Changes such as a decrease in sea ice have consequences elsewhere, the report says.
The Arctic's warming trend is beginning to affect the climate farther south, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said this week in its annual Arctic Report Card.
"There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes," wrote the report's authors, a team of 69 international scientists.
Extreme cold and big snowfalls can be blamed on the Arctic changes, according to NOAA.
"Beyond affecting the humans and wildlife that call the area home, the Arctic's warmer temperatures and decreases in permafrost, snow cover, glaciers and sea ice also have wide-ranging consequences for the physical and biological systems in other parts of the world," NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said.
Sea ice reaches its minimum in September every year. This year's September ice cover was the third-smallest recorded since microwave satellites started taking measurements in 1979, the authors wrote.
"The last four summers have experienced the four lowest minimums in the satellite record, and eight of the 10 lowest minimums have occurred during the last decade," the report card said.
The sea ice also appears to be much younger than two decades ago, as ice that survived from year to year has dwindled to a fraction of its former mass, the data showed.
Watch a NOAA video illustrating the changes
Greenland, the Arctic's great glacier-covered land mass, experienced record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss and glacier area loss, the report said.
"A combination of a warm and dry 2009-2010 winter and the very warm summer resulted in the highest melt rate since at least 1958 and an area and duration of ice sheet melting that was above any previous year on record since at least 1978," the authors wrote.
Furthermore, "a clear pattern of exceptional and record-setting warm air temperatures is evident at long-term meteorological stations around Greenland," they wrote.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
As a biologist, Jim, I'm curious if you think we're putting too much emphasis on the "global warming" furor and seem to be forgetting the day to day impacts of pollution upon our environment?
meh screw it, people while survive, animals will survive and things will adapt and change. Im saying we all abandon cities and move back to nature. dont worry the population will weed itself out as more folks for some reason run to the city
yes – I am SUIRE that will happen..........
How long has the earth been around? And this article is pointing to assumptions made based on readings being taken since 1979? Great sample data. I could also use that sample data to say I'll live forever, because every year I check between now and 1979 that has been true. Soneone also made the point that scientists wouldn't say all of this for money. Did you know the UN wants to pass a worldwide tax on Internet use to fight global warming? Bet there'd be no money changing hands and nobody getting rich from that. And finally, about half of this country is left leaning and believes in global warming. However, every democrat I know drives a car and none of them use solar power. If all of the democrats sold their cars and used the money to buy solar heating, they wouldn't need to force me to do it.
Stupid scientists. Why weren't they taking readings 1000 years ago.
yeah..the old tax the internet myth....keep it coming. When has the U.N. been able to tax anything?
supremeamerican wrote "Jean, you do realize that plants give off more CO2 in one day than all human activity does in four years. Right?"
No you idiot, plants give off OXYGEN and absorb CO2 during the daytime and the reverse during the night. In other words there is a balance. Human activity upsets this balance. If you don't believe me will you believe the BUSH CRIME FAMILY? George W. Bush Senior, recently bought over 100,000 acres of land in Paraguay's northern "Chaco" region. The Bush land is close to a new U.S. military installation,and near a huge tract of land purchased by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. This land also sits astride Latin America's largest water aquifer, the Guarani aquifer. The Paraguayan Senate voted last summer to “grant U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction.” and immediately afterwards, 500 heavily armed U.S. troops arrived with various planes, choppers and land vehicles at Mariscal Estigarribia air base. They believe in Global Warming and have taken steps to protect and ensure their survival.
They (Bush's) are not the only power people buying vast amounts of land in Central and South America. The Uber rich are bunkering in and the Slaavsberd seed vault are telling signs that some people are aware of a coming natural planetary disaster. Betting they aren't getting their intel from NOAA.
Hey People, it's not about science. Follow the money. WHo makes money with global warming? Science geeks and universities. WHo makes money without global warming. Exxon, Bush, Saudi Arabia – the same old crowd. The side that's best at fabricating numbers will win in the short run. In the long run, Mama Nature will have the last laugh, or frown..
if you think scientists are making a lot of money on global warming...think again.......show me any instance where a true scientist is making a lot of money....they don't work for money they work for truth......
Let's see:
The petroleum industry is measured in trillions. A very large number of the richest men in the world got their wealth from it.
The climate research industry is measured in the hundreds of millions. Not a single billionaire in the world got their wealth by studying climatology.
Who has more motivation?
Scientists only make 'good money' if they work for industry... and most specifically if they work for the oil industry. And to think our government gives subsidies and tax breaks to oil... while oil makes billions of dollars a year and tries to screw the little guy when they dump oil all over the ocean. Hmmmmm, follow the money and you'll find the bias. I have an idea, since business are now considered people, let's prosecute every executive at BP as if he had personally blown up those 11 oil rig workers, and go directly after their personal assets to pay the families of EVERYONE in the gulf who was affected. Companies want equal status they should get equal treatment.
No, it's not the poor innocent fragile oil moguls biasing the argument, it HAS to be those evil scientists working over at the university.
The future is uncertain and the end is always near!
You could as easily say the end is uncertain and the future is always near. So what!
nick2, you are too smart for me. You win!
Climate change deniers can relax. Their work is done.
