Researchers project ice-free Arctic by 2058

Jul 16, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Mosaic of images of the Arctic by MODIS. Credit: NASA

(Phys.org) —A combined team of researchers from the U.S. and China has projected, using a climate simulation tool, that the Arctic will become September ice-free sometime during the years 2054 to 2058. The group has published a paper describing their methods and findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Ice-free in this context refers to a time period during any given year—generally arriving in September after withstanding the heat of summer. Not long after began to recognize that the planet has been heating up, many began to realize that a warmer planet would mean warmer temperatures in the Arctic—enough warming and the Arctic would eventually become ice-free during part of the year. Many researchers using many models and simulations have sought to project when that might happen, as projections have now made it a near certainty. In this new effort, the research team used a climate modal called Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Phase 5 is the latest version of the model, which is why the team chose to use it.

One of the factors that the newest version of CMIP5 takes into consideration is ice thickness—the thinner the ice the faster it will melt—recent research suggests ice in the Arctic is growing thinner. It also uses various factors in attempting to simulate ice extent— ice covering less area to start with means less will be left at the end of summer. CIMP5 also allowed the researchers to make comparisons between historical projections and what actually transpired in the real world. As one example, the team gave the for the time period 1979 through 2011. By running simulations from various models and comparing them, the team was able to come up with a scenario that best represented what actually occurred. Once that was accomplished, they were able to use the same constraints to project most accurately what might occur in the future.

To help improve accuracy, the team also input data into the model that took into account the fact that more sea ice tends to mean ice will be around longer and vice-versa and applied it using data from the years 2007 to 2012.

The overall result of their simulations gave rise to the same general prediction—that the Arctic will be ice-free for several months of every year, starting sometime during the years 2054 to 2058.

Explore further: NASA balloons begin flying in Antarctica for 2014 campaign

More information: Reducing spread in climate model projections of a September ice-free Arctic, PNAS, Published online before print July 15, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219716110

Abstract
This paper addresses the specter of a September ice-free Arctic in the 21st century using newly available simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). We find that large spread in the projected timing of the September ice-free Arctic in 30 CMIP5 models is associated at least as much with different atmospheric model components as with initial conditions. Here we reduce the spread in the timing of an ice-free state using two different approaches for the 30 CMIP5 models: (i) model selection based on the ability to reproduce the observed sea ice climatology and variability since 1979 and (ii) constrained estimation based on the strong and persistent relationship between present and future sea ice conditions. Results from the two approaches show good agreement. Under a high-emission scenario both approaches project that September ice extent will drop to ?1.7 million km2 in the mid 2040s and reach the ice-free state (defined as 1 million km2) in 2054–2058. Under a medium-mitigation scenario, both approaches project a decrease to ?1.7 million km2 in the early 2060s, followed by a leveling off in the ice extent.

Related Stories

Study explores atmospheric impact of declining Arctic sea ice

May 28, 2013

There is growing recognition that reductions in Arctic sea ice levels will influence patterns of atmospheric circulation both within and beyond the Arctic. New research in the International Journal of Climatology explores the im ...

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 60

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (27) Jul 16, 2013
I have it on good authority from Conservative Christians that God will never permit it to happen.
DeadCorpse
2.2 / 5 (41) Jul 16, 2013
Are these the same guys that said we'd run out of food by 1985, oil before the change of the Millenium, and have massive flooding of global coastlines by 2010?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (26) Jul 16, 2013
Are these the same guys that said we'd run out of food by 1985, oil before the change of the Millenium, and have massive flooding of global coastlines by 2010?


no
Sinister1811
3.1 / 5 (28) Jul 16, 2013
Are these the same guys that said we'd run out of food by 1985, oil before the change of the Millenium, and have massive flooding of global coastlines by 2010?


Nope, that was Nostradamus.
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (26) Jul 16, 2013
WOW. I knew the Arctic was vanishing fast, but to think it'll completely disappear in 40 years, that's just mind blowing. That'll completely change weather patterns across the planet. I can't even begin to imagine how bad the damage from something like that could be. The weather pattern change will probably happen pretty quickly as the dynamics snap over to a new equilibrium. Farmland will shift, deserts will spread... this could easily be WWIII. And considering the food-driven desperation, it's a fair bet that it'll go nuclear.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (33) Jul 16, 2013
The Vatican officially supports anti-science climate alarm, for doomsday scenarios are gloves that fit them very well:

http://www.huffin...e-change

A bevy of utter psychopaths support doom, too, as Pope Manson explains:

http://www.youtub...zLzj-3XY

deatopmg
1.9 / 5 (34) Jul 16, 2013
Certainly from the same group of alarmists that said the the arctic would be ice free by 2012!

They can't even predict the weather a week ahead, how can anyone believe this nonsense?
runrig
3.8 / 5 (21) Jul 16, 2013
The Vatican officially supports anti-science climate alarm, for doomsday scenarios are gloves that fit them very well:

http://www.huffin...e-change


Have you heard the one about the hypochondriac who had his headstone engraved with.

" See, I told you I wasn't well "

Well, you know - shit does happen even when predicted.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (30) Jul 16, 2013
This climate model "study" contrasts strongly with the peer reviewed outlook of empiricists, via the journal Nature Geoscience this week:

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been reported to be losing mass at accelerating rates ... However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes ..."

http://www.thereg...entists/
runrig
4 / 5 (25) Jul 16, 2013
This climate model "study" contrasts strongly with the peer reviewed outlook of empiricists, via the journal Nature Geoscience this week:

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been reported to be losing mass at accelerating rates ... However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes ..."

http://www.thereg...entists/


This article is about sea ice.
The one you quote is about land ice.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (30) Jul 16, 2013
Well, you know - shit does happen even when predicted.


The budding science of economics successfully warns that if the precautionary principle is neurotically applied to any arbitrary scare that goes viral, that R&D funding for the basic sciences will severely suffer, as today is indeed the case with climate alarm. In an era of truly alarming antibiotic resistance tree huggers rack up million dollar grants but organic chemists suffer a wave of unemployment, so disasters are indeed predictable by 2054 unless you are a mainstream environmentalist who dreams of returning to Earth as a deadly virus, and your name is Prince Phillip, for then you'll be in Paradise.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (21) Jul 16, 2013


The budding science of economics successfully warns that if the precautionary principle is neurotically applied to any arbitrary scare that goes viral, that R&D funding for the basic sciences will severely suffer, as today is indeed the case with climate alarm. In an era of truly alarming antibiotic resistance tree huggers rack up million dollar grants but organic chemists suffer a wave of unemployment,..............


Many argue that AGW is the most pressing concern of the planet, in terms of the economic as well a physical toll it will have. If ever a precautionary approach was appropriate then it is this one.
"Tree-huggers" look after the interests of the Earth. There are extremes of course - as with the "Tree-destroying" lot. Which is why consensus matters, though by the same token it can never be 100%. It is unreasonable to expect it to be. Life aint like that. Never will be.
Sanescience
1.6 / 5 (29) Jul 16, 2013
I will place this observation here to be voted on by Pavlovian button pushers that cannot abide diverse intellectual stimulation...

Anyone who is really invested in trusting computer models of climate should take some programming classes and then write up some idealized atmospheric thermal convection simulations. That tiny part of climate modeling will quickly show the limitations of quantized physics simulations and the number of assumptions for unknown numbers that has to be made. Here is a start in pseudo code for first order computation at O(N^2):

float TotalTimeSpan = 60.0f;
float TimeSliceSize = 0.001f;

while( TotalTimeSpan > 0.0f )
{
foreach( MoleculeA in AllMolecules_Source )
{
foreach( MoleculeB in AllMolecules_Source )
{
ComputeInteraction( MoleculeA, MoleculeB, timeSliceSize );
}
AllMolecules_Computed.Add( MoleculeA );
}
AllMolecules_Source = AllMolecules_Computed;
AllMolecules_Computed.Clear();
TotalTimeSpan -= TimeSliceSize;
}

runrig
4.6 / 5 (18) Jul 16, 2013
I will place this observation here to be voted on by Pavlovian button pushers that cannot abide diverse intellectual stimulation...

Anyone who is really invested in trusting computer models of climate should take some programming classes and then write up some idealized atmospheric thermal convection simulations. That tiny part of climate modeling will quickly show the limitations of quantized physics simulations and the number of assumptions for unknown numbers that has to be made.


Yes, a number of parametrizations have to be made.
Convection isn't modeled in GCM's - it takes place on too small a scale and is unfeasibly expensive in computer time. Even in NWP models it can only be done in the mesoscale, as it requires a resolution ~1km to properly model a cloud.

http://en.wikiped...te_model
http://www.metoff...esoscale
http://www.metoff...ecasting
freeiam
1.8 / 5 (32) Jul 16, 2013
WOW. I knew the Arctic was vanishing fast, but to think it'll completely disappear in 40 years, that's just mind blowing. That'll completely change weather patterns across the planet. I can't even begin to imagine how bad the damage from something like that could be. The weather pattern change will probably happen pretty quickly as the dynamics snap over to a new equilibrium. Farmland will shift, deserts will spread... this could easily be WWIII. And considering the food-driven desperation, it's a fair bet that it'll go nuclear.

Relax. Predicting the weather two days in advance is wrong a lot of the time.
Think about predicting 45 years in advance using a modeling tool that's probably mostly wrong.

runrig
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 16, 2013

Relax. Predicting the weather two days in advance is wrong a lot of the time.
Think about predicting 45 years in advance using a modeling tool that's probably mostly wrong.


Apples and pears. And a weather forecast is not wrong often in 2 days time ( not here anyway ) - you need to get to 4/5 days for that to stick. Besides what to you consider wrong? A forecast of "scattered showers" would be right if you got wet or not.
Climate forecasts are quite different and are the trend that weather forms the noise on. It is much a different process to predict the rate of change of that slope than the sharp spikes/troughs that comprise weather.
JohnGee
3.6 / 5 (29) Jul 16, 2013
The denialists still don't understand that difference between weather and climate.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (21) Jul 16, 2013
Certainly from the same group of alarmists that said the the arctic would be ice free by 2012!

They can't even predict the weather a week ahead, how can anyone believe this nonsense?


deatopmg: Are you referring to the National Geographic article from 2007 that quoted a single scientist?

http://news.natio...elt.html

If you have more than a group of one, could you please supply references?

Not only that but the one scientist, Jay Zwally, said "nearly ice free" and the rest of the article referred to the 2040 time frame. Actually, 2012 was a record low for the ice, but all but one scientist discounted the idea of it being ice free before the 2040s. Please show us your sources for the "group."

Also, do we have to explain the difference between weather and climate to you again?
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 16, 2013
"The denialists still don't understand that difference between weather and climate." - JohnGee

People who are paid to be stupid, seldom manage to understand.

Fools who believe they will profit from their own ignorance never do.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2013
"Predicting the weather two days in advance is wrong a lot of the time.
Think about predicting 45 years in advance using a modeling tool that's probably mostly wrong." - WageSlave

This is why Climate scientists do not attempt to predict the weather 45 years hence, contrary to your implication that they do.

From what dung heap of ignorance have you been eating to believe that they do?

Faux News?

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2013
I am unaware of any model of group of scientists who made that claim.

"Certainly from the same group of alarmists that said the the arctic would be ice free by 2012" - deaTard

the onus is on you to provide a reference, or be identified as a liar.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 16, 2013
This will certainly make it easier to locate the nazi sub and ufo bases.
http://www.youtub...pPwyyvLw
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2013
Ghost, it is the wrong pole, but that is a great video.
evercurious
5 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2013
But, where will Santa Clause live?
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 16, 2013
But, where will Santa Clause live?

Don't worry, Santa Clause will be fine. (as Santa Clause puts all the deniers on the Naughty list and moves to North Nunavut, Canada).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 16, 2013
Ghost, it is the wrong pole, but that is a great video.
Oop but Nazis were all over the place weren't they? Including dee dahk site off dee mooooon
http://www.youtub...a_player

I just read ben bovas new book which was on my mind
http://www.benbova.net/

-wherein st louis was flooded by an inland sea because Antarctica and Greenland were melting. Lots of disaster stories out there of late. Many include AGW (and also zombies)
freeiam
1.5 / 5 (24) Jul 17, 2013

Relax. Predicting the weather two days in advance is wrong a lot of the time.
Think about predicting 45 years in advance using a modeling tool that's probably mostly wrong.


Apples and pears. And a weather forecast is not wrong often in 2 days time ( not here anyway ) - you need to get to 4/5 days for that to stick. Besides what to you consider wrong? A forecast of "scattered showers" would be right if you got wet or not.
Climate forecasts are quite different and are the trend that weather forms the noise on. It is much a different process to predict the rate of change of that slope than the sharp spikes/troughs that comprise weather.

I didn't say the weather forecast for two days is wrong often and I didn't say predicting weather and climate is the same. What I did imply is that predicting weather and climate is comparable in difficulty.
Underestimation of this difficulty by IPCC (and followers) is precisely the point I wanted to make.
Sinister1811
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2013
But, where will Santa Clause live?

Don't worry, Santa Clause will be fine. (as Santa Clause puts all the deniers on the Naughty list and moves to North Nunavut, Canada).


They'll all be getting coal in their stockings. ;) He knows who has been naughty or nice. lol
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2013
freeiam:

You said: "Predicting the weather two days in advance is wrong a lot of the time."

You then said: "I didn't say the weather forecast for two days is wrong often..."

I have to ask if English is not your native language (or even your second language).

---------------------------------------------

You then said: "What I did imply is that predicting weather and climate is comparable in difficulty."

Based on that statement I have to ask if you understand the difference between a prediction of mesoscale weather on the time scale of days versus global heat balances and impacts on macroscale (greater than 200km) features which act as sources, sinks, and motivation of heat and water (in all forms including vapor, liquid, and solid). Maybe it goes back to your problems with English. Or, maybe you just need a few courses on physics, math, modeling, geology, climate, and oceanography. Should we take up a contribution for the books you will need?
megmaltese
1 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2013
NWO objective achieved.
rug
2.9 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2013
@thermodynamics if you start a donation I'll donate the first dollar. Although, I doubt any education would help such a thick headed person.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (19) Jul 20, 2013
WOW. I knew the Arctic was vanishing fast, but to think it'll completely disappear in 40 years, that's just mind blowing. That'll completely change weather patterns across the planet. I can't even begin to imagine how bad the damage from something like that could be. The weather pattern change will probably happen pretty quickly as the dynamics snap over to a new equilibrium. Farmland will shift, deserts will spread... this could easily be WWIII. And considering the food-driven desperation, it's a fair bet that it'll go nuclear.

Relax. Predicting the weather two days in advance is wrong a lot of the time.
Think about predicting 45 years in advance using a modeling tool that's probably mostly wrong.

Actually, projecting long term trends (climate) is far more accurate than that of predicting short term fluctuations (weather.)
Sean_W
1.3 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2013
So not 2013 then. Or 2005.

Any other dates that we should pencil in for this event.
Sean_W
1.3 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2013
"Estimates range from 2011 to 2098"

http://news.natio...science/

Here are some other predicted dates:
http://stevengodd...recasts/
Benni
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2013
I can't even begin to imagine how bad the damage from something like that could be. The weather pattern change will probably happen pretty quickly as the dynamics snap over to a new equilibrium. Farmland will shift, deserts will spread... this could easily be WWIII. And considering the food-driven desperation, it's a fair bet that it'll go nuclear.


Did you just get out of church after a sermon about the end of the world? You sound just as far out as they do on apocalyptic sunday morning TV.
axemaster
5 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2013
Did you just get out of church after a sermon about the end of the world? You sound just as far out as they do on apocalyptic sunday morning TV.

What I can't understand is how you're so willing to tolerate such immense risks. Even if the scenario I just described is only 1% likely to happen, it would still warrant a strong reaction. It's the same thing with nuclear weapons in general - we insist on pretending that they're like conventional arms and use them in petty games of politics. If you keep tempting probability the way we have, eventually the dice will land on the wrong numbers. And it only takes once.
Benni
1 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2013
Did you just get out of church after a sermon about the end of the world? You sound just as far out as they do on apocalyptic sunday morning TV.

What I can't understand is how you're so willing to tolerate such immense risks. Even if the scenario I just described is only 1% likely to happen, it would still warrant a strong reaction. It's the same thing with nuclear weapons in general - we insist on pretending that they're like conventional arms and use them in petty games of politics. If you keep tempting probability the way we have, eventually the dice will land on the wrong numbers. And it only takes once.


While you were getting your weekly apocalyptic briefing at church this morning, I was splitting firewood to feed my woodstove & fireplace for the coming winter.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2013
WOW. I knew the Arctic was vanishing fast, but to think it'll completely disappear in 40 years, that's just mind blowing. That'll completely change weather patterns across the planet. I can't even begin to imagine how bad the damage from something like that could be. The weather pattern change will probably happen pretty quickly as the dynamics snap over to a new equilibrium. Farmland will shift, deserts will spread... this could easily be WWIII. And considering the food-driven desperation, it's a fair bet that it'll go nuclear.
See? This is the kind of mindless panic sensational headlines like this make.

Even if the Arctic became "ice free" it would only remain so for a matter of days. They're only talking about Arctic minimum ...you know, like late in the summer melt season. The rest of the year it'd be covered by ice, still.

So what will be the result if it happens? Some shipping companies see a brief period of cost declines, and hence higher profits. That's about it.

casualjoe
5 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2013
So what do you think will happen after 2058? that the ice caps will just suddenly go back to normal?
Ronan
3.3 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2013
Ubavontuba: And the Northern hemisphere's circulation cells will, I suppose, just keep on happily sinking over the North pole, despite the fact that that area will then be occupied by warm open water and surrounded by colder land, rather than being the coldest place in the neighborhood? What happens then? Does the site of the sinking air shift to Greenland? Does a new, mini cell of air rising from the Arctic and sinking over Siberia and Canada develop? What does that do to the position of the jet stream, to the position of rainfall, to the distribution of Northern hemispheric climate in general?

...Sadly, those aren't rhetorical questions. You don't know the answer to them, and neither do I. I suspect, though, that we may find out.

I have to say I'm a bit dubious about these results; both CMIP5 and CMIP3 have shown an inability in previous projections to independently give the post-2007 collapse in volume and extent, and I worry that this is just an exercise in curve-fitting.
Ronan
2 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2013
I mean, from the description, it sounds a bit like what they did is just cherry-pick a set of parameters that produced something similar to what actually happened, and then assumed that those parameters were an accurate representation of how the climate behaved during that period--without considering the possibility that the modeled ice was over- or under- sensitive to climatic forcings relative to the real ice, which if so would make their chosen parameters completely useless for predictive purposes. I've yet to track down a free pdf of the paper, though, so I may be being unfair. I guess I'm just rather doubtful due to the aforementioned failure of this model to come up with anything like the spectacular disintegration of the ice we've seen in the past six years. Extend the volume trend from THAT forward, and you get ice-free conditions by 2020...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2013
And the Northern hemisphere's circulation cells will, I suppose, just keep on happily sinking over the North pole, despite the fact that that area will then be occupied by warm open water
Warm? Hardly. Did you even know the defintion of "ice free" allows for substantial ice?

"'Ice free' is put in quotes, because 'ice free' as commonly used doesn't mean free of ice, as in zero ice. The usual definition of 'ice free' Arctic is ice extent below 1 M sq km (current minimum extent is around 3.5 M sq km). This definition is used because it is very difficult to melt the thick ice around the Canadian Archipelago. And the issue of 'ice free' in the 21st century is pretty much a non issue if your require this thick ice to disappear."

http://judithcurr...part-ii/

See, people read the headline and run off in a panic, ignoring the actual science.

Ronan
4 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2013
Ha HA! I knew the internet wouldn't fail me: http://www.atmos....2013.pdf No figures, unfortunately. Interesting, though; Judith Curry is listed as a co-author in this pdf, but not on the paper on PNAS. That's peculiar. I wonder if there was an oversight, or maybe she asked to have her name removed, or something like that?

Anyway...well, after reading it, I can't say my doubts are exactly assuaged, although as I can't see the figures it's still possible I'm misinterpreting what they did. I have to say, though, that i wish they'd tried, say, modeling volume (which presumably the CMIP5 models MUST do, in order to model extent...?), mostly because I'm curious exactly what sort of last-minute, spectacular uptick they're expecting THIS dataset to perform (https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd1.png?attachauth=ANoY7coMwLCi4UJWzexRRz6vq3kbrbZ7pls76jUjpMv5d_B80QO5ZeYMtNWpCLP3AZVJjQJV6dvMg26CvuFPOvw2GBUgO0)
Ronan
5 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2013
I'm quite familiar with everything you describe, Ubavontuba. For the Arctic, 0 C (or thereabouts; correct as needed for the freezing point of salt water) is quite toasty. The Arctic ocean will stay locked at that temperature as long as there's extensive open water present, while the land surrounding it, with water to undergo a phase transition, is free to plummet to far colder temperatures. It's only once the sea has iced over to a substantial degree (and given the size of the Arctic ocean, a million square kilometers is hardly substantial) that temperatures are able to plummet. We actually saw precisely that behavior last year, when temperatures fell far more slowly than they typically do once the Sun sets over the Arctic ocean: http://ocean.dmi....2012.png There are a few years in the record with similarly dramatic delays, but they're few and far between.
Ronan
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2013
I'm so sorry, that long link from my second to last post is broken. Here, this should work: http://img838.ima...f2gx.png

...Also, that should be "with NO water to undergo a phase transition," in my previous post referring to land temperatures. There are, of course, oceans and lakes and whatnot, but they're nothing compared to the thermal bulk of the Arctic ocean.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2013
The Arctic ocean will stay locked at that temperature as long as there's extensive open water present,
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that the air column above the water must share temperature equillibrium with the water. Rather it is the cold air descending to the water, and subsequently water heated air rising (and taking away heat) which is instrumental to the freezing process. It's mostly a matter of how cold the air is in the column above the water which defines the speed of the process. And a lot of this cold air moves in from the surrounding landmasses, which you correctly pointed out can initially be much colder at the surface.

In short, the air cools first, then the water freezes.

Ronan
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2013
Well, the equilibrium isn't perfect, no--but nonetheless, it'll be a heck of a lot warmer (all relatively, of course) over the Arctic ocean than over Canada and Siberia, which is not normally the case, and with that reversal of the usual temperature gradients, the favored direction for convection will likewise reverse. This will continue until the Arctic IS frozen, at which point of course it'll be free to cool to its icy little heart's content. If you have more open water, it takes longer to cool the Arctic down, and very odd circulation patterns persist for a longer time into the winter, which will in turn affect the polar cell in general and consequently the climate in more southerly areas.
Ronan
5 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2013
I'm just pointing out that an Arctic ocean covered with ice, which can be warmed and cooled with ease, is going to behave in a far different matter than an open Arctic ocean, which (thanks to water's ridiculously high heat of fusion) has oodles more Joules to release into the atmosphere. All that energy and all that moisture (I know, I know, evaporation does not exactly go gangbusters at 0 C. Water doesn't have zero vapor pressure even there, though, and its vapor pressure is much larger in the liquid phase than the solid) is going to have an effect.
Bob_Wallace
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2013
Here's a graph of annual minimum Arctic sea ice volumes for 1979 through 2012.

Make your own estimation of when volume hits zero.

http://tiny.cc/i9al0w

Many of the estimates of how long the ice will last are based on extent and area. Ice has three dimensions and the ice pack has been losing thickness for many years now. Little of the thick multi-year ice remains.

2013 is lagging 2012 a bit, but has been catching up. It's about to get a significant stirring with a strong cyclonic event starting up.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2013
I'm just pointing out that an Arctic ocean covered with ice, which can be warmed and cooled with ease, is going to behave in a far different matter than an open Arctic ocean, which (thanks to water's ridiculously high heat of fusion) has oodles more Joules to release into the atmosphere. All that energy and all that moisture... (snip)... is going to have an effect.


I have posted before of the correlation between an early/strong Siberian High and early late-Autumn snowfall in Eurasia. Extra warmth/moisture available from Arctic seas would plausibly boost early snowfall there. In these years the high often retrogresses into northern Europe and the Arctic to give severe cold spells over much of Europe. The East Arctic seas were 5C above normal at max sea-ice melt last year.
http://www.ospo.n...2012.gif
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
Has anyone else noticed the unusual behavor of the Arctic sea ice these past 10 days? It's probably just a temporary anomally, but the ice area hasn't been decreasing normally:

http://i44.tinypi...s745.jpg

...whereas the sea ice concentration has been increasing:

http://i43.tinypi...gffk.jpg

Also, the Antarctic sea ice is in record territory:

http://i40.tinypi...x0ue.jpg

Brr-rr-rr!

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2013
North pole now and before ten years IMO it speaks for itself.
Idiot.

'North Pole lake' totally normal, no reason to panic about global warming
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2013
http://psc.apl.wa...ntV2.png

Lying is what UbvonTard does. Lying is what he lives for. Lying is his only reason for existence.

He lies, lies, lies and then lies some more.

Typical Conservative Filth.
Bob_Wallace
3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2013
Has anyone else noticed the unusual behavor of the Arctic sea ice these past 10 days? It's probably just a temporary anomally, but the ice area hasn't been decreasing normally:



Melting does not continue is a straight line over the year. It isn't constantly down year after year. There is variability. We call it "Weather".

The Arctic just experienced a large storm which caused the ice to be distributed over a larger area. If one looks at only the two surface dimensions of the ice then they could form a faulty opinion that melting has stalled.

It looks like another storm is forming and at this point it looks like the prevailing winds in a couple of days could shove a lot of ice out through the Fram Straight into warmer, melting Atlantic waters.

At this point it's probably more likely that 2013 won't beat 2012's low extent record but there's still several weeks left in the melting season. Time will tell.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2013
Melting does not continue is a straight line over the year. It isn't constantly down year after year. There is variability. We call it "Weather".

The Arctic just experienced a large storm which caused the ice to be distributed over a larger area. If one looks at only the two surface dimensions of the ice then they could form a faulty opinion that melting has stalled.

It looks like another storm is forming and at this point it looks like the prevailing winds in a couple of days could shove a lot of ice out through the Fram Straight into warmer, melting Atlantic waters.

At this point it's probably more likely that 2013 won't beat 2012's low extent record but there's still several weeks left in the melting season. Time will tell.
In the entire satellite reocord, the ice area has not previously flatlined for so many days, at this point of the melt season. It's just weird.

Bob_Wallace
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2013
It's been a weird year. Cold spring which meant a late start to heavy melting.

It's not the same old Arctic. Who knows what sort of weirdness we'll see as we melt the puppy out. This is the most extreme geological event humans have witnessed.

We could see a new spring pattern. The ice is now extremely thin compared to a few years ago. This spring it badly fractured, which wouldn't have happened with thicker ice. That fracturing may have allowed warmer water to escape from below the ice and cause heavier cloud cover which, in turn, slowed the spring melt. All speculation at this point as far as I know.

But if that is what happened then it could change the rate of melt and drag things out for several years.

OTOH, bottom melt could suddenly whack the remaining highly fractured and dispersed ice.

Probably impossible to predict. Time to sit back and watch geological history in the making. Analyze it after the fact.

Looks like the Beaufort is starting to go....
Bob_Wallace
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2013
" the ice area has not previously flatlined for so many days"

One should be careful making too much of area this time of year. Sometimes the measurement of area gets messed by sensor inability to distinguish between open water and melt pools.

And with storms pushing the ice around extent measurements can be misleading.

It's really hard guessing how things are going to end up at the end of this season. One can make an argument for a very low melt year or an argument that we could still set a new annual record. While area and extent aren't looking like a new record, the ice is really lots of not very thick chunks that could get wiped out by bottom melt. It is bottom melt season, I believe....
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
It's been a weird year. Cold spring which meant a late start to heavy melting.
Yup.

It's not the same old Arctic. Who knows what sort of weirdness we'll see as we melt the puppy out. This is the most extreme geological event humans have witnessed.
Oh, I'd say the end of the ice age was much more dramatic.

We could see a new spring pattern.
Possibly.

Probably impossible to predict. Time to sit back and watch geological history in the making. Analyze it after the fact.
My sentiments, exactly. This is why I pointed it out. I think lots of people might like to watch this show.

Looks like the Beaufort is starting to go....
Perhaps, but it's been surprisingly resilient these past 10 days. Check the animation:

http://arctic.atm...r.0.html

(You can limit the duration by clcking the green bar for dates you don't want to see)

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
" the ice area has not previously flatlined for so many days"

One should be careful making too much of area this time of year. Sometimes the measurement of area gets messed by sensor inability to distinguish between open water and melt pools.

And with storms pushing the ice around extent measurements can be misleading.
Sure, but the stable area along with increasing concentraion is what really surprises me. This implies substantial new freezing. It should generally be melting this time of year.

It's really hard guessing how things are going to end up at the end of this season. One can make an argument for a very low melt year or an argument that we could still set a new annual record. While area and extent aren't looking like a new record, the ice is really lots of not very thick chunks that could get wiped out by bottom melt. It is bottom melt season, I believe....
Perhaps. Ergo I stated it's probably just a temporary anomally.

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2013
It may not be new freezing. It might be that melt ponds are draining like the one at Obuoy 8(?) recently did. There could also be new snow on ice throwing things off.

Big storm seems to be happening. And prevailing winds are likely to shove a lot of ice out the Fram. It's warm out there. The fast ice along the NE Greenland shore is breaking up.

I'm not going to attempt to predict what will happen, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a very large drop in ice over the next few days. The ice is pretty broken up and storm action could bring a lot of warmer water to the surface.

Or not....

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.