Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

In Which Decade will the Arctic Sea Ice Extent experience its LAST September with a minimum ABOVE 1X10^6 km^2?

2020-2030
67 (48.9%)
2030-2040
36 (26.3%)
2040-2050
13 (9.5%)
2050-2060
6 (4.4%)
2060-2070
6 (4.4%)
2070-2080
0 (0%)
2080-2090
0 (0%)
> 2090
9 (6.6%)

Total Members Voted: 128

Voting closed: May 29, 2017, 07:46:52 PM

Author Topic: Poll: When Will the Arctic Experience THE LAST Year With Sept. Sea Ice Extent  (Read 48239 times)

AndrewB

  • Guest
Jai,
This is definitely a revealing poll about what the people here at ASIF think about the demise of Arctic sea ice.
Now, I can see exactly why practically half the people who voted, voted 2020-2030 (because I voted in that category).
I can also see why some people voted > 2090: denialists or essentially the same thing, trolls.
Finally, I can also see why some people voted 2030-2040: "lukewarmists", which is a special form of denialism, where you recognize the reality but just wish you can retire before "the shit hits the fan" the worst effects of AGW show themselves clearly.

What I really don't get is why some people voted 2040-2050 (12 people as of now), 2050-2060 (5) or 2060-2070 (6).

What is the tortuous reasoning that leads some people to postpone (in their minds) the conclusion of the disaster that is happening right under their eyes? Is it just younger "lukewarmists"? Or denialists just using some sophistry to obfuscate the science?

Perhaps some of them could come forward and explain their "point of view"? Or anybody here wants to play "devil's advocate" (for each of these three categories)?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 11:40:50 AM by AndrewB »

Cid_Yama

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
I would imagine if you are young and/or have children you do not want to believe in near term global catastrophic climate change.

This may not at all be conscious, but a cognitive bias towards anything that points towards the desired conclusion.

Also, recent research has shown that science literacy does not seem to be the governing factor, but rather, group membership, that drives cognitive bias towards climate change denial.

Also, if you are not 60 or older, you may not grasp what a healthy climate looks like/how much has been lost.

What I would give for an evening filled with crickets, fireflies, and the croaking of frogs.  Or just the occasional toad in the grass on a spring morning.

   



   
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 10:29:25 AM by Cid_Yama »
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Jai,
This is definitely a revealing poll about what the people here a ASIF think about the demise of Arctic sea ice.
Now, I can see exactly why practically half the people who voted, voted 2020-2030 (because I voted in that category).
I can also see why some people voted > 2090: denialists or essentially the same thing, trolls.
Finally, I can also see why some people voted 2030-2040: "lukewarmists", which is a special form of denialism, where you recognize the reality but just wish you can retire before "the shit hits the fan" the worst effects of AGW show themselves clearly.

What I really don't get is why some people voted 2040-2050 (12 people as of now), 2050-2060 (5) or 2060-2070 (6).

What is the tortuous reasoning that leads some people to postpone (in their minds) the conclusion of the disaster that is happening right under their eyes? Is it just younger "lukewarmists"? Or denialists just using some sophistry to obfuscate the science?

Perhaps some of them could come forward and explain their "point of view"? Or anybody here wants to play "devil's advocate" (for each of these three categories)?

When people talk like that it sounds like the Inquisition that saw heresy just in everything. Especially in scientists. Where did the Galileo in you go?
The Beaufort sea cracks and sea ice in general may be refreezing at a good pace compared to last year even with no MYI. Cold temperatures and lack of movement again and pehaps thin ice negative feedback since January.
If some Beaufort sea ice survives this year, there may not be any record soon. It all, still, hangs on this summers weather.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 10:30:42 AM by seaicesailor »

Cid_Yama

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
When people talk like that it sounds like the Inquisition that saw heresy just in everything.


No, it doesn't.  That's just your cognitive dissonance talking.  If anyone is shouting, "Heresy!", it's you.  Nor does 1 year or 5 make that much difference.  We are like swirling around the toilet bowl just before it all goes down the drain.  Inevitable.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 10:44:48 AM by Cid_Yama »
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20376
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Dear Andrewb,
I voted 2030-2040. I did not realise that this revealed my entire personal psychology and belief systems. I thought that I thought merely that the most likely year for a less than 1m km2 minimum was in about 3 to 5 years, and that natural variation allowed the possibility of a more than 1m km2 minimum for at least 10 years after that.

Obviously I was wrong to think that I thought that. I thank you for that insight into my soul.

Ps: I am retired. By 2030 I will probably no longer be extant.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 11:05:18 AM by gerontocrat »
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

seaicesailor

  • Guest
No, it doesn't.  Nor does 1 year or 5 make that much difference.  We are like swirling around the toilet bowl just before it all goes down the drain.  Inevitable.
I answered to exact same comment in 2013 in Nevens blog and I won't answer again to avoid the ridiculous interchange that ensued.
Weather matters a lot (at least for September extent). And september extent matters a lot for the following winter.
However it has been more than established that there is very poor correlation between winter maximum and following summer minimum. By the way.

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Quote
When people talk like that it sounds like the Inquisition that saw heresy just in everything.


