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

[Alpha5]

Voted for later

I think when the sun begins to die and consumes the earth, sea ice will be permanently gone

[skierinvermont]

Last year very little ice was advected through Nares or Fram - the bulk of if melted in situ - unlike 2007

That's exactly the point. If ice was being pushed out of the Arctic, we would have had an even lower minimum. And it's not just a summer phenomenon.

[skierinvermont]

MYI has indeed become a small percentage of the ice and melting MYI soaked up large amounts of solar energy, without it much more FYI will be melted.

Of course MYI is important, whoever denied that? That's again exactly the point - you can't get any worse than zero. And we're already at zero. Instead of starting each season with younger and younger and therefore thinner ice, we will now start every year with first year ice which tends to be around 2m thick. Thus the volume of ice at the start of the melt season probably will not decline very much further because it is mostly 1st year ice now, which rapidly grows to close to 2m thick in winter no matter how much you melt it in summer.

[ORH_wxman]

I do not understand how anyone can think the arctic will be ice free in 2015 when you need to get rid of more than twice the ice than we've lost since the'79-'00 mean in the satellite record.

[skierinvermont]

Last summer ice melted from Alaska to Ellesmere on two occasions, in the latter melt all of Ellesmere as well as Northern Greenland's coast were ice free - Melt didn't move from Siberia to Greenland, but in fact occurred from both hemispheres.

BTW I hope you are right.

That wasn't melt. Those were very short lived polynyas created by temporary weather patterns.

[skierinvermont]

Why would this effect kick in at 5 million when it didn't at 6 or 7 million? - what makes 5 million sq km unique

It did kick in at 6 or 7 which is why it took large amounts of additional global/arctic warming to get us to 5 million. The arctic warmed dramatically from 2000 to 2005.

The less surface area of ice remaining at the end of summer, the more ice volume that will be generated in the fall. This is basic physics. And it is why arctic sea ice extent correlates closely with arctic temperatures. The two are in balance and it will require additional warming to push the balance towards lower extent.

[superjames1992]

I think it's kind of ridiculous to believe that the Arctic will be ice-free in 2015. You can't just extrapolate trends into the future and take it for truth.

I suppose that we will eventually see sea ice-free Arctic summers if the Earth continues to warm, but it won't be for decades.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I do not understand how anyone can think the arctic will be ice free in 2015 when you need to get rid of more than twice the ice than we've lost since the'79-'00 mean in the satellite record.

I am not sure if it will happen. But I am not sure what you mean here. I assume your talking about extent. If we are talking a total melt out then no way. but the ice this summer was 4.375km2 in millions at the min and average 1.25M across the entire thing, obviously not all of that was in the same place. But extent doesn't equal total volume to reach zero. In other words...once you reach 4 mil km2, then the next 2-2.5 mil km2 is mostly .3 to .9 meters thick and not hard to melt with a bit more time. The thicker ice 2-4 meters for the most part will be really hard to melt out by the end of the season.

It will just be so hard to melt it all the way out at current global temperatures and spring arctic temps with the melt season at the top ending no matter what in early September..

But I don't understand how you can say twice the ice since than we have lost so far in the sat era when min summer volume is 75% or so gone from the late 1970s. They have taken submarine scans of the bottom of the ice, cryosat2 validation, the three explorer ships up there this summer, and the buoys. between them since 2006 we have had thousands, now tens of thousands of summer thickness obs.

So we know the remaining ice has been on average about 1.25M in 2011 and slightly thicker in 2010.

Maybe it will thicken up some, I think it would take a prolonged period of near perfect conditions.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It did kick in at 6 or 7 which is why it took large amounts of additional global/arctic warming to get us to 5 million. The arctic warmed dramatically from 2000 to 2005.

The less surface area of ice remaining at the end of summer, the more ice volume that will be generated in the fall. This is basic physics. And it is why arctic sea ice extent correlates closely with arctic temperatures. The two are in balance and it will require additional warming to push the balance towards lower extent.

For the most part I agree with this. i think we could see some more warming pending if the ice melts out faster in May and June, if we see new monthly record lows set in 2012 for JJA we could see warmer arctic waters and temperatures....but I can not see how it can get much warmer until the ice extent is lower.

