How soon could we go ice free?

[Tetra]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

[Jim Pettit]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

Suggestion: read many of the many awesome past threads here discussing this very thing, and you are guaranteed to learn much. At any rate, ice-free by June? The answer depends in part on how one defines the term "ice free", but as it's normally understood, there is a 0% chance of this happening this year. The same answer goes for July and August and--at this point--September.

[Tetra]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

Suggestion: read many of the many awesome past threads here discussing this very thing, and you are guaranteed to learn much. At any rate, ice-free by June? The answer depends in part on how one defines the term "ice free", but as it's normally understood, there is a 0% chance of this happening this year. The same answer goes for July and August and--at this point--September.

I mean in terms of "blue ocean event" levels likely to cause a hike up in world temps and other unpleasant things.

[Pmt111500]

Nah, the blue ocean event would be the starting signal for the worse things to happen, will likely take a decade or two afterwards to have those all over globe. Of course it's pretty impossible to stop it once it starts. So i'd say 2040s-50s earliest decapita... No. Hopefully denialists will do it themselves.

Why not concentrate on the happier aspects of cc. Even now, you could grow elephants in southern europe if you had enough land... Oops. Troubling times ahead, i'd say, no way around it. There are some other more positive opinions on this. Maybe some descendants in the far future find a copy of H.G.Wells' "time machine" and start to think him as nostradamus or prophet.

[Robert Greer]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

Suggestion: read many of the many awesome past threads here discussing this very thing, and you are guaranteed to learn much. At any rate, ice-free by June? The answer depends in part on how one defines the term "ice free", but as it's normally understood, there is a 0% chance of this happening this year. The same answer goes for July and August and--at this point--September.

How can we have a 0% chance of an ice-free Arctic in September, when we're already in uncharted territory for low May volume? Especially given that the regions that looked relatively okay this year -- Beaufort and Chukchi -- are disintegrating much more quickly than expected?

[Neven]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

Like Jim Pettit says, you need to inform yourself more before getting scared/depressed.

[magnamentis]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

Suggestion: read many of the many awesome past threads here discussing this very thing, and you are guaranteed to learn much. At any rate, ice-free by June? The answer depends in part on how one defines the term "ice free", but as it's normally understood, there is a 0% chance of this happening this year. The same answer goes for July and August and--at this point--September.

How can we have a 0% chance of an ice-free Arctic in September, when we're already in uncharted territory for low May volume? Especially given that the regions that looked relatively okay this year -- Beaufort and Chukchi -- are disintegrating much more quickly than expected?

zero chance is as much a number i'd never use as is 100% chance (gererally, not topic related) but it's as close to zero as one can imagine, you'll see, there will still be A LOT of ice left at the end of this season, while once we cross the 1'000'000km2 line some will claim ice-free which IMO, can only repeat over and over, is more to get the headline than it would have anything to do with ICE-FREE.

since we're still far away from even that number the topic is a bit neglect but as soon as we get down to the million this will become a hot topic because i'm sure i'm not the only one who is not happy with that 1 million mark. no clue where it even comes from, the wine cask will be empty when the last drop has gone but earliest once one cannot fill a wine glass anymore and 1 MIO km2 is a real lot of ice especially should it consist of ice that is perhaps a bit thicker than just a few cm.

those who like to stick to that 1MIO number so that the event will happen earlier, should at least come up with corresponding thickness = volume numbers.

further it's never good to try to fool the public to get an effect. once people start to claim ice-free arctic while satellite images who everyone can see still show significant ice cover <1'000'000km2 but still, people will say: you see, it's a fake, they try to fool us.

hence the satellites will better show no significant ice-cover once the news will be fed with the "ice-free" term.

[Archimid]

I disagree that the chance for ice free September or even August is 0. The chance is certainly low and decreasing but it is not 0. A melt similar to 2012 will be enough to puts us in "virtuallly ice free"  territory. The chance for that is low but is there.

I think everyone should be at least aware of the possible danger and planning and preparation for the worst are very much in order with the caveat that it is a low probability event.

