Arctic sea ice settles at second-lowest, underscores accelerating decline

Arctic sea ice settles at second-lowest, underscores accelerating decline
The graph above shows daily sea ice extent.The solid light blue line indicates 2008; the dashed green line shows 2007; the dotted line shows 2005; the solid gray line indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. Sea Ice Index data. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the second-lowest extent recorded since satellite record-keeping began in 1979, according to the University of Colorado at Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, or NSIDC.

While slightly above the record-low minimum set on Sept. 16, 2007, this season further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime sea ice extent observed over the past 30 years, according to NSIDC researchers.

NSIDC will issue a press release at the beginning of October with full analysis of the possible causes behind this year's low ice conditions, particularly interesting aspects of the melt season, the conditions going into the winter growth season ahead, and graphics comparing this year to the long-term record.

Source: University of Colorado at Boulder, NSIDC

Explore further

A fortress of ice and snow

Citation: Arctic sea ice settles at second-lowest, underscores accelerating decline (2008, September 16) retrieved 13 October 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 16, 2008
While I realize one data point does not a trend make, isn't it a little silly to predict the disappearance of summer ice when there was MORE of it this year than last year?

Sep 16, 2008
jscroft has it right. "Accelerating..." is such a crock. The world temperature peaked in 1998 and in the last 24 months crashed so hard it wiped out 100 years of warming. Winter sea ice is significantly greater year-for-year currently and will build up over the next decade so that during summer melts, the coverage will slowly but surely increase. Duh!

Sep 16, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 16, 2008
Notice that they didn't include the 1920s and 1930s in that graph (when the Arctic ice cap really retreated.) Looks like cherry picking their dates.

Sep 18, 2008
I woud have to agree with jscroft, if there's more ice this year than last, that would indicate the trend is decelerating. In response to Alizee, the termprature of the ocean is not rising. JPL's analysis of the argo probe data indicates an insignificent cooling since 2003.

Sep 20, 2008
Let me repeat myself here like you all seem to repeat yourself.

The overwelming majority of climate scientists agree on lots of things.
Virtually all aruments are either anti-science or cherrypicked facts taken out of context.

Not one argument will prove or debunk the current theory of climate.

If this is all a hoax show how it done, many have tried to discredit science as a whole but noone has succeeded.

Anti-science on the other hand is easy to dismiss as there is nothing coherent in it, but it keeps popping up in different forms.Its like an annoying weed that needs to be kept short before it start to hurt the good plants.

Sep 21, 2008
That isn't how it works, Bazz.

If we all had to scramble the jets to debunk every silly notion that pops up on the fringe, none of us would ever get any useful work done. That's why the onus is traditionally on the person MAKING an extraordinary claim to establish a strong argument, support it with lots of evidence, and defend it against aggressive criticism.

I think it's also fair to point out that, while Academy Awards, Nobel Peace Prizes, and lucrative carbon-credit concerns are impressive in their way, they do NOT constitute a compelling hypothesis test.

On the other hand, there are plenty of assertions regarding anthropogenic climate change that ARE falsifiable. And I must admit that I--along with a lot of others who care about good science--find it rather disingenuous to have our pointed, TOPICAL criticism answered with PERSONAL abuse.

It makes us wonder who stands to gain if that kind of argument wins the day... and who will foot the bill.

Sep 22, 2008
It is a very emotional topic and peole ofen resort to tactics that arent valid.

Sometimes i get pretty upset and get a little harsh in my replies, i suppose its needed at times.

There are a lot of silly and obvious wrong assertions, but there are some that arent easily discarded.

For instance there are mayor scienticic organisations representing many scientists that have made statements regarding climate change that sound pretty serious to me.

"A Growing Threat to Society"

AAAS Board of Directors Statement on Climate Change: "The scientific evidence is clear," the AAAS Board says in a new statement. "Global climate change caused by human a growing threat to society." The statement was approved on 9 December 2006 and released on 18 February at the AAAS Annual Meeting in San Francisco.