No, it doesn't.  That's just your cognitive dissonance talking.  If anyone is shouting, "Heresy!", it's you.  Nor does 1 year or 5 make that much difference.  We are like swirling around the toilet bowl just before it all goes down the drain.  Inevitable.
So you are talking to my cognitive dissonance now.
All right then. Then I better leave you with it.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
people voted > 2090: denialists or essentially the same thing, trolls.
people voted 2030-2040: "lukewarmists", which is a special form of denialism
What I really don't get is why some people voted 2040-2050, 2050-2060 or 2060-2070.
I don't often post personal comments, but: This is disgusting. On a scientific forum you start name-calling like that to people who dare disagree with you. Who put you in the preacher's job? You are way out of line.
Bear in mind there are no denialists on this forum. Except maybe those who deny that randomness and variability exist in nature, and that unknowns exist in science.

AndrewB

  • Guest
people voted > 2090: denialists or essentially the same thing, trolls.
people voted 2030-2040: "lukewarmists", which is a special form of denialism
What I really don't get is why some people voted 2040-2050, 2050-2060 or 2060-2070.
I don't often post personal comments, but: This is disgusting. On a scientific forum you start name-calling like that to people who dare disagree with you. Who put you in the preacher's job? You are way out of line.
Bear in mind there are no denialists on this forum. Except maybe those who deny that randomness and variability exist in nature, and that unknowns exist in science.

Oren, I am not name calling anybody in particular, and if you consider that an unspecified group of people being called lukewarmist is being "insulted", well then, so be it...
And please don't take this as an insult, but you seem to lack a sense of humor and take any comment that challenges your opinions personally and extremely seriously. Does that come with retirement?  ;)
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 03:36:34 PM by AndrewB »

AndrewB

  • Guest
...

What I would give for an evening filled with crickets, fireflies, and the croaking of frogs.  Or just the occasional toad in the grass on a spring morning.


Very much same feeling here. These early Spring days I am seeing practically zero pollinating insects, and very few birds, even when I go take a walk in the woods next door. I haven't seen a firefly in decades, actually.  :(

AndrewB

  • Guest
...
The Beaufort sea cracks and sea ice in general may be refreezing at a good pace compared to last year even with no MYI. Cold temperatures and lack of movement again and perhaps thin ice negative feedback since January.
If some Beaufort sea ice survives this year, there may not be any record soon. It all, still, hangs on this summers weather.
(emphasis mine)
That's a lot of conditionals right there, seaicesailor. Back to the numbers/science, what is the trend? What is the statistical uncertainty associated with the data we have? What does it tell us?

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20376
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
By one measure, time, the variation between the minima of 2012 and 2013 (based on the linear trend shown in NSIDC) is 20 years. There is no reason to suppose that such uncertainty in individual years is reduced. Statistical uncertainty is, in my lukewarm opinion, high.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

seaicesailor

  • Guest
...
The Beaufort sea cracks and sea ice in general may be refreezing at a good pace compared to last year even with no MYI. Cold temperatures and lack of movement again and perhaps thin ice negative feedback since January.
If some Beaufort sea ice survives this year, there may not be any record soon. It all, still, hangs on this summers weather.
(emphasis mine)
That's a lot of conditionals right there, seaicesailor. Back to the numbers/science, what is the trend? What is the statistical uncertainty associated with the data we have? What does it tell us?
What can I tell you. I am not a god like you. I don't have the certainty that you have you that see past and future with pristine clarity. For a god like you we us the group are denialists/lukewarmists/trolls (or just denialists).

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
This is a very difficult question to answer and the best any of us can do is hazard a guess.  The past six years or so indicate a trend toward bigger annual volume loses.  The biggest three loses in the record all occurred in the past six years.  The two lowest volume maxima also occurred in the past six years and it looks like we are heading to the lowest this year.  It also seems highly likely to me that low extent in the fall is leading to a warmer, wetter atmosphere over the ice in the winter, reducing radiative loses and causing poor refreezing conditions in general.

AGW and arctic amplification are by all indications increasing.

A simple roll of these climate dice would indicate the likelihood of a melt season with the energy needed to melt whatever volume was left to melt at the end of the previous freeze season occurring well before 2030.  Obviously if "zero volume" occurs on the very last day of melt season and refreeze starts the very next day, it will have less impact then if it occurs with a month to go.  But either way, it will result in a warm arctic ocean heading into the fall, and likely a warm, wet atmosphere during the subsequent winter, further loading the dice for the next melt season.

Barring some completely unexpected feedback in the system, IMO these factors will conspire to prevent September sea ice extent from achieving 1X10^6 km^2 coverage in the 2040s and beyond. I'm voting 2020-2030.

AndrewB

  • Guest
...
The Beaufort sea cracks and sea ice in general may be refreezing at a good pace compared to last year even with no MYI. Cold temperatures and lack of movement again and perhaps thin ice negative feedback since January.
If some Beaufort sea ice survives this year, there may not be any record soon. It all, still, hangs on this summers weather.
(emphasis mine)
That's a lot of conditionals right there, seaicesailor. Back to the numbers/science, what is the trend? What is the statistical uncertainty associated with the data we have? What does it tell us?
What can I tell you. I am not a god like you...
...
Indeed  8), but did you see I asked you for numbers, not just wishful thinking?


AndrewB

  • Guest
This is a very difficult question to answer and the best any of us can do is hazard a guess.
...
I'm voting 2020-2030.
I fully agree with your analysis/educated guess, dnem.

I wish you'd play devil's advocate and guess a reasoning for 2040-2050 or 2050-2060. Oh well...  ;)

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Reasonings for such have already been posted by some, including myself, before your personal attack on people who happen to disagree with you. You are trolling the thread.

seaicesailor

  • Guest
I give you one number, you're the number one that I have put in ignore in this forum.

