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

[skierinvermont]

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.

I'm not quite sure what distinction you're making in the last sentence, but put it this way, if we had a 2007 weather pattern next year I would guess that the minimum would be in the mid to upper 3s. Would you agree with that or are you saying it would be in the 0s?

[dabize]

I'm not quite sure what distinction you're making in the last sentence, but put it this way, if we had a 2007 weather pattern next year I would guess that the minimum would be in the mid to upper 3s. Would you agree with that or are you saying it would be in the 0s?

It seems to me that he is saying something like 1/3- 1/2 or so of the way between this year's minimum and something negligable (under 1?).

When I plug that in, I get something like 3-3.5

I really don't think you are very far apart.

As for me, I'd like to agree with you, but fear that it's worse than that because too many variables seem to be going to pot at once.

Not entirely rational, but possibly sensible in such a high uncertainty environment.

As you say, though, we'll know soon enough.

[The_Global_Warmer]

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.

I agree with that. I also agree that a 2007 pattern wouldn't send us near the 1 mil km2 for an ice free summer. But I think a 2007 now would drop things down into the 3.0 to 3.8km2 range in millions.

The thinner ice has been shown to move faster and would compact together better.

The thing I worry about is the feedback:

I realize part of that is the pattern but part is the the already warmer environment causing this kind of positive feedback well into the fall and into the winter.

[TerryM]

It seems to me that he is saying something like 1/3- 1/2 or so of the way between this year's minimum and something negligable (under 1?).

When I plug that in, I get something like 3-3.5

I really don't think you are very far apart.

As for me, I'd like to agree with you, but fear that it's worse than that because too many variables seem to be going to pot at once.

Not entirely rational, but possibly sensible in such a high uncertainty environment.

As you say, though, we'll know soon enough.

Suppose I should have been more explicit. In 2007 ice compaction never occurred in Nares Strait, in 2011 Nares didn't open until July 5th - and was relatively sluggish through the summer. Fram Strait also experienced reduced advection - yet in spite of this ice coverage by most metrics dropped to 2007 levels.

If ice movement patterns similar to 2007 (Strong Beauford Gyre, high advection through Nares and Fram Straits) occurred in conjunction with 2011's extreme in situ melting, probably caused by high insolation and low ice volume, then we could have a problem.

Personally I think an ice free summer is likely to occur between 2016 and 2040, but I also believe that even a short summer period of an ice free arctic while insolation is still high will have disastrous consequences, not just because of the albido effect, but also because so much more water will not be going through the change of phase that soaks up 144 BTU/lb. The change of phase problem is of course related only to volume, not extent, but my assumption is that when extent drops below 1 million square kilometers remaining volume will be exceedingly low.

Come winter ice will certainly refreeze - but the period between final melt and initial freeze, when the 'Arctic Thermostat' is temporarily broken could cause some very interesting weather patterns.

[PhillipS]

Suppose I should have been more explicit. In 2007 ice compaction never occurred in Nares Strait, in 2011 Nares didn't open until July 5th - and was relatively sluggish through the summer. Fram Strait also experienced reduced advection - yet in spite of this ice coverage by most metrics dropped to 2007 levels.

Terry, I apologize if I'm nitpicking, but did you mean 2011?

[TerryM]

Terry, I apologize if I'm nitpicking, but did you mean 2011?

No - Nares remained open in 2007 - one of the more glaring differences between the years. In late June of 2011 ice was actually moving northward in the Kennedy Channel and I believe relatively warm waters from the Baffin Basin were actually moving into the Lincoln Sea. The latter is not established and is only my interpretation of what was occurring under the ice.

[skierinvermont]

Suppose I should have been more explicit. In 2007 ice compaction never occurred in Nares Strait, in 2011 Nares didn't open until July 5th - and was relatively sluggish through the summer. Fram Strait also experienced reduced advection - yet in spite of this ice coverage by most metrics dropped to 2007 levels.

If ice movement patterns similar to 2007 (Strong Beauford Gyre, high advection through Nares and Fram Straits) occurred in conjunction with 2011's extreme in situ melting, probably caused by high insolation and low ice volume, then we could have a problem.

