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

[TerryM]

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.

Same thing - on steroids

Actually think this is the volume link to the demise of summer ice. Extent/area alter albedo, but volume relates to change of phase, and volume has been falling off rather alarmingly.

[skierinvermont]

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.

Complete BS.

The consensus among people who monitor and study the arctic is 2030-2050. I can cite dozens of papers from the last 3-5 years.

[superjames1992]

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

Never is a long time. I doubt that, with or without human influences.

Nevertheless, I do believe that it will be many decades before we see the ice pack melt off one summer. I would lean towards the latter half of this century, so I will probably see it in my lifetime, but forgive me if I don't go run out and panic over it like some here want to do.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't know which papers have which predictions.

but if a paper predicted 2030-2070 and there 2005-2011 predictions were far off. Like say they were in the 6 mil km2 range for us now. That would imply the possibility their later predictions are off.

I personally think no one should be citing peer review in something like this.

I think people need to just break out the simple science of it.

[LithiaWx]

I don't know which papers have which predictions.

but if a paper predicted 2030-2070 and there 2005-2011 predictions were far off. Like say they were in the 6 mil km2 range for us now. That would imply the possibility their later predictions are off.

I personally think no one should be citing peer review in something like this.

I think people need to just break out the simple science of it.

When it comes to the arctic ice, there is no simple science to it. It is a very complex system that we are not even close to fully understanding.

[BethesdaWX]

Never is a long time. I doubt that, with or without human influences.

Nevertheless, I do believe that it will be many decades before we see the ice pack melt off one summer. I would lean towards the latter half of this century, so I will probably see it in my lifetime, but forgive me if I don't go run out and panic over it like some here want to do.

To rush through this without much detail, I am a hard nosed skeptic when it comes to sensitivity and CO2 influence, not just because the dispersion of CO2 looks inadequately realized, but also because because no climate models are capable of reproducing long term trends in the AO, the cooling of the past decade outside the arctic, and most importantly, we do not know what drives ENSO...that's the key to everything. The one good correlation we have (geomag sun) would absolutely destroy AGW theory if it is legit. The 2009/10 El Niño was a huge boost for the geomag theory.

If the Sun is the main driver of the AO in the long run (obviously factors overwhelm it in various years), the Sun can then have a significant impact on temperature unrelated to TSI...and would you know the PDO and AO trend similarly in the long run for a reason.

If the geomag Sun drives ENSO (can't be proven or disproven), the amplitude of energy in ENSO is huge, and on a 6 year lag time, any notion that the Sun has a minute effect on temperature would be destroyed.

None of this is proven, but some are catching on, especially in 2009/10.

[Vergent]

[/b]

When it comes to the arctic ice, there is no simple science to it. It is a very complex system that we are not even close to fully understanding.

Models are complicated and horribly wrong. Observations trump theory every time. the observations tell one simple story:

The ice is melting away rapidly.

[ORH_wxman]

Models are complicated and horribly wrong. Observations trump theory every time. the observations tell one simple story:

The ice is melting away rapidly.

And yet still supports nothing remotely close to 2015 for an ice free arctic.

[LithiaWx]

Models are complicated and horribly wrong. Observations trump theory every time. the observations tell one simple story:

The ice is melting away rapidly.

Yes, the ice is not doing well compared to "normal". That does not make the arctic ice and arctic climate system any less complex, which was all I was saying.

[Vergent]

And yet still supports nothing remotely close to 2015 for an ice free arctic.

It invalidates the models that have diverged from reality. Why is it that some embrace the models that have been invalidated, but reject the models that have tracked the observations(PIOMAS)? Who rejects observation in favor of theories that have failed?

PIomas tracked icesat like a hound dog.

Piomas shows we have lost 4,700 km^3 of summer ice since 2006. We have lost 2,600 in the last two summers. We only have 4,300 left to loose.

[BethesdaWX]

PIOMAS is a model. New satellite suggests PIOMAS is too low in volume, in some areas by up to 2x. Error bars small enough to almost confirm this after studies were published.

There is a reason you don't hear about it from the media...

[dabize]

PIOMAS is a model. New satellite suggests PIOMAS is too low in volume, in some areas by up to 2x. Error bars small enough to almost confirm this after studies were published.

There is a reason you don't hear about it from the media...

Links please....

[Vergent]

PIOMAS is a model. New satellite suggests PIOMAS is too low in volume, in some areas by up to 2x. Error bars small enough to almost confirm this after studies were published.

There is a reason you don't hear about it from the media...

http://www.ucl.ac.uk...-arctic-ice-map

I suppose cryosat-2 is the satellite you are talking about. On June 21, 2011 they released this map. The first year ice is shown as 2.5 - 3.0 m thick some scattered 2.0. The average overall is clearly over 3m thick. The cryosphere today area max was 13,000,000 km^2, so the ice volume would be around 39,000 km^3. That does certainly disagree with PIOMAS.

So cryosat is showing 18,000 km^3 more ice than piomas.

Then comes trouble, for cryosat-2, The arctic looses 10,000,000 km^2 of ice that cryosat said was 2.5 m thick for a melt volume of 25,000 km^3. In addition, Polarstern and the Heathly went up to the pole and found that the ice that icesat said was 3.5 - 4.0 m thick was now 0.9m thick. So there was an additional melt volume of 2,5m from the remaining 3,000,000 km^2 of ice for a total melt of 32,500 km^3, more than double the normal melt volume and equal to or greater that the maximum volumes measured by other methods. This in a year where the melt started a month late, and ended 2 weeks early.

