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

[TerryM]

bliz

A look at the Pacific side might alter your opinion.

Lincoln Sea and the area to the north of the CA have been the repositories of the oldest MYI. These are over continental shelf features and lasted for Millennia.

The "mild spell" you refer to is the hottest the Arctic has been since bronze was high tech.- but in Europe flint was still the killer app.

Terry

[nzucker]

bliz

A look at the Pacific side might alter your opinion.

Lincoln Sea and the area to the north of the CA have been the repositories of the oldest MYI. These are over continental shelf features and lasted for Millennia.

The "mild spell" you refer to is the hottest the Arctic has been since bronze was high tech.- but in Europe flint was still the killer app.

Terry

Why would looking at the Pacific side change his opinion? The ice north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland has always been older and thicker than the ice near Alaska and the Bering Strait, which is subject to intrusions of warm water. Nothing suggests the Arctic sea ice will completely disappear in the next 5-10 years. The Arctic warming is out of step with the plateau in global temperatures (<0.05C/decade increase on GISS since 2000, and UAH/RSS having two negative months this year), and thus the Arctic rates to stop warming this quickly because it has to come back in line to some degree with what the rest of the globe is doing. Also, as the -AMO kicks in during the 2020s, the Atlantic side will cool and we should see more ice in the Kara, Barents, etc.

[TerryM]

Why would looking at the Pacific side change his opinion? The ice north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland has always been older and thicker than the ice near Alaska and the Bering Strait, which is subject to intrusions of warm water. Nothing suggests the Arctic sea ice will completely disappear in the next 5-10 years. The Arctic warming is out of step with the plateau in global temperatures (<0.05C/decade increase on GISS since 2000, and UAH/RSS having two negative months this year), and thus the Arctic rates to stop warming this quickly because it has to come back in line to some degree with what the rest of the globe is doing. Also, as the -AMO kicks in during the 2020s, the Atlantic side will cool and we should see more ice in the Kara, Barents, etc.

Had you even read what he wrote?

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

I'm glad to see that the vast majority of posters put never or later as their choice. Anything earlier is speculative alarmism, and contradicts basic physics. (Negative feedbacks).

[left_gulley]

I'm glad to see that the vast majority of posters put never or later as their choice. Anything earlier is speculative alarmism, and contradicts basic physics. (Negative feedbacks).

Despite "basic physics" and "negative feedbacks" ice volume loss has somehow been accelerating.

[dabize]

The weekly doomer - EC composite

Terry has a point, something is progressively eating away at the ice on the Pacific side, and it doesn't care about bathymetry

[Snow_Miser]

Despite "basic physics" and "negative feedbacks" ice volume loss has somehow been accelerating.

So because the ice is declining means that negative feedbacks don't exist? That's a silly argument.

PIOMAS will later be shown to be too low, and quite significantly so. There is no way that the ice is completely melting away by 2015.

[dabize]

So because the ice is declining means that negative feedbacks don't exist? That's a silly argument.

PIOMAS will later be shown to be too low, and quite significantly so. There is no way that the ice is completely melting away by 2015.

They may exist, but they can't be very effective, can they?

Are you..........God????

[left_gulley]

So because the ice is declining means that negative feedbacks don't exist? That's a silly argument.

PIOMAS will later be shown to be too low, and quite significantly so. There is no way that the ice is completely melting away by 2015.

See Dabize's response for your first point.

As for your second point, PIOMAS is not a forecast (as many people have pointed out in the climate change forum). If ice loss continues to follow an exponential trend downwards then it'll be gone by 2015. PIOMAS is in no way predicting this, but the graph just shows that the data fit a downward exponential trend well. It's possible that ice loss will slow dramatically in the future, but any theoretical negative feedbacks which could come to pass have been somewhat shy to make an appearance.

[Snow_Miser]

They may exist, but they can't be very effective, can they?

That's your assumption.

[Snow_Miser]

See Dabize's response for your first point.

As for your second point, PIOMAS is not a forecast (as many people have pointed out in the climate change forum). If ice loss continues to follow an exponential trend downwards then it'll be gone by 2015. PIOMAS is in no way predicting this, but the graph just shows that the data fit a downward exponential trend well. It's possible that ice loss will slow dramatically in the future, but any theoretical negative feedbacks which could come to pass have been somewhat shy to make an appearance.

The 2015 ice free forecast is not happening. Period.

[dabize]

That's your assumption.

Based in fact at least.

Yours is based on nothing at all, except possibly autotheology

[Snow_Miser]

Based in fact at least.

