iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

China Coal Consumption Linked To Global Cooling

China Pollution

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID   07/ 4/11 04:41 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON -- Scientists have come up with a possible explanation for why the rise in Earth's temperature paused for a bit during the 2000s, one of the hottest decades on record.

The answer seems counterintuitive. It's all that sulfur pollution in the air from China's massive coal-burning, according to a new study.

Sulfur particles in the air deflect the sun's rays and can temporarily cool things down a bit. That can happen even as coal-burning produces the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.

"People normally just focus on the warming effect of CO2 (carbon dioxide), but during the Chinese economic expansion there was a huge increase in sulfur emissions," which have a cooling effect, explained Robert K. Kaufmann of Boston University. He's the lead author of the study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

But sulfur's cooling effect is only temporary, while the carbon dioxide from coal burning stays in Earth's atmosphere a long time.

Chinese coal consumption doubled between 2003 and 2007, and that caused a 26 percent increase in global coal consumption, Kaufmann said.

Now, Chinese leaders have recognized the effects of that pollution on their environment and their citizens' health and are installing equipment to scrub out the sulfur particles, Kaufmann said.

Sulfur quickly drops out of the air if it is not replenished, while carbon dioxide remains for a long time, so its warming effects are beginning to be visible again, he noted. The plateau in temperature growth disappeared in 2009 and 2010, when temperatures lurched upward.

Indeed, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have listed 2010 as tied for the warmest year on record, while the Hadley Center of the British Meteorological Office lists it as second warmest, after 1998.

Sulfur's ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it in a geoengineering feat to cool the planet. The idea is that injecting sulfur compounds very high into the atmosphere might help ease global warming by increasing clouds and haze that would reflect sunlight. Some research has concluded that's a bad idea.

Using enough sulfur to reduce warming would wipe out the protective Arctic ozone layer and delay recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by as much as 70 years, according to an analysis by Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. This is the ozone layer that is high above Earth and protects against harmful UV rays, not the ground level ozone that is a harmful pollutant.

"While climate change is a major threat, more research is required before society attempts global geoengineering solutions," said Tilmes.

Overall, global temperatures have been increasing for more than a century since the industrial revolution began adding gases like carbon dioxide to the air. But there have been similar plateaus, such as during the post-World War II era when industrial production boosted sulfur emissions in several parts of the world, Kaufmann explained.

Atmospheric scientists and environmentalists are concerned that continued rising temperatures could have serious impacts worldwide, ranging from drought in some areas, changes in storm patterns, spread of tropical diseases and rising sea levels

___

Array

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- Scientists have come up with a possible explanation for why the rise in Earth's temperature paused for a bit during the 2000s, one of the hottest decades on record. The answer seems cou...
WASHINGTON -- Scientists have come up with a possible explanation for why the rise in Earth's temperature paused for a bit during the 2000s, one of the hottest decades on record. The answer seems cou...
Filed by Chris Gentilviso  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,072
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (32 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
02:05 PM on 07/23/2011
The paper referenced above, by Kaufmann, Kauppi, Mann and Stock, does not really say what AP says it does. It does not attribute so much cooling effect to particulates from dirty Chinese coal plants, although that is one factor. Other cooling factors included in that paper are a cyclical climate phenomenon called La Niña, and a decrease in incoming solar radiation from 1998 - 2008.

Sulfur's ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it in a geoengineering feat to cool the planet. The idea is that injecting sulfur compounds very high into the atmosphere might help ease global warming by increasing clouds and haze that would reflect sunlight. Some research has concluded that's a bad idea.

It is a very, very bad, irresponsible, scientifically illiterate "idea." The necessary cooling effect would require increasing amounts of particulates, just to keep up with steady emissions of carbon dioxide because particulates only stay in the atmosphere a few years, while carbon dioxide persists for centuries.

You can see for yourself that Kaufmann, et al do not claim that the recent slowdown in warming is due just to aerosols, but to a combination of aerosols and natural internal variability (the Sun & La Niña, both temporary effects over which we have absolutely no control).
http://sites.google.com/a/thescienceisstillsettled.com/www/references/pnas-201102467.pdf

Abstract.
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

So obviously, this paper does not say that current levels of atmospheric aerosols kept global mean temperature approximately steady from 1998 - 2008. It says that in combination with two naturally fluctuating variables that both happened to have a cooling impact in that period, current levels of atmospheric aerosols were one of three factors that kept global mean temperature approximately steady from 1998 - 2008. So, to maintain the same cooling effect when those two natural factors naturally switch back to warmer modes, which is inevitable, would require vastly more than current sulfate particulates, therefore ignoring the carbon dioxide problem and assuming we could significantly mitigate it using sulfates is foolish, irresponsible, and not supported by the paper recently published by Kaufmann's team.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:19 AM on 07/18/2011
Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade

Abstract

The variability of stratospheric aerosol loading between 1985 and 2010 is explored with measurements from SAGE II, CALIPSO, GOMOS/ENVISAT, and OSIRIS/Odin space-based instruments. We find that, following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, stratospheric aerosol levels increased by as much as two orders of magnitude and only reached “background levels” between 1998 and 2002. From 2002 onwards, a systematic increase has been reported by a number of investigators. Recently, the trend, based on ground-based lidar measurements, has been tentatively attributed to an increase of SO2 entering the stratosphere associated with coal burning in Southeast Asia. However, we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes. These events injected sulfur directly to altitudes between 18 and 20 km. The resulting aerosol particles are slowly lofted into the middle stratosphere by the Brewer-Dobson circulation and are eventually transported to higher latitudes.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047563.shtml

So, it's not China's coal, it's Gaia's volcanoes. Wonder how the Rommulans will spin these most recent NASA findings.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
03:22 AM on 07/12/2011
Transcript of Andrew Bolt’s “Carbon Sunday” interview with Richard Lindzen

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/11/transcript-of-andrew-bolts-carbon-sunday-interview-with-richard-lindzen/

& the videos on the Climate Tax FRAUD..............

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/from_the_bolt_report_today/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
12:03 PM on 07/11/2011
Perhaps the new kid would be so good as to tell us what the current net forcing of the Milankovit­ch cycle matrix is, and if it can explain any of the current warming.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
05:40 PM on 07/11/2011
*** crickets ***

Should we take that as a no?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
07:38 PM on 07/11/2011
Well, you asked it for specifics.

Unfair.
12:00 PM on 07/10/2011
Climate Change is here to stay. Bow down to nature the true cause of climate change.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

"The earth's orbit around the sun is not quite circular, which means that the earth is slightly closer to the sun at some times of the year than others. The closest approach of the earth to the sun is called perihelion, and it now occurs in January, making northern hemisphere winters slightly milder. This change in timing of perihelion is known as the precession of the equinoxes, and occurs on a period of 22,000 years. 11,000 years ago, perihelion occurred in July, making the seasons more severe than today. The "roundness", or eccentricity, of the earth's orbit varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years, and this affects how important the timing of perihelion is to the strength of the seasons. The combination of the 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycles, plus the smaller eccentricity signal, affect the relative severity of summer and winter, and are thought to control the growth and retreat of ice sheets. Cool summers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's land mass is located, appear to allow snow and ice to persist to the next winter, allowing the development of large ice sheets over hundreds to thousands of years. Conversely, warmer summers shrink ice sheets by melting more ice than the amount accumulating during the winter. "
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:35 PM on 07/10/2011
Those cycles - known as "Milankovitch cycles" - are a primary driver of historical climate change, yes.

You cited the NOAA. They also point out with respect to Milankovitch cycles:

"Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

HTH.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
11:22 AM on 07/11/2011
I just love it when these ignoramuses learn something new about climate science, from climate scientists, and they immediately assume climate scientists don't know it! It's like they believe the Internet is their secret, personal source of revealed truth, and things they discover with no more effort than a Google search really might have escaped the attention of all of the experts, for decades. It's just so entertaining.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
01:08 PM on 07/10/2011
How about you stop stating the obvious and the unrelated to this discussion? Do you really think thousands upon thousands of scientists just missed the lessons about precession and Milankovitch cycles, despite the fact that these are taught at the HIGH SCHOOL level?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:00 AM on 07/10/2011
American Associatio­n for the Advancemen­t of Science:
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­------

The American Associatio­n for the Advancemen­t of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizati­ons, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.

“The vast prepondera­nce of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigat­ors at many institutio­ns, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities­, and the need to take action is urgent,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1204climate_statement.shtml
04:48 PM on 07/20/2011
I like your classic AR3 Mannian spaghetti graph icon. Not many are brave enough to bear that one any more. Bless your true believing heart.
09:28 AM on 07/10/2011
Opps the headline "China Coal Consumption Linked To Global Cooling" sort of makes the case agains the AGW crowd doesn't it.

Not to worry...AGW supporters. The solution to AGW is clear now. Science has confirmed burning coal reduces global warming. The more we burn the more it reduces. Just calculate how much coal we need to burn to keep a constant temp and were in like flint. I love it when a plan comes together.

The US can burn more coal and your prolem is solved. Case closed.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:12 AM on 07/10/2011
kanda: "the headline "China Coal Consumptio­n Linked To Global Cooling" sort of makes the case agains the AGW crowd doesn't it... The more we burn the more it reduces. Just calculate how much coal we need to burn to keep a constant temp"

Um..

You *are* joking, right?

