Antarctic sea ice has recorded its third-smallest winter peak extent since satellite records began 47 years ago, new data reveals.
Provisional data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that Antarctic sea ice reached a winter maximum of 17.81m square kilometres (km2) on 17 September.
This is 900,000km2 below the 1981-2010 average maximum extent – the historical baseline against which more recent sea ice extent is typically compared.
According to one expert, the “lengthening trend of lower Antarctic sea ice poses real concerns regarding stability and melting of the ice sheet”.
Meanwhile, at the Earth’s other pole, Arctic sea ice reached its annual minimum on 10 September, ranking as the joint-10th lowest in the satellite record.
At 1.6m km2, the 2025 minimum shares the spot with 2008 and 2010. The NSIDC notes that all 19 of the lowest sea ice extents in the record have occurred in the past 19 years.
Antarctic peak
For decades, scientists have been using satellite data to track the annual cycle of sea ice growth and melt at the world’s poles. This is a key way to monitor the “health” of sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic.
The map below shows Antarctic sea ice on the day of its maximum extent for the year on 17 September 2025, where the yellow line shows the 1981-2010 average.
The NSIDC says that sea ice extent was “markedly below average” in the Indian Ocean and the Bellingshausen Sea, but “slightly above average” over the Ross Sea.
In an NSIDC press release announcing the Antarctic maximum, Dr Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research In Environmental Sciences, said:
“The lengthening trend of lower Antarctic sea ice poses real concerns regarding stability and melting of the ice sheet. However, it may also be leading to greater snowfall over the continent, which would slow the progression of sea level rise.”
Antarctic sea ice growth
In its typical annual cycle, Antarctic sea ice grows during winter towards its annual maximum extent in September or October. It then melts throughout the spring and summer towards its March minimum.
Earlier this year, Antarctic sea ice recorded its second-smallest summer minimum on record.
At 1.98m m2, this was the fourth consecutive year that Antarctic sea ice had fallen below 2m km2, the NSIDC noted.
In its monthly sea ice updates, the NSIDC reported that sea ice then grew at a “near-average pace”. During this period, sea ice “expanded rapidly” in the last areas to lose ice, including the Ross Sea and eastern Weddell Sea, it said.
The NSIDC explained that sea ice rebounded quickly in the Ross Sea area because ice extent had retreated “slowly” there the month before – meaning that the upper ocean layer did not have time to accumulate heat which would slow the winter freeze.
In April, “the situation in the Antarctic remained fickle”, the NSIDC said. At the beginning of the month, sea ice extent neared “record-low” daily extents, but as the month progressed ice cover expanded “fairly quickly”, it said.
May had “below average growth” in Antarctic sea ice and saw the fifth lowest record for Antarctic sea extent.
As June began, the the Bellingshausen Sea and eastern Queen Maud Lord regions were “far behind” in ice re-growth, it said, adding that the Bellingshausen Sea was almost entirely ice-free as temperatures were 6-8C above average.
In June, Antarctic sea ice was 1.28m km2 below the 1981-2010 baseline, with “particularly low” sea ice extent in the Bellingshausen Sea and the Indian Ocean sector, according to the NSIDC. This was the third-lowest sea ice extent ever recorded for the month of June, it said.
Throughout July, Antarctic sea ice extent grew at a “slower-than-average” rate, according to the NSIDC. By the end of the month, Antarctic sea ice extent was 1.3m km2 below the baseline, it noted.
Arctic melt season
In the Arctic, sea ice cover typically reaches its high point in March, before dropping to its September minimum at the end of the northern-hemisphere summer.
The 2025 Arctic sea ice winter peak was the smallest since satellite records began. The peak, recorded on 22 March, was 1.31m km2 below the average maximum for the 1981-2010 historical baseline.
In March, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 14.14m km2 – the lowest in the satellite record, according to the NSIDC. It noted that, at the time, average air temperature was above the historical baseline across much of the Arctic region.
Arctic sea ice extent then “changed very little” throughout April, remaining “nearly constant” until the final days of the month, the NSIDC reported.
