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

[turtlehurricane]

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.

A few people who know what they're talking about, including me, have explained to you why your posts have not been reasonable or scientific. You're making massive assumptions (even if you don't understand that you are), making your results non-credible. Do you think there would be thousands of researchers around the world working on this problem if you could just best fit some data and get an answer?

[turtlehurricane]

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'.

Another nice thing about science is you know when someone is completely off if you understand the subject. I'm fine with people trying to make theories, but if trained professionals are telling them they're totally off they should fix their theory instead of blindly defending it.

In the end, the only one that's gonna lose out is the one with the bad theory, since they had no chance of being right. I can pretty much guarantee you we will have sea ice for the rest of our lifetimes. If I had a house I would be willing to bet it on the 2015 prediction.

[Vergent]

A few people who know what they're talking about, including me, have explained to you why your posts have not been reasonable or scientific. You're making massive assumptions (even if you don't understand that you are), making your results non-credible. Do you think there would be thousands of researchers around the world working on this problem if you could just best fit some data and get an answer?

You are just graduated with a BS. Wow what an ego trip that diploma gave you. You keep talking as if this was my graph and my argument. You can not be well read on this subject if you do. You must be a refugee from WUWT.

http://neven1.typepa...ower-still.html

By the way if you right click on an image an choose "inspect element", you can find where it comes from.

[turtlehurricane]

You are just graduated with a BS. Wow what an ego trip that diploma gave you. You keep talking as if this was my graph and my argument. You can not be well read on this subject if you do. You must be a refugee from WUWT.

http://neven1.typepa...ower-still.html

You can keep on believing your fantasy science, I don't care.

[PhillipS]

Another nice thing about science is you know when someone is completely off if you understand the subject. I'm fine with people trying to make theories, but if trained professionals are telling them they're totally off they should fix their theory instead of blindly defending it.

In the end, the only one that's gonna lose out is the one with the bad theory, since they had no chance of being right. I can pretty much guarantee you we will have sea ice for the rest of our lifetimes. If I had a house I would be willing to bet it on the 2015 prediction.

You do understand, don't you, that nobody, absolutely nobody, is predicting that the arctic will be ice-free year round? The poll, and the participants' predictions, is for the year when the arctic sea ice extent drops below 1M km2 during the summer melt season. At that point the arctic would be essentially ice free.

And I don't believe that anyone is predicting that the arctic will reach that 1M km2 extent every year after the first occurence. We could have an outlier year, a '1998' so to speak, which drops the sea ice extent below the magic threshold of 1M km2, and a number of successive years where the melt stops above it. No matter. The poll is only for the first years the ice melts.

As for Vergent's prediction - how can you claim it's automatically wrong, or unscientific, when almost every expert I'm aware of has consistently underestimated the arctic sea ice melt. If you knjow of someone, or some group, who predicted the observed summer melt trends then please give us their name and a link to their prediction. Since you claim to be an expert - educate us on why the observed trends will slow down, or reverse, give rising GHG levels and increasing TSI as we approach the max of this solar cycle.

I'd like to see your prediction and the rationale for it. Cheap shots from the peanut gallery are easy.

[turtlehurricane]

You do understand, don't you, that nobody, absolutely nobody, is predicting that the arctic will be ice-free year round? The poll, and the participants' predictions, is for the year when the arctic sea ice extent drops below 1M km2 during the summer melt season. At that point the arctic would be essentially ice free.

And I don't believe that anyone is predicting that the arctic will reach that 1M km2 extent every year after the first occurence. We could have an outlier year, a '1998' so to speak, which drops the sea ice extent below the magic threshold of 1M km2, and a number of successive years where the melt stops above it. No matter. The poll is only for the first years the ice melts.

As for Vergent's prediction - how can you claim it's automatically wrong, or unscientific, when almost every expert I'm aware of has consistently underestimated the arctic sea ice melt. If you knjow of someone, or some group, who predicted the observed summer melt trends then please give us their name and a link to their prediction. Since you claim to be an expert - educate us on why the observed trends will slow down, or reverse, give rising GHG levels and increasing TSI as we approach the max of this solar cycle.

I'd like to see your prediction and the rationale for it. Cheap shots from the peanut gallery are easy.

