AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION

WASHINGTON–The global cryosphere–all of the areas with frozen water on Earth–shrank by about 87,000 square kilometers (about 33,000 square miles), a area about the size of Lake Superior, per year on average, between 1979 and 2016 as a result of climate change, according to a new study. This research is the first to make a global estimate of the surface area of the Earth covered by sea ice, snow cover and frozen ground.
The extent of land covered by frozen water is just as important as its mass because the bright white surface reflects sunlight so effectively, cooling the planet. Changes in the size or location of ice and snow can alter air temperatures, change the sea level and even affect ocean currents worldwide.
The new study is published in Earth’s Future, AGU’s journal for interdisciplinary research on the past, present and future of our planet and its inhabitants.
“The cryosphere is one of the most sensitive climate indicators and the first one to demonstrate a changing world,” said first author Xiaoqing Peng, a physical geographer at Lanzhou University. “Its change in size represents a major global change, rather than a regional or local issue.”
The cryosphere holds almost three-quarters of Earth’s fresh water, and in some mountainous regions, dwindling glaciers threaten drinking water supplies. Many scientists have documented shrinking ice sheets, dwindling snow cover and loss of Arctic sea ice individually due to climate change. But no previous study has considered the entire extent of the cryosphere over Earth’s surface and its response to warming temperatures.
Contraction in space and time
Peng and his co-authors from Lanzhou University calculated the daily extent of the cryosphere and averaged those values to come up with yearly estimates. While the extent of the cryosphere grows and shrinks with the seasons, they found that the average area covered by Earth’s cryosphere has contracted overall since 1979, correlating with rising air temperatures.
The shrinkage primarily occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, with a loss of about 102,000 square kilometers (about 39,300 square miles), or about half the size of Kansas, each year. Those losses are offset slightly by growth in the Southern Hemisphere, where the cryosphere expanded by about 14,000 square kilometers (5,400 square miles) annually. This growth mainly occurred in the sea ice in the Ross Sea around Antarctica, likely due to patterns of wind and ocean currents and the addition of cold meltwater from Antarctic ice sheets.
The estimates showed that not only was the global cryosphere shrinking but that many regions remained frozen for less time. The average first day of freezing now occurs about 3.6 days later than in 1979, and the ice thaws about 5.7 days earlier.
“This kind of analysis is a nice idea for a global index or indicator of climate change,” said Shawn Marshall, a glaciologist at the University of Calgary, who was not involved in the study. He thinks that a natural next step would be to use these data to examine when ice and snow cover give Earth its peak brightness, to see how changes in albedo impact the climate on a seasonal or monthly basis and how this is changing over time.
To compile their global estimate of the extent of the cryosphere, the authors divided up the planet’s surface into a grid system. They used existing data sets of global sea ice extent, snow cover and frozen soil to classify each cell in the grid as part of the cryosphere if it contained at least one of the three components. Then they estimated the extent of the cryosphere on a daily, monthly and yearly basis and examined how it changed over the 37 years of their study.
The authors say that the global dataset can now be used to further probe the impact of climate change on the cryosphere, and how these changes impact ecosystems, carbon exchange and the timing of plant and animal life cycles.
###
AGU (http://www.agu.org) supports 130,000 enthusiasts to experts worldwide in Earth and space sciences. Through broad and inclusive partnerships, we advance discovery and solution science that accelerate knowledge and create solutions that are ethical, unbiased and respectful of communities and their values. Our programs include serving as a scholarly publisher, convening virtual and in-person events and providing career support. We live our values in everything we do, such as our net zero energy renovated building in Washington, D.C. and our Ethics and Equity Center, which fosters a diverse and inclusive geoscience community to ensure responsible conduct.
Notes for Journalists:
Earth’s Future is an open access journal. Download a PDF copy of the paper here. Neither the paper nor this press release is under embargo.
Paper title:
“A Holistic Assessment of 1979-2016 Global Cryospheric Extent”
Off topic: For those who haven’t noticed yet, the UAH satellite temp record has been updated for June. Back down to -0.01.
Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)
….And I’m thinking: So much for the Big Heat Wave that the Pacific NW had late last month. Meanwhile, Biden’s climate czar (Secretary Ketchup) is calling for a global economic revolution on the scale of the Industrial Revolution to fight climate change.
John Kerry: Fighting climate change could entail ‘bigger economic transformation’ than industrial revolution | Fox Business
The UAH data depends on indirect observation and so many adjustments I don’t believe it shows anything reliable
It really is fascinating how many excuses griff has developed.