[slow wing]

... the 1'000'000km2 line some will claim ice-free which IMO, can only repeat over and over, is more to get the headline than it would have anything to do with ICE-FREE.

since we're still far away from even that number the topic is a bit neglect but as soon as we get down to the million this will become a hot topic because i'm sure i'm not the only one who is not happy with that 1 million mark. no clue where it even comes from, the wine cask will be empty when the last drop has gone but earliest once one cannot fill a wine glass anymore and 1 MIO km2 is a real lot of ice especially should it consist of ice that is perhaps a bit thicker than just a few cm.

those who like to stick to that 1MIO number so that the event will happen earlier, should at least come up with corresponding thickness = volume numbers.

further it's never good to try to fool the public to get an effect. once people start to claim ice-free arctic while satellite images who everyone can see still show significant ice cover <1'000'000km2 but still, people will say: you see, it's a fake, they try to fool us.

hence the satellites will better show no significant ice-cover once the news will be fed with the "ice-free" term.

One million square kilometres is an established operational definition of ice-free.

In my view it is a good definition.

 In practice there has to be some sort of non-zero threshold chosen. Otherwise the Arctic cannot be ice-free until, for example, the Greenland ice sheet has almost completely melted out to the extent where there are no more icebergs calving off it into the Arctic Ocean.

  The chosen value of one million square kilometres is sensible in my view as it is a round number that is small compared to the area of the Arctic basin (~7-8 million kilometres?). The satellite photos will look very blue when we reach that level.

 The almost-blue status of the Arctic Ocean means that reaching that threshold will act much like 'ice-free' in terms of changes in the weather relative to today, so the definition also makes sense in terms of consequences.


  The beef I have with politicization of the science is somewhat to the contrary: I'm actually not too thrilled at the recent change (was it around a year ago?) in the IPCC that the Arctic reaching the one million threshold in one year now doesn't count - the Arctic now needs to cross the threshold five years in a row before it has officially reached the status of 'ice-free in Summer'. To me, that artificially delays the announcement and it smells of political interference.

[jdallen]

I disagree that the chance for ice free September or even August is 0. The chance is certainly low and decreasing but it is not 0. A melt similar to 2012 will be enough to puts us in "virtuallly ice free"  territory. The chance for that is low but is there.

I think everyone should be at least aware of the possible danger and planning and preparation for the worst are very much in order with the caveat that it is a low probability event.

I hesitate to put a number on it and simply call it doubtful for the pure reason that the outcome is entirely dependent on weather; which at this juncture is entirely too unpredictable for us to make any rational, skillfull prediction.

In short, making any quantitative statement is rolling the dice and hoping your guessed outcome is close to how things turn out.  I don't think we're in any position to do that yet.

Conditions certainly are very dangerous for exactly the reason that there *exists a risk*  we could lose the ice.  That in and by itself is sufficient justification for alarm, even without the actual event taking place. We should never have gotten here.

So, it is a matter of random probability; in this pass through of the seasons just exactly how will our multi-armed pendulum swing?

[FredBear]

... the 1'000'000km2 line some will claim ice-free which IMO, can only repeat over and over, is more to get the headline than it would have anything to do with ICE-FREE.

i'm sure i'm not the only one who is not happy with that 1 million mark. no clue where it even comes from.

One million square kilometres is an established operational definition of ice-free.

In my view it is a good definition.

 In practice there has to be some sort of non-zero threshold chosen. Otherwise the Arctic cannot be ice-free until, for example, the Greenland ice sheet has almost completely melted out to the extent where there are no more icebergs calving off it into the Arctic Ocean.

  The chosen value of one million square kilometres is sensible in my view as it is a round number that is small compared to the area of the Arctic basin (~7-8 million kilometres?). The satellite photos will look very blue when we reach that level.

 The almost-blue status of the Arctic Ocean means that reaching that threshold will act much like 'ice-free' in terms of changes in the weather relative to today, so the definition also makes sense in terms of consequences.


  The beef I have with politicization of the science is somewhat to the contrary: I'm actually not too thrilled at the recent change (was it around a year ago?) in the IPCC that the Arctic reaching the one million threshold in one year now doesn't count - the Arctic now needs to cross the threshold five years in a row before it has officially reached the status of 'ice-free in Summer'. To me, that artificially delays the announcement and it smells of political interference.

Thanks for your thoughts on "Ice-Free", I fear that fighting over how much ice shows in satellite images fudges the issue of fundamental changes in the Arctic. The battle magnamentis is foreseeing does not need to be fought now - I am sure someone will try to raise it later but if 1M km² is generally accepted as "ice-free" that will be a good foundation.