It added that the final days of April saw Arctic sea ice extent drop due to ice retreat along the coast of the Barents Sea.
According to data, the main reason why the April total extent remained largely flat was due to an increase of sea ice in the northeastern Barents Seas that “offset” losses elsewhere.
Below-average air temperatures over the northern Norwegian and Barents Seas was the most “notable feature” of April 2025, the NSIDC said.
May was marked by a decline in Arctic sea ice extent at a faster-than-average pace, the NSIDC noted, resulting in the seventh-lowest May extent on record.
It added that ice loss in May was “primarily” in the Barents Sea, Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.
In June, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 10.48m km2 – the second-lowest average on record for the month, the NSIDC said. It noted that sea ice hit record-low levels over 20 June and 26 June and tracked at “near-record” low levels through the month. The Barents and Kara Seas were both “nearly ice-free” by the end June.
Hudson Bay ice extent was also “considerably below average” throughout June and northern parts of Baffin Bay were nearly ice-free, it said.
By the end of July, daily sea ice extent in the Arctic had fallen to 7.66m km2 – the third lowest in the satellite record, the NSIDC reported. It noted that, for most of the month, Arctic sea ice extent tracked close to levels recorded for 2012 – the year in which Arctic sea ice extent reached its lowest-ever September minimum.
Throughout August, the NSIDC reported that sea ice “rapidly melted and compacted” north of Alaska in the Beaufort Sea, with sea ice extent averaging at 5.41m km2 – the seventh lowest on record.
Dr Zack Labe – a climate scientist at Climate Central – tells Carbon Brief that northern Siberia saw August air temperatures more than 5C above the 1981-2010 average, resulting in “a striking amount of open water along the Atlantic side of the Arctic that would normally be ice-covered”.
At an annual minimum of 1.6m km2, this year’s Arctic minimum is “pretty unremarkable”, Labe tells Carbon Brief, and “adds to the evidence of a clear slowdown in the rate of summer Arctic sea ice loss”.
However, Labe stresses that this is “not surprising” – referencing a recent study which “clearly shows how internal variability can temporarily drive periods of slower melt in a warming climate, as well as periods of rapid melt, such as in the early 2000s”. (For more on this research, read Carbon Brief’s guest post).
He adds:
“It is only a matter of time before summertime melt accelerates again. This is not a good news story, especially since in many other months we still see a clear downward trend…
“While the past decade of summers may give the appearance of a slowdown, regional extremes such as in the Kara Sea this year underscore that the Arctic is already radically different from past decades. The driver is clear – human-caused climate change.”
Satellite switch
For decades, NSIDC has tracked sea ice using data from weather satellites run by the US Navy. However, earlier this year, Mongabay reported that NSIDC scientists “noticed holes in the data they were receiving”.
The article explains:
“When scientists inquired with the Department of Defense (DoD), they were told not all data were being downloaded and access to the data had been deprioritised. Soon after, the DoD said it would stop sharing…data altogether, citing military cybersecurity risks in the old systems.”
NSIDC scientist Walt Meier told Science that while the US satellites “are up there and functioning…we’re not getting all the data anymore, at least regularly”.
The DoD then set a cut-off date to “cease distribution data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Programme” on 31 July.
In June, the NSIDC announced that it would “explore switching to a different sensor” aboard a Japanese satellite that was launched in 2012.
The only other option available to NSIDC was a “series of Chinese weather satellites, which the country is already using to produce its own record of sea ice”, Science noted. It added that a new US DoD weather satellite, launched last year, is “also capable of collecting similar data, but its data have not yet been made public”.
The switch was completed by the July cut-off date and NSIDC reprocessed all data for 2025 to use the new data source to ensure “consistency through the year”.
The post Antarctic sea ice winter peak in 2025 is third smallest on record appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Antarctic sea ice winter peak in 2025 is third smallest on record
N.C. Gov. Josh Stein wants state lawmakers to rethink tax breaks for data centers. The industry’s opacity makes it difficult to evaluate costs and benefits.