The temperature trends shown by the surface sensors match what griff is paid to believe, therefore the fact that are frequently and heavily adjusted doesn’t matter.
UAH data doesn’t agree with griff’s beliefs, therefor the fact that they are adjusted disqualifies them.
“Peng and his co-authors from Lanzhou University…”
I’m sure it’s a great institution where students and faculty alike are both free and highly encouraged to assist decadent western democracies in their ongoing economic collapse. Full disclosure, I didn’t read the attached paper, so maybe someone can let me know if the authors therein strongly advised the CCP to cancel China’s plans to continue rolling out coal-fired power plants for the foreseeable future.
Btw, /S
Observation over one climate unit. A cascading problem with attribution.
Don’t worry. Its only the average ice that is melting. Above and below average ice is not affected as it is not mentioned in the study.
1979 is a very poor year to commence such studies because it was extraordinarily cold. Perhaps a better year would be 1922 when trees started to sprout in Greenland. However that would also be unfair. Chose a marker that either reflects an average, or choose a calendar year back far enough for reasonable norming and is inclusive of most mid-length cycles, both oceanic and solar. Say 1900.
Well even if you go back to 1865, currently the point at which detailed studies of all sea ice records have reached, post 1979 low extents are lower than anything since 1865
“In Spitsbergen the open season for shipping at the coal port lengthened from three months in the years before 1920 to over seven months of the year by the late 1930s. The average total area of the Arctic sea ice seems to have declined by between 10 and 20 per cent over that time.”
H.H. Lamb Climate, History and the Modern World 2nd edition p260
It looks like Griff was wrong.
“Those losses are offset slightly by growth in the Southern Hemisphere, where the cryosphere expanded by about 14,000 square kilometers (5,400 square miles) annually.” This statement is in opposition of a claim in the article that the temperature increase in global not regional. Climate change seems to be more regional which means various parts of the planet is increasing while others are decreasing and then, over time, it flip-flops. There is nothing happening that is uniform throughout the entire planet.
Yet more banal straight line analysis.
What is the point in having daily resolution data for every day of over forty years and reducing it to one scalar number: a “trend”.
If you want to gain any understanding a system you need to study how it changes over time, not throw out all the information you possess to produce a “trend” you know from the outset you are going to spuriously attribute to AGW caused by the rise in atm CO2.
Arctic sea ice , which was supposed to be the “canary in the coal mine” recovered after the 2012 OMG minimum and is now at about the same level a whole ten years later. However, they manage to avoid noticing that by taking a straight line back to 1979 and ignoring what is actually happening.
AGW was supposed to lead to “run away” melting but when this fails to happen and it flat lines for 10 years, they deliberately ignore that this contradicts their predictions.
Linear trend analysis seems to be the summit of technical analysis these clowns are able to do. Anything more than clicking on “fit trend” is Excel is too much to ask when the future of life on Earth is supposed to be in the balance.
While we haven’t seen another 2012, arctic sea ice has not ‘recovered’…
It has less old ice, thinner ice, lower winter maximums, less mass and of the 15 lowest years, 13 were in the last 15 years.
2020 and 2019 feature in top 5 lowest years…
Minutes of Council, vol8 pp149-153 Royal Society, London 20 November 1817
President of the Royal Society to Admiralty 2O November 1817
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past.”
That was the excuse used. The problem is that measuring “old” ice is difficult and in fact nobody does it.
“AGW was supposed to lead to “run away” melting”
Not according to the IPCC

I’ve noticed that many climate change papers are authored by Chinese academics. So why isn’t there an active climate change movement in China???
The side-by-side pictures of much of the northern hemisphere that were in the lead to this article on WUWT’s main page are not a fair comparison. The 1980 one omits snow cover, the 2009 one shows snow cover.
Regarding “THE PERCENTAGE OF EACH AREA THAT EXPERIENCES ICE, SNOW OR FROZEN GROUND AT SOME POINT DURING THE YEAR (1981-2010)”: I see a lot of ground that gets thoroughly covered with snow and/or ice every winter. So, I went to the paper this image came from to look for the original caption (under Figure 3), and it is: “1981-2010 shown as the percentage of each grid cell that is occupied by one or more cryospheric components”. The text in the paper that refers to this figure (section 3.1.3) says this is annual cryospheric percentage. The previous section (3.1.2) in the paper refers to monthly cryospheric percentages. The annual cryospheric percentage is an average of the 12 monthly cryospheric percentages, and shows percentages well above zero and well below 100% for areas that have high cryospheric percentages for at least one calendar month of every year.