Yours is based on nothing at all, except possibly autotheology

On the contrary, my claim is based off of basic cloud principles and peer reviewed science.

http://www.agu.org/p...2GL051251.shtml

Arctic sea ice cover has decreased dramatically over the last three decades. Global climate models under-predicted this decline, most likely a result of the misrepresentation of one or more processes that influence sea ice. The cloud feedback is the primary source of uncertainty in model simulations, especially in the polar regions. A better understanding of the interaction between sea ice and clouds, and specifically the impact of decreased sea ice on cloud cover, will provide valuable insight into the Arctic climate system and may ultimately help in improving climate model parameterizations. In this study, an equilibrium feedback assessment is employed to quantify the relationship between changes in sea ice and clouds, using satellite-derived sea ice concentration and cloud cover over the period 2000–2010. Results show that a 1% decrease in sea ice concentration leads to a 0.36–0.47% increase in cloud cover, suggesting that a further decline in sea ice cover will result in an even cloudier Arctic.

The Cloud Cover has been shown to decrease in Winter, and increase in Summer, providing a strong negative feedback (less clouds in winter means that more heat can radiate to space, and more clouds in summer means that more sunlight will be reflected, producing a cooler Arctic, and representing a negative feedback.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD015804.shtml

[dabize]

On the contrary, my claim is based off of basic cloud principles and peer reviewed science.

The Cloud Cover has been shown to decrease in Winter, and increase in Summer, providing a strong negative feedback (less clouds in winter means that more heat can radiate to space, and more clouds in summer means that more sunlight will be reflected, producing a cooler Arctic, and representing a negative feedback.

http://www.agu.org/p...1JD015804.shtml

The only thing that does that is the word "strong", which you inserted yourself.

The graph offers no support - it shows a static situation, not a dynamic change over time.

Nevertheless, I accept that there are negative feedbacks involved

The main one is the one ORHWxman likes - that ice free conditions inherently favor reradiation back to space.

This effect, BTW, is impeded if anything by increased cloud in the winter.

The trouble is, they are opposed (and overwhelmed by) the synergistic positive feedbacks embedded in the equation that is driving ice loss.

Albedo loss increases heat absorption, causing more, earlier ice loss, causing increased heat absorption earlier in the season due to higher sun angle etc. Add to these the extra positive factor that warmer water and air is imported by the ocean and atmosphere from lower latitudes, which are also warming. This air is more humid, increasing the efficiency of heat gain.

The Arctic is big enough to store enough extra heat for it to last through the winter and change the starting conditions for the next years melt season, despite the negative feedbacks favoring reradiation, leading to progressive amplification year to year.

[dabize]

CT SIA = 2.74, blowing the doors off the old record (2007/11) at 2.90.

Hard to see how the new PIOMAS numbers will do anything but improve the fit of that heretical exponential fit projection.

I admit I'm not totally on board yet, but my reason for that is no better than Jonger's or Snow's....it seems to defy "common sense".

Realism pushes us all to accept that 2015 is as likely as 2016-18, and more likely than any later dates for reaching 1.00 mill km SIA, or effectively "ice free" conditions at minimum.

[A-L-E-K]

i think it happens by 2020

2019

[Vergent]

CT SIA = 2.74, blowing the doors off the old record (2007/11) at 2.90.

Hard to see how the new PIOMAS numbers will do anything but improve the fit of that heretical exponential fit projection.

I admit I'm not totally on board yet, but my reason for that is no better than Jonger's or Snow's....it seems to defy "common sense".

Realism pushes us all to accept that 2015 is as likely as 2016-18, and more likely than any later dates for reaching 1.00 mill km SIA, or effectively "ice free" conditions at minimum.

Good look at r04c04 today. Looking forward to your magic. Thanks in advance.

There is 500k of doomed ice that is on the continental shelves and GS. The pacific and Atlantic waters will do them in. At the minimum the AB will be just about all that is left. The AB is melting fast and loosing area to the CA and GS where it melts faster than it is transported in. Not only is 2.0 Mkm^2 on the table, at this point it might be a little optimistic. If the current loss rate continues for a week, we would be there, and there are 3-4 weeks left in the melt season.

If our losses follow 2010's trend, we end up with around 2.0 Mkm^2.

[left_gulley]

The 2015 ice free forecast is not happening. Period.

You're way too obsessed with the 2015 part. If you had to draw a line that best fits the PIOMAS data from 1979 to 2012 how would you draw it? My point (which is the same as Dabize's) is that any negative feedbacks are being overwhelmed by other factors, otherwise the data from 1979 to 2012 would not have had that look to it.