If you believe cryosat then while we had an incredible freeze last winter and an even more incredible 32,500 km^3 thaw last summer and we should be expecting an ice free arctic next year.

This is why you do not hear about Cryosat-2 in the media other than "the calibration effort continues"

[The_Global_Warmer]

PIOMAS is a model. New satellite suggests PIOMAS is too low in volume, in some areas by up to 2x. Error bars small enough to almost confirm this after studies were published.

There is a reason you don't hear about it from the media...

Like what? Show us the data please. Links to the studies, links to the data, and the links to the the satelitte your refering too.

please?

[The_Global_Warmer]

[/b]

When it comes to the arctic ice, there is no simple science to it. It is a very complex system that we are not even close to fully understanding.

I am sorry I do not share your feelings on this.

There is a major difference in failure to understand and failure to predict.

It would be easier for you to tell us what you think we do not understand? Than it would for me or anyone to explain why we do understand it very well at this point. Our knowledge of the arctic sea ice has grown on a bell curve that is going straight up at this point. There is a pretty decenty large segment of folks out there in the blogosphere that talk about this stuff on this forum and others who are not suprised by what is happening given the data we have now.

[Vergent]

PIOMAS is a model. New satellite suggests PIOMAS is too low in volume, in some areas by up to 2x. Error bars small enough to almost confirm this after studies were published.

There is a reason you don't hear about it from the media...

links please

[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.

http://www.flipdocs.com/showbook.aspx?ID=10004692_698290

Here you will find an argument almost identical to mine with conclusions that are identical to mine.See pages 5&6.

Its authors include some very prominent names in arctic science.

[Vergent]

Science is not about what you want to happen, it is about what is happening.

[CoastalWx]

Science is not about what you want to happen, it is about what is happening.

Then why did you post this thread?

[Vergent]

Then why did you post this thread?

Well, i suppose some of the votes were desires. If I voted my desire, it would have been quite high, But, i think the poll was to make science based predictions. Those who's predictions were at a variance with reality should consider posting their opinions less, and reading science more.

[CoastalWx]

Well, i suppose some of the votes were desires. If I voted my desire, it would have been quite high, But, i think the poll was to make science based predictions. Those who's predictions were at a variance with reality should consider posting their opinions less, and reading science more.

It's almost impossible for the arctic to be ice free by summer 2015, but I suppose it's interesting to see what people think.

[Vergent]

It's almost impossible for the arctic to be ice free by summer 2015, but I suppose it's interesting to see what people think.

Is this a wishful opinion, or a science based opinion? If science I would like to see some supporting argument and data.

[forkyfork]

i think it happens by 2020

[Vergent]

It's almost impossible for the arctic to be ice free by summer 2015, but I suppose it's interesting to see what people think.

What is truly impossible is for the arctic to loose as much sea ice in the next two years as the last two. You see we run out of ice half way.

[salbers]

Maybe in 2015 there would just be some small areas of ice protected by the island areas.

[Vergent]

Maybe in 2015 there would just be some small areas of ice protected by the island areas.

That would be "ice free" under the definition commly used(less than 1.0 Mil km^2 area). There will always be some ice as long as Greenland glaciers are calving.

[CoastalWx]

Is this a wishful opinion, or a science based opinion? If science I would like to see some supporting argument and data.

You don't need a paper to back it up. It's common sense.

[TerryM]

You don't need a paper to back it up. It's common sense.

Or wishful thinking.

The thread title asked could it happen, and it certainly could be gone before then. I don't think is a 50/50 proposition, but it's certainly a possibility.

The modeler with the best track record so far said 2016 +-3yrs, back in 2002, common sense at the time was 2100.

Terry

[dabize]

You don't need a paper to back it up. It's common sense.

Common sense is based on past experience and doesn't work well when multiple synergistic variables are changing rapidly in the same direction in an unprecedented (to us) manner.

in this case, the variables are:

albedo loss,

SST increase

the reduced heat of fusion needed to melt a smaller volume of more fragmented, more mobile ice.

Common sense told many people in 1890 that in 50 years, New Yorkers would be up to their armpits in horse dung.

[blizzard1024]

Every year when we reach a minimum the only place that keeps ice is where the Arctic ocean is very deep.

That is where the multi-year ice is. The shallow areas of the Arctic ocean are what vary the most in minimum

sea ice. Because of this, I think it will take much longer and more warming to penetrate into the areas just north

of North American and Greenland. I suspect as long as this current mild spell in the NH continues, we will

see the shallow parts of the Arctic Ocean basin melt each year and we will keep the ice over the deeper

parts of the basin. If the warm arctic-cold continent theory proves somewhat correct (I have my doubts), then

the loss of sea ice would favor more negative NAO and AO patterns which reduces the flow of the warmer north atlantic

drift current into the Arctic ocean which could buffer the loss of ice in time. Sorta of a natural feedback trying to slow the

decline of the ice. Maybe it will stabilize at a lower level for a while. I doubt the Arctic will have an ice free summer in the next

10-20 years at least because of the deep waters and still very short melt season.