Here are just a couple peer reviewed papers by scientists that discuss some of the complexities of this. I'm not arrogant enough to make a forecast myself, it'd take years of research to make a forecast that's worth anything.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C0067%3ADOTASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282000%29013%3C3099%3ARCIASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

For more, use the AMS search: http://journals.ametsoc.org/action/doSearch

[dabize]

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.

Who the hell is making false assertions? Where on Earth did you get that?

And I DON'T trust you........ because I shouldn't. Especially if you are going to come out with stuff like that.

I am merely concerned about the problem, and have an outsiders take on the likelihoods. My take is entirely scientific, and I have made no false assertions at all. You should learn a bit of humility yourself.

And don't expect me to defend the AD field.......it has been a hotbed of well funded people failing to think outside the box..... They could stand to see a bit more skepticism, IMHO. Feel free to read up on the topic and opine.....

It so happens that I have spent several years in the role of "skeptic" in my field, and have had difficulty publishing my stuff because it "just couldn't happen". There wasn't any actual evidence that that what we were asserting couldn't happen, it was just "obvious". Don't tell me about the virtues of peer review - I've been in a field where it doesn't work very well for the unconnected.

I have had good data, yes, but mainly I had "perspective" on my side - it helps one in choosing the right questions to ask. And by God, my lab and I finally seem to have won.

We just managed to publish a study in November that pretty much carried our side of the argument (not that that was hard, but it was nice to publish in a good journal (J. Biol Chem)), and it is making a reasonable splash. Now I'm being asked to write review articles for major journals who would have rejected my papers without review 2 years ago. I tell you, the distance between "crank" and "respected authority in his field" can be mighty short.

So I know what I am talking about. If you want the details, e-mail me. I'll send you a preprint or two.

I should say that the climatology field these days suffers much less from complacent thinking among its practicioners - there is less money and scientists have to work against a relentless political headwind. My hat is off to them.

The main difference is that much MORE is settled in terms of basic science in this field than in AD research. But still not enough is known to allow us to tell for sure if Arctic sea ice will be gone in the summer within 5, 10 or 20 years.

[Vergent]

Here are just a couple peer reviewed papers by scientists that discuss some of the complexities of this. I'm not arrogant enough to make a forecast myself, it'd take years of research to make a forecast that's worth anything.

http://journals.amet...SI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://journals.amet...SI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

For more, use the AMS search: http://journals.amet...action/doSearch

Thanks, the first paper supports my thesis that melt onset has been getting earlier at high latitudes(see figure 5),

The second one is authored by JINLUN ZHANG, who is also an author of the PIOMAS model that is showing the the exponential decline in ice volume, that you are arguing against.

[turtlehurricane]

Thanks, the first paper supports my thesis that melt onset has been getting earlier at high latitudes(see figure 5),

The second one is authored by JINLUN ZHANG, who is also an author of the PIOMAS model that is showing the the exponential decline in ice volume, that you are arguing against.

I'm not arguing against PIOMAS, I'm arguing against your ridiculous interpretation of it.

No doubt the arctic is warming, but you should read the entire paper and not cherry pick. They talk about all the factors and how there's not much certainty.

[turtlehurricane]

Who the hell is making false assertions? Where on Earth did you get that?

And I DON'T trust you........ because I shouldn't. Especially if you are going to come out with stuff like that.

I am merely concerned about the problem, and have an outsiders take on the likelihoods. My take is entirely scientific, and I have made no false assertions at all. You should learn a bit of humility yourself.

And don't expect me to defend the AD field.......it has been a hotbed of well funded people failing to think outside the box..... They could stand to see a bit more skepticism, IMHO. Feel free to read up on the topic and opine.....

It so happens that I have spent several years in the role of "skeptic" in my field, and have had difficulty publishing my stuff because it "just couldn't happen". There wasn't any actual evidence that that what we were asserting couldn't happen, it was just "obvious". Don't tell me about the virtues of peer review - I've been in a field where it doesn't work very well for the unconnected.

I have had good data, yes, but mainly I had "perspective" on my side - it helps one in choosing the right questions to ask. And by God, my lab and I finally seem to have won.

We just managed to publish a study in November that pretty much carried our side of the argument (not that that was hard, but it was nice to publish in a good journal (J. Biol Chem)), and it is making a reasonable splash. Now I'm being asked to write review articles for major journals who would have rejected my papers without review 2 years ago. I tell you, the distance between "crank" and "respected authority in his field" can be mighty short.

So I know what I am talking about. If you want the details, e-mail me. I'll send you a preprint or two.