I can see magnamentis's view but things like that will be used to justify the sorts of changes the IPCC are trying to make, and I hope that the original definition will continue to be accepted.

[FredBear]

P.S.    .    .     As I have just caught a flea on my nether regions maybe I should just go nit-picking with the dog???

[Michael J]

I think that an ice-free minimum is possible but it would take a perfect storm of weather events. I think the slow start this year probably means that it wont be that extreme but possible next year

[RikW]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

Suggestion: read many of the many awesome past threads here discussing this very thing, and you are guaranteed to learn much. At any rate, ice-free by June? The answer depends in part on how one defines the term "ice free", but as it's normally understood, there is a 0% chance of this happening this year. The same answer goes for July and August and--at this point--September.

I don't agree with the September part that there is 0% chance. The long-term trend get's closer to zero each year, april and may aren't very good predictors, but the ice does look bad. If we get a 'perfect' melting season, the arctic could be ice free i guess.

I still think we will break a lot of records this year, but ice free is unlikely, but not impossible yet

[magnamentis]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

Suggestion: read many of the many awesome past threads here discussing this very thing, and you are guaranteed to learn much. At any rate, ice-free by June? The answer depends in part on how one defines the term "ice free", but as it's normally understood, there is a 0% chance of this happening this year. The same answer goes for July and August and--at this point--September.

I don't agree with the September part that there is 0% chance. The long-term trend get's closer to zero each year, april and may aren't very good predictors, but the ice does look bad. If we get a 'perfect' melting season, the arctic could be ice free i guess.

I still think we will break a lot of records this year, but ice free is unlikely, but not impossible yet

one would have to put the volume in to account which more or less tells how much energy will be needed to get rid of it all and volume numbers, albeit decreasing, are simply too high to make a melt-out probable. i mean just calculate the energy to melt the now given amount of ice withing the remaining time and i believe that chances, even though never "zero" are as close to zero as one can assume.

after all the laws of physics remain in effect at all times, hence it's a very matter of fact amount of energy needed to melt the current ice volume.

[Jim Pettit]

How can we have a 0% chance of an ice-free Arctic in September, when we're already in uncharted territory for low May volume? Especially given that the regions that looked relatively okay this year -- Beaufort and Chukchi -- are disintegrating much more quickly than expected?

I was simplifying for and placating a new reader who seemed to be overworried, so apologies for any confusion. Yes, there's theoretically a non-zero chance of reaching an ice-free state in the Arctic this year, of course. But there's also a non-zero chance of me winning next week's Powerball, or a non-zero chance of Earth being violently ejected from the Solar System by a passing star. But I'll stake my entire life savings* on the belief that none of the three will happen this year.

* - Not that that's a lot of money.

[Archimid]

one would have to put the volume in to account which more or less tells how much energy will be needed to get rid of it all and volume numbers, albeit decreasing, are simply too high to make a melt-out probable. i mean just calculate the energy to melt the now given amount of ice withing the remaining time and i believe that chances, even though never "zero" are as close to zero as one can assume.

after all the laws of physics remain in effect at all times, hence it's a very matter of fact amount of energy needed to melt the current ice volume.

I don't think the probability is almost 0 anymore. I think it may be as high as double digits. Read Neven's update on the latest PIOMAS

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/piomas-may-2017.html#more

If this year's melt is equal to the average of the last 10 years, there will be around 2500 km3 left in September (mind you, the 2012 record low minimum is 3673 km3). If there's as much melt as in 2010 or 2012, this year's minimum will barely go above 1000 km3. I don't want to know what the Arctic looks like if that should happen.

[magnamentis]

one would have to put the volume in to account which more or less tells how much energy will be needed to get rid of it all and volume numbers, albeit decreasing, are simply too high to make a melt-out probable. i mean just calculate the energy to melt the now given amount of ice withing the remaining time and i believe that chances, even though never "zero" are as close to zero as one can assume.

after all the laws of physics remain in effect at all times, hence it's a very matter of fact amount of energy needed to melt the current ice volume.

