In past years, NASA scientist Josefino Comiso revealed in a press conference yesterday, winter ice in the Arctic sea refroze in nearly the same places. The ice was thinner, to be sure, but its extent from 1979 to 2004 declined at “only” a decline of 1.5% a year, despite a much faster year-to-year rate melt in the summer.
As of the winters of 2005 and 2006, Comiso has found, the previously slow rate of decline in the extent of arctic ice has dramatically sped up, with a decline of 6% a year. Data from Comiso’s paper, which you can read for yourself here:
Comiso concludes:
The distribution of clear-sky surface temperatures in the Central Arctic in 2005 and 2006 exhibits a pattern of warming in winter that may in part reflect the warming effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases. Progressively increasing surface temperatures in the Arctic basin in winter since 1998 suggests that the impact of long wave radiation during winter months is becoming more apparent. Ice-albedo feedback effects and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases would serve to accelerate the warming and also the downward trend in the winter ice cover. The abnormally low winter ice maximum extent and area and enhanced surface temperatures in 2005 and 2006, as reported in this paper, may just be the beginning of these trends which have been more apparent in other seasons. The decade of change, suggested by Serreze and Francis ["The Arctic on a fast track of change", Weather, 61, 65-69, 2006] may have actually arrived.
Global warming is a fact. It can be aggravated by humans, as it was aggravated in the geologic past by other masses of large creatures. However, it is also presumptuous that humans are solely responsible for it, or have great control in changing the situation. That being said, given what we can affect and also given the water currents and jet stream–has anyone considered how much of the recent acceleration of the arctic melt may be related to those huge plumes of pollution emanating by air and sea from China and India–whom, to be politically correct, we all have exempted from the current treaties to reduce pollution and global warming? We have lost most of the manufacturing in the U.S.. With $2 and $3 a gallon gas, and everything else except wages going up, we’re not driving as much any more. Of course because we don’t manufacture anything and don’t allow using below and at ground natural resources–or at least fewer and fewer every year, we do import by diesel oil tanker and diesel trucks virtually everything we use into every town and city in the U.S.. However, that begs the question how much pollution do diesel cargo ships and trucks (especially now with the reduced particulates and sulfur diesel)in and to the U.S. add to the total picture compared with all the manufacturing, new cars, new trucks in Asia, and ships departing Asia. How is the world any better when the part of the world that has, generally (not always) the best–and best enforced environmental standards has no manufacturing and a huge part of the world that has few if any enforced standards does it all–and is growing another huge mass-consumables, consumer population? It isn’t all the U.S.’ fault at this point. You need to find a way to get past preaching to the choir. Good luck at that–they shoot environmentalists, imprison them (spying, inciting revolution, etc.) or otherwise murder them in China, Brazil, Mexico, and even parts of India.