[ORH_wxman]

I am not sure if it will happen. But I am not sure what you mean here. I assume your talking about extent. If we are talking a total melt out then no way. but the ice this summer was 4.375km2 in millions at the min and average 1.25M across the entire thing, obviously not all of that was in the same place. But extent doesn't equal total volume to reach zero. In other words...once you reach 4 mil km2, then the next 2-2.5 mil km2 is mostly .3 to .9 meters thick and not hard to melt with a bit more time. The thicker ice 2-4 meters for the most part will be really hard to melt out by the end of the season.

It will just be so hard to melt it all the way out at current global temperatures and spring arctic temps with the melt season at the top ending no matter what in early September..

But I don't understand how you can say twice the ice since than we have lost so far in the sat era when min summer volume is 75% or so gone from the late 1970s. They have taken submarine scans of the bottom of the ice, cryosat2 validation, the three explorer ships up there this summer, and the buoys. between them since 2006 we have had thousands, now tens of thousands of summer thickness obs.

So we know the remaining ice has been on average about 1.25M in 2011 and slightly thicker in 2010.

Maybe it will thicken up some, I think it would take a prolonged period of near perfect conditions.

The volume estimates are very sketchy...and very much in question...we will know more when Cryosat2 comes out with more data (do not forget cryosat has a peer reviewed paper that says their ice measurements are within a few inches on the mean)....I was talking about extent.

But IMHO there is almost zero chance we get an ice free arctic in 2015. There is no way we reduce it to less than 1 million sq km which is considered an "ice free" arctic by 2015.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The volume estimates are very sketchy...and very much in question...we will know more when Cryosat2 comes out with more data (do not forget cryosat has a peer reviewed paper that says their ice measurements are within a few inches on the mean)....I was talking about extent.

But IMHO there is almost zero chance we get an ice free arctic in 2015. There is no way we reduce it to less than 1 million sq km which is considered an "ice free" arctic by 2015.

I wouldn't be surprised if the overall amount of ice that melts in the spring and summer has increased by quite a bit the last 20-30 years.

Well we are either going to see an increase in ice extent and area or a decrease. But what is interesting about Piomas is that it will be ultimately validated the next few years or proven to be off by possibly quite a bit if the ice extent drops another say 1 mil km2 in any given summer and piomas ends up not adding up. Because it says we are close to a total melt out, which is hard to believe. but there is a lot of measurements up there that show a very thin ice sheet in September.

[ORH_wxman]

I wouldn't be surprised if the overall amount of ice that melts in the spring and summer has increased by quite a bit the last 20-30 years.

Well we are either going to see an increase in ice extent and area or a decrease. But what is interesting about Piomas is that it will be ultimately validated the next few years or proven to be off by possibly quite a bit if the ice extent drops another say 1 mil km2 in any given summer and piomas ends up not adding up. Because it says we are close to a total melt out, which is hard to believe. but there is a lot of measurements up there that show a very thin ice sheet in September.

I think PIOMAS will be shown to be too low...even NSIDC thinks its too low. At least Walt Meir does who seems to be a good guy who participates on the blogs. He thinks it has problems with MY ice..which while low, is still existent...even the 2-3 year ice which is the big caveat.

But this was originally about ice being less than 1 million sq km in 2015...I have seen zero evidence that this will happen that soon. I'd love to see evidence other than a model that shows a linear trend that says it will happen like PIOMAS. PIOMAS doesn't "technically" show this, but it shows an obscenely low volume near 0 by 2015, which seems absolutely ludicrous. There is no way the entire ice sheet will be like a few inches thick in 2015.

[skierinvermont]

For the most part I agree with this. i think we could see some more warming pending if the ice melts out faster in May and June, if we see new monthly record lows set in 2012 for JJA we could see warmer arctic waters and temperatures....but I can not see how it can get much warmer until the ice extent is lower.

Again you've got cause and effect reversed. Extent can't get lower until it gets warmer.

[WeatherRusty]

Again you've got cause and effect reversed. Extent can't get lower until it gets warmer.

It's not a one way street though. Friv is correct in that warming is induced by a longer period of ice free water. This is a positive feedback loop in action, warming begets less ice which brings about further warming and so on.

Additionally, the ice/open water albedo difference is very important locally, and regionally even if it doesn't add much to the overall global albedo and radiative forcing.