I also agree that we can't predict exactly when we'll get to less a 1 million km2, but with all the evidence I've seen I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen in the next 10 years (and, if I had to be more specific, I'd guess 2015-2017).

[Snow_Miser]

You're way too obsessed with the 2015 part. If you had to draw a line that best fits the PIOMAS data from 1979 to 2012 how would you draw it? My point (which is the same as Dabize's) is that any negative feedbacks are being overwhelmed by other factors, otherwise the data from 1979 to 2012 would not have had that look to it.

I also agree that we can't predict exactly when we'll get to less a 1 million km2, but with all the evidence I've seen I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen in the next 10 years (and, if I had to be more specific, I'd guess 2015-2017).

Multiple posters (even skierinvermont) have corrected such absurd claims that the ice will be gone as early as 2015.

I'm not going to continue arguing with someone whose ideas are on the fringe and are very alarmist.

[left_gulley]

Multiple posters (even skierinvermont) have corrected such absurd claims that the ice will be gone as early as 2015.

I'm not going to continue arguing with someone whose ideas are on the fringe and are very alarmist.

I also think that you're focusing too much on the "ice will be gone" part. "Ice free" is being defined in this thread as less than 1,000,000 km^2, which means that there could still be a fair amount of ice left in the Arctic, yet it would be considered "ice free" according to this definition.

PS - I don't think that stating that there might be less than 1 million km^2 at the minimum within 10 years is "alarmist" anymore. I'm just interpreting the evidence as best I can, and I think that plenty of people who are not in the habit of ringing alarm bells on a regular basis support a similar view these days. In fact, 23.1% of those who voted in the poll for this thread feel that the Arctic will be "ice free" by 2017, and most of those who took the poll voted well before the recent dramatic ice loss. If the poll was broken down by year to 2022 the percentage would probably have been somewhat higher too.

[Vergent]

I once spent half an hour explaining to a Jehovah's Witness why God was the Second Law of Thermodynamics - just to get rid of him.

Guess its time to put my faith to the test - I hope you're right.

WTF I thought God was the third law of thermodynamics. lets feud over this and spam every website until we agree that God=AMO

[dabize]

WTF I thought God was the third law of thermodynamics. lets feud over this and spam every website until we agree that God=AMO

The AMO is a 30% God at best........certainly a lesser God in my book

The Arctic is going to be run by a more serious force than that pretty soon

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/francisco-goya/saturn-devouring-his-son-1823-1

[The_Global_Warmer]

Why would looking at the Pacific side change his opinion? The ice north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland has always been older and thicker than the ice near Alaska and the Bering Strait, which is subject to intrusions of warm water. Nothing suggests the Arctic sea ice will completely disappear in the next 5-10 years. The Arctic warming is out of step with the plateau in global temperatures (<0.05C/decade increase on GISS since 2000, and UAH/RSS having two negative months this year), and thus the Arctic rates to stop warming this quickly because it has to come back in line to some degree with what the rest of the globe is doing. Also, as the -AMO kicks in during the 2020s, the Atlantic side will cool and we should see more ice in the Kara, Barents, etc.

That ice has lost over half of it's thickness since the 80s. These incredibly low extent and area years are allowing warmth to start penetrating these regions and melt the ice down more in summer than can be replenished in winter. Even if it's a slow process. Saying nothing suggests the ice will vanish in the next 5-10 years seems very bold. Maybe you should do some more research into the science that keeps overturning new data on a bi-annual basis at this point about heat flux's we didn't know were so powerful and the interaction between them. I liken your idea because global surface temps have plateaued it will effect the ice and it has to stop declining to fast to your idea that the Pacific side has to reach the pole for a new record this which won't happen and the Kara/Laptev side isn't important for it. Well, we still have 2-3 more weeks to go and the Kara/Laptev is a major reason the the new records are being set. You were so certain of it that you started taunting me and you missed the mark so substantially because you ether know of all of the most recent data and work in the arctic and choose to ignore it or you don't. It's nothing personal.

But again look at your first statement.

