News Sections
North Pole ice may completely melt away this summer
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(66)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Friday Jun. 27, 2008 12:59 PM ET
For the first time in modern history, the North Pole may be iceless this summer. Scientists say it's an even bet that sea ice in the region will completely disappear in the next few months, perhaps as soon as August.
Ice at the North Pole quickly and significantly melted away last year, and that may be causing further melting this summer. Scientists say the disappearance of long-term and thicker ice formed over the years has disappeared. Now, most of the ice that's left is seasonal ice, which melts away much more quickly during warm weather.
"This year there is a lot of young ice. There's always some, but this year there's a lot," Andy Mahoney, a researcher at the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center, told CTV.ca.
Satellite observations indicate the ice remaining at the poles is melting faster than last year's rate, which was already a record year for Arctic ice loss. Scientists say whether or not the ice melts completely, this year's northern melt is yet another example of the impact that global warming is having on the planet's environment.
"There were some people who were saying last year was a rogue year. If the same thing happens again a lot more people are going to be persuaded about the consequences of global warming," Mahoney said.
"A lot of people think it's a very small change in temperature. This shows that the change in sea ice is quite a dramatic consequence."
As the ice melts, interest in the region is intensifying. Canada and other nations that border the Arctic -- including Russia and the U.S. -- are scrambling to lay claims to vast parts of the area, which may someday allow new resource development and shipping lanes.
"If the North Pole melts, then you don't have to worry about the Northwest Passage. It will still be significant, but going on top of the globe would be politically easier," Mahoney said.
A UN panel is supposed to decide on control of the Arctic by 2020. Last year, Canada's Conservative government announced plans to acquire up to eight Arctic patrol ships and to build an army base in Resolute Bay and a naval station in Nanisivik.
Under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Arctic countries have 10 years after ratification to prove their claims under the largely uncharted polar ice pack. All countries with claims to the Arctic have ratified the treaty, with the exception of the United States.
User Tools
Related Stories
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(66)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
Dan
said
That's ok scientists, "I told you so" is definitely an apt response.
Tanya
said
Douglas
said
Without references, it's interesting for the political correctness angle.
With references, it's interesting for the science.
Al-BC
said
Paul Vancouver Island
said
I'll give you a couple of clues as to who cares; it sure isn't John Baird and Stephen Harper. They first said global warming was a socialist plot, then finally agreed something is indeed happening, but only after coming on board kicking and screaming when the public demanded action; they still they have no action plan after all these years in power. They seem to live in denial.
Stephane Dion put forth a green plan recently which is at least worthy of debate. He obviously feels passionate about the issue. All he seems to get from the PM though is scorn rather than constructive debate.
The NDP seem to have a difficult time explaining their position.
The Green Party has proposed something similar to the Liberals but with higher targets.
The Bloc appears to recognize there is a problem but too caught up in their political rhetoric for separation to care enough about the planet.
The Prime Minister's solution always appear to be military in nature. Bring the guns to the north, he says. What ever happened to mutual cooperation? Sure policing is one thing but outright militarism in the north - that is not what is needed.
Alarmisms dangers
said
Jim
said
If the north pole ice is all gone, why haven't the sea coast cities of New York and Los Angeles been flooded?
And if the ice is all gone and the planet hasn't imploded, what are the real effects of global warming?
Access to the north's vast resources? Economic growth in the region? Jobs? Opportunities?
Doesn't seem to be that bad.
Pierre
said
Seems that we have told for years that if the ice melts, Toronto would be under water.
Hmmm... maybe that would not be such a bad thing.
Paul
said
Check out "NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face" at the JPL NASA homepage.
Sean
said
I also find it ironic that nations are anxiously awaiting this environmentally catostrophic event.. in order to get the oil under the arctic. Should we laugh or cry at that?
GW
said
It's also kind of exciting to have this new resource open up.
At any rate, it's good to live in Canada. Bring on the warmer weather.
Jim McB
said
Pirate John
said
Chris
said
Max
said
Bob
said
Steve
said
If that's true, then the reverse must also be true: as ice melts to become water, it contracts and becomes more dense.
If that's the case, then how do all these coastal cities get flooded out by the "melting polar icecaps"? And, to the other writer's point, why haven't these cities been flooded with the North Pole cap melting?