Personally I think an ice free summer is likely to occur between 2016 and 2040, but I also believe that even a short summer period of an ice free arctic while insolation is still high will have disastrous consequences, not just because of the albido effect, but also because so much more water will not be going through the change of phase that soaks up 144 BTU/lb. The change of phase problem is of course related only to volume, not extent, but my assumption is that when extent drops below 1 million square kilometers remaining volume will be exceedingly low.

Come winter ice will certainly refreeze - but the period between final melt and initial freeze, when the 'Arctic Thermostat' is temporarily broken could cause some very interesting weather patterns.

If you are saying less volume was advected out the Fram in 2011 than 2007 that is probably mostly or entirely a reflection of the fact that there is much less thickness and therefore volume to advect in the first place. Not that the weather pattern was much better.

Moreover, I do not believe that summertime advection out of the Fram is a primary determinant of the summertime extent in the arctic as a whole.

[TerryM]

PhillipS

Sorry if the above sounded curt, no offence intended.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/06/2011-nares-strait-animation.html

Shows the opening of Nares in 2011, and some of the discussion about the event.

[TerryM]

If you are saying less volume was advected out the Fram in 2011 than 2007 that is probably mostly or entirely a reflection of the fact that there is much less thickness and therefore volume to advect in the first place. Not that the weather pattern was much better.

Moreover, I do not believe that summertime advection out of the Fram is a primary determinant of the summertime extent in the arctic as a whole.

It certainly wasn't last year.

I believe that at one point prior to 2011 Nares alone was estimated to be removing about 10% of the advected ice. this was seen as significant at the time but it certainly did not happen in 2011. If you look at any of the animations of Nare (I don't have a URL handy) the difference in flow rate is astonishing. Advection I believe was the primary driver in 2007, not in 2011 where the ice simply melted away. I would have expected thinner ice to be more mobile, and thus more easily transported southward, but it didn't happen. - shows how accurate my projections are.

[tacoman25]

It seems to me that he is saying something like 1/3- 1/2 or so of the way between this year's minimum and something negligable (under 1?).

When I plug that in, I get something like 3-3.5

I really don't think you are very far apart.

As for me, I'd like to agree with you, but fear that it's worse than that because too many variables seem to be going to pot at once.

Not entirely rational, but possibly sensible in such a high uncertainty environment.

As you say, though, we'll know soon enough.

No offense, but I think this is the kind of attitude that is often adopted by those who get caught up in the AGW hype. And to be fair, I have seen a lot of this in the global cooling camp as well (low solar activity, big drop in global temps in 2008 due to La Nina, and all of the sudden all sorts of crazy predictions were coming out). You start to hear about all these factors that seem to be pointing a certain way, things start to build momentum and feed off each other in your mind, and the worst/extreme is assumed.

I guess it's human nature to a certain extent, and you are correct that it is not entirely rational.

[Cheeznado]

New paper in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

[dabize]

No offense, but I think this is the kind of attitude that is often adopted by those who get caught up in the AGW hype. And to be fair, I have seen a lot of this in the global cooling camp as well (low solar activity, big drop in global temps in 2008 due to La Nina, and all of the sudden all sorts of crazy predictions were coming out). You start to hear about all these factors that seem to be pointing a certain way, things start to build momentum and feed off each other in your mind, and the worst/extreme is assumed.

I guess it's human nature to a certain extent, and you are correct that it is not entirely rational.

Apparently showing a little honesty is poorly tolerated here

I was talking about my concerns about the loss of sea ice in a specific context, where I clearly do not know enough to make an accurate prediction of events. It was my intuition here about the specific result that I was admitting was a bit irrational.

Concern about multiple large scale factors trending the same way is the only rational way to respond to an issue such as climate change. Ignoring the obvious possibility of disaster is foolish. The burden becomes one of ensuring that the disaster does not happen.

This is similar to the standard response to a terrorism threat......maybe that can speak to the right-wing mindset that likes to discount AGW.

BTW, perhaps this link should be required reading for participants here - it describes the history of the science of climate modeling with respect to stability. I found it very readable and it is fully linked. I liked particularly the essay on earlier models (Ewing-Donn etc.) and how they helped to build the modern view of climate.