Tax breaks for data centers in North Carolina keep as much as $57 million each year into from state and local government coffers, state figures show, an amount that could balloon to billions of dollars if all the proposed projects are built.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF), a multilateral fund that provides climate and nature finance to developing countries, has raised $3.9 billion from donor governments in its last pledging session ahead of a key fundraising deadline at the end of May.
The amount, which is meant to cover the fund’s activities for the next four years (July 2026-June 2030), falls significantly short of the previous four-year cycle for which the GEF managed to raise $5.3bn from governments. Since then, military and other political priorities have squeezed rich nations’ budgets for climate and development aid.
The facility said in a statement that it expects more pledges ahead of the final replenishment package, which is set for approval at the next GEF Council meeting from May 31 to June 3.
Claude Gascon, interim CEO of the GEF, said that “donor countries have risen to the challenge and made bold commitments towards a more positive future for the planet”. He added that the pledges send a message that “the world is not giving up on nature even in a time of competing priorities”.
-
UK imports of “green” jet fuel linked to Amazon deforestation
A Texas refinery shipping sustainable aviation fuel to Europe has sourced beef tallow with links to a meatpacking firm fined over illegal cattle purchases -
Italy pushes coal exit back after gas prices rise
Analysts say the move sends a negative signal, but its impact will be limited given coal’s marginal role in Italy’s energy mix
Donors under pressure
But Brian O’Donnell, director of the environmental non-profit Campaign for Nature, said the announcement shows “an alarming trend” of donor governments cutting public finance for climate and nature.
“Wealthy nations pledged to increase international nature finance, and yet we are seeing cuts and lower contributions. Investing in nature prevents extinctions and supports livelihoods, security, health, food, clean water and climate,” he said. “Failing to safeguard nature now will result in much larger costs later.”
At COP29 in Baku, developed countries pledged to mobilise $300bn a year in public climate finance by 2035, while at UN biodiversity talks they have also pledged to raise $30bn per year by 2030. Yet several wealthy governments have announced cuts to green finance to increase defense spending, among them most recently the UK.
As for the US, despite Trump’s cuts to international climate finance, Congress approved a $150 million increase in its contribution to the GEF after what was described as the organisation’s “refocus on non-climate priorities like biodiversity, plastics and ocean ecosystems, per US Treasury guidance”.
The facility will only reveal how much each country has pledged when its assembly of 186 member countries meets in early June. The last period’s largest donors were Germany ($575 million), Japan ($451 million), and the US ($425 million).
The GEF has also gone through a change in leadership halfway through its fundraising cycle. Last December, the GEF Council asked former CEO Carlos Manuel Rodriguez to step down effective immediately and appointed Gascon as interim CEO.
Santa Marta conference: fossil fuel transition in an unstable world
New guidelines
As part of the upcoming funding cycle, the GEF has approved a set of guidelines for spending the $3.9bn raised so far, which include allocating 35% of resources for least developed countries and small island states, as well as 20% of the money going to Indigenous people and communities.
Its programs will help countries shift five key systems – nature, food, urban, energy and health – from models that drive degradation to alternatives that protect the planet and support human well-being by integrating the value of nature into production and consumption systems.
The new priorities also include a target to allocate 25% of the GEF’s budget for mobilising private funds through blended finance. This aligns with efforts by wealthy countries to increase contributions from the private sector to international climate finance.
Niels Annen, Germany’s State Secretary for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in a statement that the country’s priorities are “very well reflected” in the GEF’s new spending guidelines, including on “innovative finance for nature and people, better cooperation with the private sector, and stable resources for the most vulnerable countries”.
Aliou Mustafa, of the GEF Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG), also welcomed the announcement, adding that “the GEF is strengthening trust and meaningful partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities” by placing them at the “centre of decision-making”.
The post GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget appeared first on Climate Home News.
GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget
Tropical cyclones that rapidly intensify when passing over marine heatwaves can become “supercharged”, increasing the likelihood of high economic losses, a new study finds.