I don't think the probability is almost 0 anymore. I think it may be as high as double digits. Read Neven's update on the latest PIOMAS

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/piomas-may-2017.html#more

If this year's melt is equal to the average of the last 10 years, there will be around 2500 km3 left in September (mind you, the 2012 record low minimum is 3673 km3). If there's as much melt as in 2010 or 2012, this year's minimum will barely go above 1000 km3. I don't want to know what the Arctic looks like if that should happen.

you're free to think whatever you like of course just read the post above yours and the term "close to zero would have to be defined first before continuing any discussion. as you may have recognized i'm not a friend of the 1'000'000km2 threshold as a definition and depending where one would accept the term zero to apply, it's closer or less close to "close to zero" chance LOL.

however, like JP i'd bet close to everything on a non-event, we shall see

enjoy further

[Archimid]

Yeah I would have to agree with that. The chance for literally ice free arctic this year is as close to 0 as you describe.  Only by defining ice free with some arbitrary non zero number  do we get significant probabilities. Thanks for the clarification.

[pauldry600]

I think the chance of zero is zero

The chance of 1m is 5

The chance of 2m is 10

The chance of 3m  is 30

The chance of 3.7m is 100per cent 

[Jim Williams]

Based on the current weather forceast and low ice volume (I've been very depressed over this since April) could we be ice free by the end of June?

Suggestion: read many of the many awesome past threads here discussing this very thing, and you are guaranteed to learn much. At any rate, ice-free by June? The answer depends in part on how one defines the term "ice free", but as it's normally understood, there is a 0% chance of this happening this year. The same answer goes for July and August and--at this point--September.

I don't agree with the September part that there is 0% chance. The long-term trend get's closer to zero each year, april and may aren't very good predictors, but the ice does look bad. If we get a 'perfect' melting season, the arctic could be ice free i guess.

I still think we will break a lot of records this year, but ice free is unlikely, but not impossible yet

one would have to put the volume in to account which more or less tells how much energy will be needed to get rid of it all and volume numbers, albeit decreasing, are simply too high to make a melt-out probable. i mean just calculate the energy to melt the now given amount of ice withing the remaining time and i believe that chances, even though never "zero" are as close to zero as one can assume.

after all the laws of physics remain in effect at all times, hence it's a very matter of fact amount of energy needed to melt the current ice volume.

There is all the energy you could possibly need just a few meters away from that ice.  The big known unknown is just how many meters.

I say that at some point there is enough overturning that all the sea ice melts out rather quickly and the Arctic Ocean can no longer pin the air temperature to near 0c.  I don't know when it will happen, but when it does it will be sudden -- leaving behind bergy bits and maybe some stuff flushed from the land.

[Tetra]

The reason I started this thread is because I am very depressed over this.

I've been losing sleep and having trouble not worrying my loved ones about the arctic sea ice.

I don't expect to be catered to or comforted. But I truly expect not to live another year if the arctic goes ice free this year, heck definitely not two years.

Is there still a chance we could stay above 2000km3 with a decent chance of having another year of a stable climate?

[oren]

Tetra I wish you wouldn't be so depressed over the sea ice. Many who realize the long-term trend of humanity, of the climate, of the ice, whatever, are somewhat depressed. But it's a long-term, slow-moving monster. The arctic is a symptom and a part of a system. A virtually ice-free arctic won't kill you within a year or two. It won't. (Even though climate change coupled with other trends might kill hundreds of millions within 30 years... but that's still far off, and some even claim it can still be changed).
So I wish you could relax a bit and not lose sleep. Better focus on the good things in life and on your loved ones. Everything will come in good time, and not sleeping for decades will not make it better. We are all mortal anyway, it's bad psychology to focus on the end instead of on the journey.

[Tor Bejnar]

I second oren's wish. 
(Arctic ice may be healthy for us, but so is peace [or something like that].)

[jai mitchell]

The ice will be gone soon and we will see rapid changes that were not included in the IPCC feedback.  This is a train wreck in slow motion and it is very normal to be depressed about this.  In the process of mourning we move through difficult phases that vary from denial to anger to sadness and, finally, acceptance.

This is what needs to happen and we need to be 'all-hands on deck' to prevent further destabilization as we enter into the anthropocene and leave the stable, gentle Holocene behind.

I wake up every day and hear this song in my mind as we are rapidly (I believe this year) moving into a state of climate beyond anything humans have experienced.  I then get up and go out and think about ways to make it better and talk with people who care about these things too.  I find outlets that assist me in gaining confidence that, once we all collectively wake up to these realities that we will marshal the extraordinary efforts needed to protect future generations and restore a stable climate.