AndrewB

  • Guest
By one measure, time, the variation between the minima of 2012 and 2013 (based on the linear trend shown in NSIDC) is 20 years. There is no reason to suppose that such uncertainty in individual years is reduced. Statistical uncertainty is, in my lukewarm opinion, high.

OK, GC, that is a good argument. So you are saying that if we extrapolate the NSIDC linear trend for September Arctic sea ice minimum, the data available (1979-2016) indicates an extent of < 1 x 10^6 km2 sometime around 2035, and the uncertainty is approx. +/- 10 years?

But doesn't that amount to ignoring any positive feedbacks that would accelerate this trend? And the constantly increasing GHG anthropogenic forcing (since we have hardly stabilized emissions, as shown by the accelerating Keeling Curve)?

What I mean is that yes, I agree that statistical uncertainty is high, but it's also biased, so perhaps your uncertainty should really be 2035 +5/-15 years?

AndrewB

  • Guest
I give you one number, you're the number one that I have put in ignore in this forum.
I asked you to explain your vote with anything else than wishful thinking and all you can do is add me to your ignore list? That makes this particular thread twice as interesting because it reveals a special kind of mindset...

AndrewB

  • Guest
Andrew,
...
In retrospect, you are right.  I was being far too conservative for conservatism's sake.   Interesting, you caught me self-censoring my answer.  changed from 2040-2050 to 2030-2040.

Hi Jai,
Sorry, my eye just caught that edit of yours. Please don't censor yourself!
But here is a question for you, since you are (at least, compared to me) an old time poster here on ASIF.
Is there some form of peer-pressure or group-pressure here at ASIF for people to emit conservative guesses when it comes to the demise of Arctic sea ice? And for people to shut up when they question this conservative "bias"?
If so, I would think this is very strange. In any case, I am rather reassured that your poll is showing what it is showing: that approximately half the ASIF users are not conceding to the "conservative" peer pressure.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Jai,
This is definitely a revealing poll about what the people here at ASIF think about the demise of Arctic sea ice.
Now, I can see exactly why practically half the people who voted, voted 2020-2030 (because I voted in that category).
I can also see why some people voted > 2090: denialists or essentially the same thing, trolls.
Finally, I can also see why some people voted 2030-2040: "lukewarmists", which is a special form of denialism, where you recognize the reality but just wish you can retire before "the shit hits the fan" the worst effects of AGW show themselves clearly.

What I really don't get is why some people voted 2040-2050 (12 people as of now), 2050-2060 (5) or 2060-2070 (6).

What is the tortuous reasoning that leads some people to postpone (in their minds) the conclusion of the disaster that is happening right under their eyes? Is it just younger "lukewarmists"? Or denialists just using some sophistry to obfuscate the science?

Perhaps some of them could come forward and explain their "point of view"? Or anybody here wants to play "devil's advocate" (for each of these three categories)?

I think you are assigning motivations with little or no evidence. I think it is the wording of the question that is causing this wider dispersion of responses and is no evidence of denialism. If the question had been...

In Which Decade will the Arctic Sea Ice Extent experience its FIRST September with a minimum BELOW 1X10^6 km^2?

...there would have been far less spread in the responses. The question asked requires that you consider the variability that occurs season to season and variability is increasing.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 10:29:33 PM by Shared Humanity »

AndrewB

  • Guest
...
I think you are assigning motivations with little or no evidence. I think it is the wording of the question that is causing this wider dispersion of responses and is no evidence of denialism. If the question had been...

In Which Decade will the Arctic Sea Ice Extent experience its FIRST September with a minimum ABOVE 1X10^6 km^2?

...there would have been far less spread in the responses. The question asked requires that you consider the variability that occurs season to season and variability is increasing.

OK, that sounds reasonable. So the question itself would explain the "spill" of votes beyond 2030. Still, we have at least two distinctly thinking groups of people who voted in this poll:
1) A first group that believes there is no sign that Arctic sea ice will ever recover in the short term once it plunges below this (arbitrary) threshold, and the plunge will come soon enough.
2) A second group that thinks that "natural variability" (or aliens, or just plain luck, or Chuck Norris) will bring back the ice above 1 x 10^6km2 within a few years after it has fallen below that level.

But isn't relying on "natural variability" to show up after 40 years of accelerating Arctic sea ice decline, and in the face of positive feedbacks and increasing AGW forcing, a sort of denial?

"Oh look Jim, he's not dead yet, he's still moving."  ???

Assume we reach the first year where September Arctic sea ice dips below 1 x 10^6km2 in 2021, will these people post here "let's wait nine more years until we pronounce Arctic sea ice gone, because, you know, natural variability could make it come back sometime this decade..."

Doesn't that perfectly suit the fossil fuel industry? "Hey, we can't pronounce Arctic sea ice gone, because, you know, it could come back anytime now, thanks to 'natural variability'." Meanwhile of course they'll be drilling the Arctic for oil, 'natural variability' or not.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Andrew,
...
In retrospect, you are right.  I was being far too conservative for conservatism's sake.   Interesting, you caught me self-censoring my answer.  changed from 2040-2050 to 2030-2040.