ITP55 was deployed on August 8, 2011 on a 3.13 m thick ice floe in the Beaufort Sea at 76° 5.1 N, 138° 16.9 W

ITP54 was deployed on August 6, 2011 on a 2.23 m thick ice floe in the Beaufort Sea at 77° 0.1 N, 140° 5.7 W

ITP53 was deployed on August 4, 2011 on a 3.80 m thick ice floe in the Beaufort Sea at 77° 34.2 N, 145° 56.4 W

ITP52 was deployed on August 5, 2011 on a 4.20 m thick ice floe in the Beaufort Sea at 78° 0.4 N, 139° 55.5 W

ITP51 was deployed on September 17, 2011 on a 2 m thick ice floe in the Transpolar Drift at 81° 29.2 N, 103° 11.6 E

ITP63 was deployed on a 1.27 m thick icefloe in the Canada Basin on April 20, 2012 at 83° 26.9 N, 115° 50.0 W

ITP56 was deployed on a 1.5 m thick icefloe in the Transpolar Drift on April 15, 2012 at 89° 19.5 N, 1° 54.8 E

ITP49 was deployed on September 11, 2011 on a 2 m thick ice floe in the Transpolar Drift at 84° 22.0 N, 139° 52.6 E

ITP48 was deployed on September 9, 2011 on a 1.2 m thick ice floe in the Transpolar Drift at 84° 48.8 N, 166° 12.9 E

ITP38 was deployed on a 1.7 m thick icefloe in the Transpolar Drift on April 19, 2010 at 88° 39.4 N, 145° 35.7 E

2011D April 6, 2011 (85N, 140W)Conditions at Deployment: Ice Thickness: 1.4Meters

2011M Date: September 29, 2011Type: Multi-year ice Ice Thickness: 167 cm

2012 ice melt conditions: Ice thickness : 2.5M Pos : 84.41 N, 94.91 W

2012B Initial Location: North Pole, April 15th- 2.74 Meters, MYI

2012C Initial location North pole: April 17th- 1.20 Meters, MYI

2012E Initial location (81N, 122W) May 2nd-2.06 Meters, FYI

2012F Initial Location (81N, 121W) May 2nd-2.09 Meters, FYI

That thick ice in the Beaufort is gone. The last two, 2012E and 2012F are near the Arctic Ocean in the Canadian Arpichelago. This part of the Arpichelago was a safe haven and log jam for MYI, a few decades ago we had 5, 7, 10 Meter ice there, that was sometimes over 10 years old.

Right now the SIA is 2.78 mil km2. Let's assume it finishes at 2.50 mil km2 and volume finishes at 3800km3. That would leave the ice pack average thickness at the end of the summer at 1.36 Meters acrross the board. The guys from Cryosat already admitted Cryosat is 900km3 lower in July vs last year on their preliminary data.

This is the last ice in the Canadian Arichelago. Both of those Buoys slipped, they are either in water or in thin mushy ice tiped over. Recently -7 to -10 850s and Northerly winds hit this area for 5 days or more and the ice kept melting out and opening up. This indicates the samething we saw with the Big SLP storm. Warm water flowing under the ice and tearing it apart from there. This is above 80N.

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r04c02.2012235.aqua.250m

I do not know if it will all melt out in the next 5-10 years or not, and if you think I am being a dick oh well, I am just trying to show you what is happening. I have also had to be shown what's happening with something and looked like a tool shed doing so when I was so arrogant about the Hudson Bay last year and busted by like 3 week or more on the freeze up. I was embarassed enough to look into more and change my position on it completely.

It's going to be almost impossible to go below 2007 with the Pacific side remaining relatively robust. I don't think the deficit towards the Kara really matters because you need to lose the entire PAC side of the pack up to the North Pole in order to get to 2007 levels. Probably not happening this year.

You said that on July 22nd and every statement in the post was wrong.

Goddard's bet is probably a good one if we're talking extent: it's unlikely we'll drop below '07.

He'll take many people's money...Friv has probably already given away his 50 bucks.

To bad as far as I know no one took easy money from Goodard. He will take no one's money and I wish I would have know of this thing and made some extra cash.

A few years ago, I believe it was 2010 towards the end of the melt season you were getting more on board with what is really happening. Instead of continuing down that path you went in another going further from what is really happening here. I hope you take a harder look at this if you still have a big interest in it. i apologize if you take offense to my post or do not care I was just trying to show you there isn't very much thick ice leftm MYI or not, nothing is recovering, nothing is surviving because this is a rapid postive feedback being driven by massive changes in albedo and continued enhanced GHG forcing.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So because the ice is declining means that negative feedbacks don't exist? That's a silly argument.

PIOMAS will later be shown to be too low, and quite significantly so. There is no way that the ice is completely melting away by 2015.

Cryosat 2 had 6000km3 Sea Ice Volume on October 1st. Piomas had 5000km3. So you think Cryosat is crap, funny you didn't think that before they got there bleep together.

Now they say preliminary data this July is 900km3 lower than last year. Piomas was 4100km3 last year at the min.

This year it will likely drop even further around 3500km3. Cryosat will probably come in around 4000km3

I listed a bunch of buoy thickness data from 2011 in the Beaufort last fall and they show going into winter they were sitting on ice floes 3-4 meters, now that is gone or scattered and thin enough it doesn't even show up on the passive microwave.