I should say that the climatology field these days suffers much less from complacent thinking among its practicioners - there is less money and scientists have to work against a relentless political headwind. My hat is off to them.

The main difference is that much MORE is settled in terms of basic science in this field than in AD research. But still not enough is known to allow us to tell for sure if Arctic sea ice will be gone in the summer within 5, 10 or 20 years.

I don't get this post, are you against peer reviewed literature since you've had a hard time with it? I had an extremely hard time both times I published, but that's just part of the game. That's why I trust papers to be good scientific representations of a subject, every fact gets inspected before it's printed.

Anyways, I'm going to disagree with you that we know alot about cryosphere fluctuations, we do not. We lack the data needed to fully understand it in the first place.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Another nice thing about science is you know when someone is completely off if you understand the subject. I'm fine with people trying to make theories, but if trained professionals are telling them they're totally off they should fix their theory instead of blindly defending it.

In the end, the only one that's gonna lose out is the one with the bad theory, since they had no chance of being right. I can pretty much guarantee you we will have sea ice for the rest of our lifetimes. If I had a house I would be willing to bet it on the 2015 prediction.

trained profesionals have made terrible predictions and assertiions about the sea ice over and over and over...all while scrutinizing othets for their "wild" predictions. After so many failures I would of expected more of an open minded discussion.

[Vergent]

I'm not arguing against PIOMAS, I'm arguing against your ridiculous interpretation of it.

No doubt the arctic is warming, but you should read the entire paper and not cherry pick. They talk about all the factors and how there's not much certainty.

You still seem to be under the delusion that it is my ideas i am espousing.

http://www.telegraph...lt-by-2015.html

"Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, said the ice that forms over the Arctic sea is shrinking so rapidly that it could vanish altogether in as little as four years' time.

"Dr Maslowski's model, along with his claim that the Arctic sea ice is in a "death spiral", were controversial but Prof Wadhams, a leading authority on the polar regions, said the calculations had him "pretty much persuaded."

Prof Wadhams said: "His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/pw11/

http://www.oc.nps.ed...aslowski_CV.htm

Why are you ridiculing these guys, they seem to be way out of your pay grade? Its their conclusions I am supporting.

Do you think these guys would share your views on my postings? They are coming to the same conclusion looking at the same data.

[turtlehurricane]

I think it's funny you won't even say they're your own arguments anymore.

[dabize]

I don't get this post, are you against peer reviewed literature since you've had a hard time with it? I had an extremely hard time both times I published, but that's just part of the game. That's why I trust papers to be good scientific representations of a subject, every fact gets inspected before it's printed.

Anyways, I'm going to disagree with you that we know alot about cryosphere fluctuations, we do not. We lack the data needed to fully understand it in the first place.

Jeez Louise ...... you must prefer being confrontational to discussing approaches to science, or are the most turgid pontificator on conventional wisdom in science I've ever encountered. I can see that I'm wasting my time trying to talk to you.

We lack the data to fully understand "cryosphere fluctuations", so you want to admire it and its chaotic grandeur passively - while stifling all attempts by the ignorant to discuss them? What the hell are you DOING here then?

Maybe you would prefer a job as a Customs agent?

[TerryM]

If the heat generated on this thread should wend its way northward I'd have no doubt that the Arctic would melt out in one week!

All the peer reviewed papers concur that the Arctic is melting - rapidly.

Almost? all have been shown to underestimate the speed of the decline.

Anyone postulating a much longer time frame is not only going against the reviewed literature, he's also going against to available measured data.

Personally I like the fit of a Gompertz curve - but that's based as much on intuition as hard facts. Gompertz seems to fit a number of applications from cell growth to human mortality - no reason why it should fit the growth of open water, or the death of sea ice - but no reason to exclude it either.

[dabize]

If the heat generated on this thread should wend its way northward I'd have no doubt that the Arctic would melt out in one week!

Quite.

It's hard for me to understand the outrage (not to mention the accusations of lying) by people with met degrees at moderately informed speculation on this topic by scientifically trained outsiders, especially since the professional guidance provided by those in the know (i.e. those warmista climatologists) has been absurdly conservative so far. Would mets (who aren't trained climatologists and aren't exactly warmistas either, judging from the sampling here) have done better? I'll take vanilla.

We should all chill (double meaning intended), and let 100 flowers bloom until people with demonstrable competence in the matter at hand show up. They haven't yet.