Such storms also have higher rates of rainfall and higher maximum windspeeds, according to the research.
The study, published in Science Advances, looks at the economic damages caused by nearly 800 tropical cyclones that occurred around the world between 1981 and 2023.
It finds that rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones that pass near abnormally warm parts of the ocean produce nearly double – 93% – the economic damages as storms that do not, even when levels of coastal development are taken into account.
One researcher, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new analysis is a “step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future” in an increasingly warm world.
As marine heatwaves are projected to become more frequent under future climate change, the authors say that the interactions between storms and these heatwaves “should be given greater consideration in future strategies for climate adaptation and climate preparedness”.
‘Rapid intensification’
Tropical cyclones are rapidly rotating storm systems that form over warm ocean waters, characterised by low pressure at their cores and sustained winds that can reach more than 120 kilometres per hour.
The term “tropical cyclones” encompasses hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons, which are named as such depending on which ocean basin they occur in.
When they make landfall, these storms can cause major damage. They accounted for six of the top 10 disasters between 1900 and 2024 in terms of economic loss, according to the insurance company Aon’s 2025 climate catastrophe insight report.
These economic losses are largely caused by high wind speeds, large amounts of rainfall and damaging storm surges.
Storms can become particularly dangerous through a process called “rapid intensification”.
Rapid intensification is when a storm strengthens considerably in a short period of time. It is defined as an increase in sustained wind speed of at least 30 knots (around 55 kilometres per hour) in a 24-hour period.
There are several factors that can lead to rapid intensification, including warm ocean temperatures, high humidity and low vertical “wind shear” – meaning that the wind speeds higher up in the atmosphere are very similar to the wind speeds near the surface.
Rapid intensification has become more common since the 1980s and is projected to become even more frequent in the future with continued warming. (Although there is uncertainty as to how climate change will impact the frequency of tropical cyclones, the increase in strength and intensification is more clear.)
Marine heatwaves are another type of extreme event that are becoming more frequent due to recent warming. Like their atmospheric counterparts, marine heatwaves are periods of abnormally high ocean temperatures.
Previous research has shown that these marine heatwaves can contribute to a cyclone undergoing rapid intensification. This is because the warm ocean water acts as a “fuel” for a storm, says Dr Hamed Moftakhari, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Alabama who was one of the authors of the new study. He explains:
“The entire strength of the tropical cyclone [depends on] how hot the [ocean] surface is. Marine heatwave means we have an abundance of hot water that is like a gas [petrol] station. As you move over that, it’s going to supercharge you.”
However, the authors say, there is no global assessment of how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves interact – or how they contribute to economic damages.
Using the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) – a database of tropical cyclone paths and intensities – the researchers identify 1,600 storms that made landfall during the 1981-2023 period, out of a total of 3,464 events.
Of these 1,600 storms, they were able to match 789 individual, land-falling cyclones with economic loss data from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and other official sources.
Then, using the IBTrACS storm data and ocean-temperature data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the researchers classify each cyclone by whether or not it underwent rapid intensification and if it passed near a recent marine heatwave event before making landfall.
The researchers find that there is a “modest” rise in the number of marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones globally since 1981, but with significant regional variations. In particular, they say, there are “clear” upward trends in the north Atlantic Ocean, the north Indian Ocean and the northern hemisphere basin of the eastern Pacific Ocean.
‘Storm characteristics’
The researchers find substantial differences in the characteristics of tropical cyclones that experience rapid intensification and those that do not, as well as between rapidly intensifying storms that occur with marine heatwaves and those that occur without them.
For example, tropical cyclones that do not experience rapid intensification have, on average, maximum wind speeds of around 40 knots (74km/hr), whereas storms that rapidly intensify have an average maximum wind speed of nearly 80 knots (148km/hr).
Of the rapidly intensifying storms, those that are influenced by marine heatwaves maintain higher wind speeds during the days leading up to landfall.