NAS-The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all levels, business leaders and economists. Although the scientific understanding of climate change has advanced significantly in the last several decades, there are still many unanswered questions. Society faces increasing pressure to decide how best to respond to climate change and associated global changes, and applied research in direct support of decision making is needed.


This alone makes me pretty confident that its real and serious.

Sep 22, 2008
So how to differentiate between reality and fantasy? What about taking expert knowledge more serious than any joe`s knowledge, or would that be elitist?

The people who took it serious were pretty naive to listen to the radio and not checking tv and internet,oh wait wasnt that before the internet and television was in every house.So the only source of information pretended there was an alien invasion and there were people who thought it was real.

Sep 22, 2008
Bazz, let's make a distinction between expert KNOWLEDGE and expert OPINION.

Knowledge has its basis in fact. Most epistemologists would agree that the scientific method is--among other things--a machine that refines raw facts into generalized, structured knowledge. With respect to knowledge, the difference between experts and laypeople isn't that theirs is BETTER. It's that the experts generally get their hands on it FIRST... more often than not, because they tend to produce the stuff.

The point is that the quality of a piece of knowledge has nothing to do with who articulates it... a true statement is true whether spoken by an expert, an idiot, or the union of the two. All that matters is that the knowledge in question was produced by a rigorous and repeatable METHOD, which included testing its assertions against the ground truth provided by the Universe.

Opinions, on the other hand, are like a**holes... everybody has one, and they all stink.

Sep 22, 2008
Sorry about my last post i stopped halfway, but dont be dissappointed there wouldnt have been anything good anyway.

Sep 22, 2008
Jscroft ,i am not sure what you are arguing against but dont you think the source of the facts tell something about the validity of the fact, especially in controversial cases where there is a lot of known distortion?

Wouldnt you rather go with the knowledge of experts than with the knowledge of laymen?Experts have much to lose compared to laymen, as a wrong assertion would hurt their careers where laymen at worst get ridiculed.

Big scientific organisations even more so, they depend on their reputation to exist.Therefore i would argue that statements that warn us cannot just be discarded for being just an opinion.

ARE you saying i cant trust those statements?

Sep 22, 2008
Bazz, I'm not sure I could state my point much more clearly than I did. Is it possible that we are experiencing a language difficulty?

Sep 23, 2008
Jscroft, i think its a perception problem, altough english is not my first language i understand clearly what you are saying.

I do have a different opinion based on the most convincing information i can find.

Vellanarris, so you are saying that the biggest scientific organisations cannot be trusted? Sounds almost like a conspiracy.

Read the NSA report i linked to and consider its relevance.

Sep 24, 2008
Velanarris, yes you are right the NAS does not base its statements on all relevant scientific knowledge, it does not report for the last 150 years to congress, and Abraham Lincoln was wrong to have created it.

Damn liberal hippies they have taken over and everyone is too stupid to see it its all a big CONSPIRACY!

Yes i agree, you have me convinced me with your logic, how do we get rid of THEM?

Sep 28, 2008
I suppose you meant to link to a minority page like- http://epw.senate...Releases&ContentRecord_id=9a6b3e3d-802a-23ad-4b28-ace55e0cc516


But om the majority they seem to have a different view.
If you think this is an organisation thats like the National Academy of Science you are clearly wrong, go ahead but i suggest you at least read up on the two and understand what is what, then i like to hear whats the difference and whats "like an organisation as NAS" means, i suspect you wont say much, i mean you will talk but without saying anything specific, without getting caught up in your web of misconceptions.

Sep 28, 2008

The links dont seem to work but i can recommend everyone to have a good look at the site and its intended purpose and compare it to NAS and its intended purpose, its interesting stuff if you like to get to understand politics.Make sure you read majority and minority and compare substance and form.

Sep 29, 2008
what are the intended purposes of NAS and EWP and how do they not serve their purpose as intended?

What is the difference between the two and why?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more