Sheep
said
First GM, now the North Pole will have to close down and put the elves out of work.
Seriously...aren't we getting tired of all the environmental scaremongering? The planet is cyclical in it's weather patterns and we'd be dense to think we can have that big of an effect in such a short period of time.
We're not helping, but we're not harming as much as we think. Of course, we could call for a cull of the human species.....I'm just sayin'.....
steve
said
Jerry Jarvela
said
So what if climate change has happened before? If that's your only argument about why we shouldn't worry about it, then maybe you should go back to highschool. Your critical thinking skills need serious refurbishment. Any fool can see that these global extreme weather patterns are getting worse. How much more can our infrastructure take, as a global society? How many more crops can be destroyed? Food riots ring a bell? We are ALREADY STRUGGLING to meet people's needs. Is it too hard to imagine a scenario where extreme weather contributes to a situation that forces us into another Great Depression?
Keith
said
DD
said
CO2 may be a necessity to life, but too much of anything can be dangerous. In a natural cycle, the CO2 varies between 180 ppm (ice age) and 300 ppm (peak of warming). This is the way it has been for the last million years (PROVEN through ice core samples). The balance likely has existed for tens of millions of years previous to that.
We are currently at 387 ppm of CO2 and increasing at a rate of almost 3 ppm PER YEAR and accelerating!!!!
Nature takes 1000 years to increase CO2 by 30 ppm. We've done that in less than 20 years!!!! When the CO2 hits the 600-700 ppm area, the warming becomes IRREVERSIBLE!!! At 900-1100 ppm, mass extinctions occur.
It doesn't take a genius to see the problem here. Just an open mind willing to be educated.
george
said
Agent 86
said
I think the scientists who had that theory, should go back and rethink it.
However, this dosn't mean that the melting of the polar ice cap is good, in fact it is bad, very bad.
We may not really care about it down here in Southern Canada, however many of the Inuit people depend on it for their livelihood.
I think also the article says "For the First time in Modern History", so we do know at one time, the Arctic was tropical, but would that be a negative thing if green were to return?
Scientists are confusing the heck out of me.
Didomyk
said
With your preoccupation with Canadian domestic politics you forgot about many more important political players such as George Bush's (or Barrack Obama's)visions of US 'destiny' or Vladimir Putin with his nuclear subs planting Russian flags. Some interested European players are unlikely to remain silent either. As to Dion's so-called 'plan', its not a green plan but a pure tax grab which we don't need.
DD
said
Sea ice not raising sea levels is an incredibly simple fact. It's obvious that if naysayers can't even figure out something that is as simple as pouring water into a glass with an ice cube then how on Earth do they expect to understand the basic science behind Global Warming.
Educate yourselves now because making such comments as you have only prove that you don't have the first clue about the climate.
FuturePM
said
Trent
said
DD
said
This ice is on land and is displacing NO water. There is enough ice on land today to raise the sea 250 feet if it all melted (and remember, for every foot of sea rise, the coastline recedes 150 feet!)
Greenland alone has enough ice to raise the sea levels by 20 meters. We won't see that any day soon, but every inch is of concern.
Oh, and remember, Greenland wasn't called that because it was green. It was named so in order to attract settlers to the barren rock.
Educate yourselves! Again, such comments only show how much you grasp at straws to explain away global warming.
Rob
said
Jaid
said
As much as we can all talk about cleaning things up, we'll have to wait for those companies to chip in. No business means no money which leads to record-losses.
Shawn
said
Antarctica, and Greenland have all the ice that most people are worried about, because the ice is on land there.
ARJAY
said
By the way, those who continue to insist that humans can't add to global warming, what is it you're not getting here? Cyclical changes in global temperatures occur over thousands of years, not decades. CO2 is directly correlated with temperature, and we have added about 120 parts per million since 1830, raising the overall CO2 from 260 to 380 ppm. Of course we can affect the climate- there is no reason why adding CO2 won't affect it-- it's a matter of physics, folks. And we can measure human impact by reading ice core data, which clearly shows the planet warming in direct relation to our increased production of CO2. Three of the warmest years on record have happened since 1998. It's a smoking gun, no matter what the oil companies tell you!