For your sake I hope so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:26 AM on 07/10/2011
You do remember Kanda, dont' you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
04:04 PM on 07/10/2011
No, it has hard for deniers to incorporate two opposing ideas at the same time.  CO2 warms the environment.  The sulfur in the coal creates a haze which blocks the sun, which partially and only partially, offsets the warming.
06:50 PM on 07/10/2011
Their neurons only fire in one direction. Those are called morons.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
02:10 AM on 07/10/2011
Australia will force its 500 worst polluters to pay 23 Australian dollars ($25) for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit, with the government promising to compensate households hit with higher power bills under a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unveiled Sunday.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard sought to reassure wary Australians that the deeply unpopular carbon tax will only cause a minority of households to pay more and insisted it is critical to helping the country lower its massive carbon dioxide emissions. Australia is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas polluters, due to its heavy reliance on coal for electricity.

"We generate more carbon pollution per head than any other country in the developed world," Gillard told reporters in Canberra as she released details of the tax, which will go into effect on July 1, 2012. "We've got a lot of work to do to hold our place in the race that the world is running."

The government hopes businesses affected by the tax will seek out clean energy alternatives to reduce their bills. The affected companies will have to pay AU$23 per metric ton of carbon, with the price rising 2.5 percent a year until 2015, when the plan will move to a market-based emissions trading scheme.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
08:01 AM on 07/10/2011
Thanks. I'm headed off to K-Mart to get warmer clothes before they sell out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
08:56 AM on 07/10/2011
"Global cooling"?

Almost 100 new record high temperatures a day for June in the US.

That's 2706 new record high temperatures, folks.

(compared to 251 new record lows for the month)

http://tinyurl.com/3zcexx2

Ouch.
10:51 AM on 07/10/2011
;)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
01:11 PM on 07/10/2011
I told those kids screaming about how cold and awful the winter was (it wasn't that cold, but they think lots of snow means it's really cold) just to wait for the summer before saying that 2011 is not a year of record heat...but they just didn't listen.

July, August and September are going to be wicked hot. That's my prediction, and I would bank on it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:05 AM on 07/09/2011
Australian children are being terrified by climate change lessons

PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.

On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health.

Climate change as a "Doomsday scenario" is being taught in classrooms across Australia.

Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause "devastating disasters".

ANU's Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as "Doomsday scenarios with no way out".

Dr Stocklmayer said she was not a climate-change sceptic but worried that "too much time was spent presenting scary scenarios, especially to young people".

"(Children) feel incredibly despondent and helpless in the face of all this negative information," she said. "To put all of this before our children ... is one of the most appalling things we can do to (them).

Child psychologist Kimberley O'Brien also said the language of climate change should be "toned down"......"They should be aware that kids do have nightmares."

Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg called on educators to be "more circumspect and present both sides (of the climate-change debate)".


http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-kids-are-living-in-climate-of-fear/story-e6frfkvr-1226091097398
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:14 AM on 07/09/2011
Any examples of what the kids are actually being taught?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:12 PM on 07/09/2011
There is this new feature on the internet called a "Search Engine".

Search Engines help you find what you are looking for on the internet.

I used a Search Engine and look at what I found!

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/what-you-can-do/teachers-and-students.aspx

Search Engines are your friend!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:37 PM on 07/09/2011
As a child in Los Angeles I was scared by primary school earthquake drills.

Those drills didn't make the threat of catastroph­ic earthquakes in the Los Angeles area any less real, of course.

But hey, that threat is "just" theoretical, right?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
02:14 AM on 07/10/2011
Great rebuttal!  Orneygal is practicing more demagoguery.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
04:16 PM on 07/08/2011
Anyone describing global warming/climate change as "a hoax of global proportion­s" is demonstrating that they have lost all connection with reality and inhabit the true lunatic fringe of humanity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
11:42 PM on 07/08/2011
There are no such things as vast conspiracies. Those predisposed to this kind of oligarchy are quite obvious about it. Hubris.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
12:56 AM on 07/09/2011
Do the data sets from a preferred vendor show you warming of any importance since 1998?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

You don't think the agw, eco-green statism with UN mediation isn't an "oligarchy"?? Talk about denial.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
01:43 PM on 07/09/2011
"since 1998"

Ah, the sweet sound of the klaxon alarm, warning of the imminent arrival of a bit of climate "skeptic" sleight of hand...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
08:12 AM on 07/10/2011
Ockham57: "97% of climate scientists agree there's been no statistica­lly significan­t global warming over the last decade. "

I imagine that 100% of climate scientists agree that there's been no statistically significant warming over the last decade.

100% of climate scientists ALSO know that 10 years is insufficient data to achieve statistical significance for global temperature, so the statement is essentially meaningless, and certainly doesn't imply what you're trying to imply.

But did YOU know that?

There are two possible answers to that question:

"No" - In which case you should not be posting about climate as if you knew anything about it.

"Yes" - In which case you are posting misleading BS and you know it.

I'm not sure which one is worse.
photo
douttfire
Up With This, I Will Not Put!
03:47 PM on 07/08/2011
First it's Global Warming...when we pulled back the curtain and revealed a hoax of global proportions, they now try to flim-flam us with Global Cooling. It's over. Stop already. The earth is changing whether we like it or not. The earth has always been in a state of change. No one can halt the change. This is why some species exist and some are extinct. People don't want to think of a day when they will no longer be here, but it is coming. So burn coal, eat meat, use stuff up...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
03:56 PM on 07/08/2011
You can not quite wrap your mind around those complex global warming and global cooling ideas, is that it?  Don't worry, science will proceed without you. It seems the simpler the mind the bigger the hoax.
10:53 PM on 07/09/2011
Nope, sure can't.

But, what I can wrap my mind around is that your so-called science is funded by the very entity that's trying to force more control on you. What better way to do that then to tell you you need to purchase carbon credits to post of HuffPost.

It's a hoax. It will continue to be no matter how badly you or your "savior" want it to be. Any government funded "climatologist" is dirty from the get-go. Making the argument that an Oil company funded skeptics is EXACTLY the same thing as a government funding pro-warmers.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
04:04 PM on 07/08/2011
What's that?

"hoax of global proportion"

Size of earth still in doubt? Sheesh.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:25 PM on 07/08/2011
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documentin­g that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities­­. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternativ­e explanatio­n­s…

From a philosophi­cal perspectiv­e, science never proves anything..­. In practical terms, however, scientific uncertaint­ies are not all the same. Some scientific conclusion­s or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independen­t observatio­ns and results, that their likelihood of subsequent­ly being found to be wrong is vanishingl­y small. Such conclusion­s and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusion­s that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities­.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
07:38 PM on 07/09/2011
"Such conclusion­­s and theories are then regarded as settled facts.This is the case for the conclusion­­s that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities­­."

Very likely eh? That's where you fail. Linking the two is deceptive and dishonest. Nobody but a few kooks disagrees that the earth has warmed over the last 150 years or so. That is a fact. How much humans have contributed to the warming is far from settled science - not a fact. How much is attributable to other forcings and feedbacks is very much debated.

One simple way to look at the problem is in terms of rates of change. Most of the 110ppm increase in CO2 has occurred since 1950 and it is widely accepted that this correlates well with post WWII industrialization. So... please show me peer-reviewed science that shows unequivocally, accelerated RATE of warming for the post 1950 period that is greater than pre-1950. Please explain why the rate of warming for the period 1910 to 1940, when CO2 was much lower, is equal to or greater than the period from 1980 to 2000? What factors caused the pre-1950 rapid warming, and if not anthropogenic, why should we believe it is entirely anthropogenic now?

I think there's a long way to go before the issue of attribution is settled fact.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:59 PM on 07/09/2011
Simple. Look up the keeling curve.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
08:02 PM on 07/09/2011
No, Ock, that's where you just failed general science 101.

Very likely eh? That's where you fail. Linking the two is deceptive and dishonest. Nobody but a few kooks disagrees that the earth has warmed over the last 150 years or so. That is a fact. How much humans have contribute­d to the warming is far from settled science - not a fact. How much is attributab­le to other forcings and feedbacks is very much debated.

Only by kooks.

98% of legitimate professionals consider that settled and the 2% that are "unconvinced" are objectively inferior at their profession.

So, Ock, the question is, who are you to say that the most competent 98% of all professionals are wrong? A kook, that's who you are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
12:38 PM on 07/08/2011
Grren minions of the world unite!;

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/ipcc-draws-conclusions-first-then-gets-wwf-to-back-them-up-with-pretend-science/

It was always science fraud for an agenda.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
01:18 PM on 07/08/2011
Anybody who's conversant with what's been learned in climate science since AR4 knows that the news is much worse now. Of course that doesn't include you or Steve, thus your confusion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
01:39 PM on 07/08/2011
Like not warming the past 15 years?

You're delusional which is fine but don't expect to control policy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
02:36 PM on 07/08/2011
Do you know the difference between "no warming" and warming that is significant at the 93% confidence level, but not quite at the 95% level required by tradition in science to call a trend statistically significant?

The difference is one year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
photo
qwert1234
haha, charade you are
06:39 PM on 07/08/2011
in response to your question: no, he doesn't
07:57 PM on 07/09/2011
Your buddy scientists say no warming ... Aren't those the 97% true climate scientists. Shucks
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
10:30 AM on 07/08/2011
Looks like we have a new record low Arctic sea ice extent for this date:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Hmmm, and what's the NOAA north pole webcam showing this morning....
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0708-011239.jpg

Yep, that sure looks like an open lead in the distance to me.