Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015

[TerryM]

I feel an ice free summer in 2015 is a bit of an extreme scenario, however I would not be surprised at all so see it by 2020 given the trends. What I wanted to address are the suggestionsby alarmists that once the arctic goes ice-fee at summer minimum. it only takes another 15-20 years to make the Arctic ice free all year round. Even this past year the winter max wasnt far off the historical average, even though the volume has decreased obviously. One would think even if all the ice melts in summer, once the pole goes into darkness the air and water should cool fairly quickly to allow for new ice formation, even if it is thin ice.

Sounds quite reasonable - and alarming.

Terry

[tacoman25]

Bump for learning purposes. 

 

And kudos to skier for being an especially cogent voice of reason in this thread.

 

Looking back to what was said in 2011, we can see why what has happened the last two years does matter. There was a lot of fear about increasing positive feedbacks in the Arctic in this thread, and the "alarming" trend with volume. Thanks to the last two years, we can now say with certainty that the rapid death spiral for the ice some were fearing does not exist, and the arguments for an ice free Arctic summer by 2015 (or even 2017) never had any real physical basis.

 

It's funny how those basic physics and negative feedbacks were brushed aside by some after 2012. It was all about positive feedbacks and the Arctic being in a newly "unstable" state. Would be interesting to hear the thoughts of Vergent, dabize, Terry, WeatherRusty, csnavy, etc now. Friv has already been brave enough to admit he was wrong, and that what seemed unthinkable at the time has happened.

[Mallow]

~2030ish

 

No changes. I'd like to clarify a bit by noting that I don't think ALL summers will be ice free by then, that's just when I would think the FIRST one would occur... i.e. a really bad year in an already-low background.

[WinterWxLuvr]

I will stick with 2030-2050 as is supported by the mainstream literature.

Summary of this thread: "The hurricane appears likely to hit Seattle in 5 days"

Awesome.  Never saw this until now.

[tacoman25]

Anyone still think it will happen by 2020?

[PhillipS]

Anyone still think it will happen by 2020?

 

I think that there is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic summer in the next six years, based mainly on the fact that the long-term SIE trends for every month are still negative, but I won't be surprised if we don't see ice-free conditions until after 2020.

[ORH_wxman]

I think that there is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic summer in the next six years, based mainly on the fact that the long-term SIE trends for every month are still negative, but I won't be surprised if we don't see ice-free conditions until after 2020.

 

 

That is going to be extremely difficult given the volume increase we've seen since the 2012 season. We are essentially back to 2007-2009 volume now...so we would require a loss in volume over the next 5 years about twice as much as the volume loss from 2007-2012 to have even a chance at a <1 million sq km extent or area.

 

It's probably not impossible, but I'd put the chances well outside 2 sigma if we are behaving anything close to linear.There's good reason to think that volume loss will actually become much slower as we melt more ice...so that would argue something on a timeline even further out than linear would give us.   

[tacoman25]

That is going to be extremely difficult given the volume increase we've seen since the 2012 season. We are essentially back to 2007-2009 volume now...so we would require a loss in volume over the next 5 years about twice as much as the volume loss from 2007-2012 to have even a chance at a <1 million sq km extent or area.

 

It's probably not impossible, but I'd put the chances well outside 2 sigma if we are behaving anything close to linear.There's good reason to think that volume loss will actually become much slower as we melt more ice...so that would argue something on a timeline even further out than linear would give us.   

 

I'd put the odds about the same as seeing a 6 mil+ min in the next 6 years.

[stadiumwave]

Looking back at all the posts over the last few years & couldn't help but laugh.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Looking back at all the posts over the last few years & couldn't help but laugh.

 

Doubt you were laughing at what was posted between 2008-2012 by the majority here.

[Isotherm]

I think we've passed the low point for a long, long time as far as minimum Arctic sea ice is concerned. The Atlantic cold phase (-AMO) should begin around 2020-2025 and persist for 25-30 years, so that brings us to approximately 2050-55. Additionally, the ensuing solar cycles should be much weaker than most/all of the 20th century cycles as we progress into and through the middle of the 21st century. I don't anticipate anthropogenic influences to overcome natural forcings that generally support a cooling trend over the coming decades, and so the Arctic Sea Ice should be fine through at least 2050-55 in my opinion. Will we be free of Arctic ice thereafter? Who knows. Much depends upon how the Sun behaves in the second half of the 21st century and a number of other factors.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

I'd put the odds about the same as seeing a 6 mil+ min in the next 6 years.

