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

[Jonger]

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

That would be if the south pole melted. It's actually getting thicker as the theory is that we have more moisture increasing snowfall there. So no waterworld.. Too many feedback factors.

[ORH_wxman]

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.

I've already pointed out the peer reviewed article that came out this year from the folks at NCAR (and a couple others) that showed how variable the sea ice can be on even decadal levels and how they wouldn't be shocked if we saw some temporary upticks over the next couple of decades before the warming begins to eventually eat away at the natural variability...but I keep getting pointed to the PIOMAS modeled volume as proof we will be gone by 2015.

I'm not sure why this keeps happening by the same posters over and over again. The biggest flaw in using the PIOMAS modeled volume trend (aside from some likely error to begin with) is that we have no sunlight in the winter and that a certain amount of volume is always going to be regained that will have to be melted off from scratch at the beginning of each melt season.

[TerryM]

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.

I'm focusing on the fact that the melt season ended at the earliest date since satellite records became available.

[skierinvermont]

I'm focusing on the fact that the melt season ended at the earliest date since satellite records became available.

Exactly. Why are you focusing on this relatively trivial fact when the far more obvious and important implication of that chart is the extremely unfavorable weather for nearly all of June July and August?

And of course the early end to the melt season couldn't possibly have anything to do with the extremely unvaforable weather and rapid ice loss earlier in the season leaving no ice left in the peripheral areas. Every other year (including 2007 actually) had more ice left in peripheral seas at the end of August.

[TerryM]

Exactly. Why are you focusing on this relatively trivial fact when the far more obvious and important implication of that chart is the extremely unfavorable weather for nearly all of June July and August?

And of course the early end to the melt season couldn't possibly have anything to do with the extremely unvaforable weather and rapid ice loss earlier in the season leaving no ice left in the peripheral areas. Every other year (including 2007 actually) had more ice left in peripheral seas at the end of August.

Are we looking at the same chart?

2011 did have rapid melt in JJA - slightly faster than 2010 - but not as fast as 2007

2011 ended the melt season earlier than any other year on the chart - much earlier than most

Why would I focus on the JJA (152-244) period that is extreme, but not unique, as opposed to the end date which is unique?

There is a lot of data available in this graphic ie the winter maximum trend - which may assuage some of OHR's concerns - but to my eye the abrupt ending of the melt season is the elephant in the room.

[ORH_wxman]

Are we looking at the same chart?

2011 did have rapid melt in JJA - slightly faster than 2010 - but not as fast as 2007

2011 ended the melt season earlier than any other year on the chart - much earlier than most

Why would I focus on the JJA (152-244) period that is extreme, but not unique, as opposed to the end date which is unique?

There is a lot of data available in this graphic ie the winter maximum trend - which may assuage some of OHR's concerns - but to my eye the abrupt ending of the melt season is the elephant in the room.

Are you saying the abrupt end to the melt season prevented 2011 from being a much bigger ice loss year?

[TerryM]

Are you saying the abrupt end to the melt season prevented 2011 from being a much bigger ice loss year?

Yes

[ORH_wxman]

Yes

September ice loss after the 10th is generally quite low...so I'm not sure how it affected it that much. Even in years where the min was later than 9/10, the min was generally less than 200k sq km less than on 9/10...usually far less...the only real exception was 2005 where it was like like 280k less.

It certainly didn't affect it enough to be talking about large chunks like half a million sq km which still wouldn't have gotten 2011 down below 4 million sq km. Sept stop date means very little in the scheme of talking about a 1 million sq km minimum....most of that has to happen in the months before that.

[The_Global_Warmer]

September ice loss after the 10th is generally quite low...so I'm not sure how it affected it that much. Even in years where the min was later than 9/10, the min was generally less than 200k sq km less than on 9/10...usually far less...the only real exception was 2005 where it was like like 280k less.

It certainly didn't affect it enough to be talking about large chunks like half a million sq km which still wouldn't have gotten 2011 down below 4 million sq km. Sept stop date means very little in the scheme of talking about a 1 million sq km minimum....most of that has to happen in the months before that.

Your entire post is right. But I don't understand why not just use NSIDC if your ignoring bremen. NSIDC is a pretty fair compromise between the AMSRE Data sets.

[ORH_wxman]

Your entire post is right. But I don't understand why not just use NSIDC if your ignoring bremen. NSIDC is a pretty fair compromise between the AMSRE Data sets.

I'm not using either...I was using JAXA which is now defunct. I'm not sure your point if you said my point was correct.