This should be interesting, informative and fun........... as well as a little disturbing.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't get this post, are you against peer reviewed literature since you've had a hard time with it? I had an extremely hard time both times I published, but that's just part of the game. That's why I trust papers to be good scientific representations of a subject, every fact gets inspected before it's printed.

Anyways, I'm going to disagree with you that we know alot about cryosphere fluctuations, we do not. We lack the data needed to fully understand it in the first place.

For starters, I would hope we are on the same page here as to what is being discussed. We are not discussing relatively short term fluctuations here, but rather a longer term trend in arctic sea ice as a consequence of a generally warming world.

If the ice is melting out under current conditions, what would you expect to happen as the arctic and it's surroundings become even warmer? Yes, there will continue to be fluctuations caused by who knows what, but what will be the general trend with continued warming?

[dabize]

To lighten the tone a bit, I post this for the edification of the young'uns (especially) who think that peer reviewed publications in even the most "august" journals will prevent the publication of junk. This N&V has already internalized some of the blowback that they got from all the scientists who were hung up on little matters like Avogadro's Number.........

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v333/n6176/pdf/333787a0.pdf

I remember when this came out, and it armed me for my later experiences with the editorial staff at Nature. Connections uber alles.

[TerryM]

To lighten the tone a bit, I post this for the edification of the young'uns (especially) who think that peer reviewed publications in even the most "august" journals will prevent the publication of junk. This N&V has already internalized some of the blowback that they got from all the scientists who were hung up on little matters like Avogadro's Number.........

http://www.nature.co...df/333787a0.pdf

I remember when this came out, and it armed me for my later experiences with the editorial staff at Nature. Connections uber alles.

Damn paywall

[Vergent]

Damn paywall

A non-secure paywall at that.

[TerryM]

Vergent

Found it interesting that the folks at the Arctic Methane Emergency Group agree with you regarding the 2013 to 2018 date for an ice free Arctic.

[BethesdaWX]

My poll answer...never. Even big time AGWers usually stay post 2020. Any earlier is just Gore propoganda.

[Vergent]

Vergent

Found it interesting that the folks at the Arctic Methane Emergency Group agree with you regarding the 2013 to 2018 date for an ice free Arctic.

Yes. I was going to post it here, but did not because everyone has posted their opinions and their reasons(or lack thereof). And some people just repeat their opinion over and over for no good reason. A consensus seems to be growing among the people best suited to know around the 2015 50% probability point.

http://www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.com/#

All of a sudden a dozen researchers put their collective names on the 2015 date.

[BethesdaWX]

Is this a sarcastic thread? If so I apologize for looking like an absolute blowhard, honestly.

If not, in 2015 when the Ice pack is alive and well (as I think it will be, I could be wrong), what happens to these "consensus supporting" scientists with busted predictions?

[Vergent]

Yes. I was going to post it here, but did not because everyone has posted their opinions and their reasons(or lack thereof). And some people just repeat their opinion over and over for no good reason. A consensus seems to be growing among the people best suited to know around the 2015 50% probability point.

http://www.arctic-me...ncy-group.com/#

All of a sudden a dozen researchers put their collective names on the 2015 date.

Then again, some people do not seem to know what 50% probability means.

[TerryM]

Are you old enough to remember when Eisenhower was shocked at discovering than half of Americans were "below average" ;>)

[Vergent]

Are you old enough to remember when Eisenhower was shocked at discovering than half of Americans were "below average" ;>)

yes

[TerryM]

Verg

I wonder how the Arctic will react when the energy now being used in changing phase from ice to water is being utilized instead to heat the Arctic seas. I fear that even discounting methane releases and albedo this 80 fold increase in sensible heat will have catastrophic consequences.

[dabize]

Are you old enough to remember when Eisenhower was shocked at discovering than half of Americans were "below average" ;>)

To quote his opponent, on being told by a supporter that all thinking people backed him:

......"But Madam, I need a majority!"

Adlai Stevenson

[turtlehurricane]

Verg

I wonder how the Arctic will react when the energy now being used in changing phase from ice to water is being utilized instead to heat the Arctic seas. I fear that even discounting methane releases and albedo this 80 fold increase in sensible heat will have catastrophic consequences.

You mean like any given summer when the ocean opens up in parts of the Arctic...

Stop declaring things catastrophic after barley analyzing them, thanks.