Overall, the history is charitable to a skeptical view of individual climate models, but it also makes clear why we should be concerned about the larger picture that has emerged with time.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

[WeatherRusty]

There is not a single point made in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that I can recall which will not come to pass eventually if global temp rises several more degrees. Each and every one of them has happened in the past or represented a feature of climate when temps were last as high as potentially will be the case over the upcoming centuries. This includes the loss of much of the Greenland ice sheet and likely all summertime arctic sea ice. The Antarctic ice cap would persist however.

[dabize]

There is not a single point made in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that I can recall which will not come to pass eventually if global temp rises several more degrees. Each and every one of them has happened in the past or represented a feature of climate when temps were last as high as potentially will be the case over the upcoming centuries. This includes the loss of much of the Greenland ice sheet and likely all summertime arctic sea ice. The Antarctic ice cap would persist however.

It cerrtainly seems to be inconvenient enough for the oil/gas plutocrats.

Consider how hard some people have been working (here and elsewhere) to blunt Gore's message using a relentlessly ad hominem attack directed essentially at his innate uncoolness (to some), as opposed to what he is actually saying. It's as if we were watching Maureen Dowd pretending to be a scientist.

Again, I draw attention to this admirable compendium of basic science/historical information on the subject.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#SEI

It is impossible to "prove" that AGW is driving our climate toward disaster in any conventional sense, because of the limitations of experimental design. However, the circumstantial case for the general outcome (i.e. hot, bad and expensive) has become so strong that being "skeptical" enough to argue for "wait and see" is becoming reprehensible as well as unscientific.

[Vergent]

In light of the recent methane release in the arctic does anyone want to change their vote? I'm feeling lonely.

[LithiaWx]

In light of the recent methane release in the arctic does anyone want to change their vote? I'm feeling lonely.

Do you really think the arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2013?

[Vergent]

I am not sure if you are making a joke about extrapolating the current trends showing the possible melt off by 2015 or if your saying it is just absurd for it to happen.

I struggle with accepting this possibility but the only preventive measure I can conjure up is that the current rate of melt can not feedback much further without a substantial increase in GHGs.

Or that is wrong and the ice will simply melt out earilier and earlier and be thinner and thinner allowing for more and more solar insolation over a larger area.

However going by volume the ice is toast in a couple years if it has anymore large drops...

Is 80Gton of methane substantial?

[Vergent]

Do you really think the arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2013?

I will be pleasantly surprised if we still have an arctic ice cap Sep. 2015.

[LithiaWx]

I have a question. Who decided that an ice free arctic is considered less than 1,000,000 km2? It seems kind of ridiculous that what is considered ice free still has some ice.

[Vergent]

I have a question. Who decided that an ice free arctic is considered less than 1,000,000 km2? It seems kind of ridiculous that what is considered ice free still has some ice.

Probably the same person that decided that 0.15 km^2 of ice is 1.0 km^2 of extent. I suppose it is because of the ice shelves and ice bergs calved off glaciers combined with the definition of extent. Basically, its putting a number on "an arctic ocean free of sea ice."

[NittanyWx]

I will be pleasantly surprised if we still have an arctic ice cap Sep. 2015.

How much are you willing to wager?

[Vergent]

How much are you willing to wager?

I am quite certain that I will be pleasantly surprised if ice cap remains Sep., 2015. If you think otherwise, how much do you want to loose?

[tacoman25]

In light of the recent methane release in the arctic does anyone want to change their vote? I'm feeling lonely.

What exactly makes you think the recent methane release, much of which is still unknown, will cause the Arctic to melt out so soon? Where is the science here? I thought there was no such thing as alarmism, just citizens concerned about the science?

[Vergent]

What exactly makes you think the recent methane release, much of which is still unknown, will cause the Arctic to melt out so soon? Where is the science here? I thought there was no such thing as alarmism, just citizens concerned about the science?