September sea ice melt is very insignificant in the scheme of the overall min. So I was pointing how the early min really affected the min? My point was that it didn't affect much at all. Esp when going on the point that skier made...there was little peripheral ice left to melt.

That is the flaw that the 2015 people in this thread seem to ignore...September melts very little ice. If you "want" to get a 1 million sq km min, it won't be because September had a huge melt...it will be because June, July, and August had a monster melt.

We gave evidence on why it was flawed, yet we keep getting presented with this "modeled" volume chart that shows a polynomial trend to zero in 2015....completely ignoring the extent factors as well as peer reviewed papers that show how much natural variability there is in the ice. We haven't had a -DA anomaly in the arctic in the summer since 2006...we had a only slightly positive one in 2009 when the ice reached a 5.25 million sq km min....that should show people that when the pattern becomes more favorable again that we we won't come close to a 4 million sq km min (nevermind 1 million min)...if we get a -DA summer next year we will be above 5 million sq km for the min....quite possibly more.

[dabize]

That is the flaw that the 2015 people in this thread seem to ignore...September melts very little ice. If you "want" to get a 1 million sq km min, it won't be because September had a huge melt...it will be because June, July, and August had a monster melt.

We gave evidence on why it was flawed, yet we keep getting presented with this "modeled" volume chart that shows a polynomial trend to zero in 2015....completely ignoring the extent factors as well as peer reviewed papers that show how much natural variability there is in the ice. We haven't had a -DA anomaly in the arctic in the summer since 2006...we had a only slightly positive one in 2009 when the ice reached a 5.25 million sq km min....that should show people that when the pattern becomes more favorable again that we we won't come close to a 4 million sq km min (nevermind 1 million min)...if we get a -DA summer next year we will be above 5 million sq km for the min....quite possibly more.

Nice to see a positive prediction based on a specific scenario from the We faction here.....if that occurs, this 2020/25 person (not really a 2015 person, but I'm obviously a relative) will cheerfully acknowledge your mastery of the issue.

I must say this - the combination of precipitously falling volume combined with a less pronounced fall in extent simply means that the ice has now an increased SA/volume ratio that makes it far more vulnerable to September melting than it has been in the past. This is a major issue - remember that circumventing the "Square/cube Law" drives 85% of our body structures so that we can still use diffusion/convection to get nutrients and wastes in/out of our cells. At some point the efficiency of heat exchange with the remaining ice WILL cause a catastrophic loss of volume AND extent........the question is when?

[WeatherRusty]

Nice to see a positive prediction based on a specific scenario from the We faction here.....if that occurs, this 2020/25 person (not really a 2015 person, but I'm obviously a relative) will cheerfully acknowledge your mastery of the issue.

I must say this - the combination of precipitously falling volume combined with a less pronounced fall in extent simply means that the ice has now an increased SA/volume ratio that makes it far more vulnerable to September melting than it has been in the past. This is a major issue - remember that circumventing the "Square/cube Law" drives 85% of our body structures so that we can still use diffusion/convection to get nutrients and wastes in/out of our cells. At some point the efficiency of heat exchange with the remaining ice WILL cause a catastrophic loss of volume AND extent........the question is when?

I think you read my post! Thanks for elaborating further.

The physical reality is that the further ice volume declines the easier it becomes to melt the remaining ice.

It is much better to be a large animal in a colder environment than to be small, the little guys loose their body heat very quickly due to the surface area/volume ratio not being in their favor. Heat exchange with the environment occurs at the surface boundary.

[WeatherRusty]

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.

I ask again, how is the sea ice going to survive a generally warming environment?

[Vergent]

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.

Ignoring the black red and dark blue(which are model based)

The yellow are submarine observations, the green are IceSat, and the purple are Polar-5, all are direct measurements.

since 1984, every measurement of thickness was less than the previous.

There is nothing complex and chaotic about that.

During the submarine era we were loosing less than 10cm per year.

during the IceSat and Polar-5 years we have been loosing about 20cm per year.

What is complex and chaotic about that?

Polar stern did an extensive survey of ice thickness in August and found that the average thickness was 90cm.

If you have 90cm of thickness and you loose 20cm every year, when do you have 0cm of thickness?

[ORH_wxman]

Nice to see a positive prediction based on a specific scenario from the We faction here.....if that occurs, this 2020/25 person (not really a 2015 person, but I'm obviously a relative) will cheerfully acknowledge your mastery of the issue.