Although the wind speeds are very similar between the two groups once the storms make landfall, the pre-landfall difference still has an impact on a storm’s destructiveness, says Dr Soheil Radfar, a hurricane-hazard modeller at Princeton University. Radfar, who is the lead author of the new study, tells Carbon Brief:
“Hurricane damage starts days before the landfall…Four or five days before a hurricane making landfall, we expect to have high wind speeds and, because of that high wind speed, we expect to have storm surges that impact coastal communities.”
They also find that rapidly intensifying storms have higher peak rainfall than non-rapidly intensifying storms, with marine heatwave-influenced, rapidly intensifying storms exhibiting the highest average rainfall at landfall.
The charts below show the mean sustained wind speed in knots (top) and the mean rainfall in millimetres per hour (bottom) for the tropical cyclones analysed in the study in the five days leading up to and two days following a storm making landfall.
The four lines show storms that: rapidly intensified with the influence of marine heatwaves (red); those that rapidly intensified without marine heatwaves (purple); those that experienced marine heatwaves, but did not rapidly intensify (orange); and those that neither rapidly intensified nor experienced a marine heatwave (blue).
Dr Daneeja Mawren, an ocean and climate consultant at the Mauritius-based Mascarene Environmental Consulting who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new study “helps clarify how marine heatwaves amplify storm characteristics”, such as stronger winds and heavier rainfall. She notes that this “has not been done on a global scale before”.
However, Mawren adds that other factors not considered in the analysis can “make a huge difference” in the rapid intensification of tropical cyclones, including subsurface marine heatwaves and eddies – circular, spinning ocean currents that can trap warm water.
Dr Jonathan Lin, an atmospheric scientist at Cornell University who was also not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that, while the intensification found by the study “makes physical sense”, it is inherently limited by the relatively small number of storms that occur. He adds:
“There’s not that many storms, to tease out the physical mechanisms and observational data. So being able to reproduce this kind of work in a physical model would be really important.”
Economic costs
Storm intensity is not the only factor that determines how destructive a given cyclone can be – the economic damages also depend strongly on the population density and the amount of infrastructure development where a storm hits. The study explains:
“A high storm surge in a sparsely populated area may cause less economic damage than a smaller surge in a densely populated, economically important region.”
To account for the differences in development, the researchers use a type of data called “built-up volume”, from the Global Human Settlement Layer. Built-up volume is a quantity derived from satellite data and other high-resolution imagery that combines measurements of building area and average building height in a given area. This can be used as a proxy for the level of development, the authors explain.
By comparing different cyclones that impacted areas with similar built-up volumes, the researchers can analyse how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves contribute to the overall economic damages of a storm.
They find that, even when controlling for levels of coastal development, storms that pass through a marine heatwave during their rapid intensification cause 93% higher economic damages than storms that do not.
They identify 71 marine heatwave-influenced storms that cause more than $1bn (inflation-adjusted across the dataset) in damages, compared to 45 storms that cause those levels of damage without the influence of marine heatwaves.
This quantification of the cyclones’ economic impact is one of the study’s most “important contributions”, says Mawren.
The authors also note that the continued development in coastal regions may increase the likelihood of tropical cyclone damages over time.
Towards forecasting
The study notes that the increased damages caused by marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones, along with the projected increases in marine heatwaves, means such storms “should be given greater consideration” in planning for future climate change.
For Radfar and Moftakhari, the new study emphasises the importance of understanding the interactions between extreme events, such as tropical cyclones and marine heatwaves.
Moftakhari notes that extreme events in the future are expected to become both more intense and more complex. This becomes a problem for climate resilience because “we basically design in the future based on what we’ve observed in the past”, he says. This may lead to underestimating potential hazards, he adds.
Mawren agrees, telling Carbon Brief that, in order to “fully capture the intensification potential”, future forecasts and risk assessments must account for marine heatwaves and other ocean phenomena, such as subsurface heat.
Lin adds that the actions needed to reduce storm damages “take on the order of decades to do right”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“All these [planning] decisions have to come by understanding the future uncertainty and so this research is a step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future.”
The post Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits