Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,610
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

When we will see an ice free arctic?


LithiaWx

When will we see an ice free arctic for the first time?  

65 members have voted

  1. 1. What year will we see an ice free sea ice extent minimum for the first time? (Defined under 1,000,000km2)

    • 2014 - 2016
      0
    • 2017 - 2020
    • 2021 - 2025
    • 2026 - 2030
    • 2031 - 2040
    • 2041 - 2050
    • 2051 - 2060
    • 2061 - 2070
    • 2071 - 2080
      0
    • 2081 - 2099
    • 2100 - 2200
    • In over a thousand years


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

ehhh. I don't think that's quite right.

 

Wanna put some money on it?

 

Do you know how difficult it will be to melt out the ice that's piled up along the Canadian archipelago? The arctic could warm another 5C and it still might take a decade or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanna put some money on it?

Do you know how difficult it will be to melt out the ice that's piled up along the Canadian archipelago? The arctic could warm another 5C and it still might take a decade or more.

That ice can still be there with a min below 1M. That's pretty much the premise of the 1M stipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ice can still be there with a min below 1M. That's pretty much the premise of the 1M stipulation.

 

Possibly. 1M isn't really a meltout though. 

 

I'm guessing that's why 1M was listed as the threshold, because that last 1M will be TOUGH. It could linger for 50 years, assuming we don't suck the CO2 out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly. 1M isn't really a meltout though.

I'm guessing that's why 1M was listed as the threshold, because that last 1M will be TOUGH. It could linger for 50 years, assuming we don't suck the CO2 out.

I didn't pull 1M out of thin air. I can't remember the exact group who first used it but the 1M is a commonly accepted definition of an ice free arctic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't pull 1M out of thin air. I can't remember the exact group who first used it but the 1M is a commonly accepted definition of an ice free arctic.

 

I have heard that before, it's most likely because that last 1M will linger for decades longer than the easy ice.

 

On the bright side, if we ever do co2 sequestration, it might not take more than a decade or so to rebuild the ice back up.... There are paleo records that show meltouts and rebuilds in short timeframes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanna put some money on it?

 

Do you know how difficult it will be to melt out the ice that's piled up along the Canadian archipelago? The arctic could warm another 5C and it still might take a decade or more.

 

I didn't say it was likely.  Just a hunch it will be in the mid-late 2020s.  I wouldn't put money on it as arctic sea ice is not really my area of most knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a 2020s melt is likely either, but using a one decade trend for that isn't exactly how I would've argued against it. The 30-year trend is +1C/decade.

I agree with everything but the bolded. The trend is nowhere close to 1C/decade. This holds true for both the surface station data and the satellite data:

800.jpg

800.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recollection of the discussion several years ago about the 1M km2 threshold was that satellite observations will never go to 0 km2 because satellites can't distinguish between sea ice and the bergy ice debris from glacial calving, and because there will always be sheltered coves or fiords with some ice left.  There is also the issue of the margin of error.  Lots of room for argument.  So the thought was that specifying a threshold for the value, and the source to be used, would eliminate much of the potential disputes.  The value of 1,000,000 km2 was chosen because we shoe-wearing monkees like round numbers.  Any other value greater than, say, 100K km2 would have made equal sense IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything but the bolded. The trend is nowhere close to 1C/decade. This holds true for both the surface station data and the satellite data:

800.jpg

800.jpg

Yeah, I'm sorry, I was looking at NCEP reanalysis for the 1C/dec. GISS shows 0.6C/dec, RSS 0.4C/dec, etc.

 

I perhaps missed the crux of the point with that sentence though. Winter temps (and resultant freezing degree days) are very important for thickening. Winter warming has been ridiculously fast. Once we can't reliably get above 1.7-1.8m or so of thickness over most of the basin, most simulations show that summer ice survival chances crash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...