I must say this - the combination of precipitously falling volume combined with a less pronounced fall in extent simply means that the ice has now an increased SA/volume ratio that makes it far more vulnerable to September melting than it has been in the past. This is a major issue - remember that circumventing the "Square/cube Law" drives 85% of our body structures so that we can still use diffusion/convection to get nutrients and wastes in/out of our cells. At some point the efficiency of heat exchange with the remaining ice WILL cause a catastrophic loss of volume AND extent........the question is when?

I'm not sure what you are arguing...do you actually think the PIOMAS volume graph is going to keep doing what it is doing on a polynomial fit and is that representative of reality?

My points have largely been ignored and that is fine. But there are plenty of peer reviewed papers out there that show just how much natural variation plays into ice extent. There is certainly an AGW component, but it seems that some want to take the negative natural variation factors the past few years and own all of it to AGW which is a pretty flawed premise.

[TerryM]

September ice loss after the 10th is generally quite low...so I'm not sure how it affected it that much. Even in years where the min was later than 9/10,the min was generally less than 200k sq km less than on 9/10...usually far less...the only real exception was 2005 where it was like like 280k less.

It certainly didn't affect it enough to be talking about large chunks like half a million sq km which still wouldn't have gotten 2011 down below 4 million sq km. Sept stop date means very little in the scheme of talking about a 1 million sq km minimum....most of that has to happen in the months before that.

You wonder why your ideas are ignored?

The record shows that every year the minimum was later than 9/10. - except for the one year under discussion.

What years was the minimum less than 200k below on 9/10? Show me and I'll believe you.

No one inferred that "half a million sq km" would be melted away - except you - why did you bring it up?

BTW the number of melt days - which has been increasing due to AGW - is an important metric in studies of Arctic ice melt. The fact that you don't conciser it significant is amazing.

[NEOH]

You wonder why your ideas are ignored?

The record shows that every year the minimum was later than 9/10. - except for the one year under discussion.

What years was the minimum less than 200k below on 9/10? Show me and I'll believe you.

No one inferred that "half a million sq km" would be melted away - except you - why did you bring it up?

BTW the number of melt days - which has been increasing due to AGW - is an important metric in studies of Arctic ice melt. The fact that you don't conciser it significant is amazing.

Key point. There is just not enough long-term data. The data we have is just a blip on the radar. We really have no clue about long term cycles in the arctic.

[turtlehurricane]

Ignoring the black red and dark blue(which are model based)

The yellow are submarine observations, the green are IceSat, and the purple are Polar-5, all are direct measurements.

since 1984, every measurement of thickness was less than the previous.

There is nothing complex and chaotic about that.

During the submarine era we were loosing less than 10cm per year.

during the IceSat and Polar-5 years we have been loosing about 20cm per year.

What is complex and chaotic about that?

Polar stern did an extensive survey of ice thickness in August and found that the average thickness was 90cm.

If you have 90cm of thickness and you loose 20cm every year, when do you have 0cm of thickness?

You're telling me you completely understand every factor in the cryosphere from a graph of sea ice, which is 1 variable, and there's only 25 years of observation at that.

Do you understand the navier-stokes equations of atmospheric and oceanic motion? Do you understand all the climatic oscillations, such as variation in solar output, greenhouse gases, black carbon and soot, ENSO, changes in cloud cover, changes in the coverage of forests/ecosystems, etc.? Or how all these change as sea ice coverage changes, which is the essence of nonlinearity.

You are trying to say that sea ice is such a linear system that it's trend over a couple decades completely determines it's future, besides the fact there's alot of nonlinear interactions, if you can even grasp what that means. It is a complex and chaotic system, and just by asserting so strongly that it isn't you have proved you know nothing about it. Honestly, you're at the level of middle school physics right now, and are absurdly wrong in your approach.

[Vergent]

You're telling me you completely understand every factor in the cryosphere from a graph of sea ice, which is 1 variable, and there's only 25 years of observation at that.

Do you understand the navier-stokes equations of atmospheric and oceanic motion? Do you understand all the climatic oscillations, such as variation in solar output, greenhouse gases, black carbon and soot, ENSO, changes in cloud cover, changes in the coverage of forests/ecosystems, etc.? Or how all these change as sea ice coverage changes, which is the essence of nonlinearity.

You are trying to say that sea ice is such a linear system that it's trend over a couple decades completely determines it's future, besides the fact there's alot of nonlinear interactions, if you can even grasp what that means. It is a complex and chaotic system, and just by asserting so strongly that it isn't you have proved you know nothing about it. Honestly, you're at the level of middle school physics right now, and are absurdly wrong in your approach.

Lets see,

we have had 15 coin tosses with the submarine studies, 4 with IceSat, and 2 with Polar-5. That's 21 coin tosses.

They all came up tails. Probability of arctic ice thickness being chaotic like you describe: 0.00000095.

[skierinvermont]

Why would I focus on the JJA (152-244) period that is extreme, but not unique, as opposed to the end date which is unique?

Hmm.. maybe because JJA is a period 6X longer and has much faster melting than Sept. 1-15.

The fact that JJA 2011 had the 2nd or 3rd worst weather pattern since 1980 is infinitely more important than any 'missed' opportunity for melting Sept 1-15. And as I said before, the former may in fact partially explain the latter.

[superjames1992]

That would be if the south pole melted. It's actually getting thicker as the theory is that we have more moisture increasing snowfall there. So no waterworld.. Too many feedback factors.

There's not enough water in the ice caps to create a global flood, anyways. I think if ALL the ice melted (which will take much warmer temperatures and hundreds/thousands of years to happen), then the oceans would rise ~250 feet, but don't quote me on that.

BTW, who voted for 2012 in the poll? LOL, I can't wait to see an ice-free summer this year. I was planning on taking a jon boat up to the pole this year for some fishing, actually.

[superjames1992]

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.

You cannot just take trends and extrapolate them into the future with any expectation of accuracy, IMO.

[dabize]

I think you read my post! Thanks for elaborating further.

The physical reality is that the further ice volume declines the easier it becomes to melt the remaining ice.

It is much better to be a large animal in a colder environment than to be small, the little guys loose their body heat very quickly due to the surface area/volume ratio not being in their favor. Heat exchange with the environment occurs at the surface boundary.

Sorry for not referencing you! :<P

This is the key issue (bolded).

It is why a convection oven cooks twice as fast as a regular one.

But ORHwx_man is right in that we don't yet know what SA/volume ratio is the actual threshold at which the combination of heat diffusion and convection is going to become much more efficient in melting ice.

In our bodies, movements of over 100 microns or so tend to need motor proteins to speed diffusion-only movement of nutrients and other small molecules (and/or mitochondria spotted along neuronal axons and dendrites to make ATP locally). There is a real threshold of efficiency in this........

[The_Global_Warmer]

I do not get why piomas is treated like its worthless.

The entire CA melted out. for the most part.

We all saw the local shore ice or fast ice go bye.

The surface pressures might have been +da but they did not favor a lot of flushing.

I think the idea pg. a 2015 melt out is not likely becayse energy wont be available in the 80-90N area on the canadian side to melt out. there was roughly 1.5 mil km of ice 2 meters thick. while the rest was in shambles.

That ice can only gain smalls gains with out ridging. We have seen MYI get pummelled in extent for the last 75 days. This really shows how thin it all is. Ice transported out the fram and towards Greenland. At a booming pace.

Some of this went into ridging. Which might help thicken the MYI some.

I would place my bet on 4.5 mil km2 as a starting point for 2012 sea ice min neutral weather conditions. Good or bad wind pattern it will take an absurd amount of clouds to prevent that of melting.

[dabize]

I'm not sure what you are arguing...do you actually think the PIOMAS volume graph is going to keep doing what it is doing on a polynomial fit and is that representative of reality?

My points have largely been ignored and that is fine. But there are plenty of peer reviewed papers out there that show just how much natural variation plays into ice extent. There is certainly an AGW component, but it seems that some want to take the negative natural variation factors the past few years and own all of it to AGW which is a pretty flawed premise.

Not really

Yes

I am not making a detailed mathematical argument at all, beyond having a big problem with assigning a trend of high statistical significance entirely to chance, which is what you are effectively doing.

Also, I am a well published scientist (yes, with Science and PNAS papers to my credit as a first author), but in another field of science (cell biology of neurodegeneration), where we also deal with complex, chaotic phenomena. I have 30 years professional experience, and so have developed a feel for larger aspects of phenomena that I fear that some here have overlooked - i.e. I think you are losing the forest for the trees.

It is my professional opinion (for what that is worth) that this is a big deal. I am admittedly a technically unskilled amateur in this field, but I think that this is the kind of issue that requires perspective rather than technical expertise.

[turtlehurricane]

Lets see,

we have had 15 coin tosses with the submarine studies, 4 with IceSat, and 2 with Polar-5. That's 21 coin tosses.

They all came up tails. Probability of arctic ice thickness being chaotic like you describe: 0.00000095.

This is so incredibly ridiculous. Coin tosses? Really?

There's a 100% chance the arctic is a chaotic system FYI.

[turtlehurricane]

Not really

Yes

I am not making a detailed mathematical argument at all, beyond having a big problem with assigning a trend of high statistical significance entirely to chance, which is what you are effectively doing.

Also, I am a well published scientist (yes, with Science and PNAS papers to my credit as a first author), but in another field of science (cell biology of neurodegeneration), where we also deal with complex, chaotic phenomena. I have 30 years professional experience, and so have developed a feel for larger aspects of phenomena that I fear that some here have overlooked - i.e. I think you are losing the forest for the trees.

It is my professional opinion (for what that is worth) that this is a big deal. I am admittedly a technically unskilled amateur in this field, but I think that this is the kind of issue that requires perspective rather than technical expertise.

How would you feel if ORH and I went to a biology forum and started making false assertions? It's really aggravating, and trust me, you need to know alot of details about how the sea ice system works in order to forecast it with any hope of being right.

Is there some sort of issue in cell biology or neurodegeneration that can be solved with "perspective" rather than actually using science? C'mon.

[Alpha5]

Ignoring the black red and dark blue(which are model based)

The yellow are submarine observations, the green are IceSat, and the purple are Polar-5, all are direct measurements.

since 1984, every measurement of thickness was less than the previous.

There is nothing complex and chaotic about that.

During the submarine era we were loosing less than 10cm per year.

during the IceSat and Polar-5 years we have been loosing about 20cm per year.

What is complex and chaotic about that?

Polar stern did an extensive survey of ice thickness in August and found that the average thickness was 90cm.

If you have 90cm of thickness and you loose 20cm every year, when do you have 0cm of thickness?

Its 30 years. Hardly a second in climatic terms....its like looking at the DJIA from 1929 to 1933 and trying to predict when it will reach 0. The atmosphere is complex enough, but when you throw the pacific, arctic, and atlantic oceans into the mix, things are only further complicated.

I'm not saying that there hasnt been a trend downwards, and I'm not saying CO2 didnt play a part, but i'm against making dramatic predictions based on such a small data sample.

[PhillipS]

I don't understand why so many posters are piling on Vergent for making a prediction. He explained the data and methodology he used - which seems a lot more robust and scientific an approach than the 'gut feelings' many of the posters on this thread seem to be using. At least he's gone on record with his prediction. The nice thing about predictions like his is that Mother Nature is the final referee and pretty soon we'll know if he is right or wrong. It's not like he can cheat by pouring hot water on the arctic ice to make it melt quicker.

I'm not saying that people have to agree with Vergent (heck, I picked 2017 in the poll) - just respect the fact that he put a bit of thought into his prediction. I don't see anything to get stirred up about. Isn't there room for disagreement in a technical discussion?

Of course, there are blogs where anyone with an iota of dissenting opinion, or an original thought, is quickly and harshly smacked down. Only one point of view is tolerated. That's the WUWT model of blog discussions, and in Communication Theory the technical term for that sort of discussion is a 'Circle Jerk'.

[Vergent]

I don't understand why so many posters are piling on Vergent for making a prediction. He explained the data and methodology he used - which seems a lot more robust and scientific an approach than the 'gut feelings' many of the posters on this thread seem to be using. At least he's gone on record with his prediction. The nice thing about predictions like his is that Mother Nature is the final referee and pretty soon we'll know if he is right or wrong. It's not like he can cheat by pouring hot water on the arctic ice to make it melt quicker.

I'm not saying that people have to agree with Vergent (heck, I picked 2017 in the poll) - just respect the fact that he put a bit of thought into his prediction. I don't see anything to get stirred up about. Isn't there room for disagreement in a technical discussion?

Of course, there are blogs where anyone with an iota of dissenting opinion, or an original thought, is quickly and harshly smacked down. Only one point of view is tolerated. That's the WUWT model of blog discussions, and in Communication Theory the technical term for that sort of discussion is a 'Circle Jerk'.

Thank you. I was in a quandary about how to respond.

I made the poll totally fair, every possible opinion could be voiced.

The postings should Be reasoned arguments with links to supporting information from reliable sources.

Speaking of which, in my first posting on this thread I posted an argument that no one has responded to. It has to do with the onset of melt ponds at high latitudes:

http://www.arctic.no...ice-npole.shtml

melt pond formation at the North Poll cams:

2002 8/18

2003 7/4

2004 7/15

2005 ?

2006 7/5

2007 ?

2008 6/30

2009 7/14

2010 6/27

2011 7/1

I think the key to the volume/thickness losses is the date when melt ponds form at the poll. the earlier it happens the greater the loss. the extra days at high insolation and low albedo count for a lot.