 

Actually the odds of a 6 million + extent has a much greater chance of verifying. Especially after seeing the 2013 - 2014 gains.

[AvantHiatus]

Actually the odds of a 6 million + extent has a much greater chance of verifying. Especially after seeing the 2013 - 2014 gains.

There will not be any gains from 2013 to 2014, or at least nothing that is significant.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

[n1vek]

Gains in volume have been very significant. I'm willing to bet that the ending volume from the prior melt season has a higher correlation to following season ice metrics than any other method of measurement.

[StudentOfClimatology]

There will not be any gains from 2013 to 2014, or at least nothing that is significant.

We actually have more ice (volume) now than we did in 2013, at this stage. Reason for the increase was the favorable circulation regime that took hold last winter (2013-14) despite near record warmth. We saw less in the way of flushing, while the thicker MYI was pushed into the Beaufort/ESS region.

If we can manage a favorable pattern this winter, we may very well see additional increases in ice volume.

[AvantHiatus]

We actually have more ice (volume) now than we did in 2013, at this stage. Reason for the increase was a favorable winter-season circulation, despite near record warmth. We saw less in the way of flushing, while the thicker MYI was pushed into the Beaufort/ESS region.

If we can manage a favorable pattern this winter, we may very well see additional increases in ice volume.

Yeah, but I don't see how the pattern cannot reverse when we got there 2007-2012 with much less CO2/CH4 forcing. Unlike some, I do not put that much stock into natural oscillations. Surely I don't believe they can cause another ice age or slow down the North Atlantic.

 

Granted, there is some effect there. I'm looking at this as temporary. The global temperature bar will also be raised in 2015.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Gains in volume have been very significant. I'm willing to bet that the ending volume from the prior melt season has a higher correlation to following season ice metrics than any other method of measurement.

I know that compactness can foreshadow the following season's minimum extent. Currently the icepack is very compact...in fact it's the most compact since 1996. The 2002 season also featured a very compact icepack.

The following years (1997 and 2003) both ended up being good years for ice extent. So, if we can avoid a sustained dipole regime, 2015 could fare better than 2014:

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yeah, but I don't see how the pattern cannot reverse when we got there 2007-2012 with much less CO2/CH4 forcing. Unlike some, I do not put that much stock into natural oscillations. Surely I don't believe they can cause another ice age or slow down the North Atlantic.

Granted, there is some effect there. I'm looking at this as temporary. The global temperature bar will also be raised in 2015.

It's a difficult question to answer because we don't know why the frequency of dipole-circulations has increased since the mid/late 1980s, but it could be related to changes in stratospheric O^3 content, according to some studies. Thing is, I'd expect that rubber band to break at some point due to the non-linear nature of the system.

There certainly are internal resonances inherent to the system, as far as the various circulations are concerned. However, whether or not the recent changes in the Arctic cell is related to those is unknown, at least for the time being.

As for ice ages, that has more to do with orbital cycles (namely obliquity and precession) changing the distribution of solar radiation over the planet, which eventually forces an abrupt shift in meridional cells (poleward heat transport) as the equator-to-pole thermal gradient increases/decreases. The ice age phenomenon is not actually related to the global temperature in of itself, directly speaking...rather it appears the thermal gradient is key to each hemisphere's response.

[chrisf97212]

It's a difficult question to answer because we don't know why the frequency of dipole-circulations has increased since the mid/late 1980s, but it could be related to changes in stratospheric O^3 content, according to some studies. Thing is, I'd expect that rubber band to break at some point due to the non-linear nature of the system.

There certainly are internal resonances inherent to the system, as far as the various circulations are concerned. However, whether or not the recent changes in the Arctic cell is related to those is unknown, at least for the time being.

As for ice ages, that has more to do with orbital cycles (namely obliquity and precession) changing the distribution of solar radiation over the planet, which eventually forces an abrupt shift in meridional cells (poleward heat transport) as the equator-to-pole thermal gradient increases/decreases. The ice age phenomenon is not actually related to the global temperature in of itself, directly speaking...rather it appears the thermal gradient is key to each hemisphere's response.

 

That must make for an extreme jet stream.

[StudentOfClimatology]

That must make for an extreme jet stream.