And if you think climate change is a good idea, try telling that to the people suffering from flooding in the States. Or from fires in California. Or from drought in Africa, or the hurricane victims in New Orleans or Miramar. Wake up. Environmentalists' predictions are coming true right before your eyes, and you still deny climate change?
And by the way, who on earth is dumb enough to buy oil company propaganda these days, given the current war in Iraq over oil?.
Noah
said
...Look it's been said to death but some people like beating a dead horse it seems, so hear (pun intended) it goes again:
There is a difference between sea ice and land ice. Simply put, sea ice is like the ice in your glass of coke. As it melts, does your glass overflow with liquid? NO! We won't get any significant flooding from the melting of the North Pole. The melting of land ice in the Antarctic and Greenland, hoever, will most certainly hurt the coastal communities.
Nuff said?
Luke
said
Anne
said
Kris
said
Lorne
said
There are always going to be arguments for and against climate change.
However, human action is contributing to the changes we are seeing.
Those people that don't think so, should give their head a shake.
Watch the news: more severe storms, flooding, etc. and the list goes on.
Kris
said
On the other hand if the South Pole ice melts, being supported by land, and runs off into the oceans then we have a serious flooding problem along every coast.
None of which is to say we can do anything about it either way except move to higher ground. The idea that climate is a consequence of human actions goes back to prehistoric sun-worship, but it's all just superstition. The sun will do what the sun will do. Move to higher ground. And don't vote for politicians who want to waste money trying to placate the weather gods with sacrifices of animals or CO2 emissions. The weather gods could not care less.
Al-BC
said
Paul Vancouver Island
said
Thanks for proving my point, instead of conservatives debating Stephane Dion's Green Plan you prefer to scorn the man and his values.
He wasn't the leader at the time you write about, but as leader of the Liberal Party now there is no doubt Mr, Dion is committed to finding a Canadian solution which is similar to what is working in many European countries.
At least its a comprehensive plan, so let's debate the plan not bath mouth the positive initiative taken by the leader of the Opposition.
DD
said
You may feel fine now, breathing in 380ppm of CO2, but in time, like cancer, you will feel it. It's time you start listening to to the real scientists. More than 2000 in the field are in agreement - a feat never seen before in any scientific field. The so-called "scientists" that try to debunk global warming have been shown to be paid by the energy sector...like Fred Singer. He was also paid by the tobacco industry to tell you that second hand smoke wasn't harmful.
We all know how that turned out. And now you're willing to bet the lives of 6 billion people on his personal greed?????
Open your mind. Educate yourselves. The evidence is there and is OVERWHELMING...to those that WANT to see it.
eric
said
Mike B
said
David fm NS
said
"NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face"
ARJAY
said
Macfisto
said
Mitch
said
Big Bear
said
perpetual
said
Because northpole ice is sea ice - it floats on water and when it melts, it doesn't add any volume; just like a glass of water with ice cubes.
If ice on land melts(e.g. Greenland or Antarctica) - watch out . . .
Tim
said
This is great for Canada. Maybe all those northern islands will finally get warm enough so we can turn millions of square miles into arable farmland. Set up beach side resorts, etc. In 100 years this, the 2nd largest country in the world, will finally be livable everywhere and all our land will be producing something. Unlike the 70% of the country now being tundra. Its all good people!! Don't worry, be happy!
bd in sk
said
Mo
said
AylmerBob
said
"... Climate change pooh-poohers have the most embarassingly tiny capacity for imagination."
And Gore, Suzuki, and all the other chicken-littles out there have only imagination - no facts, no truth - just an over-active imagination.
Jim Cripwell
said
Sceptic
said
peace and love are groovy
said
Now everyone just hug and stop arguing with Al gore!!
The 4 C's-ons? ...
said
We human beings need to (re?)learn how to be Cool, Calm, Collected, & Composed. The 4 C's of CivilizatiON have NOthing to do with carbON.
To Extremists of _ALL_ sorts EVERYWHERE on planet Earth: please chill out.
Jim
said
"Greenland alone has enough ice to raise the sea levels by 20 meters. "
I just need some clarification here. If the earth is 70% water and 30% land, how can the ice on Greenland alone raise sea levels 20 metres? Greenland is less than 2% of the total earth land mass.
Thats like saying if Canada cuts CO2 emissions, which is 2% of the world emissions, that global warming will be reversed.
Some people will say anything to scare the people for their own political agenda.
Dick Varley
said
Economic interests have created a drive for the redistribution of wealth. By way of examples we just have to look at Kyoto which basically boiled down to a redistribution of wealth from oil producing countries to those without oil. We also just have to look at how quickly specific financial interests were to establish an exchange for trading among conformers and non-conformers. How does such an Exchange actually impact the environment? It only shifts around the wealth.
In Canada only lip service is paid to economic sectors other than petroleum, particularly the oil sands of Alberta. Political will is driven by Ontario and Quebec and these provinces are suffering economically so therefor, as has happened many times in the past, it is once again time to rape the resource rich western provinces.
None of this action significantly contributes to rectifying the fact that the climate of this earth is warming whether it is natural or man made. But, a lot of people think it is a grand opportunity to make some money.
John
said
It doesn't matter. What matters is that global warming is happening and will, in all likelihood, have enormous and potentially disastrous consequences.
Prudence is required. We need to be careful about what we do, and until we have better information, let's not make things worse.
We should curtail unnecessary consumption, and avoid waste. We shouldn't need a potential catastrophe to get us to do that! Let's take a responsible attitude towards the stewardship of out precious little planet and try to save as much of what is good for future generations.
It is better for now to err on the side of caution. Be careful, people.
Kevin
said
Adam
said
First of all give your head a shake. If ice that is floating in water melts, it isnt going to change the sea level because it is already in the water.
Sea level will rise when the ice on land such as Greenland melts. And that certainly is not a good thing, despite what the naysayers think. C'mon now, take some time to think about your comments first.
Greg in the Hammer
said
The problem with the enviro-terrorist movements assertion that this increase is man made and due to CO2 emissions is that well over half of this increase in mean temperature occured before 1950. That is directly from the lauded IPCCs own document. So....if temperature increasede anyway despite the fact that CO2 emissions were a fraction of what they were post 1950 how does one conclude that man has created this latest shift in climate?
The IPCC has ingored natural factors like increased solar activity, geo thermal fluctations in the earths core, etc. They have ignored history which clearly shows us that there have been times when the earth has been both much warmer than it is now and much colder.....wait for it..... all without any human involvement.
Politicians have jumped on the band wagon because they want to get elected. The enviro terrorists have been successful in getting people to believe the world will end if we don't all stop driving our cars, going to work, developing our economies etc etc. They show pictures of baby Polar bears swimming in the ice floes and say they are going to go extinct. News flash....Polar bears swim every day...thats what they do
Recent releases from places like the German meterorlogical society have in fact stated that we may be entering a cooling period.....?
In any event the world has much more pressing and potentially dangerous things to worry about than global warming. Like an increasingly ambitious and resource hungry China, an Iran determined to build a nuclear arsenal, the continued brutality of a thug like Mugabe.
But oh no....David Suzuki and his ilkj would have us think its more important to replace all of our light bulbs.
Greg in the Hammer
said
Its typical of the enviro terrorist movement to lash out at those who challenge their conclusions and methodology and hypothesis. They call them pawns of big energy and big business. What they fail to mention is that global warming and the perpetuating of the belief that it is man made has become a 7 billion dollar a year industry and many of the people who have authored the IPCC documents have vested financial interests at stake should this theory be disproved. Things like academic tenure, research grant money, green technology research, etc etc.
Those who cry foul should be careful about casting stones.
Al Gore has made over 100 million dollars since the release of "An Inconvenient Load of Crap" How much of it has he given towards alleviating the problem?
Kris
said
For the others who asked, yes I am a physicist, no I am not paid by the energy sector, (or even by the tobacco industry, although I am not sure what that has to do with anything...) and yes I do believe that saying humans are causing the planet to warm is like saying humans are causing the sun-god to get angry.
Get away from the superstition folks. Not all natural events are a consequence of human misdeeds. If you're concerned then move to higher ground and buy beachfront property around the Hudson Bay. And vote for someone who will spend tax revenue intelligently rather than on placating the weather gods by destroying Canadian industries. And finally be glad that we live in a country that can only benefit from warming. Warmth=good folks. Ice does not foster growth.