At the International Conference on the Human Dimensions of Environmental Change in Berlin earlier this month (which I attended) none of the leading scholars were discussing the prevention of climate change. The time for that has passed. The leading authorities are now discussing adaptation, not prevention.
Unfortunately, most of the big losers in the climate change debacle are going to be the world's poorest. They are the most vulnerable to effects such as rising sea levels and they have the fewest resources with which to counter those effects. But then, disadvantaging the already disadvantaged is what political conservatism is all about. So why should any of this surprise us?
like Al Gore's Montecito, CA home close to the ocean
Sunnyvale – No, you morally bankrupt little worm. Like nearly the entire population of Bangladesh.
well, if thats the case, why dont you tell the governments of the world to stop sending money and aid to those poor countries since afterall, they are poor and will die anyways cause of change..
Matt – Ah yes. Consign millions of human beings to suffering and premature death because doing anything about it will impose an expense on the world's richest inhabitants. And I bet you go to church on Sundays too, don't you?
FrankW your reply to Matt: Yes, No
Yeah they can move themselves out of Bangladesh or not. Adapt or die.
I'm not sympathetic to people that live in deserts and complain about the heat nor people that live at sea level that complain about hurricanes and typhoons nor people that live in flood plains the lose everything every couple of springs when, whoa who expected it, the river floods.
I don't care about people who live their lives as they choose but expect others to care for them because they make a bad decision. I'm not poor and I'm not rich and I do not help people who do not help themselves. And I care not one bit if we speeded up the melting of polar ice by a few decades or centuries.
You can be an apologist if you want too but I'm not. Deal with the warmth and invest in future coastal property in central Georgia.
strangely enough we attribute to ourselves things that we do not fully understand
Like procreation? Very profound !!
Wow! So they're saying that as some parts of the Earth get warmer, others are getting colder? WHAT A REVELATION!!!!
News flash to all the "global warming" nuts: It's been this way on our planet for the last few billion years!!! The climate is constantly changing, and it will continue to do so. Mankind's puny carbon emissions won't alter that one iota.
And upon the work of which climatoligist do you rely for this bold statement?
You – are a perfect argument that pollutions and smog really is making us dumber!
So it's a crime if Al Gore buys a mansion and leverages his beliefs to make money just as all politicians, scientists, and businessmen do. Yet not a word is mentioned that the Koch brothers throw BILLIONS of dollars to organizations whose main objective is to convince the public that global warming doesn't exist, regardless of the science behind it.
It begs the question though: if the science is there to prove global warming false, why do people like the Charles Koch have to spend so much money on PR campaigns masked as unbiased scientific bodies? The NOAA does a lot more than study climate change whereas the industry groups do nothing other than spend all day long trying to prove Al Gore wrong. They really produce none of their own data or advance science in any real way because they realize they don't have to. They know that if they can only contradict global warming scientists' talking points, the 50% or so Americans that identify themselves as conservatives will, through faulty logic, think that the skeptics are "right." Anyone who knows a shred of logic realizes that just because you disprove someone else wrong it doesn't make you right.
This is the danger of politicizing scientific issues.
let's face it. there are just too many rats in the cage.
Despite all my rage, I'm still just a rat in a cage.
As Theists are determined to argue about the scientist evidence, I propose a different approach. Let's look at environmental issues in other terms:
1. National security-reduce our dependence on foreign oil and involvement in countries where Americans shed blood and lose lives, and countries sprouting terroists bent on controlling oil.
2. Health-reduce harmful emmisions from all sources to improve health for all, something that would benefit every creature, human or otherwise, on Earth.
3. Economic-create new Green technology, education, jobs and exports.
The rest of the world, China, for instance is not wasting time about whether God is changing the world or humankind is changing the world. China is developing Green technology at an extremely rapid rate.
We need to improve our economy, so stop debating about God vs, Science and become practical......Green technology now! Come on....off the soapbox and on with 21st century green economics!
I agree. I think a 'Pascal's Wager' approach climate change is appropriate.
Not only is China not wasting time developing green technologies, they are taking over green industries that were once predominantly US based, like wind turbines.
Climate Change is real... it's been happening for a VERY long time... way before we were here... Earth gets hot, Earth gets cold, and the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.. the wheels on the bus go round..... nevermind... I'm going to go make snow cones on Greenland while it still has ice... since it will all be gone next week... right? LOL
Exact;ly
You are asking a biologist about this? Are you kidding me? Do you know what a biologist does? He studies living organisms and their effect on it's surrounding environment. That's just a general description, God knows what field he concentrated on. You might as well go to the local McDonalds and ask Billy who is serving you fries and an apple pie to build you an airplane.
Ok all you Global Warming Nut Jobs: A volcano, which is "NATURAL”, will emit more C02 during eruption, than man will in a decade. Also, what do you know about the "cow dung"? Not much obviously, as they too emit C02. The egos of all of you to think that mankind can somehow change climate is absurd. I wonder what it was the cavemen use to change the geographic landscape to what it is today. Do you all really believe that our continents are the same today as they were during the prehistoric period. Those damn dinos, and cavemen emitting pollutants in the atmosphere........ Crazy!
you do realize that over-populating the world with domestic cattle is one of the problems? ie, destruction of old forests, CO2 emmisions, etc. That's man-made. These aren't wild cows.