When will the 2012 Arctic ice extent minimum record be broken?

[Mallow]

Your best guess.

[forkyfork]

17/18

[LithiaWx]

I went with 17/18. If it happens in 16 I won't be shocked. If it takes until after 2020 I would be surprised.

[Mallow]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised for anything from 2016 to 2022 or so. Beyond 2023 would shock me.

[frontranger8]

How about this poll?

 

Will we next see a min (NSIDC) that:

 

1) is below 2012

 

or

 

2) is above 2013

[Mallow]

How about this poll?

 

Will we next see a min (NSIDC) that:

 

1) is below 2012

 

or

 

2) is above 2013

 

Added.

[Mallow]

I voted "Not in our lifetime" for the second question, but if it does happen, it will be sometime between 2016 and 2020.

[frontranger8]

Added.

 

Sweet.

[frontranger8]

I'm in the camp that the 2007-12 period was more of an aberration than a "new normal". I don't believe the weather patterns that dominated those years are likely to return to the same extent any time soon, and the weather going forward will be more similar to 2013-15 than 2007-12.

 

The long term trend continues down, but much slower than we saw 2007-12. There is some evidence that returning -AMO could slow down Arctic melt as well.

 

Therefore, I think another year in the next few years could easily surpass 2013. And it will take a return to sustained +dipole patterns to see something below 2012. Eventually, I think the long term trend will win out, and that happens some time in the early 2020s. But then we could easily see a big bounce back again, temporarily.

[Rjay]

I voted "Not in our lifetime" for the second question, but if it does happen, it will be sometime between 2016 and 2020.

[LithiaWx]

If this were a poll for above 14 I'd vote not in our lifetimes and be around 95% confident. I put the odds around 20% that it happens but like others said it will have to be in the next few years.

[csnavywx]

I'm in the camp that the 2007-12 period was more of an aberration than a "new normal". I don't believe the weather patterns that dominated those years are likely to return to the same extent any time soon, and the weather going forward will be more similar to 2013-15 than 2007-12.

 

The long term trend continues down, but much slower than we saw 2007-12. There is some evidence that returning -AMO could slow down Arctic melt as well.

 

Therefore, I think another year in the next few years could easily surpass 2013. And it will take a return to sustained +dipole patterns to see something below 2012. Eventually, I think the long term trend will win out, and that happens some time in the early 2020s. But then we could easily see a big bounce back again, temporarily.

A year above 2013 isn't out of the ballpark, but I think it will have to come fairly soon (within the next several years).

 

Thing is, we just came off a solid month of a very similar +GPH and +MSLP anomaly patterns to that of the 2007-2012 pattern. Very similar. That's something we didn't manage for more than a few days at a time during the last two seasons. So the call for 2013-2014-like patterns continuing in the future may be a bit premature there. Hell, we don't really know why that pattern occurred and persisted as long as it did in the first place. There is no real precedent for it in the record or reanalysis data. That's interesting to me. Chalking it up to a correlation with the AMO doesn't really hold much water though.

[chubbs]

2012 - 2019/20, 2013 - not in our lifetime - but I would have taken 2016-2020 if it was offered. Just eyeballing the trend line, looks like 2013 is more likely to occur than 2012 up until roughly 2018.

[frontranger8]

A year above 2013 isn't out of the ballpark, but I think it will have to come fairly soon (within the next several years).

 

Thing is, we just came off a solid month of a very similar +GPH and +MSLP anomaly patterns to that of the 2007-2012 pattern. Very similar. That's something we didn't manage for more than a few days at a time during the last two seasons. So the call for 2013-2014-like patterns continuing in the future may be a bit premature there. Hell, we don't really know why that pattern occurred and persisted as long as it did in the first place. There is no real precedent for it in the record or reanalysis data. That's interesting to me. Chalking it up to a correlation with the AMO doesn't really hold much water though.

 

1. The last month was easily the worst since 2012. However, if August goes how the Euro weeklies are indicating and is mostly -dipole, 2015 will go down as more similar to 2013/14. Only one month with +dipole.

 

2. I'm not saying 2007-12 was correlated to the AMO. Just that there is evidence of -AMO being better for the ice.

[ORH_wxman]

I voted for 2019-2020 for beating 2012...but 2017-2018 wouldn't surprise, nor would 2026-2030.

 

I voted for beating 2013 again in 2021-2025...but that was more the range in which I still think it is viable to beat 2013...not that it will necessarily occur during those years. It could happen from '16-'20 too.

 

The short term trends in the arctic can be very volatile and the more we learn about it, the more we keep realizing how much it can swing. The warming will take until the 2030s to really start overcoming the negative volume feedback, so at anytime we could have a coldish summer and put up another 2013....esp if we are retaining some multi-year ice in the winter....one of the things that failed to happen in the 2007-2012 period. The flushing of multi-year ice during that period was very strong.

