that this whole climate change issue isn't true. "
Add your own comments

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy