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

[TerryM]

Following graph shows how last years melt season was curtailed by inclement weather.

Can we expect similar events in the future, or was this a singularity?

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b014e8b04ee38970d-pi

[PhillipS]

Following graph shows how last years melt season was curtailed by inclement weather.

Can we expect similar events in the future, or was this a singularity?

http://neven1.typepa...8b04ee38970d-pi

That is a fascinating chart - though I confess I had to study it a while to really understand it. Did you put it together? It's a good (though sobering) way of visualizing how much the arctic has changed since satellite records began in 1979.

How anybody can look at that and not be concerned is beyond me.

[TerryM]

That is a fascinating chart - though I confess I had to study it a while to really understand it. Did you put it together? It's a good (though sobering) way of visualizing how much the arctic has changed since satellite records began in 1979.

How anybody can look at that and not be concerned is beyond me.

Wish I could take the credit - SekeRob posts over at Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog and is responsible for some great, and unusual graphs.

This is one of my favorites as it highlights the full spectrum of the melt cycle.

[Vergent]

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.

Again, I thank TerryM for posting a link to this graph.

This is a graph of seventeen arctic models vs reality.

"One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is not the same."

All of these models have peer reviewed publications about them, all would conclude that a melt down will not happen till late in this century, if at all.

There is one problem; They all have been invalidated by observation.

It is clear that all these models overestimate negative feedback and underestimate positive feedback.

Curve fitting is a valid form of modeling when you do not know all the physical elements. This is how Newton discovered the law of gravity. The curve with the tightest deviation envelope is the "best curve". With the law of gravity the deviation vanished to zero. This is the best curve for the arctic ice volume. It fits observational reality much better than the models above. They all have huge deviations with regard to observation.

I am not the one who is ignoring reality here.

[turtlehurricane]

Just cause you fit a curve to data doesn't mean it's gonna actually happen that way.

[Vergent]

The PIOMAS and PIOMAS-2 models starts with a linear assumption.

" The long term trend is reduced to about -2.8 10³ km³/decade from -3.6 km³ 10³/decade in the last version. Our comparisons with data and alternate model runs indicate that this new trend is a conservative estimate of the actual trend."

If average weather is assumed PIOMAS loss would be linear; 3,600 km^3 per decade and PIOMAS-2, 2,800 km^3. PIOMAS is also forced by observation. It is the observations that are making the graph curve down, and point to 2015.

[Vergent]

Just cause you fit a curve to data doesn't mean it's gonna actually happen that way.

Based on past observed variations, there is a 95% chance that we will have an ice free arctic by 2018, a 50% chance by 2015, and a 5% chance by 2013. Yes there is a 5% chance that it will be ice free in 2012. There is also a 5% chance it will survive 2018. That is what the statistics say. Your point being?

[LithiaWx]

Based on past observed variations, there is a 95% chance that we will have an ice free arctic by 2018, a 50% chance by 2015, and a 5% chance by 2013. Yes there is a 5% chance that it will be ice free in 2012. There is also a 5% chance it will survive 2018. That is what the statistics say. Your point being?

I'm nominating you for weenie of the year for the climate change forum.

[Vergent]

Statistically, I find it astounding that no one picked 2015 in the poll. Based on the data this is the most probable date. I guess you are either an optimist or a pessimist.

[Vergent]

I'm nominating you for weenie of the year for the climate change forum.

Actually I think you just nominated yourself for that prize.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'm nominating you for weenie of the year for the climate change forum.

he is backing his thoughts and claims with data and statistical analysis.

Whether he is right or wrong remains to be seen.

Youve come here and made stuff up time and time again...

you could have ignored him. Instead you troll him when he is backing his ideas with data and using the peer reviewed science to argue his points.

I wont list the handful of things you have done here that you the award with no questions asked.

I just dont see why you just dont use the Data and science at your disposil to refute his ideas if you think its junk. I eargerly await what you have

[LithiaWx]

he is backing his thoughts and claims with data and statistical analysis.

Whether he is right or wrong remains to be seen.

Youve come here and made stuff up time and time again...

you could have ignored him. Instead you troll him when he is backing his ideas with data and using the peer reviewed science to argue his points.

I wont list the handful of things you have done here that you the award with no questions asked.

I just dont see why you just dont use the Data and science at your disposil to refute his ideas if you think its junk. I eargerly await what you have

Don't worry Friv I nominated you too...

And for my rebuttal I agree with Skier, shocker I know but he has this one pegged. The more I see Skier post the more he strikes me as one of the more grounded folks and one of the smartest posters on your "side", he also doesn't agree with Vergent. Vergent is on a lonely island with this one Friv.

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.

[turtlehurricane]

Based on past observed variations, there is a 95% chance that we will have an ice free arctic by 2018, a 50% chance by 2015, and a 5% chance by 2013. Yes there is a 5% chance that it will be ice free in 2012. There is also a 5% chance it will survive 2018. That is what the statistics say. Your point being?

ASSUMING that the sea ice will actually follow the best fit, which is unlikely. Sea ice extent is a very complex problem with multiple nonlinear forcers, and honestly it's quite arrogant of you to do a best fit to some data and act like it's a credible forecast.

Also, you'd be far better off analyzing all the data, not the one part of the year that's shown the most extreme trends. You can see alot more is going on than catastrophic melt in this data set: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

[ORH_wxman]

Using that trend on modeled volume to predict min september sea ice extent is akin to predicting global temps will rise 2C by 2020 based on the 2008-2010 temperature change.

Trend fitting is dangerous to begin with and then when you are using a model that measures something different than the variable we are actually debating, its even more shoddy.

[Vergent]

"The accelerating rate of decline of ice volume may be a more accurate indicator than the rate of decline of ice extent when attempting to predict the time horizon for an ice-free Arctic Ocean. Ice volume data helps to put the recovery of sea ice extent since the 2007 minimum into perspective. Sea ice volume continues to decline rapidly and has occurred at an exponential rate since 1979 according to the PIOMAS graphic to the right. If this trend persists over the coming years we could experience an ice free Arctic Ocean by the summer of 2015."

http://www.thearctic...arctic-sea.html

I seem to have respected company.

There are two processes at work; Edge melt, and thickness melt. To date edge melt is the dominant force with respect to the ice extent. If we extrapolate the extent and volume curves to 2015, we get 3-4,000,000 km^2 of extent with zero thickness. What does that mean?

Most people here are total fixated on edge melt and extent. This is because they have studied them extensively. You are ignoring the thickness losses. Ice that was 3-4m thick is now 0.9m thick if the trend continues, in 2015 it will be 0m thick.

[Vergent]

Using that trend on modeled volume to predict min september sea ice extent is akin to predicting global temps will rise 2C by 2020 based on the 2008-2010 temperature change.

Trend fitting is dangerous to begin with and then when you are using a model that measures something different than the variable we are actually debating, its even more shoddy.

ORH_wxman math:

2 = 30

Are you really comparing a 30+ year trend with a narrow standard deviation to a two year trend with a broad one?

Very informative, about your understanding of statistics.

So what you are saying is that 3,000,000 km^2 of extent still exists when it has zero thickness?

[turtlehurricane]

"The accelerating rate of decline of ice volume may be a more accurate indicator than the rate of decline of ice extent when attempting to predict the time horizon for an ice-free Arctic Ocean. Ice volume data helps to put the recovery of sea ice extent since the 2007 minimum into perspective. Sea ice volume continues to decline rapidly and has occurred at an exponential rate since 1979 according to the PIOMAS graphic to the right. If this trend persists over the coming years we could experience an ice free Arctic Ocean by the summer of 2015."

http://www.thearctic...arctic-sea.html

I seem to have respected company.

There are two processes at work; Edge melt, and thickness melt. To date edge melt is the dominant force with respect to the ice extent. If we extrapolate the extent and volume curves to 2015, we get 3-4,000,000 km^2 of extent with zero thickness. What does that mean?

Most people here are total fixated on edge melt and extent. This is because they have studied them extensively. You are ignoring the thickness losses. Ice that was 3-4m thick is now 0.9m thick if the trend continues, in 2015 it will be 0m thick.

This is like talking to a brick wall, I'm done.

[Vergent]

ASSUMING that the sea ice will actually follow the best fit, which is unlikely. Sea ice extent is a very complex problem with multiple nonlinear forcers, and honestly it's quite arrogant of you to do a best fit to some data and act like it's a credible forecast.

Also, you'd be far better off analyzing all the data, not the one part of the year that's shown the most extreme trends. You can see alot more is going on than catastrophic melt in this data set: http://arctic.atmos.....timeseries.jpg

Typical, tell me I'm ignoring data and point me to a graph of area anomaly that ignores thickness. That was very helpful. Please take your own advice.

[Vergent]

ASSUMING that the sea ice will actually follow the best fit, which is unlikely. Sea ice extent is a very complex problem with multiple nonlinear forcers, and honestly it's quite arrogant of you to do a best fit to some data and act like it's a credible forecast.

Also, you'd be far better off analyzing all the data, not the one part of the year that's shown the most extreme trends. You can see alot more is going on than catastrophic melt in this data set: http://arctic.atmos.....timeseries.jpg

Okay, I'll analiyze the year round data.

There is a 50% chance that;

the arctic ocean will be ice free

• in September ans October in 2015.
  
• in August, September, and October in 2016
  
• in July, August, September, and October 2017
  
• in July, August, September, October, and November in 2018
  

Thanks for the suggestion.

[turtlehurricane]

The best fits you're using are bogus, they make the decline accelerate.

Regardless, sea ice extent/volume/whatever is an extremely complex and chaotic system, and cannot be predicted with a best fit. You can play with lines on a graph all you want, but your theory is absolutely worthless without real physical backing.

I really don't want to even discuss this with you anymore since you seem like the sort of guy who likes to make extreme statements without much knowledge, and refuses to be corrected.

[BeastFromTheEast]

The best fits you're using are bogus, they make the decline accelerate.

Regardless, sea ice extent/volume/whatever is an extremely complex and chaotic system, and cannot be predicted with a best fit. You can play with lines on a graph all you want, but your theory is absolutely worthless without real physical backing.

I really don't want to even discuss this with you anymore since you seem like the sort of guy who likes to make extreme statements without much knowledge, and refuses to be corrected.

[WeatherRusty]

The best fits you're using are bogus, they make the decline accelerate.

Regardless, sea ice extent/volume/whatever is an extremely complex and chaotic system, and cannot be predicted with a best fit. You can play with lines on a graph all you want, but your theory is absolutely worthless without real physical backing.

I really don't want to even discuss this with you anymore since you seem like the sort of guy who likes to make extreme statements without much knowledge, and refuses to be corrected.

Ice melts from the outside in. The smaller the ice field, the greater is the ratio between surface area to volume. A small ice cube melts faster than a larger cube because it's mass of ice can absorb heat from a relatively larger surface area. There is a physical basis for ice loss acceleration as the total volume of ice declines.

[turtlehurricane]

Ice melts from the outside in. The smaller the ice field, the greater is the ratio between surface area to volume. A small ice cube melts faster than a larger cube because it's mass of ice can absorb heat from a relatively larger surface area. There is a physical basis for ice loss acceleration as the total volume of ice declines.

No, that is not how polar sea ice works, it's nowhere near that simple.

[WeatherRusty]

No, that is not how polar sea ice works, it's nowhere near that simple.

If the arctic air and water temps do not cool then it is that simple. As the years and decades go by temps will continue on average to rise. How on Earth is the ice going to rebound in that environment?

[ArmyGreens]

Actually, this is all easily explained in Happy Feet 2. Then you can make your preparations by watching Waterworld.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Don't worry Friv I nominated you too...

And for my rebuttal I agree with Skier, shocker I know but he has this one pegged. The more I see Skier post the more he strikes me as one of the more grounded folks and one of the smartest posters on your "side", he also doesn't agree with Vergent. Vergent is on a lonely island with this one Friv.

Which papers intrigued you most?

how do they stand compared to current trends and current levels of ice volume, area, and extent?

how does the forcings, temp trends, sst tends in the papers compare to what is happening in real time?

How are the model projected forcing feedbacks they used going compared to real time events?

Why do you think the rapid ice loss is going to abruptly stop? What negative forcings will counteract the positive ones that have caused the sudden dramatic ice loss?

[The_Global_Warmer]

If the arctic air and water temps do not cool then it is that simple. As the years and decades go by temps will continue on average to rise. How on Earth is the ice going to rebound in that environment?

The AMO.

Its the Last fall back left. OHC was at record levels this summer in the arctic. Its been skyrocketing. the -PDO has done nothing. The AO ossilations affect a few areas but have shown no ability to save the ice or cool anything.

An article marriatawx posted about the -nao said it helped transport MYI into beaufort gyre. Upon further analysis it melted anyways. gee I wonder why.

this duck is cooked. Deep fried and tasty. All thats left is to dig in.

Id love to have a conversation about the physics causing Ice melt...its very fascinating and I al ways enjoy learning more

[skierinvermont]

Following graph shows how last years melt season was curtailed by inclement weather.

Can we expect similar events in the future, or was this a singularity?

http://neven1.typepa...8b04ee38970d-pi

Nonsense. By the same token I would say that the graph shows how last years melt season was accelerated by severely unfavorable weather initially.

Can we expect such warm unfavorable winds in the future, or was this a singularity?

Any cool 'inclement' weather last September was far briefer and much less significant to the final minimum than the severely warm and unfavorable winds experienced in June, July and August.

Three months of a severely negative dipole anomaly far outweighs any brief cool down we got in September, but of course you chose to focus on the latter rather than the former.

[skierinvermont]

Well there are numerous negative feedbacks as well which become more powerful as the ice extent decreases.

1. Less extent in fall leads to more heat loss from the ocean and a more rapid freeze up. There is still a lot of ocean covered with ice in the fall. If even half of this was ice-free in October, it would be a massive ice-volume generating machine. Vergent would have you believe it's 'all about the volume.' But it's not. The minimum extent remains near 5 million sq km which means a lot of surface area is not being used for heat release and ice production in the fall and if you reduce that by just 1 or 2 million sq km, it means much more ice generation in the fall.

2. We've already lost nearly all the multi-year ice over the last 5-10 years, so we can't lose any more. We might even gain some with a few good winters.

3. The remaining ice is more geographically protected from the winds and currents which blow the ice into the atlantic.

4.The remaining ice is more geographically protected from the ice periphery where most of the melting occurs. The ice melts from the ice edge along Siberia and Alaska starting in June. The ice near the Canadian archipelago and Greenland is still many hundreds of miles away from this melting process. The melt process will have to speed up dramatically to make it from Siberia to Greenland in one summer.

bump.

In addition I'd like to point out that every other published study in the field not authored by Maslowski supports a later ice free date. And that Maslowski has already had to revise his prediction from 2013 to 2015 once it became apparent the arctic would not be ice free by 2013. He doubled the number of years it will take for the arctic to be ice free from 2 to 4. Why? Because Maslowski's prediction is based on trend-fitting while his colleagues predictions are based on physics.

[Jonger]

If the arctic air and water temps do not cool then it is that simple. As the years and decades go by temps will continue on average to rise. How on Earth is the ice going to rebound in that environment?

Well its settled. You won. Let's defund all agw research since its settled. Step 2 is to move everyone 10 meters higher in elevation and go back to business as usual.