"blue ocean" in the Arctic

[Cate]

Question from the back row here: would someone point me to any sources that explain the implications of a blue ocean event in the Arctic?

I understand the measures of extent and volume, and the idea that the dark expanse of water will absorb more heat from the sun. I also understand that the first blue ocean event may increase the likelihood and duration of subsequent events, and that we may be looking at a substantially ice-free summertime Arctic by the 2020s. As a Canadian---a Newfoundlander, I understand what that means for increased exploitation of the Arctic, both military and commercial.

But has anyone teased out all this in any detail? And I am particularly interested in what a blue Arctic might mean for the flora and fauna that live or breed there,  for global weather patterns and ocean circulation, etc etc.

[AbruptSLR]

Cate I can't help you with what a Blue Ocean Event will mean in the Arctic; but if the linked Scribbler article is correct, we may not need to wait until 2020s to find out:


https://robertscribbler.com/2016/05/13/polar-heatwave-digs-in-as-arctic-sea-ice-crashes-blue-ocean-event-looking-more-and-more-likely/

Extract: "This is climate change, folks. Pure and simple. And if such a pattern of extreme heat continues, it may wipe out practically all the ice by the end of this melt season. This week, it looks like that dreaded event will grow still more likely if this predicted insane heat break-out into the Arctic emerges. An event many scientists thought wouldn’t be possible until the 2070s or 2080s as little as ten years ago. A Blue Ocean Event that is now a very real risk for 2016."

[Theta]

Cate I can't help you with what a Blue Ocean Event will mean in the Arctic; but if the linked Scribbler article is correct, we may not need to wait until 2020s to find out:


https://robertscribbler.com/2016/05/13/polar-heatwave-digs-in-as-arctic-sea-ice-crashes-blue-ocean-event-looking-more-and-more-likely/

Extract: "This is climate change, folks. Pure and simple. And if such a pattern of extreme heat continues, it may wipe out practically all the ice by the end of this melt season. This week, it looks like that dreaded event will grow still more likely if this predicted insane heat break-out into the Arctic emerges. An event many scientists thought wouldn’t be possible until the 2070s or 2080s as little as ten years ago. A Blue Ocean Event that is now a very real risk for 2016."

It's quite frightening to think that we could see the arctic devoid of ice this year. Not knowing the implications is worse, especially now with everything dying and on fire.

[Cate]

Thanks AbruptSLR, yes, I follow Robertscribbler's excellent work and in fact have already asked him to consider doing a post on "blue ocean" implications, but in the meantime I wondered whether someone here might have info or references to share. 

[AbruptSLR]

Thanks AbruptSLR, yes, I follow Robertscribbler's excellent work and in fact have already asked him to consider doing a post on "blue ocean" implications, but in the meantime I wondered whether someone here might have info or references to share. 

Cate,

Here is some more information:


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35975-arctic-sea-ice-could-disappear-this-summer


Extract: "Climate scientists tracking anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) have long feared what is referred to as a blue ocean event.
A blue ocean event means a complete absence of Arctic sea ice, allowing the heat of the sun to fully penetrate the open waters of the Arctic, which would then dramatically accelerate the rate of warming in the Arctic.
This dramatic shift would then cause a profound disruption of both atmospheric and ocean-current circulation around the globe, contributing to an increasingly ice-free Arctic, rising sea levels and dramatic increases in ACD everywhere.
…
The role of Arctic sea ice to the global climate is made clear by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which has emphasized that this ice works to keep the polar regions of the planet cool and moderate the global climate.
According to the Data Center: "Sea ice has a bright surface; 80 percent of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space. As sea ice melts in the summer, it exposes the dark ocean surface. Instead of reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the sunlight. The oceans heat up, and Arctic temperatures rise further."
…
A 2013 NASA study, titled "Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?," warned: "In July 2012 we saw methane levels over swamps in the Innoko Wilderness that were 650 parts per billion higher than normal background levels. That's similar to what you might find in a large city.""


In regards to the methane emissions risk from Arctic tundra regions, the attached image indicates model projections that thermokarst lakes in the tundra will result in a major surge in associated natural methane emissions circa 2050; however, repeated blue ocean events would certainly accelerate the timeframe for the significant modeled methane emission from thermokarst lakes.

Best,
ASLR

[Anne]

See also this thread. It's bumpy in places but worth persevering with.
Importance of waves in the Arctic

[Cate]

ASLR, thank you, that is more the sort of thing I was seeking, although I'm surprised there's not more info around on this. If blue ocean is such a major event, I would think that climate scientists need to be able to explain its implications in terms that layfolk can understand and relate to their own lives.

Anne, whew, thanks for that link, but the discussion certainly got a bit surreal! Growing up in Newfoundland, we are used to looking at ice-covered ocean, so it seemed a bit mischievous to me to be arguing whether waves or swells or whatever movements of water are affected by ice cover! I remember one evening in early July of 1974---a famous year for pack ice all down the Labrador current----I climbed up to the top of Round Head, on the very northernmost tip of Newfoundland. From there I could see, as it seemed to me, clear to Greenland, and the sea was covered in close-packed drift ice. The sound of it was deafening---a huge roar. There was no wind, but the roar came from the sound of all those ice pans grinding together. There was an immense swell on, coming in from the NE right to land, with colossal undulations rippling the ice right to the horizon. There was a real sense of the sea as a living, breathing, sentient being stretched out right there below me.

Remembering that experience in the midst of all the charts and images those guys were throwing around, I felt a bit like Walt Whitman when he heard the learned astronomer.

[AbruptSLR]

ASLR, thank you, that is more the sort of thing I was seeking, although I'm surprised there's not more info around on this. If blue ocean is such a major event, I would think that climate scientists need to be able to explain its implications in terms that layfolk can understand and relate to their own lives.

Cate,
I have spent more time focused on the Antarctic Ice Sheet and the associated risks of abrupt sea level rise this century.  Nevertheless, off the top of my head I provide the following list of other consequences of a recurring seasonal blue ocean Arctic:
- Shipping will increase which will increase carbon emissions (including black carbon) in the Arctic.
- Resource extraction (oil, gas, coal, iron etc) will increase.
- Both wave action & Ekman Pump action will increase the bottom water temperatures in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which will increase methane emissions from hydrate decomposition.
- Permafrost decomposition will accelerate; which will increase both CO2 and CH4 emissions.
- Boreal wildfires will increase (like in Fort McMurray only further north and worse).
- The atmospheric thermal gradient will decrease, which will decrease the constraints on the Jetstream, which will increase blocking events which will increase extreme weather events.
- Warming over Greenland will accelerate, which will increase ice mass loss & associated SLR.
- The specific humidity in the Arctic will increase, and as water vapor is a GHG, this will increase Arctic Amplification; which will decrease snow cover that will act as a positive feedback for more warming due to decreasing albedo.
- Shrub growth in the tundra will increase, which will also act as a positive feedback for more warming by decreasing albedo in the tundra.
- Pests will more further north, which will attack boreal forests and tundra shrub growth.
- Ground burrowing animals (like ground squirrels) will more north, which will accelerate permafrost degradation.
- Farmland will more northward, which will decrease albedo and will accelerate permafrost degradation.
- Plankton growth will accelerate in the Arctic; which will be smaller in size than the current average, which will sequester less carbon.
- The thermohaline  circulation (great oceanic conveyor) will both slow and will also convey more warm into the Barents/Kara Sea areas.

There are many other positive feedbacks (like Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback), but I need to do my shopping.

Best,
ASLR

[Laurent]

For me a blue ocean is linked to a one cell atmospheric configuration. Does AbruptSLR confirm or not ? Have you followed the one cell discussion ? instead of 3 atmospheric cells there would be only one. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/climate.html
 

[crandles]

If blue ocean is such a major event, I would think that climate scientists need to be able to explain its implications in terms that layfolk can understand and relate to their own lives.

If the mainstream view is this isn't going to happen regularly until 2030s. Then maybe it is a case of if a really low year looks like it is occurring then this might be a good opportunity to study likely impacts but by the time funding proposals are written up, reviewed, submitted and considered for funding the opportunity has passed. Such proposals may not be worth writing up to have on hand if it is thought likely a decade will pass before the opportunity occurs.

Is it a major and imminent event? Or is it partly a case of a good opportunity for a scare story - throw in the nice and easy to explain albedo feedback and not mention winter ice regrowth feedback and it seems like a runaway scenario that is bound to have lots of bad impacts.

I think the scenario is scary and this year is shaping up badly. Even 2030s isn't far off in the future and would leave little time for adaptation if the impacts are large. I can't see any significant mitigation being possible unless it is much later than 2030s.

If reporting tried to be fair and balanced. Eg mentioning that if sea ice is removed from models, they grow it back in a year or two suggesting the energy balance is fairly stable even if things are moving in the direction of a blue Arctic ocean. Would this work or would people read those part and use that to dismiss any fears the rest might otherwise invoke? So not easy to do fair and balanced. Some people may believe that lack of action on climate change make it appropriate to hype up the scare stories. On the other hand there is plenty to suggest the opposite and that scientists tend to err on the side of least drama.

If you are surprised at the lack of mainstream scientists talking about it, would this tend to indicate it might be more a case of it being over-hyped?

(Why do I suspect this post won't be popular despite trying to mention that I do think the implications are genuinely very concerning?)

[AbruptSLR]

For me a blue ocean is linked to a one cell atmospheric configuration. Does AbruptSLR confirm or not ? Have you followed the one cell discussion ? instead of 3 atmospheric cells there would be only one. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/climate.html
 

Laurent,

All by itself a blue ocean Arctic event (even recurring for decades) is not sufficient to force the atmosphere into an equable pattern with one atmospheric cell.  Nevertheless, when combined with other possible considerations that could happen in parallel with such an event (such as: ECS = 4 to 5C; the WAIS starting main phase collapse by 2040; anthropogenic aerosols being cut back rapidly, the DMO being positive for a couple of decades; positive carbon feedbacks being accelerated and anthropogenic forcing following a BAU path for two more decades), then it is possible that an equable climate could occur before the end of this century.

Best,
ASLR

[AbruptSLR]

If blue ocean is such a major event, I would think that climate scientists need to be able to explain its implications in terms that layfolk can understand and relate to their own lives.

(Why do I suspect this post won't be popular despite trying to mention that I do think the implications are genuinely very concerning?)

If certain readers take this line of logic to indicate that they might as well continue with BAU behavior, then such thinking is the source of our current situation and not the solution.

[johnm33]

As ASLR points out there's a substantial difference between an event and a regime, an event will distrupt any weather patterns  connected to the Arctic that are not overwhelmingly driven by local circumstances, but an event could be long enough for widescale disruptions to the growing season, wild or agricultural, and the repercussions will affect species both in and out of the Arctic.

[oren]

Just one nitpicking comment: As the melting season kicks in earlier and earlier, albedo feedback will be very relevant. This year is currently two weeks earlier than all previous years, so I expect this to have an effect throughout the rest of the season.
However, even if a blue ocean event does come along, and I think initially we are talking about the usual definition of an ice-free Arctic (<1 million km^2) and not a zero ice case, in all probability it will come at the end of the season in mid September, a time when the albedo feedback is irrelevant. So it's not a completely blue ocean, and certainly not blue ocean during peak insolation season. This limits the initial effects of a blue ocean event in terms of ocean warming and energy uptake.
(It still might cause all manner of weather disruptions of course. Just not a complete albedo feedback)

[AbruptSLR]

Just one nitpicking comment: As the melting season kicks in earlier and earlier, albedo feedback will be very relevant. This year is currently two weeks earlier than all previous years, so I expect this to have an effect throughout the rest of the season.
However, even if a blue ocean event does come along, and I think initially we are talking about the usual definition of an ice-free Arctic (<1 million km^2) and not a zero ice case, in all probability it will come at the end of the season in mid September, a time when the albedo feedback is irrelevant. So it's not a completely blue ocean, and certainly not blue ocean during peak insolation season. This limits the initial effects of a blue ocean event in terms of ocean warming and energy uptake.
(It still might cause all manner of weather disruptions of course. Just not a complete albedo feedback)

First, a blue ocean event can also serve somewhat like a canary in a coal mine, in that if AR5 models project that a blue ocean event cannot (95%CL) occur before 2030, then if it were to begin in 2016 would be an indication that climate sensitivity is higher than the AR5 models project; which is a serious reason for concern.

Second, Arctic Amplification is not only about albedo feedback (as my partial list of concerns clearly indicated), as for example a blue ocean event could: (a) allow warm Pacific and Atlantic water to penetrate deeper into the Arctic Ocean; (b) storm activity can cause wave action and Ekman Pump action that upwells warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean; and (c) an increase in humidity in the Arctic Basin can come from the south (as is projected to occur from Siberia to the ESAS this week see four attached Nullschool Surface Temp & Wind forecasts for the ESAS from May 16 to 19 2016, respectively) even when ice is present; which can not only cause early meltponds (and a decrease in albedo) but also an increase in atmospheric water vapor that is a GHG.

Third, to add to my previous list of positive feedbacks associated with recurring seasonal blue ocean event(s): (a) thawing of coastal permafrost leads to subsidence that leads to inundation that leads to rapid thawing and potential methane emissions from hydrates; (b) the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis raises the possibility that water ocean currents from the south could destabilize continental shelves around the Arctic Basin that could release significant amounts of methane from hydrates due to submarine landslides; (c) the increase of temperatures of the permafrost would likely activate microbes that could accelerate methane and carbon dioxide emissions and (d) snow melt on the coast plain could cause rivers to swell and flush relatively warm fresh water into the Arctic Basin.

[jai mitchell]

a quick google scholar search provided this:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=arctic+ice+free+summer+regional+temperature+response&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Projected changes in regional climate extremes arising from Arctic sea ice loss
James A Screen1, Clara Deser2 and Lantao Sun3
Published 3 August 2015 • © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 8

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084006

Abstract
The decline in Arctic sea ice cover has been widely documented and it is clear that this change is having profound impacts locally. An emerging and highly uncertain area of scientific research, however, is whether such Arctic change has a tangible effect on weather and climate at lower latitudes. Of particular societal relevance is the open question: will continued Arctic sea ice loss make mid-latitude weather more extreme? Here we analyse idealized atmospheric general circulation model simulations, using two independent models, both forced by projected Arctic sea ice loss in the late twenty-first century. We identify robust projected changes in regional temperature and precipitation extremes arising solely due to Arctic sea ice loss. The likelihood and duration of cold extremes are projected to decrease over high latitudes and over central and eastern North America, but to increase over central Asia. Hot extremes are projected to increase in frequency and duration over high latitudes. The likelihood and severity of wet extremes are projected to increase over high latitudes, the Mediterranean and central Asia; and their intensity is projected to increase over high latitudes and central and eastern Asia. The number of dry days over mid-latitude Eurasia and dry spell duration over high latitudes are both projected to decrease. There is closer model agreement for projected changes in temperature extremes than for precipitation extremes. Overall, we find that extreme weather over central and eastern North America is more sensitive to Arctic sea ice loss than over other mid-latitude regions. Our results are useful for constraining the role of Arctic sea ice loss in shifting the odds of extreme weather, but must not be viewed as deterministic projections, as they do not account for drivers other than Arctic sea ice loss.

[abbottisgone]

Dear Cate,
 I suspect Robert is a bit more careful than most suspect.

 Of course he will do an article on the big blue but on his own terms and in his own time. Of course, we all know he is quite careful when push comes to shove.. he is not a known name for nothing!

[wili]

I did something of a literature search on the probable effects of an open Arctic Ocean some ten years ago when it first started looking like a real possibility in the coming years, rather than something that might happen near the end of the century. I couldn't find much.

The main atmospheric prediction was more precipitation in the fall and winter in areas within 500k (iirc) of the Arctic Ocean. Since then, Prof. Jennifer Francis and others have advanced our understanding of the possible effects on the jet stream.

Then and now a big unkown seems to be the possible effects on ocean currents. There will obviously be bigger waves, which could affect all sorts of things.

But really, I think it is the interactions with carbon feedbacks that concern most of us the most--terrestrial permafrost and sea bed methane hydrates (and the permafrost that mostly caps them).

[Laurent]

With a blue ocean that mean the Atlantic and/or the Pacific will share the cake ! My guess is that the Atlantic will take the entire Arctic at the surface. How the flow will happen in the Bering that's a big wonder.

[Shared Humanity]

For me a blue ocean is linked to a one cell atmospheric configuration. Does AbruptSLR confirm or not ? Have you followed the one cell discussion ? instead of 3 atmospheric cells there would be only one. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/climate.html
 

My biggest fear.....

I think, with the dramatic warming we are seeing in the winter over the pole plus these increasingly frequent massive intrusions of mid latitude warmth into the Arctic and the associated bursts of cold air masses into the mid latitudes, we are actually witnessing the northern hemisphere attempt to snap into a single atmospheric cell, equable climate. The math model research that suggested this would happen as the temperature gradient between the equator and pole shrunk, also suggested that the transition to an equable climate would be sudden. Once established, the gradient between the equator and pole would be so slight as to lock this single cell in place for tens of thousands of years. What could be the trigger for such a dramatic transition? I think a blue ocean Arctic with the rapid warming caused by the heat uptake of a reduced albedo is a likely candidate.

[Shared Humanity]

For me a blue ocean is linked to a one cell atmospheric configuration. Does AbruptSLR confirm or not ? Have you followed the one cell discussion ? instead of 3 atmospheric cells there would be only one. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/climate.html
 

Laurent,

All by itself a blue ocean Arctic event (even recurring for decades) is not sufficient to force the atmosphere into an equable pattern with one atmospheric cell.  Nevertheless, when combined with other possible considerations that could happen in parallel with such an event (such as: ECS = 4 to 5C; the WAIS starting main phase collapse by 2040; anthropogenic aerosols being cut back rapidly, the DMO being positive for a couple of decades; positive carbon feedbacks being accelerated and anthropogenic forcing following a BAU path for two more decades), then it is possible that an equable climate could occur before the end of this century.

Best,
ASLR

What is happening in the Antarctic really has no impact on the northern hemisphere transitioning into a single cell, equable climate. Research has shown that the two hemispheres have coexisted with the northern hemisphere having a single cell equable climate while the southern hemisphere maintained the 3 cell atmospheric circulation for thousands of years. The reason for this?? The ice covered water as the north northern hemisphere air conditioner versus the ice covered land mass of the southern hemisphere. I fear we are closer to an equable climate in the northern hemisphere then we realize.

[A-Team]

I rather like Scribbler's site. It helps people visualize what is really coming and provides balance to scientific sites still blathering a reassuring 2100 carbon dioxide narrative. On an optimism-pessimism scale, Scribbler's realism sits right in the middle.

Contrary to what is often claimed, I find the scientific background in the articles reasonably solid and adequately supported by linked sites. I'm a working scientist, 5423 citations. My first questions for folks trash-talking Scribbler's science: how often are your papers cited, are you in good position to judge, do you communicate the issues better if so where?

A lot of this is anxiety related, not flawed content. The real problem people have with Scribbler is they fear -- or know -- deep down he is right on target. And this despite significant efforts to making his site non-threatening: Scribbler is not his real name, scribbling hardly suggests authority, those fantasy books on the side panel are not there to promote sales. Did you think they were?

The New York AG is currently suing Exxon under securities law for failing to disclose climate and stranded-asset risks to shareholders. The real agenda here is not a piddling fine but gaining disclosure. That's court-ordered access to Exxon's internal documents.

In those documents, we may learn the recipients of the many tens of millions spent on their disinformation campaign. (Exxon is just one of many companies doing this.) We've met some of them here -- the army of little people who get $5 a post for disrupting forums or getting the top comment on a newspaper climate article.

More interesting would be a list of paid-off IPCC members. I will guess a third or more have not disclosed 'conflicts of interest', which in plain english are bribes. Willie Soon, still at his Smithsonian post, just took in another $65k in dark money. http://tinyurl.com/zpx8som  Greenpeace just busted a UW fisheries professor for taking millions in undisclosed 'consulting fees' and 'grants'. IPCC members? They were the high value targets. The budget for getting them was unlimited.

Back to blue water. We already have plenty, millions of sq km for months each year; the effects are already hard upon us. The response to that has been anxiety-driven denial, variations on open water doesn't count until the whole Arctic Ocean is ice free for all summer five years in a row. Or maximal insolation and blue water extent are not perfectly synched or, pathetically, that the ice will still refreeze in the fall. (Heat gain in summer and retention in winter under dry snow on ice is actually the worst case scenario.)

Nature pays no attention whatsoever to our forums or climate model theories. The effects of blue water are already hard upon us, even with current partial clearing. We all know this. The trend is going down, the effects will get increasingly worse. And soon. We all know this. It's time to grasp the nettle, not grasp at straws.

We've known for a long time that the Arctic Ocean ice and high latitude permafrost cover would be the first things to go. That's why Neven prioritized them in the first place. However Exxon knew this decades earlier per the documents that have already surfaced.

The question is, why are scientists so late getting to the follow-on effects of blue water? If you google the article title that Jai provides, you will find 5 later cites including a Jennifer Francis commentary and her list of best cites. But as Will notes above, this is still exceedingly sparse considering its impending immediacy.

I'm skeptical that very many climate scientists drank the Kool-Aid in the IPCC report http://tinyurl.com/zaefxzo to the extent it was in their specialty. However few would want to take on an expert committee outside their area, so the report had a definite effect on chilling the bounds of polite discussion.

Blue water got pushed out to 2050; assuming that, where is the urgency? Well, other things got pushed out to 2100 and beyond yet get vastly more attention and better funding. Why?

I attribute this to a large research lobby heavily invested in the CO₂-only narrative which 'necessitates' ruthless treatment of competing threats (to funding) such as ESAS (resp. bovine/rice/permafrost) methane. Jennifer Francis has also been severely critiqued for meandering off the CO₂ story line. Now one of their political operatives has suddenly surfaced on the sea ice blog, bashing blue water. So lack of studied consequences can't all be blamed on Exxon.

Scientifically speaking, we could be caught totally flat-footed on consequences if extent and volume crash this summer. Better if research resources had been managed proportionally to risk which has long been highest for Arctic sea ice.

[AbruptSLR]

What is happening in the Antarctic really has no impact on the northern hemisphere transitioning into a single cell, equable climate. Research has shown that the two hemispheres have coexisted with the northern hemisphere having a single cell equable climate while the southern hemisphere maintained the 3 cell atmospheric circulation for thousands of years. The reason for this?? The ice covered water as the north northern hemisphere air conditioner versus the ice covered land mass of the southern hemisphere. I fear we are closer to an equable climate in the northern hemisphere then we realize.

SH,

You might want to Google "Bipolar See-saw.  As the attached image from the linked article indicates, the two ice sheets (GIS & AIS) are connected via the ocean (see also Hansen et al 2016 for discussion on the ice-climate feedback mechanism and the thermohaline circulation):


http://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/2016/04/08/image-of-the-week-the-bipolar-seesaw/

Extract: "It means that changes in temperature in the northern hemisphere affect the southern hemisphere but with a mechanism that is slightly delayed. This mechanism is of course the ocean. In climate science, this up-and-down pattern is called “the bipolar seesaw”"

[AbruptSLR]

I would like to note that I have seen a peer-review reference that indicated that the Siberian coastal permafrost is particularly susceptible to increases in rainfall associated with continued local warming (that could be triggered by recurring seasonal blue ocean events).

[ritter]

Cate,

As has been pointed out already, the reason we don't see more studies on blue ocean impacts is due to the fact that the (we'll call it) "best available science" has concluded this was still ~50-100 years out. I think A-Team did a nice summary of why this may be.

If we do find ourselves in a blue Arctic this year, only a very few have had the foresight to make that claim. The "best available science" is pretty clearly behind the curve, in my opinion.

[AbruptSLR]

Cate,

You might also want to scan through the permafrost folder, as recurring seasonal blue ocean events, would clearly accelerate the loss of carbon from this critical source (note that the AR5 models largely ignored methane emissions from this source):

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/board,20.0.html

Best,
ASLR

Edit: See the attached projection of "best available science" on carbon emissions from the permafrost; and I note that it is anyone's guess how fast such emissions will accelerate under a blue ocean scenario.

[Cate]

Dear Cate,
 I suspect Robert is a bit more careful than most suspect.

 Of course he will do an article on the big blue but on his own terms and in his own time. Of course, we all know he is quite careful when push comes to shove.. he is not a known name for nothing!

Agreed 100% and am quite prepared to wait, because it will be worth the wait.

[Michael Hauber]

CMIP5 model projections under RCP8.5 do not reach near ice free conditions until around 2050 or so.  CMIP projections for the more realistic 4.5 scenario do not reach consistent ice free conditions at all this century.  The lowest range of the model spread hits near ice free on rare occasions from about now.  The right weather combination would probably result in close to ice free any year from now, but if it happens make sure to enjoy it, as it may not happen again for quite a long time.

And no the models are not badly underestimating Arctic Sea ice loss.  This was true for CMIP3, but is not true for CMIP5.

[Cate]

A sincere and belated thanks to everyone who chimed in to answer my question. Much here to chew over with me poor old English major's brain.  But it's all good info, and I did ask for it, didn't I?

[Archimid]

And no the models are not badly underestimating Arctic Sea ice loss.  This was true for CMIP3, but is not true for CMIP5.

I'm sorry but  do you have a good source for that?  The sources I found like this:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/melting-ice/graphics/projected-arctic-sea-ice-decline

suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, the observations for global temperatures have lagged behind the models in the last decade. This year observations just barely hit the mean model temperature. For the models to be right in the long term, we will have to experience enough warming to counteract the decade of slow warming. We can fully expect faster warming.  I just can't imagine the arctic will slow its shrinking when the planet is getting warmer faster. 

[Michael Hauber]

I'm sorry but  do you have a good source for that?  The sources I found like this:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/melting-ice/graphics/projected-arctic-sea-ice-decline

suggest otherwise.

Add in the next 3 years of observations that are well above the last point on that chart.  Fits well with what I would describe as not 'badly underestimating' sea ice loss.  If you then follow the reference given for the source of this data, it is a research paper that notes that the models that best predict recent Arctic sea ice loss project nearly ice free conditions by the end of the century.

[Archimid]

From the link: "These newer model (CMIP5) simulations project more rapid sea ice loss compared to the previous generation of models (CMIP3) under similar forcing scenarios, although the simulated September ice losses under all scenarios still lag the observed loss of the past decade. Extrapolation of the present observed trend suggests an essentially ice-free Arctic in summer before mid-century. "

I can give you "not badly underestimate", as long as you can admit that the models do underestimate the melting.  If  the next 3 years are included in the graph, it does not look as shocking but the trend line for the observations  is worse than worst case scenario projections. The fact that they were updated but they still fall short of observation is of very large concern particularly when  this year could obliterate the records.

 It seems to me is as if the ones that corrected the model thought 2012 was an outlier year. They thought the ice would recover and events like 2012 will become rare as the ice stabilized. So they made minor corrections to some parameters in the models and called it a day.  That is not whats happening. The condition of the ice is worse than it has ever been, at a a time where is supposed to be recovering. A blue ocean in the arctic this year is just a matter of weather right now, regardless of what the models say.

[Cate]

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/viddaloo/arctic-sea-ice-collapse-19-july16-august-annual-average-volume

Vidaloo at Wunderground predicts blue ocean for August 2023.

EDIT: I must be more precise! He predicts the "first ice-free August" in the Arctic by 2023/4.

[Darvince]

Would the final crash into an ice-free Arctic be rather rapid? (At least if it were to happen before September).

I am thinking it would because the conditions outside of a 1M or 2M km² ice pack would be so hostile to the continued existence of the ice pack that only completely calm conditions could hope to keep it alive until the traditional time of minimum, as any winds, except those blowing against Greenland and Ellesmere Island, would flush the ice into warm waters awaiting its demise. And even winds blowing against Greenland/Ellesmere would push ice through the Nares Strait into the death ground of Baffin. Are there any thoughts against this idea?

[Bruce Steele]

Cate, Thanks for the link. I was wondering why Viddaloo was so rarely posting this season here on the forum. I go visit Chris at Dosbat
 and Apocalypse For Real at Global Methane Tracker to see what they are up to as they were also great sources here for several years.  Thank heavens for ASLR and his persistence .
 Neven has been keeping me busy for over four years now but actually it was Jim Petit and the Arctic death spiral graph that first drew me into this forum.
 Ten years till this plays out ?  It's two in the morning here , sometimes  sleep is difficult.  2012 and the GAC were covered on the ASIB before Neven started this forum , partly because people like me have a hard time staying on subject.
 Anyway thanks to all the great work represented here on the forum, thanks to everyone , and Cate I hope you stay with us and continue to make your mark here.
Bruce

[Neven]

Cate, Thanks for the link. I was wondering why Viddaloo was so rarely posting this season here on the forum.

I banned him because he wasn't able to discuss peacefully (and some other stuff).

[Shared Humanity]

Would the final crash into an ice-free Arctic be rather rapid? (At least if it were to happen before September).

I am thinking it would because the conditions outside of a 1M or 2M km² ice pack would be so hostile to the continued existence of the ice pack that only completely calm conditions could hope to keep it alive until the traditional time of minimum, as any winds, except those blowing against Greenland and Ellesmere Island, would flush the ice into warm waters awaiting its demise. And even winds blowing against Greenland/Ellesmere would push ice through the Nares Strait into the death ground of Baffin. Are there any thoughts against this idea?

Given the final state of the ice at the end of each melt season, the remaining ice is always congregating north of the CAA. What would 1M square kilometers look like nestled next to the CAA?

[Sigmetnow]

How Much Arctic Sea Ice Is Each of Us Melting? Quite a Bit, New Study Says
Each American is responsible for enough carbon emissions to melt as much as 645 square feet of ice a year, researchers' calculations show.

Ice-free summers are edging ever closer in the Arctic. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice has declined an average of 13.3 percent each decade since 1979. This year's low point was the fifth-lowest on record, and after an initial period of rapid freeze, levels are now at record lows. In addition to providing a habitat for polar bears and an entire ecosystem, sea ice also acts as a refrigerator for the globe. It keeps the Arctic cool and moderates temperatures worldwide.

The study found that with an additional 1,000 gigatons of CO2 emissions, summer sea ice would be gone. That's also the amount of emissions associated with 2 degrees Celsius of global warming. So even if we are able to meet the global goal of keeping warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures, it won't be enough for the sea ice.

"For most climate change parameters, the change between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees might be quite gradual," said Notz, who heads the sea ice research at the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. "But for Arctic sea ice, the difference means whether there is still Arctic summer sea ice in the future or whether there isn't."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03112016/how-much-each-us-melting-arctic-sea-ice-per-capita