Lol, yeah. I've always been curious about winters in the ice age regimes...must have been crazy over the US because for one thing you actually have high insolation over the equator (some reconstructions actually have equatorial SSTs 1-2C warmer during early-ice age climos vs today). Then you have the monster ice sheets covering a lot of the NH, which would make those locations at least 17C colder due to the albedo-effect alone. With the 4-corners high providing the EML/warmth, that would lead to crazy things in between, no question.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Here's the best reconstructive map I'm aware of...pretty incredible to know how monstrous the ice sheets were. The US was only on the periphery of the ice sheet yet see the comparisons.

Crazy to think that a mere shift in meridional/global circulation could cause all of this. We need to keep this in mind because anthropogenic forcing now represents the greatest and most rapid perturbation to the system in over 2.1 million years...I doubt we'll be able to luck out much longer:

[SVT450R]

There will not be any gains from 2013 to 2014, or at least nothing that is significant.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Volume is the most important index when it comes to the condition of the ice pack and we are on track to see another gain this year from min to min.  The past two years have reversed the health of the ice pack to the point that it's as if 2012 never happened.  It would be highly unlikely to bring the ice pack back to a 2012 condition in a single year. 

[n1vek]

Volume is the most important index when it comes to the condition of the ice pack and we are on track to see another gain this year from min to min. The past two years have reversed the health of the ice pack to the point that it's as if 2012 never happened. It would be highly unlikely to bring the ice pack back to a 2012 condition in a single year.

Volume is currently higher than 2007. I wouldn't say it's as if 2007 never happened, but we are "better off" now than 2007 in that regard.

[Kelathos]

Do we expect a year like 2012 to happen in the next 6 years?

 

Would be a test if these gains are fleeting, when weather conditions are no longer favorable.

[SVT450R]

Do we expect a year like 2012 to happen in the next 6 years?

 

Would be a test if these gains are fleeting, when weather conditions are no longer favorable.

It could definitely happen again tho it would need more then one unfavorable melt season to set the stage for it to occur. 

[chrisf97212]

Here's the best reconstructive map I'm aware of...pretty incredible to know how monstrous the ice sheets were. The US was only on the periphery of the ice sheet yet see the comparisons.

Crazy to think that a mere shift in meridional/global circulation could cause all of this. We need to keep this in mind because anthropogenic forcing now represents the greatest and most rapid perturbation to the system in over 2.1 million years...I doubt we'll be able to luck out much longer:

 

Cool graphic.  Any idea what the ice gain was during the Younger Dryas?

[Bhs1975]

Cool graphic.  Any idea what the ice gain was during the Younger Dryas?

I bet winters where brutal back then.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It could definitely happen again tho it would need more then one unfavorable melt season to set the stage for it to occur. 

 

 

Doubt that.  Not unless max volume were to increase substantially.

 

Last year had virtually no increase.  I doubt volume is more than 1000km3 above the 2013 max next Spring.

[SVT450R]

Doubt that.  Not unless max volume were to increase substantially.

 

Last year had virtually no increase.  I doubt volume is more than 1000km3 above the 2013 max next Spring.

I would have to disagree this years min volume looks to be 6,000KM at the least but most likely higher.  While the winter pattern also plays a role the odds of going from this year's min to 2012 in a single season is highly unlikely not saying it could never happen but the odds are against it.  You would need 07/12 patterns on steroids to come close.  That's why i suggested a step down process in which it would take more then one season.  I filled in 2014 on this graphic for a better visual you can see most years loose less then 1,000KM from min to min.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I would have to disagree this years min volume looks to be 6,000KM at the least but most likely higher.  While the winter pattern also plays a role the odds of going from this year's min to 2012 in a single season is highly unlikely not saying it could never happen but the odds are against it.  You would need 07/12 patterns on steroids to come close.  That's why i suggested a step down process in which it would take more then one season.  I filled in 2014 on this graphic for a better visual you can see most years loose less then 1,000KM from min to min.

piomas graphic.png

 

 

You are probably right.  I misread what you said.

 

I thought you said it would take a couple 2007/12 years in a row.

 

I think if next summer was a carbon copy of 2012 or especially 2007 we would see at least 2nd place behind 2012 on all metrics. Reaching 2012 would probably be pretty tough pending how far the volume max ends up.

 

 

It would probably take back to back really rough years at this point barring a major winter flushing.