In my view, the volume or mass is the measure of the ice. You do not go to the ice house and buy a square meter of ice. In the last 5 years we have lost 5,000 km^3. There was only 4,000 km^3 left in September. Albedo feedback is a powerful forcing element that should take over soon. The methane is a much weaker forcing element but it is in the same direction.

Why did I pick 2013 in the poll? For the same reason the national hurricane center warned of a possible cat 5 hurricane strike last summer. You warn of the worst reasonable risk, usually 1 standard deviation, thus 2013. I know that there is a 95% chance that I will be wrong. 2015 would be a coin toss. 2017 is a Shack slam dunk.

[CoastalWx]

EZ money to take the over.

[wokeupthisam]

In my view, the volume or mass is the measure of the ice. You do not go to the ice house and buy a square meter of ice. In the last 5 years we have lost 5,000 km^3. There was only 4,000 km^3 left in September. Albedo feedback is a powerful forcing element that should take over soon. The methane is a much weaker forcing element but it is in the same direction.

Why did I pick 2013 in the poll? For the same reason the national hurricane center warned of a possible cat 5 hurricane strike last summer. You warn of the worst reasonable risk, usually 1 standard deviation, thus 2013. I know that there is a 95% chance that I will be wrong. 2015 would be a coin toss. 2017 is a Shack slam dunk.

EZ money to take the over.

Exactly, put me down for the over. I wonder what that chart would have looked like had the projection been done in late 1981?

[ORH_wxman]

In my view, the volume or mass is the measure of the ice. You do not go to the ice house and buy a square meter of ice. In the last 5 years we have lost 5,000 km^3. There was only 4,000 km^3 left in September. Albedo feedback is a powerful forcing element that should take over soon. The methane is a much weaker forcing element but it is in the same direction.

Why did I pick 2013 in the poll? For the same reason the national hurricane center warned of a possible cat 5 hurricane strike last summer. You warn of the worst reasonable risk, usually 1 standard deviation, thus 2013. I know that there is a 95% chance that I will be wrong. 2015 would be a coin toss. 2017 is a Shack slam dunk.

2017 a slam dunk to have no ice left in the summer? I'd take that bet any day.

[CoastalWx]

LOL, how quickly we forget with a raging +AMO.

[The_Global_Warmer]

LOL, how quickly we forget with a raging +AMO.

We have quickly forgotten something not real.

2010 was a big one. The rest of the years were not.

I also find it highly fascinating how the AMO peaks in late summer then falls off. That would surely indicate direct relations to solar forcing but what do I know.

When looking at the long term data this feature becomes more stout as time goes on.

I would Also consider the last 3 months has seen a raging AO and MYI bit the dust in grand fashion. This has been a major talking point as for as the main demise of arctic sea ice that has been largely ignored this fall while the data we have shows MYI moving hundreds of mile towards and out the Fram at will.

The MYI line is bisecting the NP with almost none left on the Russian side. Which has Also been way above normal temp wise. While the Hudson freezes over early the arctic has been hit with another major blow.

2015 seems to soon. But on the other hand many in this thread 5 years ago would have never expected 07-11 to have two years reach below 4.5 mil km2, and 2.9 km2 or to see the volume keep plummeting.

Are we feeling a little of this can't really get Amy worse this fast can it?

By no means is a fall/winter of MYI being crippled by winds again a sure bet to more ice declines. We are going to enter 2012 spring with the methane rich side of the arctic nearly 100% FYI that won't be over 2M thick nearly anywhere with most of it around 1.5M if that.

I will give it one more summer before making any off the cuff predictions. But when you Break this down the science reasons for any slow down start to dwindle.

One things for sure a 2007 Like year wind wise and it will be one hell of a summer on here. The methane rich side will see record warm water probably by quite a bit wide spread.

We could really use some magic cooling to take place next summer

[WeatherRusty]

Exactly, put me down for the over. I wonder what that chart would have looked like had the projection been done in late 1981?

Skepticism is one thing, but why is that every morsel of evidence put forth by the side of science is treated as garbage by the opponents of the science?

The chart would represent the same data up until 1981 as it does here, but we have another 30 years of the same general trend since 1981 tacked on with zero volume only a few years away at the same trend rate.