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

[WeatherRusty]

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

Do you really think that every time the AMO has been positive that the arctic sea ice has melted out like this? If not what is different this time?

[WeatherRusty]

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

How about more than half the summers between 2020 and 2030 to be ice free by late summer? Is that volume trend going to come to a screeching halt?

[dabize]

How about more than half the summers between 2020 and 2030 to be ice free by late summer? Is that volume trend going to come to a screeching halt?

I'd buy that.

The rate of volume loss may not project as extrapolated, but you have to figure that some additional factors being recruited into the equation (e.g. all that methane in the Laptev) might have acceleratory effects on bottom melting rates as well as inhibitory ones.

Seems to me that it is reasonable to guess that summer sea ice is not long for this world in the Arctic - but whether ice free first hits by 2018 or 2025 is really hard for anyone to know

[LithiaWx]

Ice free being consider less than 1,000,000 km2 is a joke. Let's put that number in perspective.

That would be an area the size of the state of Texas and New Mexico combined. That's a lot of ice to be considered ice free.

[ORH_wxman]

How about more than half the summers between 2020 and 2030 to be ice free by late summer? Is that volume trend going to come to a screeching halt?

Yes it pretty much is. Its also modeled volume which is likely overdone on its trend. The remaining ice will be tough to get rid of. We might see more downtrends, but we aren't getting to the point of ice free summers any time soon.

I keep hearing about MY ice declining yet its been going up recently and a peer reviewed paper recently suggested that this shows the ability for the ice to rebound somewhat, even on a decadal scale.

[Vergent]

Ice free being consider less than 1,000,000 km2 is a joke. Let's put that number in perspective.

That would be an area the size of the state of Texas and New Mexico combined. That's a lot of ice to be considered ice free.

1,000,000 km2 of extent could be as little as 150,000 km2 of area or 1% of the winter max. So, you think that melting 99% or so is an unfair standard. Even now with a lower res satellite that counts some land ice as sea ice?

[Jonger]

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?

I'm thinking after 2100 personally. Once the earth warms enough to start melting the antarctic cap then the salinity of the ocean will change and we will see more freezing at the north pole and a return to an ice age. How long will that take?

[The_Global_Warmer]

[/b]

Yes it pretty much is. Its also modeled volume which is likely overdone on its trend. The remaining ice will be tough to get rid of. We might see more downtrends, but we aren't getting to the point of ice free summers any time soon.

I keep hearing about MY ice declining yet its been going up recently and a peer reviewed paper recently suggested that this shows the ability for the ice to rebound somewhat, even on a decadal scale.

Its your opinion that the volume is wrong but you have been shown reports from all over the arctic. that back piomass being pretty close. I dont get why you dismiss this. But used Pips in in the past here. I dont know if piomass is accurate. But in 2011 we had reporys friom everywhere I the arctic which backed piomass.

I suppose that those reports could be wrong. But you also said cryosat2 was pretty accurate.

Which means the amount of ice being melted each year has accelerated at an astonishing rate compared to years past.

What is going to cause the ice decline to stop?

as far as MYI the percentage of oldest ice 4 years and older has continued to plummet.

2-3 year ice has increased percentage wise since the bottom out. But has decreased volume and thickness wise. which is far more important.

Also you wrte the one that taught me how the +AO helps flush MYI. The satelittes tracking it agree and show this fall so far being a major flushing.

I guess we will see. But I see no evidence attm on why 2012 wont see further declines.

If 2012 ends up above 5.0 mil km2 per nsidc on extent I will stop posting here for a year.

[LithiaWx]

1,000,000 km2 of extent could be as little as 150,000 km2 of area or 1% of the winter max. So, you think that melting 99% or so is an unfair standard. Even now with a lower res satellite that counts some land ice as sea ice?

First off how do you get those numbers? Secondly the thread refers to summer ice not winter ice. So to compare the way you just did is distorting the facts quite a bit. The lowest summer extent last summer was around 4,000,000km2. So using your math you think ice free is when we still have 25% of the ice we had up there this past summer right before the ice started to grow again. That's still quite a bit of ice to consider something ice free.

[skierinvermont]

First off how do you get those numbers? Secondly the thread refers to summer ice not winter ice. So to compare the way you just did is distorting the facts quite a bit. The lowest summer extent last summer was around 4,000,000km2. So using your math you think ice free is when we still have 25% of the ice we had up there this past summer right before the ice started to grow again. That's still quite a bit of ice to consider something ice free.

The lowest extent was 4.5 not 4.0. Second of all, that's already barely more than half of the historical norm.

A summer min of less than 1,000,000 would be less than 12% of the historical norm. Not ice free really, but pretty close. I think the 1,000,000 threshold has some significance because it's probably easier to predict than when every last ice cube melts. You're always going to have glacial discharge and ice shelves in summer no matter how warm it gets (well at least until Greenland and the rest of the arctic glaciers melt).

[Vergent]

[/b]

Yes it pretty much is. Its also modeled volume which is likely overdone on its trend. The remaining ice will be tough to get rid of. We might see more downtrends, but we aren't getting to the point of ice free summers any time soon.

I keep hearing about MY ice declining yet its been going up recently and a peer reviewed paper recently suggested that this shows the ability for the ice to rebound somewhat, even on a decadal scale.

This is what your MY ice looked like in September. less than a meter thick and riddled with melt ponds. Melt ponds did not usually form this far north in the past. Until the melt ponds refreeze the ice stays at 0.0C. The bottom melts at -1.5C. So thinning continues until the melt ponds are frozen. This can take up to three months depending on snow cover. This leaves a much shorter season where ice can form.

The melt ponds formed around July 1. so they missed the June insolation.

What would happen if the melt ponds form in mid June? The low albedo melt ponds would be exposed to 550 watts / M^2 24/7 for two weeks. This would be open water. So we are only two weeks of melt pond formation from open water at the pole. With a spike in methane up North, How much earlier could melt ponds form? We will see.

[LithiaWx]

The lowest extent was 4.5 not 4.0. Second of all, that's already barely more than half of the historical norm.

A summer min of less than 1,000,000 would be less than 12% of the historical norm. Not ice free really, but pretty close. I think the 1,000,000 threshold has some significance because it's probably easier to predict than when every last ice cube melts. You're always going to have glacial discharge and ice shelves in summer no matter how warm it gets (well at least until Greenland and the rest of the arctic glaciers melt).

and there you have it. I still think your 12% number is a bit low but whatever.

Also :

Thread Title

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

Poll Title

When will the arctic be ice free in summer(Less than 1.0Mkm^2)?

Two completely different things.

[Vergent]

First off how do you get those numbers? Secondly the thread refers to summer ice not winter ice. So to compare the way you just did is distorting the facts quite a bit. The lowest summer extent last summer was around 4,000,000km2. So using your math you think ice free is when we still have 25% of the ice we had up there this past summer right before the ice started to grow again. That's still quite a bit of ice to consider something ice free.

First the ice "extent" is the sea area covered by a 15% concentration of ice or more. so 1,000,000 km2 of sea covered uniformly by ice chunks and slush with an area of 150,000 km2 would be 1,000,000 km2 of extent. As we saw this summer, as the ice melts back, it spreads out. Because of this, it is certain that if the ice extent gets down to 1,000,000, the concentration will be low.

The bottom right is what 1,000,000 km2 looks like

http://www.scienceda...90402143752.htm

The 1,000,000 km2 number has been in used as the definition of "ice free arctic ocean" for years. So, this whole discussion is kind of like howling at the moon.

[skierinvermont]

Yes that is another reason why the 1,000,000 standard is used - even if there is 1,000,000 in 'extent' a lot of it will just be chunks of ice floating around at barely >15% concentration. For all practical purposes, 1,000,000 sq km of extent is an ice free arctic.

[PhillipS]

First off how do you get those numbers? Secondly the thread refers to summer ice not winter ice. So to compare the way you just did is distorting the facts quite a bit. The lowest summer extent last summer was around 4,000,000km2. So using your math you think ice free is when we still have 25% of the ice we had up there this past summer right before the ice started to grow again. That's still quite a bit of ice to consider something ice free.

Do you understand the difference between the sea ice area and sea ice extent values? The sea ice area value is the value derived from satellite observations for ocean with 100% ice coverage. The sea ice extent value, also derived from satellite observations, is ocean with at least 15% sea ice coverage. So, in theory, 1 km2 of ice could break up and be reported as 6 km2 of ice extent. Which is where the figure that 1,000,000 km2 of ice extent could be as little as 150,000 km2 of ice area.

I don't know of anyone saying that every last bit of sea ice in the arctic is going to melt in summertime in the near future. There are too many sheltered coves, remnants of MYI, and calving glaciers to completely eliminate every trace of floating ice. And the satellites have limited resolution so there are errors and uncertainties in the reported values.. So the question becomes what value of sea ice extent will indicate that the arctic is essentially ice free? I suspect the value of less than 1M km2 meaning an ice free arctic was arbitrarily chosen because it's a nice, round number. And it is so far below historic lows that reaching it would indicate major changes to the seasonal melt patterns.

Clearly you don't like that number, so what value do you feel would be more appropriate?

Oops - sorry, didn't mean to be piling on.

[dabize]

[/b] Yes it pretty much is. Its also modeled volume which is likely overdone on its trend. The remaining ice will be tough to get rid of. We might see more downtrends, but we aren't getting to the point of ice free summers any time soon.

I don't understand where this certainty comes from, unless it is code for "Magister dixit"

We are learning more and more about the recruitment of potential positive feedback loops that might drive an acceleration of ongoing Arctic temperature rise (e.g. thermokarst formation, tundra fires, CH4 plumes). These have been largely unmodeled, and hence would suggest that episodic ice free conditions will occur sooner (possibly much sooner) than models predict (i.e. around 2040 or so).

There is precious little indication of new, unmodeled elements favoring NEGATIVE feedback, yet your certainty seems to be based on the existence of such things. What are they? Do you seriously think that the presence of current levels of MY ice is going to prevent melting to below 1 million km?

Nobody is arguing that the Arctic will be ice free in the winter anytime soon, or even for most of the summer, or even ice free in September every year, or even ABSOLUTELY ice free in ANY September.

[Peter M]

This is possible- an ice free arctic by late summer 2015 (at least 80% gone) I prefer to go along with 2016-2020. The arctic is warming quicker then lower latitudes now with the warming of 365ppm (the actual amount 20 years ago) the 'thermal inertia' 395ppm will not be 'seen' for 2 decades- but by then the actual C02 will be near 450ppm.

This amount of melt is similar to actual C02 levels in the Mid Pliocene (360-380ppm) when the arctic was ice free many months in the summer.

[ORH_wxman]

I don't understand where this certainty comes from, unless it is code for "Magister dixit"

We are learning more and more about the recruitment of potential positive feedback loops that might drive an acceleration of ongoing Arctic temperature rise (e.g. thermokarst formation, tundra fires, CH4 plumes). These have been largely unmodeled, and hence would suggest that episodic ice free conditions will occur sooner (possibly much sooner) than models predict (i.e. around 2040 or so).

There is precious little indication of new, unmodeled elements favoring NEGATIVE feedback, yet your certainty seems to be based on the existence of such things. What are they? Do you seriously think that the presence of current levels of MY ice is going to prevent melting to below 1 million km?

Nobody is arguing that the Arctic will be ice free in the winter anytime soon, or even for most of the summer, or even ice free in September every year, or even ABSOLUTELY ice free in ANY September.

Arguing 1 million sq km minimum in 3 years is still pretty ridiculous IMHO. Lets see, we haven't even had a min below 4 million sq km yet and all of the sudden we're going to lose more than 3 million sq km off the lowest mins in the last 4 years by 2015?

Sorry, I don't buy it. There is a lot of natural variability still in the sea ice on a year to year basis...and decadal natural variability as well. Even if the sea ice continued spiraling down with zero bump back up in any of the next 3-4 seasons, its unlikely we'd come all that close to 1 million sq km minimums that soon.

[Vergent]

Arguing 1 million sq km minimum in 3 years is still pretty ridiculous IMHO. Lets see, we haven't even had a min below 4 million sq km yet and all of the sudden we're going to lose more than 3 million sq km off the lowest mins in the last 4 years by 2015?

Sorry, I don't buy it. There is a lot of natural variability still in the sea ice on a year to year basis...and decadal natural variability as well. Even if the sea ice continued spiraling down with zero bump back up in any of the next 3-4 seasons, its unlikely we'd come all that close to 1 million sq km minimums that soon.

Lets see, this year, the spring melt started 30 days late and stopped a good ten days early in a la nina year. In spite of this we tied the record low for extent and area and set a record low for volume. What happens when we have el nino, forty more days of melting, and elevated methane in the arctic? If we have a 2,500 km^3 loss like in 2007 and 2010, that will take us down to 1,800 km^3. Essentially, the ice shelves plus some slush.

[ORH_wxman]

Lets see, this year, the spring melt started 30 days late and stopped a good ten days early in a la nina year. In spite of this we tied the record low for extent and area and set a record low for volume. What happens when we have el nino, forty more days of melting, and elevated methane in the arctic? If we have a 2,500 km^3 loss like in 2007 and 2010, that will take us down to 1,800 km^3. Essentially, the ice shelves plus some slush.

Well it won't take very long for us to see, will it?

I don't buy anything remotely close to 1 million sq km in 2015.

[Vergent]

Well it won't take very long for us to see, will it?

I don't buy anything remotely close to 1 million sq km in 2015.

Why do you think your unsupported opinion is worthy of so many re-postings? Last winter you were off by 5,000,000,000 square telephone poles.

http://www.americanw...m/page__st__140

[LakeEffectKing]

Why do you think your unsupported opinion is worthy of so many re-postings? Last winter you were off by 5,000,000,000 square telephone poles.

http://www.americanw...m/page__st__140

You get 'em Verg!!!!!

[LithiaWx]

Why do you think your unsupported opinion is worthy of so many re-postings? Last winter you were off by 5,000,000,000 square telephone poles.

http://www.americanw...m/page__st__140

so now it's 5 billion? When you first made the post it was only 50 million.... nice ninja edit, I see you are good at that. Just like the post you made in rebuttal to one of mine a few days ago, which I did not respond to just for me to return to a completely different message days later. Stay classy.

[Alpha5]

Why do you think your unsupported opinion is worthy of so many re-postings? Last winter you were off by 5,000,000,000 square telephone poles.

http://www.americanw...m/page__st__140

Honestly, you need to calm down. Its freaking sea ice

[Vergent]

so now it's 5 billion? When you first made the post it was only 50 million.... nice ninja edit, I see you are good at that. Just like the post you made in rebuttal to one of mine a few days ago, which I did not respond to just for me to return to a completely different message days later. Stay classy.

I goofed the math, of course I'll correct my own mistakes, when I catch them. 100 telephone poles to the Km, 10,000 square telephone poles to the km^2, 500,000 km^2 = 5,000,000,000 square telephone poles. It was 6am here(had to take my daughter to the airport).

[The_Global_Warmer]

Talk about the pot and kettle and color black meeting up once again. vergent posts some childish stuff from time to time. But all of you have been let off the hook after much worse mean spirited posts here.

on the actual topic. I agree with ORH that 2015 is out of reach. Statistically speaking its not.

I would think by now after what we have seen and learned here about the sea ice that more people would be more open about steeper Ice loses.

after at least 50 years of declining ice I guess its going to stop now when the arctic is warmer than ever.

P

I will go on record right now saying a 2011 repeat will push the min down to 3,850,000km2.

A 2007 repeat will push it to 3,000,000km2.

that might leave some wiggle room for a melt out by 2018.

But I would to hear some science as to going to stop the Ice loss to prevent an ice free summer before 2020

[Vergent]

If everyone has had their say, I am quite willing to have this thread sink into oblivion(at least until the arctic is down to 10,000,000,000 square telephone poles, or if my opinion of 2013 passes without doing so; bring it back and give me a well deserved razzing). I just didn't want it to go with a negative unsupported opinion as a tag line.

[Vergent]

Talk about the pot and kettle and color black meeting up once again. vergent posts some childish stuff from time to time. But all of you have been let off the hook after much worse mean spirited posts here.

on the actual topic. I agree with ORH that 2015 is out of reach. Statistically speaking its not.

I would think by now after what we have seen and learned here about the sea ice that more people would be more open about steeper Ice loses.

after at least 50 years of declining ice I guess its going to stop now when the arctic is warmer than ever.

P

I will go on record right now saying a 2011 repeat will push the min down to 3,850,000km2.

A 2007 repeat will push it to 3,000,000km2.

that might leave some wiggle room for a melt out by 2018.

But I would to hear some science as to going to stop the Ice loss to prevent an ice free summer before 2020

A 2007 or 2010 repeat will take us down to 1,800 km^3 if it is spread out over 3,000,000 km^ it will average 60cm thick.

It would all look like this:

Are you really saying that next year you could see this at the pole and along the CA and Greenland, and hold the opinion that it was going to stick around for at least 3 more years?

[skierinvermont]

Why do you think your unsupported opinion is worthy of so many re-postings? Last winter you were off by 5,000,000,000 square telephone poles.

http://www.americanw...m/page__st__140

Lot of people have given you many good reasons and supporting peer-reviewed literature why there is basically no chance of 1 million sq km or less in 2015. You've just ignored them.

[The_Global_Warmer]

A 2007 or 2010 repeat will take us down to 1,800 km^3 if it is spread out over 3,000,000 km^ it will average 60cm thick.

It would all look like this:

Are you really saying that next year you could see this at the pole and along the CA and Greenland, and hold the opinion that it was going to stick around for at least 3 more years?

Much more likely along the pole.

Problem is time. We are nearing optimal thickness for a slowdown at the.current rate of melt season.

We need less clouds or longer melt seasons to melt the inner core completely.