[TerryM]

The volume estimates are very sketchy...and very much in question...

Are you questioning the numbers or the ratio?

If I said that there were 16k beans in a jar, and now there are only 4k left I'm assuming you would argue that my figures were 'sketchy'

If I said that only one quarter of the beans remain, and that my counting device had not changed, would the same sketchy argument hold water?

Which is more important - the exact amount of volume left, or the amount that the measured volume has declined irrespective of the accuracy of the measurement?

[TerryM]

Skier

I don't think we are too far apart on the facts to date - I'm willing to concede that the 'melt zones' north of Greenland were probably due to piteraq winds and certainly that MYI is no longer much of a deterrence to future melt.

Last summer, with very little advection the ice tied 2007's disastrous minimum extent. My fear is that we will see another 2007 weather pattern develop, and that without MYI anchoring the pack, and with the volume being so much lower than in the past, a flushing/melting combination will occur. Whether this occurs in 2015 or 2030 depends now entirely on the weather.

[ORH_wxman]

Skier

I don't think we are too far apart on the facts to date - I'm willing to concede that the 'melt zones' north of Greenland were probably due to piteraq winds and certainly that MYI is no longer much of a deterrence to future melt.

Last summer, with very little advection the ice tied 2007's disastrous minimum extent. My fear is that we will see another 2007 weather pattern develop, and that without MYI anchoring the pack, and with the volume being so much lower than in the past, a flushing/melting combination will occur. Whether this occurs in 2015 or 2030 depends now entirely on the weather.

If we get another 2007 weather pattern in 2015, we wouldn't come anywhere close to "ice free". 2011 wasn't as bad as 2007's pattern but it was still pretty bad. A solid negative dipole anomaly.

[TerryM]

If we get another 2007 weather pattern in 2015, we wouldn't come anywhere close to "ice free". 2011 wasn't as bad as 2007's pattern but it was still pretty bad. A solid negative dipole anomaly.

During what period?

BTW in the interest of keeping politics out of the forum I'd respectfully request that you hault the dissemination of stolen E-Mails which have nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

[ORH_wxman]

During what period?

Several periods in the summer.

We had it in June and then again in latter August. Probably some periods in July too. You can see it very easily on the summer composite of the pressure anomalies over the Arctic....high pressure biased toward Greenland and North America side and low pressure Asia side equals -DA...it wasn't as bad as 2007 since the AK/NW Canada area had lower pressure in 2011, but it was still a solid -DA. That type of pattern brings warmer air to the more vulnerable ice on the Asia side.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If we get another 2007 weather pattern in 2015, we wouldn't come anywhere close to "ice free". 2011 wasn't as bad as 2007's pattern but it was still pretty bad. A solid negative dipole anomaly.

I assyme your refering to the exact position of Surface Pressure Anomalies.

NSIDC has a nice graph on wind or ice movement and 2011 and 2007 were not that close.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's not a one way street though. Friv is correct in that warming is induced by a longer period of ice free water. This is a positive feedback loop in action, warming begets less ice which brings about further warming and so on.

Additionally, the ice/open water albedo difference is very important locally, and regionally even if it doesn't add much to the overall global albedo and radiative forcing.

Exactly. We now know the arctic ocean is retaining a lot of heat. Expecially along the rim. Once the sun sets and the ice cover thickens. heat gets trapped under a surface inversion. Comespring this.can aid in earlier and stronger melt

[ORH_wxman]

I assyme your refering to the exact position of Surface Pressure Anomalies.

NSIDC has a nice graph on wind or ice movement and 2011 and 2007 were not that close.

2007 had much stronger compression of the ice on the NA side in their ice movement...but both patterns brought very warm temps to the most vulnerable areas and lack of cloud cover. The Beaufort sea was near normal in temps but the Asian side was pretty warm.

[TerryM]

Several periods in the summer.

We had it in June and then again in latter August. Probably some periods in July too. You can see it very easily on the summer composite of the pressure anomalies over the Arctic....high pressure biased toward Greenland and North America side and low pressure Asia side equals -DA...it wasn't as bad as 2007 since the AK/NW Canada area had lower pressure in 2011, but it was still a solid -DA. That type of pattern brings warmer air to the more vulnerable ice on the Asia side.