[Tetra]

The ice will be gone soon and we will see rapid changes that were not included in the IPCC feedback.  This is a train wreck in slow motion and it is very normal to be depressed about this.  In the process of mourning we move through difficult phases that vary from denial to anger to sadness and, finally, acceptance.

This is what needs to happen and we need to be 'all-hands on deck' to prevent further destabilization as we enter into the anthropocene and leave the stable, gentle Holocene behind.

I wake up every day and hear this song in my mind as we are rapidly (I believe this year) moving into a state of climate beyond anything humans have experienced.  I then get up and go out and think about ways to make it better and talk with people who care about these things too.  I find outlets that assist me in gaining confidence that, once we all collectively wake up to these realities that we will marshal the extraordinary efforts needed to protect future generations and restore a stable climate.

Is there a slim chance it could just be avoided this year? With buildup of ice and enough cloudy weather in July-August to be above 1.5kmcubed and enter the colder September with minimal damage for winter 2018. As in we scrape by with enough ice to avoid catastrophic warming for a few more months. I understand that in terms of stability, it's in months not years. At least in terms of having a stable civilisation until the end of 2017, until April-may 2018.

And will a blue ocean event have the highest chance of happening in September, and not earlier?

Plus will the fact we probably won't have an El Niño this year help matters much?

[gerontocrat]

Hullo Tetra,

A blue ocean event simply means (for the moment) near-as-dammit no Arctic Sea Ice for a brief period in late summer. It's importance is very much symbolic, as for many years the world has been in denial that such a thing could happen. Symbols such as these are vital to grab public interest and change public policy.

As that period of an ice-free arctic ocean gets longer in the coming years, there will be significant changes in climate and weather systems in addition to those changes that have already happened. It is expected that those changes will make survival more difficult for life on earth for nearly, but not all, living things. (Peregrine falcons love New York). How quickly all this will happen is a matter of fierce debate on this forum and elsewhere.

However, it is as well to remember that humans are very adaptable. I have lived and worked in some of the poorest and war-torn societies in the world. Even there humans manage to not just survive but be civilised. I can assure you that we humans are very difficult to wipe out. This is good for us and in most cases unfortunate for other life forms.
 
Nil desperandum.

[magnamentis]

The ice will be gone soon and we will see rapid changes that were not included in the IPCC feedback.  This is a train wreck in slow motion and it is very normal to be depressed about this.  In the process of mourning we move through difficult phases that vary from denial to anger to sadness and, finally, acceptance.

This is what needs to happen and we need to be 'all-hands on deck' to prevent further destabilization as we enter into the anthropocene and leave the stable, gentle Holocene behind.

I wake up every day and hear this song in my mind as we are rapidly (I believe this year) moving into a state of climate beyond anything humans have experienced.  I then get up and go out and think about ways to make it better and talk with people who care about these things too.  I find outlets that assist me in gaining confidence that, once we all collectively wake up to these realities that we will marshal the extraordinary efforts needed to protect future generations and restore a stable climate.

Is there a slim chance it could just be avoided this year? With buildup of ice and enough cloudy weather in July-August to be above 1.5kmcubed and enter the colder September with minimal damage for winter 2018. As in we scrape by with enough ice to avoid catastrophic warming for a few more months. I understand that in terms of stability, it's in months not years. At least in terms of having a stable civilisation until the end of 2017, until April-may 2018.

And will a blue ocean event have the highest chance of happening in September, and not earlier?

Plus will the fact we probably won't have an El Niño this year help matters much?

there is not a slim chance that it can be avoided, on the contrary, there is only a very slim chance that it will happen (this year).

i'm not quite sure what, but something's not right with this conversation but soon we shall know, especially whether it's intentional or not i'm not pulling the word for my suspicion out of my inventory yet.

[Archimid]

Is there a slim chance it could just be avoided this year?

The most likely outcome is that we avoid the worst this year. Furthermore, if 2016 was a peak warm year, there is a pretty good chance that the Earth enters another warming slowdown that could last a decade or two at the most.  Maybe that buys the Arctic some time.

However the likelihood that we do get a BOE is too high, even when it is unlikely. 10 years ago it would have been impossible. 5 years ago it would have been so unlikely it might as well be impossible, today it is merely unlikely, but well within the realm of the possible. That is too high a likelihood.

Plus will the fact we probably won't have an El Niño this year help matters much?

I think it does.


For your depression problem, first know that it is inevitable in climate change research. However there are things that you can do to make it better. The logical solution is to take action. Prepare, talk to others, lower your carbon footprints and share your solutions. Anything would do, but do something. You will not only feel better, you will be making a difference and perhaps improving the outcome.

The other thing you can do is to stop researching climate change all together. Stick to WUWT, Fox News and other "republican" news sources. They have built a propaganda machine that it will cure you of all climate change related depression in no time. 

[TerryM]

there is not a slim chance that it can be avoided, on the contrary, there is only a very slim chance that it will happen (this year).

i'm not quite sure what, but something's not right with this conversation but soon we shall know, especially whether it's intentional or not i'm not pulling the word for my suspicion out of my inventory yet.

Ramen


Something's rotten in Tetra
What it is I'm not entirely sure.
But the blue water blues
Lacks conviction, and skews
Understandings, misrepresents our views


If proven wrong, I'll sincerely apologize
Terry

[Tetra]

there is not a slim chance that it can be avoided, on the contrary, there is only a very slim chance that it will happen (this year).

i'm not quite sure what, but something's not right with this conversation but soon we shall know, especially whether it's intentional or not i'm not pulling the word for my suspicion out of my inventory yet.

I'm so sorry for my behaviour. I've just been very stressed lately that a BOE might cause clathrate destabilization in the short term and cause the warming of the oceans to speed up enough to kill farming and crops.

If it doesn't happen this year, it must happen next. And there doesn't seem to be any tech to stop rapid warming. This planet was never able to support 7 billion people. I have the idea that my life and society as a whole hinges on a BOE not happening until next year to give it a few more months.

I've just discovered Guy Mcpherson and the positive feedbacks scare me that they will accelerate fast enough with a BOE and kill us all within a year.




Something's rotten in Tetra
What it is I'm not entirely sure.
But the blue water blues
Lacks conviction, and skews
Understandings, misrepresents our views


If proven wrong, I'll sincerely apologize
Terry

[Neven]

I've just discovered Guy Mcpherson and the positive feedbacks scare me that they will accelerate fast enough with a BOE and kill us all within a year.

Don't take what McPherson says at face value. He's more or less on the other extreme side of the spectrum that climate risk deniers are on. The latter believe there is 0% chance of anything bad happening because of AGW, McPherson and his followers believe that there is a 100% chance of catastrophe (and real soon too).

At least, that was my interpretation when I read/watched some of McPherson's stuff a couple of years ago. Data is skewed towards the absolute extreme and beyond.

Most of the members of the ASIF community take AGW seriously, but not to the point where they think everything is going to end the day after tomorrow. Some think it will happen later, others think/hope the worst may still be averted. I (choose to) belong to that latter group.

[Tetra]

I've just discovered Guy Mcpherson and the positive feedbacks scare me that they will accelerate fast enough with a BOE and kill us all within a year.

Don't take what McPherson says at face value. He's more or less on the other extreme side of the spectrum that climate risk deniers are on. The latter believe there is 0% chance of anything bad happening because of AGW, McPherson and his followers believe that there is a 100% chance of catastrophe (and real soon too).

At least, that was my interpretation when I read/watched some of McPherson's stuff a couple of years ago. Data is skewed towards the absolute extreme and beyond.

Most of the members of the ASIF community take AGW seriously, but not to the point where they think everything is going to end the day after tomorrow. Some think it will happen later, others think/hope the worst may still be averted. I (choose to) belong to that latter group.

I'm really sorry for my posting. It's just that im terrified a  BOE could really destabilise the planet. That and climate change seems to be here already and speeding things up.

I really don't think we have a year left due to abrupt warming and some runaway effects stacking up.

[oren]

Tetra, somebody messed with your head. Large systems don't collapse so quickly. "We have only a year", nobody can know that. A BOE may come and go several times before the effects are extreme. And even extreme effects don't kill civilisation overnight. It's a process of decades, certainly not months. I'm very much not an optimist,
I feel it's unstoppable, but it's also quite slow on a human lifetime scale (though not slow enough, sadly). So please, take a deep breath and chill a bit.

[jai mitchell]

I've just discovered Guy Mcpherson and the positive feedbacks scare me that they will accelerate fast enough with a BOE and kill us all within a year.