Hi Jai,
Sorry, my eye just caught that edit of yours. Please don't censor yourself!
But here is a question for you, since you are (at least, compared to me) an old time poster here on ASIF.
Is there some form of peer-pressure or group-pressure here at ASIF for people to emit conservative guesses when it comes to the demise of Arctic sea ice? And for people to shut up when they question this conservative "bias"?
If so, I would think this is very strange. In any case, I am rather reassured that your poll is showing what it is showing: that approximately half the ASIF users are not conceding to the "conservative" peer pressure.

no, it is very clear that this is an open forum for discussion of these issues.  There are times when some concepts are clearly not supported by the scientific reality.  The conservative bias has been thoroughly addressed in other threads (i.e. conservative scientists and its consequences in the science section)

in the end we are all looking at this from our own perspective and in the spirit of open communication challenge each other's views whether they are conservative or not.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
I voted 2040-2050 because that is where models and scientists appear to agree as the likely sort of period. I probably ought to avoid saying things like this forum is made up of alarmists and trying to justify this as about equivalent of calling me a younger lukewarmist. But I think we should try to establish what the consensus of relevant scientists is then seeks reasons for departures from that rather than one person or group deciding the majority group is correct and all others have to justify their departure from the most popular choice or be called names.

Certainly William Connolley and Qinghua Ding have expressed view there will still be Arctic sea ice in summer in 50 years time. So 2040-2050 looks rather early according to some experts.

AndrewB

  • Guest
Andrew,
...
In retrospect, you are right.  I was being far too conservative for conservatism's sake.   Interesting, you caught me self-censoring my answer.  changed from 2040-2050 to 2030-2040.

Hi Jai,
Sorry, my eye just caught that edit of yours. Please don't censor yourself!
But here is a question for you, since you are (at least, compared to me) an old time poster here on ASIF.
Is there some form of peer-pressure or group-pressure here at ASIF for people to emit conservative guesses when it comes to the demise of Arctic sea ice? And for people to shut up when they question this conservative "bias"?
If so, I would think this is very strange. In any case, I am rather reassured that your poll is showing what it is showing: that approximately half the ASIF users are not conceding to the "conservative" peer pressure.
...
The conservative bias has been thoroughly addressed in other threads (i.e. conservative scientists and its consequences in the science section)
...

Thanks for pointing me to that thread, I am reading some great posts there.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
This is a very difficult question to answer and the best any of us can do is hazard a guess.
...
I'm voting 2020-2030.
I fully agree with your analysis/educated guess, dnem.

I wish you'd play devil's advocate and guess a reasoning for 2040-2050 or 2050-2060. Oh well...  ;)

Andrew,

There is massive amounts of uncertainty about where we are headed.  Within that uncertainty is the near term climate response which if you look at the available data you would have to be somewhat of a lukewarmer to expect our FIRST sea ice extent below 1M km^2 in the 2040-2050 time frame or later.

however, there are many ideas about what will happen once this occurs that could lead to slowing of the long-term sea ice impact (i.e. see Chris' "Slow transition" thread).  Some of these include increased cloudiness in summer melt season (This view has a very strong representation among the mainstream cryosphere climate modelers and scientists), leading to a rapid reduction in ice mass loss during the melt season or the freshwater lensing effect from Hansen's (et al.) exponential greenland ice melt (see ASLR's work on the "Hansen et al paper: 3+ meters SLR by 2100" also in Consequences.

If you assert that your understanding is the absolute truth then you have to have a reasoned analysis that clearly shows why these uncertainties are not going to produce the effect that others may expect.  There are also many, many other uncertainties that could also produce a slowing or even a return of sea ice even after the first few years of <1M km^2). 

we are talking about decadal timescales in dynamic system that even the most powerful super-computer models do not yet model accurately. 
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AndrewB

  • Guest
I voted 2040-2050 because that is where models and scientists appear to agree as the likely sort of period...
crandles, thanks for posting your reasoning, but would you say that you are basically following what appears (to you at least), to be scientific consensus?
I question this consensus.
Probably there is also some disagreement among (climate) scientists, no? Peter Wadhams for example. And we (scientists and concerned citizens) know most models are conservative when it comes to Arctic sea ice decline.
So I don't think science/scientists have yet reached a consensus over the demise of Arctic sea ice and would be able to answer the question that this poll asks. I suspect many of them would just answer "I don't know."
Even Dr. Ding answered thus to Neven:
Quote from: Neven
Let's say most of the natural variability has to do with wind changes pushing more air masses into the Arctic. Do we have any way of knowing when this natural variability might switch again and thus slow down the current rapid rate of Arctic sea ice loss?
Quote from: Dr. Ding
Hi Neven,
To be honest, I don't know the answer.

I think many scientists if asked the same question just before some day in September 2018 or 2019 or 202X when both NSIDC and JAXA post figures for Arctic sea ice extent < 1 x 10^6 km2, will still be answering either "I don't know" or "2040-2050" or "50 to 100 years from now".

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Again, with few exceptions, everyone who posts here is certain of AGW and highly concerned. It is not horrible, in fact it is healthy, that there are a wide range of insights and opinions which inform this discussion. I view with a jaundiced eye anyone who seeks to dismiss the views of the community in general.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest

But isn't relying on "natural variability" to show up after 40 years of accelerating Arctic sea ice decline, and in the face of positive feedbacks and increasing AGW forcing, a sort of denial?

"Oh look Jim, he's not dead yet, he's still moving."  ???

Ahhhhh....the tired old strawman....just keep setting them up and knocking them down. Back to the question posed.

I would be very surprised if we do not see our first minimum below 1X10^6 km^2 in the next decade. I would also be surprised if, when that occurs, we don't see some years subsequently have minimums above this.

But then, I am a denialist of the 1st order.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Nicely put, SH.

I tend to assume that things are going to happen faster than many of the scientists' and models show, just because we have seen so many developments accelerate faster than expected. But I acknowledge that this is not a particularly scientific way of prognosticating.

People like James Hansen and others have pointed out that one result of GW that is indeed proceeding faster than expected is the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (not to mention the glaciers on the Canadian Archipelago).

http://www.ecowatch.com/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-2135544058.html

This will likely at some point represent such a large pulse of cold, fresh water that it will both cool the Arctic and much of the Northern Hemisphere directly, and will likely slow down or stop the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current that brings warm salty water from the Atlantic well into the Arctic Ocean.

These are some of the reasons that many scientists and modelers, equipped as they are with much more than graph-fitting tools, suspect that Arctic sea ice may bounce back a bit, or at least not disappear quite as fast, as some of the rest of us suppose. I don't think that makes any of them denialists or 'luke warmers.'

Perhaps AndrewB has a model in which none of the melt water from GIS or CAA ends up in the Arctic Ocean somehow? If so, perhaps he could share the details!  :) :)

...There is also a study that found that Arctic sea ice may in fact be reversible--that loss in any one year may not lead to inevitable permanent loss. So there's that to consider, too.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-arctic-sea-ice-loss-likely-be-reversible

Arctic Sea Ice Loss Likely To Be Reversible
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

AndrewB

  • Guest
Jai, first,
Thank you!  ;)

Now, on to the debate...

...
Andrew,

There is massive amounts of uncertainty about where we are headed.
If by "where we are headed" you mean "the global climate system", I can't disagree with that. But if you mean "September sea ice extent in the coming 20 years", I would say there are not that many uncertainties. It's trending to essentially zero (there is always a "noise floor" in any measurement, but let's disregard that and assume that 1 x 10^6km2 is well above the "noise floor" of Arctic sea ice extent). And since the anthropogenic forcing that is causing it to go to zero is getting stronger, what non-anthropogenic forcing could you invoke that would overcome the anthropogenic forcing and reverse the observed trend?

(and I am not even going to mention the accelerated decrease in aerosols which is occurring concurrently with the last stages of the demise of Arctic sea ice - because that's where you excel  ;) )

Quote from: jai mitchell
Within that uncertainty is the near term climate response which if you look at the available data you would have to be somewhat of a lukewarmer to expect our FIRST sea ice extent below 1M km^2 in the 2040-2050 time frame or later.

Oh, I clearly believe the FIRST September sea ice extent below 1M km^2 year question will be settled soon enough, despite the models and Gompertz fit extrapolations and "slow transition hypothesis", etc.

Quote from: jai mitchell
however, there are many ideas about what will happen once this occurs that could lead to slowing of the long-term sea ice impact (i.e. see Chris' "Slow transition" thread).  Some of these include increased cloudiness in summer melt season (This view has a very strong representation among the mainstream cryosphere climate modelers and scientists), leading to a rapid reduction in ice mass loss during the melt season or the freshwater lensing effect from Hansen's (et al.) exponential greenland ice melt (see ASLR's work on the "Hansen et al paper: 3+ meters SLR by 2100" also in Consequences.

Yes, there is a (relatively short) list of hypothesized negative feedbacks. The uncertainty here is over their magnitude and even if they exist at all.

On the other hand there is a (relatively longer) list of scientifically proven and easily quantifiable positive feedbacks.

So do we go with the "few unknown and not quantifiable negative feedbacks" or "many well-known and easily quantifiable positive feedbacks" to make our educated guesses?

Quote from: jai mitchell
If you assert that your understanding is the absolute truth

 :) don't flatter me, it's not going to work... well, perhaps just a little... OK, go ahead!

Quote from: jai mitchell
then you have to have a reasoned analysis that clearly shows why these uncertainties are not going to produce the effect that others may expect.  There are also many, many other uncertainties that could also produce a slowing or even a return of sea ice even after the first few years of <1M km^2). 
(emphasis mine)
"many, many... could..." ? But that's the "invisible dragon in my garage" argument! Not good! I can list you the known positive feedbacks that will force September sea ice to zero, you are saying that there could be things that we don't know that would prevent September sea ice from staying at zero.

Do you see the asymmetry here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World#Dragon_in_the_garage

Quote from: jai mitchell
we are talking about decadal timescales in dynamic system that even the most powerful super-computer models do not yet model accurately.

Again, models can be useful, but a 10-years in the future extremely accurate sea ice model is not going to be very useful because Arctic sea ice will be gone for good, just as you don't need a blood circulation model to tell when a person is dead, or run your model simulations to ascertain whether there is any possibility that the heart may beat again.

If you force a system beyond some thresholds, it breaks. Even if you remove the forcing, it doesn't come back.

And yes, I am aware that model simulations have shown that Arctic sea ice loss could be 100% reversible with no hysteresis - IF we could remove the CO2 forcing. The only problem is, we can't.


« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 09:34:15 PM by AndrewB »

misfratz

  • New ice
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
AndrewB you owe me and a lot of other people an apology.

I do not find your conduct on this thread acceptable.

In the absence of an apology I will simply ignore you from now on.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3410
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 244
...
The Beaufort sea cracks and sea ice in general may be refreezing at a good pace compared to last year even with no MYI. Cold temperatures and lack of movement again and perhaps thin ice negative feedback since January.
If some Beaufort sea ice survives this year, there may not be any record soon. It all, still, hangs on this summers weather.
(emphasis mine)
That's a lot of conditionals right there, seaicesailor. Back to the numbers/science, what is the trend? What is the statistical uncertainty associated with the data we have? What does it tell us?
It tells us that there is a high level of variability in potential outcomes. 

It is exactly that uncertainty that caused me to choose 2040-2050.  While weather may change, and we *will* see SIE bottoming out under 1 million KM2 soon, it will take far longer for net enthalpy to catch up such that we can expect ice to disappear in summer completely.

This does not indicate not one jot less concern on my part than yours for what's happening. It means I am thinking carefully.  Maybe you should make fewer value judgements about other participants, and perhaps consider the questions they pose. You could do worse than have some respect for that.

Have you thought for instance, how the ice might reach an end of summer SIE of greater than 1 million KM2 after 2030?  Your stridency suggest to me you have not.  I urge you to bring more light and less heat to the discussion.

This space for Rent.

AndrewB

  • Guest
AndrewB you owe me and a lot of other people an apology.

I do not find your conduct on this thread acceptable.

In the absence of an apology I will simply ignore you from now on.
misfratz,
If you seriously think I owe you an apology (for something I wrote in his thread), perhaps at the very least you should indicate what it was?  ???

AndrewB

  • Guest
Thank you jdallen for your reply.
...
The Beaufort sea cracks and sea ice in general may be refreezing at a good pace compared to last year even with no MYI. Cold temperatures and lack of movement again and perhaps thin ice negative feedback since January.
If some Beaufort sea ice survives this year, there may not be any record soon. It all, still, hangs on this summers weather.
(emphasis mine)
That's a lot of conditionals right there, seaicesailor. Back to the numbers/science, what is the trend? What is the statistical uncertainty associated with the data we have? What does it tell us?
It tells us that there is a high level of variability in potential outcomes. 

It is exactly that uncertainty that caused me to choose 2040-2050.  While weather may change, and we *will* see SIE bottoming out under 1 million KM2 soon, it will take far longer for net enthalpy to catch up such that we can expect ice to disappear in summer completely.

I don't think so. I think the exact same anthropogenic forcing that is driving Arctic sea ice extent in September, to zero, is going to continue after Arctic sea ice extent in September plunges below the (arbitrary) 1 x 10^6 km2 threshold and drive Arctic sea ice extent in August and October below that same threshold, in a matter of a few years. So I don't see where you get for "far longer" from.

I can refer you to the Wipneus chart that shows the declining trend for Arctic sea ice volume / PIOMAS for all the months of the year. August and October are not far behind September.


Quote from: jdallen
This does not indicate not one jot less concern on my part than yours for what's happening. It means I am thinking carefully.  Maybe you should make fewer value judgements about other participants, and perhaps consider the questions they pose. You could do worse than have some respect for that.

Have you thought for instance, how the ice might reach an end of summer SIE of greater than 1 million KM2 after 2030?

How? Aliens? Chuck Norris? Humanity suddenly finds a way to extract billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere and store it underground without spending one joule of energy?
Seriously, how do you figure that the ever increasing CO2 forcing is going to suddenly disappear in 2030?

Quote from: jdallen

Your stridency suggest to me you have not.  I urge you to bring more light and less heat to the discussion.

More light is what I am looking for here. Again, I would be glad if you would illuminate me in how you reached the conclusion that the declining trend in Arctic sea ice extent (for all months of the year) is going to reverse at any time between now and 2030.

Cid_Yama

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
...

What I would give for an evening filled with crickets, fireflies, and the croaking of frogs.  Or just the occasional toad in the grass on a spring morning.


Very much same feeling here. These early Spring days I am seeing practically zero pollinating insects, and very few birds, even when I go take a walk in the woods next door. I haven't seen a firefly in decades, actually.  :(

Yes, it is very sad.

Seems many posters here are equating linear decline with being 'scientific' and abrupt climate change with fantasy.

Unfortunately, there are many instances in the paleoclimate record that supports abrupt change within a matter of a few years, not even decades.



And we are seeing indications that we are currently in abrupt climate change, following the same pattern, just more rapidly.

You may not be shouting "Heresy!" like Seaicesailor, but your posts reflect a dismissal of abrupt change.

It may be a natural bias to think in terms of linear change, but it does not align with reality, certainly not in terms Arctic sea ice and climate change in the paleo record.

     

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

Andre Koelewijn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 16
AndrewB you owe me and a lot of other people an apology.

I do not find your conduct on this thread acceptable.

In the absence of an apology I will simply ignore you from now on.
misfratz,
If you seriously think I owe you an apology (for something I wrote in his thread), perhaps at the very least you should indicate what it was?  ???

AndrewB, it's difficult to speak for someone else, but I can speak for myself of course.
Although I do not think you owe me an apology, I was a bit surprised to read the development of this thread today. This morning (in my time zone - anyway, about 12 hours ago) you asked anyone with a different opinion than yours to come forward and explain, accusing them beforehand of denialism or lukewarmism. Those who came forward, were battled.
I see the point of creating some kind of debate, but I think any debate deserves better than this - also in this thread.

PS: I'm lurking at the ASIB since many years now and occasionally following some parts of the ASIF since it exists, so I do have some idea of the general manners around here.
PPS: I voted 2020-2030, because I think the Arctic will only get warmer in the time to come, with its yearly cycle and weather influence of course, but without any possibility to get back to what used to be normal, given all the feedbacks and the ever-increasing global temperatures and CO2e in the atmosphere.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
I am writing you from 2038 my connection may not last so I will make it quick.

Our first effective ice free year was 2021.  This was due primarily to a large global shift in atmospheric circulation where winter tem0eratures were often over 0c throughout the arctic.  As albedo and carbon cycle feedbacks kicked in our entire planet realized the near term impacts and the need for radical emission reductions.  By 2027 we had successfully cut global emissions by over 50%. 

During this time, however, our climate response whipsawed under sudden changes in atmospheric forcing primarily caused by aerosol reductions and a return to the solar cycle peak.  Catastrophic flood events swept the middle latitudes and the 10-year drought in the sahel drove millions to death or a migratory existence.  We had our first terminal heat stress i dex in central America in 2031.  We are currently developing a stratospheric geoengineeri ng protocol under UN guidance.

But we have already lost most of our major cities and a national relocation project is underway.

In 2029 the summer sea ice passed a critical threshold reaching ice free states in mid august.  The albedo feedback at this time suddenly shifted temperaturea above 75N latitudes a full8 C above the august and sept 2000 m3ans. 

This drove tropical heat and water vapor into the north atlantic and in the late summer of that year Hurricane Petra swept up the south-east slope of the Greenland ice sheet.  Precious years of accellerated surface melt had already honeycombed the southern dome and the massive amounts of warm rain produces a lateral hydraulic rift that accelerated up slope and down to thebase openo g a jager 1 km deep rift. 

This catastrophic release with associated cliff effect collapses produced mid-sheet lateral drain bores that sufficiently lubricated the surface sheet and produced a 300m slip joint that allowedfurther colla0se effects.  This melt impact was as strong or stronger than any cound in the late pliestocene and the surface atlantic cooling abruptly halted the AMOC.  Suddenly north atlantic sea surfa e temperatures produ ed  irculation shifts similar to the late dryas coolong pulse.  We have had massive sea level rise and extreme storm tracks in the southern states but our current climate cycle may Llow us to reduce global co2 levels i. The next 10 years to restore an annual ice sheet again
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AndrewB

  • Guest
Nicely put, SH.

I tend to assume that things are going to happen faster than many of the scientists' and models show, just because we have seen so many developments accelerate faster than expected. But I acknowledge that this is not a particularly scientific way of prognosticating.

People like James Hansen and others have pointed out that one result of GW that is indeed proceeding faster than expected is the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (not to mention the glaciers on the Canadian Archipelago).

http://www.ecowatch.com/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-2135544058.html

This will likely at some point represent such a large pulse of cold, fresh water that it will both cool the Arctic and much of the Northern Hemisphere directly, and will likely slow down or stop the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current that brings warm salty water from the Atlantic well into the Arctic Ocean.

These are some of the reasons that many scientists and modelers, equipped as they are with much more than graph-fitting tools, suspect that Arctic sea ice may bounce back a bit, or at least not disappear quite as fast, as some of the rest of us suppose. I don't think that makes any of them denialists or 'luke warmers.'

Perhaps AndrewB has a model in which none of the melt water from GIS or CAA ends up in the Arctic Ocean somehow? If so, perhaps he could share the details!  :) :)

...There is also a study that found that Arctic sea ice may in fact be reversible--that loss in any one year may not lead to inevitable permanent loss. So there's that to consider, too.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-arctic-sea-ice-loss-likely-be-reversible

Arctic Sea Ice Loss Likely To Be Reversible

Hi will, thanks for your comment, and no, I don't have "a model in which none of the melt water from GIS or CAA ends up in the Arctic Ocean somehow?"

But you forgot to mention that both the melting of the Greenland ice sheet as well as the slowdown/disappearance of the AMOC are much worse climate catastrophes that would occur only in a much, much warmer world. When and if we get there, Arctic sea ice will have been long gone and long forgotten.

So no, these are not short term negative feedbacks that would overcome the anthropogenic forcing that is driving the decline of Arctic sea ice, in time to save it.

But please allow me to ask you a question: do you have a model that shows the Greenland ice sheet melting in the next 10 years, or the AMOC slowing down in the same time frame, so that either disaster cools down enough of the Arctic to reverse the observed declining trend in sea ice volume?

See my reply above concerning the Arctic sea ice loss reversibility (in models) paper.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
"melting of the Greenland ice sheet...slowdown/disappearance of the AMOC are much worse climate catastrophes that would occur only in a much, much warmer world"

These are in the process of happening now. So no, it won't just happen in a 'much, much warmer world.' Do you have studies to show this? Do you just make this stuff up on the fly?

Hansen has determined that these effects could happen in a big way by about mid century, but they are already starting, and all indications are that they are accelerating.

And of course you do not need to have the entire GIS melt in ten years to have these effects. Nice try at a red herring, though!  ;)

As to reversibility...some models are showing it reversible, some not. I personally think the positive feedbacks will likely outweigh whatever might help it refreeze.

I just seem to lack your attitude of knowing for an absolute certainty things that the actual science still seems to be uncertain about. I guess that leaves me open to one of your choice epithets, so have at it!   ;D ;D
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
AndrewB, repeating your viewpoints ad nauseam on several threads is one thing, calling people who don't agree with it lukewarmers is something I'm not going to tolerate. Next time you do that, I'm not going to be nice about it.

Because more important on this forum than opinions and truth and all that nonsense no human understands, is a good atmosphere. I don't want it spoiled.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Thanks, Neven.

Sorry that you sometimes seem to have to be the 'adult in the room' here, but your efforts are appreciated by me, and I dare say by most posters here.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

AndrewB

  • Guest
I am writing you from 2038 my connection may not last so I will make it quick.

Our first effective ice free year was 2021.  This was due primarily to a large global shift in atmospheric circulation where winter tem0eratures were often over 0c throughout the arctic.  As albedo and carbon cycle feedbacks kicked in our entire planet realized the near term impacts and the need for radical emission reductions.  By 2027 we had successfully cut global emissions by over 50%. 

During this time, however, our climate response whipsawed under sudden changes in atmospheric forcing primarily caused by aerosol reductions and a return to the solar cycle peak.  Catastrophic flood events swept the middle latitudes and the 10-year drought in the sahel drove millions to death or a migratory existence.  We had our first terminal heat stress i dex in central America in 2031.  We are currently developing a stratospheric geoengineeri ng protocol under UN guidance.

But we have already lost most of our major cities and a national relocation project is underway.

In 2029 the summer sea ice passed a critical threshold reaching ice free states in mid august.  The albedo feedback at this time suddenly shifted temperaturea above 75N latitudes a full8 C above the august and sept 2000 m3ans. 

This drove tropical heat and water vapor into the north atlantic and in the late summer of that year Hurricane Petra swept up the south-east slope of the Greenland ice sheet.  Precious years of accellerated surface melt had already honeycombed the southern dome and the massive amounts of warm rain produces a lateral hydraulic rift that accelerated up slope and down to thebase openo g a jager 1 km deep rift. 

This catastrophic release with associated cliff effect collapses produced mid-sheet lateral drain bores that sufficiently lubricated the surface sheet and produced a 300m slip joint that allowedfurther colla0se effects.  This melt impact was as strong or stronger than any cound in the late pliestocene and the surface atlantic cooling abruptly halted the AMOC.  Suddenly north atlantic sea surfa e temperatures produ ed  irculation shifts similar to the late dryas coolong pulse.  We have had massive sea level rise and extreme storm tracks in the southern states but our current climate cycle may Llow us to reduce global co2 levels i. The next 10 years to restore an annual ice sheet again

Yep, that is one possible scenario for Arctic sea ice making a comeback between 2040-2050. Let's hope it does not come true though, because I suspect that Arctic sea ice would be the least of our worries.

S Rahmstorf has an interesting article about the slowdown of the AMOC here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/amoc-slowdown-connecting-the-dots/

"They suggest a weakening of the AMOC by about 15-20 % over the 20th Century, superimposed by some decadal variability."

Scary!

AndrewB

  • Guest
...
Because more important on this forum than opinions and truth and all that nonsense no human understands, is a good atmosphere. I don't want it spoiled.
Neven, you are quite right, a good atmosphere is more important than a challenging debate. I apologize if I somehow spoiled the atmosphere in this fine forum, by identifying people who disagreed with my opinions with "lukewarmers" or "denialists".

And as you said, I have repeated my points ad nauseam in various threads. Well, no actually two threads I think. Whatever. Enough posting here on ASIF, for sure.

Guys, you can peacefully enjoy watching the ice melt from now on. Cheers!



wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
jai, thanks for that post-from-the-future.

iirc, a recent study found that the amount of fresh water needed to stop the AMOC is less than previously thought. It used to be one sverdrup, iirc, but I can't recall what the new figure is.

In any case, such an adjustment would make your scenario all the more likely.

I think we should start a radio hour with reports from various possible futures back to our current one! Or maybe videos. Like the old "You Are There" series that generally stared Walter Cronkeit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Are_There_(series)

We need some creativity in getting our messages out to a broader audience, it would seem.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5

Because more important on this forum than opinions and truth and all that nonsense no human understands, is a good atmosphere. I don't want it spoiled.


You've kept to that philosophy since early on at the blog.


It may be the most important lesson that you've taught all of us.
Neven's is always a nice place to visit.


Terry

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
...
Because more important on this forum than opinions and truth and all that nonsense no human understands, is a good atmosphere. I don't want it spoiled.
Neven, you are quite right, a good atmosphere is more important than a challenging debate. I apologize if I somehow spoiled the atmosphere in this fine forum, by identifying people who disagreed with my opinions with "lukewarmers" or "denialists".

And as you said, I have repeated my points ad nauseam in various threads. Well, no actually two threads I think. Whatever. Enough posting here on ASIF, for sure.

Guys, you can peacefully enjoy watching the ice melt from now on. Cheers!

This forum has never not been a place for healthy disagreement. I thoroughly enjoy lively discussion and argument and come here daily to read it. I have a problem when it becomes name calling and personal attacks. Feel free to stay. I am sure your contribution would deepen the discussion. Just accept that highly informed people like yourself may have other insights and or opinions regarding the topics discussed here.

Gray-Wolf

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 458
I seem to feel that folk are genuinely frightened by what they have been watching occur across the Arctic esp. this past 18 months. As such folk posting can become overly defensive of their fears esp. if they feel others do not see/share them?

There is never an excuse for folk being mean or nasty but we might try and understand why they are being so so we might help them deal with it all better?
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20376
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
I suppose it is good to be reminded sometimes (but not too often) of the differences between discussion and debate, argument, and mere contradiction and gainsaying.

Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil's Dictionary ( available as a free e-book on Gutenberg.org) defined conversation as " A monologue by more than one person". Fortunately, most of the people posting here are in the debate and discussion business. All those wasted years when I had not stumbled across ASIF - makes me want to weep.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)