I'm very familiar with what a negative DA implies. The fact that pressures were lower on the Canadian side only bolsters my argument that 2011's weather patterns were not comparable to 2007's.

BTW I'd again suggest that purloined correspondence has no place in a forum that professes to discuss science.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm very familiar with what a negative DA implies. The fact that pressures were lower on the Canadian side only bolsters my argument that 2011's weather patterns were not comparable to 2007's.

BTW I'd again suggest that purloined correspondence has no place in a forum that professes to discuss science.

Discussing the lack of scientific conduct from leading authors of climate science is certainly reasonable on this forum...as long as it is sticking to the fundamental points about their lack of scientific method.

As for the ice...so you think the difference between 2007 and 2011 would be like 3.5 million sq km of ice loss? I do not buy that for one second.

[skierinvermont]

It's not a one way street though. Friv is correct in that warming is induced by a longer period of ice free water. This is a positive feedback loop in action, warming begets less ice which brings about further warming and so on.

Additionally, the ice/open water albedo difference is very important locally, and regionally even if it doesn't add much to the overall global albedo and radiative forcing.

Yes the causality works both ways but the primary direction is from warming to less extent. The positive feedback in the opposite direction is of much lesser magnitude.

[skierinvermont]

Skier

I don't think we are too far apart on the facts to date - I'm willing to concede that the 'melt zones' north of Greenland were probably due to piteraq winds and certainly that MYI is no longer much of a deterrence to future melt.

Last summer, with very little advection the ice tied 2007's disastrous minimum extent. My fear is that we will see another 2007 weather pattern develop, and that without MYI anchoring the pack, and with the volume being so much lower than in the past, a flushing/melting combination will occur. Whether this occurs in 2015 or 2030 depends now entirely on the weather.

If we get another 2007 weather pattern in 2015, we wouldn't come anywhere close to "ice free". 2011 wasn't as bad as 2007's pattern but it was still pretty bad. A solid negative dipole anomaly.

Yep the weather in 2011 was bad, but not quite as bad as 2007 as you also say. My guess is with what is clearly much less volume than we had at the start of 2007, a similar weather pattern might produce a minimum in the mid to upper 3s.

[wesleyhtswx]

Nice. I found a site where you can copy the graph,

Where are they getting the pre-1979 data from? There was no reliable satellite data prior to then. That's why the previous posts contain graphs that begin in 1979 or 1980, which is like pointing to a temperature graph starting in 1998 to say there has not been any warming since then. Curious that the 1900-1980 period is flat. Pre-1900 anyone?

[skierinvermont]

Nice. I found a site where you can copy the graph,

Where are they getting the pre-1979 data from? There was no reliable satellite data prior to then. That's why the previous posts contain graphs that begin in 1979 or 1980, which is like pointing to a temperature graph starting in 1998 to say there has not been any warming since then. Curious that the 1900-1980 period is flat. Pre-1900 anyone?

Only the red line, which appears to go back to 1950 or so, is observations. The black line is modeled.

There actually are reasonable estimates of ice back to 1900 from ship data. The data becomes more reliable starting in the 1940s due to more regular aircraft and ship recon.

This data has been meticulously compiled with quantifiable error estimates in several studies. See the Chapman and Walsh study in my recent thread on the topic. Deniers want you to believe that magically we knew absolutely nothing about ice (or pretty much anything else for that matter) starting before 1980, but that simply is not the case.

[tacoman25]

During what period?

BTW in the interest of keeping politics out of the forum I'd respectfully request that you hault the dissemination of stolen E-Mails which have nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

[TerryM]

Discussing the lack of scientific conduct from leading authors of climate science is certainly reasonable on this forum...as long as it is sticking to the fundamental points about their lack of scientific method.

As for the ice...so you think the difference between 2007 and 2011 would be like 3.5 million sq km of ice loss? I do not buy that for one second.

Am I correct in assuming therefor that discussion of the funding of various dissenting voices is also reasonable on this forum... as long as it is sticking to the fundamental points about their lack of 'scientific' integrity?

As for the ice... I totally agree that the difference between 2007 and 2011 would not amount to 3.5 million sq km of ice loss. I'm postulating that the addition of a 2007 weather event to a 2011 baseline might lead us there over a 2 year period.