[frontranger8]

2012 - 2019/20, 2013 - not in our lifetime - but I would have taken 2016-2020 if it was offered. Just eyeballing the trend line, looks like 2013 is more likely to occur than 2012 up until roughly 2018.

 

Bingo. 

 

Phillip thinks this year will top 2013. Bold...but not out of the realm of possibility.

[PhillipS]

Bingo. 

 

Phillip thinks this year will top 2013. Bold...but not out of the realm of possibility.

 

Don't attribute to boldness what can be better explained by confusion.  I found the wording of the poll, particularly the second question, rather vague.

[Mallow]

I voted for 2019-2020 for beating 2012...but 2017-2018 wouldn't surprise, nor would 2026-2030.

 

I voted for beating 2013 again in 2021-2025...but that was more the range in which I still think it is viable to beat 2013...not that it will necessarily occur during those years. It could happen from '16-'20 too.

 

The short term trends in the arctic can be very volatile and the more we learn about it, the more we keep realizing how much it can swing. The warming will take until the 2030s to really start overcoming the negative volume feedback, so at anytime we could have a coldish summer and put up another 2013....esp if we are retaining some multi-year ice in the winter....one of the things that failed to happen in the 2007-2012 period. The flushing of multi-year ice during that period was very strong.

 

Both of these are pretty extreme, especially the second one.

 

 

 

 

2012 - 2019/20, 2013 - not in our lifetime - but I would have taken 2016-2020 if it was offered. Just eyeballing the trend line, looks like 2013 is more likely to occur than 2012 up until roughly 2018.

 

I wouldn't say so (see above)

 

 

 

 

Don't attribute to boldness what can be better explained by confusion.  I found the wording of the poll, particularly the second question, rather vague.

 

You're welcome to change your vote. I'm simply asking what year (if any) you would think our minimum will be above 2013's minimum. It's not meant to be an actual FORECAST per se, just your best guesstimate.

[Mallow]

Including all the data, chubbs is right about 2018:

 

Will's predictions still seem pretty out there to me, even with all the data.

[ORH_wxman]

 

Both of these are pretty extreme, especially the second one.

 

seaice.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you assume linear trend dominates, then yes. I don't assume that...I am more of a fan of a gompertz-esque shape to the decline given the negative volume feedback.

 

The theory is...once we flushed a lot of the multi-year ice out through the mid-2000s, the icepack stabilizes to some extent because we re-enter each melt season with very similar thickness distribution because winter temps are not yet high enough to drastically affect thermodynamic thickening....and that becomes a more dominant driver of ice thickness as we lose multi-year ice.

 

 

You'll notice how the thicknesses are closely clustered entering each season after the loss of much of the remaining multi-year ice in the mid-2000s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is ice growth rate by thickness:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ice growth is very slow once we reach about 1.5-2 meters. So we need to warm the winters to the point where ice is having trouble achieving >1.5 meters or so. Right now, we are easily cold enough in winters to get there, so I favor a much slower decline until that point is reached.

 

In addition, I am also a believer that a significant portion of the arctic warming from the late 1980s/early 1990s to the mid/late 2000s was aided by natural variability. Given the drastic cooling of the N ATL the past 2-3 years, I think the warming rate will continue to be slower than that period for the next decade or two.

 

 

 

 

So that is a summation of why I am not simply extracting the linear trend going forward. Of course, I could be wrong...we won't have to wait all that long to find out.

[frontranger8]

Don't attribute to boldness what can be better explained by confusion.  I found the wording of the poll, particularly the second question, rather vague.

 

Maybe "by what year" would have been better wording, instead of "what year".

[Kelathos]

Attributing short term movement of Arctic Sea Ice Extent to weather patterns, we are most likely to see both 2012 and 2013 beaten within the next 5 years. If the North Atlantic is "cold" next year, maybe 2016 can beat 2013 - before greater losses occur in the following years.

[Mallow]

If you assume linear trend dominates, then yes. I don't assume that...I am more of a fan of a gompertz-esque shape to the decline given the negative volume feedback.

 

The theory is...once we flushed a lot of the multi-year ice out through the mid-2000s, the icepack stabilizes to some extent because we re-enter each melt season with very similar thickness distribution because winter temps are not yet high enough to drastically affect thermodynamic thickening....and that becomes a more dominant driver of ice thickness as we lose multi-year ice.

 

 

You'll notice how the thicknesses are closely clustered entering each season after the loss of much of the remaining multi-year ice in the mid-2000s.

 

 

 

Here is ice growth rate by thickness:

 

 

 

 

Ice growth is very slow once we reach about 1.5-2 meters. So we need to warm the winters to the point where ice is having trouble achieving >1.5 meters or so. Right now, we are easily cold enough in winters to get there, so I favor a much slower decline until that point is reached.

 

In addition, I am also a believer that a significant portion of the arctic warming from the late 1980s/early 1990s to the mid/late 2000s was aided by natural variability. Given the drastic cooling of the N ATL the past 2-3 years, I think the warming rate will continue to be slower than that period for the next decade or two.

