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

[The_Global_Warmer]

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.

2015 is like 2007 to 2012.

Not 2013-14.

It's not even close

[ORH_wxman]

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.

 

 

 

You should really familirize yourself with the jargon before posting about it.

 

Stopping emissions now wouldn't avoid an abrupt collapse of sea ice in the next few years. If it is going to melt out in the next few years, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it due to thermal inertia of the oceans. The good news is that there is no evidence for such a sudden tipping point collapse. If we melt out in the next few years, it will almost certainly be heavily aided by natural variability with several bad summer and winter patterns in a string of consecutive years....and if it does melt out one of those summers, it woul dbe unlikely to melt out again the next season given that winters are not yet warm enough to prevent thermodynamic thickening of ice comfortably above 1.5m.

[AvantHiatus]

I don't consider 15 years an abrupt timeframe but it's close. That's why Jim Hansen outlined our predicament and the dire need to reduce emissions now before the inertia kicks in from 20 more years of BAU emissions later on down the road. 

[blizzard1024]

I don't consider 15 years an abrupt timeframe but it's close. That's why Jim Hansen outlined our predicament and the dire need to reduce emissions now before the inertia kicks in from 20 more years of BAU emissions later on down the road. 

You actually listen to what Jim Hansen says? Jim Hanson is to the global warmers as Joe Bastardi is to the global coolers and Joe Bastardi has more observational (not model) data to back up his claims. If anything I would tend toward the very low end of the IPCC projections or even  a bit lower...like 1.2C or so for a doubling of CO2 that would take centuries to fully be realized because of the vast oceans. Arctic sea ice will be fine and recover some in the coming decades. I don't think CO2 really has much to do with this decline...natural variability.

[AvantHiatus]

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

Yeah but you still get about 25% of the annual GHG forcing in a year. This is significant when so much CO2 is being released into the atmosphere.

 

We will truely be living in a fossil fuel bubble soon if we don't start the 6% emissions reduction per year. Of course anyone older than 50 won't see deep extinction level effects and human cost to society.

[frontranger8]

2015 is like 2007 to 2012.

Not 2013-14.

It's not even close

 

4 weeks does not a season make.

 

Let's see how August/September turn out. My guess is we will look back on spring/summer 2015 as more like 2013/14 than 2007-12. And the extent numbers will reflect that.

[StudentOfClimatology]

4 weeks does not a season make.

Let's see how August/September turn out. My guess is we will look back on spring/summer 2015 as more like 2013/14 than 2007-12. And the extent numbers will reflect that.

I'm with you on this one. The pattern going forward looks as good or better than the 2013/2014 patterns did going forward.

[ORH_wxman]

I could see arguing either way. The envelope of outcomes at this point could be closer to 2013/2014 or the 2007-2012 years. You can argue that July was a pattern that we hadn't seen in sustained form like that since 2012. On the flip side, if August ends up cold and stormy and we finish the melt season with a wimper, then that would reflect more like 2013.

If we have a 2007-2012 average melt from here on out, then we would finish with about 4.75 on NSIDC for the daily min. That is about halfway between the 2007-2012 mean of 4.52 and the 2014 min of 5.01 million sq km.

So depending on what side of that melt figure we end up on, that will determine (at least numerically) what season this will resemble more.

I think you have to take into account volume too. 2010 was much closer to 2013/2014 for extent numbers but volume wise it was far lower and suffered incredible volume losses that season. It remains to be seen how much volume loss 2015 incurs. It won't be nearly as much as 2010 but IMHO it doesn't need to be in order for this to resemble more of a 2007-2012 year.

We also will want to see where CT SIA finishes.

[frontranger8]

I could see arguing either way. The envelope of outcomes at this point could be closer to 2013/2014 or the 2007-2012 years. You can argue that July was a pattern that we hadn't seen in sustained form like that since 2012. On the flip side, if August ends up cold and stormy and we finish the melt season with a wimper, then that would reflect more like 2013.