But even more worrisome is how thin the Canadian Basin is and how empty the Canadian Archipelago is.

So let's play your game and assume Piomas and Cryosat are off their rocker.

Let's assume this season ends at 2.50 mil km2 area. and Piomas is really at 7000km3 that would equal an average thickness of 2.8 Meters at the end. The idea that it's anywhere near that would be dismissing every bit of data we have.

Let's say we drop to 2.25 mil km2 area. Now that put's thickness at 3.17 meters again completly absurd.

So in the end your making things up with this one.

[The_Global_Warmer]

WTF I thought God was the third law of thermodynamics. lets feud over this and spam every website until we agree that God=AMO

The AMO is a 30% God at best........certainly a lesser God in my book

The Arctic is going to be run by a more serious force than that pretty soon

http://www.wikipaint...-his-son-1823-1

You guys should do some math on that AMO index which oscillates .45C between cold and warm cycles.

How the hell does that little of a change cause the Pacific side of the Arctic to melt out? How does it cause 30-50% of the ice loss? It doesn't make sense.

On top of that this winter the AMO was NEGATIVE when the Atlantic side was in peril.

[dabize]

You guys should do some math on that AMO index which oscillates .45C between cold and warm cycles.

How the hell does that little of a change cause the Pacific side of the Arctic to melt out? How does it cause 30-50% of the ice loss? It doesn't make sense.

On top of that this winter the AMO was NEGATIVE when the Atlantic side was in peril.

Friv did you read our posts? This is a joke

Lighten up.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv did you read our posts? This is a joke

Lighten up.

No I mean do some math if we can on heat flux's.

The idea that the AMO has caused 30-50% of the September min volume loss is quite absurd to me.

[Snow_Miser]

Cryosat 2 had 6000km3 Sea Ice Volume on October 1st. Piomas had 5000km3. So you think Cryosat is crap, funny you didn't think that before they got there bleep together.

Now they say preliminary data this July is 900km3 lower than last year. Piomas was 4100km3 last year at the min.

This year it will likely drop even further around 3500km3. Cryosat will probably come in around 4000km3

I listed a bunch of buoy thickness data from 2011 in the Beaufort last fall and they show going into winter they were sitting on ice floes 3-4 meters, now that is gone or scattered and thin enough it doesn't even show up on the passive microwave.

But even more worrisome is how thin the Canadian Basin is and how empty the Canadian Archipelago is.

So let's play your game and assume Piomas and Cryosat are off their rocker.

Let's assume this season ends at 2.50 mil km2 area. and Piomas is really at 7000km3 that would equal an average thickness of 2.8 Meters at the end. The idea that it's anywhere near that would be dismissing every bit of data we have.

Let's say we drop to 2.25 mil km2 area. Now that put's thickness at 3.17 meters again completly absurd.

So in the end your making things up with this one.

I'm not making anything up Friv, the extrapolation for PIOMAS as of now shows that we should see an ice free summer in 2015. That's not happening by any means.

[dabize]

I'm not making anything up Friv, the extrapolation for PIOMAS as of now shows that we should see an ice free summer in 2015. That's not happening by any means.

Snow, phrases like this are jarring to the scientifically trained, if presented without a rationale.

You simply don't know that this is true, especially given how the "rules" on which your confidence is (presumably) based are changing before our eyes.

None of us "alarmists" are saying that the ice WILL be gone by then either.

We do say that it increasingly looks as if there is a non-trivial probability that this might occur, however.

The rationale for this has been stated and restated repeatedly in this thread, and has met with no serious rebuttal based on either evidence or a critique of the underlying science.

Why do you find this so unreasonable?

BTW, here is the EC image I posted earlier (fixed - Wrangel Island now exists again).

[nzucker]

Friv, I may have busted on extent but only because we got that huge storm where we lost like 180k every night. I said we couldn't break the record with the Pacific remaining robust, but the storm sapped away the robustness of the Pacific ice pack. That was an unforeseen event that no one could have predicted: a 970mb low over the Arctic in summer is nearly unprecedented, and having 200k losses in August is unusual. So I admit I was wrong, but it wasn't a bad forecast until the storm caused the huge declines.

I am relatively confident that we won't be ice free by 2015 or 2020. That's a much easier prediction to make than an individual year because the weather in the Arctic varies so greatly during any given summer, like the storm. You can't just follow the curve of PIOMAS because the inner ice core is more difficult to melt, and the Arctic amplification is out of step with generally stable global temperatures.