 

 

 

 

So that is a summation of why I am not simply extracting the linear trend going forward. Of course, I could be wrong...we won't have to wait all that long to find out.

 

 

Indeed, we'll find out pretty soon! For the second-to-last paragraph, that's why I also included the data back to 1979. That trend line is tempered strongly by the 1979-1995 "slower melt" period, and yet it still suggests your bolded comments are too extreme.

 

I think you ascribe too much to the negative feedbacks at the expense of the positive (albedo/oceanic heat content) feedbacks. Both could be important, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume the trend line will change so drastically based on conjecture of which feedbacks are most important.

[ORH_wxman]

Indeed, we'll find out pretty soon! For the second-to-last paragraph, that's why I also included the data back to 1979. That trend line is tempered strongly by the 1979-1995 "slower melt" period, and yet it still suggests your bolded comments are too extreme.

 

I think you ascribe too much to the negative feedbacks at the expense of the positive (albedo/oceanic heat content) feedbacks. Both could be important, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume the trend line will change so drastically based on conjecture of which feddbacks are most important.

 

 

Well, we will just respectively agree to disagree.

 

 

To me, there has been a clear slowdown since most of the remaining older multi-year ice was eradicated in the mid-2000s...and I don't find my physical reasoning as outlandish. But again, we'll find out soon.

[blizzard1024]

If you assume linear trend dominates, then yes. I don't assume that...I am more of a fan of a gompertz-esque shape to the decline given the negative volume feedback.

 

The theory is...once we flushed a lot of the multi-year ice out through the mid-2000s, the icepack stabilizes to some extent because we re-enter each melt season with very similar thickness distribution because winter temps are not yet high enough to drastically affect thermodynamic thickening....and that becomes a more dominant driver of ice thickness as we lose multi-year ice.

 

 

You'll notice how the thicknesses are closely clustered entering each season after the loss of much of the remaining multi-year ice in the mid-2000s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is ice growth rate by thickness:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ice growth is very slow once we reach about 1.5-2 meters. So we need to warm the winters to the point where ice is having trouble achieving >1.5 meters or so. Right now, we are easily cold enough in winters to get there, so I favor a much slower decline until that point is reached.

 

In addition, I am also a believer that a significant portion of the arctic warming from the late 1980s/early 1990s to the mid/late 2000s was aided by natural variability. Given the drastic cooling of the N ATL the past 2-3 years, I think the warming rate will continue to be slower than that period for the next decade or two.

 

 

 

 

So that is a summation of why I am not simply extracting the linear trend going forward. Of course, I could be wrong...we won't have to wait all that long to find out.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens to the ice minimum extent with a cold AMO.

I bet we will see larger and larger extents in the coming decade or so. We started monitoring

arctic ice reliably since the cold late 1970s so we don't have a good understanding of what normal is.

Anything on sea ice extent prior to the satellite era is much more coarse and unreliable. Just like SSTs 100 years ago.  

 

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

More BS from blizzard. Hansen has clearly documented how 60% of the CO2 forcing requires 50 years to contribute to the radiative budget. The window for ice growth exists roughly until 2016-2020.

 

We are already at fatal GHG levels for Arctic survival but yet we keep pumping out more CO2. Arctic collapse will happen within 15 years without strong emissions reduction.

[LakeEffectKing]

More BS from blizzard. Hansen has clearly documented how 60% of the CO2 forcing requires 50 years to contribute to the radiative budget. The window for ice growth exists roughly until 2016-2020.

 

We are already at fatal GHG levels for Arctic survival but yet we keep pumping out more CO2. Arctic collapse will happen within 15 years without strong emissions reduction.

BS! If we stopped CO2 emissions RIGHT NOW, it would do almost NOTHING to affect the ice within the next 15 years....are you high??

[ORH_wxman]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the ice minimum extent with a cold AMO.

I bet we will see larger and larger extents in the coming decade or so. We started monitoring

arctic ice reliably since the cold late 1970s so we don't have a good understanding of what normal is.

Anything on sea ice extent prior to the satellite era is much more coarse and unreliable. Just like SSTs 100 years ago.  

 

 

 

 

 

I highly doubt it. I think it will simply just be partially offsetting the anthropogenic warming rather than aiding it like we saw from about 1990-2010.

[AvantHiatus]

BS! If we stopped CO2 emissions RIGHT NOW, it would do almost NOTHING to affect the ice within the next 15 years....are you high??

If we stopped emitting now, it might take 35 years instead of 15 to melt the ice out 100%. Yeah, that's a huge difference from the human perspective.

 

We are very close to tipping points already so every +1 ppm of CO2 causes forcings greater than the original input.

[Mallow]

If we stopped emitting now, it might take 35 years instead of 15 to melt the ice out 100%. Yeah, that's a huge difference from the human perspective.

 

We are very close to tipping points already so every +1 ppm of CO2 causes forcings greater than the original input.

 

I don't agree. The lag is longer than 15 to 30 years.