If we have a 2007-2012 average melt from here on out, then we would finish with about 4.75 on NSIDC for the daily min. That is about halfway between the 2007-2012 mean of 4.52 and the 2014 min of 5.01 million sq km.

So depending on what side of that melt figure we end up on, that will determine (at least numerically) what season this will resemble more.

I think you have to take into account volume too. 2010 was much closer to 2013/2014 for extent numbers but volume wise it was far lower and suffered incredible volume losses that season. It remains to be seen how much volume loss 2015 incurs. It won't be nearly as much as 2010 but IMHO it doesn't need to be in order for this to resemble more of a 2007-2012 year.

We also will want to see where CT SIA finishes.

 

Agree on all points. Of course, this poll is for extent. But I think TGW was referring to pattern primarily.

[LithiaWx]

There is no reason for this post to continually be deleted. Hopefully this third attempt won't be censored.

Two years later and this thread still speaks volumes. The amount of climate change deniers who frequent this board is awful. The fact this is a science board is even scarier. You have a large segment of this board and the population living in total denial

[ORH_wxman]

There is no reason for this post to continually be deleted. Hopefully this third attempt won't be censored.

Two years later and this thread still speaks volumes. The amount of climate change deniers who frequent this board is awful. The fact this is a science board is even scarier. You have a large segment of this board and the population living in total denial

 

This post doesn't add a thing to this thread...that's why it was getting deleted. What specifically in this thread "speaks volumes"?

 

Up your game or pack it up and keep your garbage out of here.

[LithiaWx]

This post doesn't add a thing to this thread...that's why it was getting deleted. What specifically in this thread "speaks volumes"?

 

Up your game or pack it up and keep your garbage out of here.

When half of the votes completely disregard the consensus of the scientific community I'd say that speaks volumes. Lots of deniers around. How about you stop deleting posts that you don't like and stick to deleting posts that break the TOS.

[ORH_wxman]

When half of the votes completely disregard the consensus of the scientific community I'd say that speaks volumes. Lots of deniers around. How about you stop deleting posts that you don't like and stick to deleting posts that break the TOS.

 

What is the scientific consensus for beating 2012?

 

You haven't shown any data. Show us that the scientific consensus in the literature for beating 2012 is before 2020.

 

 

And yes, if I believe your posts are not in good faith, I have no problem deleting them. Your posts have become increasingly antagonistic and have very little substance. Up your game and you have no worries.

[LithiaWx]

What is the scientific consensus for beating 2012?

You haven't shown any data. Show us that the scientific consensus in the literature for beating 2012 is before 2020.

And yes, if I believe your posts are not in good faith, I have no problem deleting them. Your posts have become increasingly antagonistic and have very little substance. Up your game and you have no worries.

My post was supposed to be in the thread about an ice free arctic. You deleted it so many times when I reposted it for a third time it ended up here. How screwed up is that?

[ORH_wxman]

My post was supposed to be in the thread about an ice free arctic. You deleted it so many times when I reposted it for a third time it ended up here. How screwed up is that?

 

 

Your statement still doesn't hold true if you use the other thread. You have 29% of the respondents say the ice will never melt out and another 6% say after 2100....so if you include those insane responses as not in the scientific consensus, that is legit.

 

But you said over half. That's incorrect. The scientific consensus on an ice free arctic is very broad. Basically anything from 2020 to late 21st century.

[LithiaWx]

Your statement still doesn't hold true if you use the other thread. You have 29% of the respondents say the ice will never melt out and another 6% say after 2100....so if you include those insane responses as not in the scientific consensus, that is legit.

But you said over half. That's incorrect. The scientific consensus on an ice free arctic is very broad. Basically anything from 2020 to late 21st century.

It's a substantial number of posters, that was my point. If it's not half then close to a third would be the proper term. You're going to semantics with this post. My point was its not a couple of posters, the amount posters who disagree with the scientific consensus is way more than it should be for a board that discusses science.

[ORH_wxman]

It's a substantial number of posters, that was my point. If it's not half then close to a third would be the proper term. You're going to semantics with this post. My point was its not a couple of posters, the amount posters who disagree with the scientific consensus is way more than it should be for a board that discusses science.

Most of them aren't regular posters on here.

Even out of the regular posters, you'd be surprised at how many don't even know what mainstream consensus is for various climate change topics.

[The_Global_Warmer]

September 2nd 2016

[Amped]

September 2nd 2016

Is that record broken or ice free?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Is that record broken or ice free?

Record broken

[Mallow]

I had said 2017-2018, but it's looking more likely that it'll be 2016.

[skierinvermont]

I'd give 40% chance for this year to break 2012.

[nflwxman]

I'd give 40% chance for this year to break 2012.

 

If the Euro ensembles are any indication, the ice will be in a far worse state at the end of May than in 2012 or 2007.  A collapsing super nino favors continued warmth at 80N, so I'd put the odds slightly above 50%.

[ORH_wxman]

It's still pretty early, but I'd probably put my odds closer to skier's numbers...even a bit lower. Maybe 1 in 3.

 

We're tied with 2011 for volume, but due to lower extent/area at this time of the year than 2011, the average thickness is higher. More like 2010's avg thickness. We'll need an especially bad summer pattern to pass 2012. I'd probably normally put my odds much lower...like around 1 in 5...but the early pattern that blew the ice away from the southern Beaufort should be a good start to the melt season there...which is a critical region early on. So a big head start there helps in narrowing the gap to overcome.

 

But still...if we're starting from something like 2011...even that year finished over 1 million sq km higher than 2012. So there's a big gap to overcome. The combo of weather and ice dynamics will have to do it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Cryosat versus piomas is pretty off over a large region of the Western CAB.

We'll see how that goes.

[skierinvermont]

It's still pretty early, but I'd probably put my odds closer to skier's numbers...even a bit lower. Maybe 1 in 3.

 

We're tied with 2011 for volume, but due to lower extent/area at this time of the year than 2011, the average thickness is higher. More like 2010's avg thickness. We'll need an especially bad summer pattern to pass 2012. I'd probably normally put my odds much lower...like around 1 in 5...but the early pattern that blew the ice away from the southern Beaufort should be a good start to the melt season there...which is a critical region early on. So a big head start there helps in narrowing the gap to overcome.

 

But still...if we're starting from something like 2011...even that year finished over 1 million sq km higher than 2012. So there's a big gap to overcome. The combo of weather and ice dynamics will have to do it.

 

Yeah I was trying to decide between 30 and 40%. Hard to go higher than that given the date I think.

 

There does seem to be a lot of persistence in the arctic with years that start out warm staying warm. But it will have to be really warm and sunny with bad winds to break 2012.

[ORH_wxman]

Sucks that CT SIA is still down...we may not have it in time to narrow the prediction in June like the past few years. We'll still probably be able to make a somewhat skillful prediction, but probably not as precisely if we don't have good CT SIA data. Extent data in June is not very helpful.

[chubbs]

On 7/28/2015 at 11:19 PM, chubbs said:

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.

Bump

Crunch time for my wag.

A month ago would have pushed the record min out in time, but will let it ride given the current pattern.

[ORH_wxman]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

Bump

Crunch time for my wag.

A month ago would have pushed the record min out in time, but will let it ride given the current pattern.

PIOMAS gives you a chance this year. Cryosat2 doesn't look very promising...pretty big differences this season in the two.

[chubbs]

22 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

PIOMAS gives you a chance this year. Cryosat2 doesn't look very promising...pretty big differences this season in the two.

A crapshoot. I see you also picked 19/20. Have to check back in a couple of weeks to see if we still have a shot at getting lucky (or unlucky).