Don't take what McPherson says at face value. He's more or less on the other extreme side of the spectrum that climate risk deniers are on. The latter believe there is 0% chance of anything bad happening because of AGW, McPherson and his followers believe that there is a 100% chance of catastrophe (and real soon too).

At least, that was my interpretation when I read/watched some of McPherson's stuff a couple of years ago. Data is skewed towards the absolute extreme and beyond.

Most of the members of the ASIF community take AGW seriously, but not to the point where they think everything is going to end the day after tomorrow. Some think it will happen later, others think/hope the worst may still be averted. I (choose to) belong to that latter group.

+1 

I never fully discount another's perspective and assertion, however, McPherson falls into pseudoscience and hyperbole with incorrect assessments about things like permafrost pingos and subsea methane explosions. . . predicting the extinction of humanity in 10 years is not only foolish and dangerous it is, well, kinda dumb.

[josh-j]

I'm really sorry for my posting. It's just that im terrified a  BOE could really destabilise the planet. That and climate change seems to be here already and speeding things up.

I really don't think we have a year left due to abrupt warming and some runaway effects stacking up.

I'm no expert but I don't think its inevitable that we will have a BOE this year, far from it - let alone that having one would immediately end our civilisation. Who knows, maybe there is a chance of all that happening in one year... but surely a low chance. The BOE itself could happen if we are unlucky, judging by ice volumes, but nothing is certain.

Try to change our world for the better; don't wallow in despair to the point of paralysis.

The only certainty is that if all of humanity had your level of concern, we'd already be well on our way to fixing the problem.

[Cook]

I'm really sorry for my posting. It's just that im terrified a  BOE could really destabilise the planet. That and climate change seems to be here already and speeding things up.

I really don't think we have a year left due to abrupt warming and some runaway effects stacking up.

Please, don't be sorry, and don't be terrified. Since you are posting here I assume you have some great things like an education, a computer, food and shelter. Don't take these things for granted. Be thankful for them every day.

Change for the better or worse is inevitable, but we are short changing ourselves if we let that degrade our life in the now.

Let me suggest something like meditation. It can bring things into perspective.

The way I see it, we live in a thrilling time. A time of learning for human beings. We will learn a great deal about ourselves and our planet in the coming decades, and as usual there will be joy and suffering.

Isn't it amazing that we can monitor what is happening in real time and discuss it among ourselves?

[Jim Williams]

(Peregrine falcons love New York)

So did the doves (pigeons) before those damn predators showed up.

[Jim Williams]

I've just discovered Guy Mcpherson and the positive feedbacks scare me that they will accelerate fast enough with a BOE and kill us all within a year.

Don't take what McPherson says at face value. He's more or less on the other extreme side of the spectrum that climate risk deniers are on. The latter believe there is 0% chance of anything bad happening because of AGW, McPherson and his followers believe that there is a 100% chance of catastrophe (and real soon too).

At least, that was my interpretation when I read/watched some of McPherson's stuff a couple of years ago. Data is skewed towards the absolute extreme and beyond.

Most of the members of the ASIF community take AGW seriously, but not to the point where they think everything is going to end the day after tomorrow. Some think it will happen later, others think/hope the worst may still be averted. I (choose to) belong to that latter group.

I'm really sorry for my posting. It's just that im terrified a  BOE could really destabilise the planet. That and climate change seems to be here already and speeding things up.

I really don't think we have a year left due to abrupt warming and some runaway effects stacking up.

I bought a house on the hill overlooking Boston 30 years ago expecting to have valuable oceanfront property, and while I still expect that to happen I despair of it doing so in my lifetime.

The sea level might start rising a foot a year within the next few years, but only poor people will notice.

[Archimid]

+1 Neven, with caveats

Guy McPherson is wrong in several fronts. Particularly the Methane clathrates bomb and human extinction.  Methane clathrates could become a significant player, but it won't be significant enough compared to other feedback loops. As for human extinction, it is highly unlikely. Even in a worst case scenario there are plenty of isolated communities and underground bunkers that will  keep H. sapiens going. I think extinction can be safely ruled out.

However in the grand scheme of things I think McPherson's position is closer to the real thing than the current consensus position. Something like a BOE will be enough to throw the global weather into a frenzy that will collapse economies and communities all over the world.  This will lead to wars and instability that will make matters worse, but even then it is very likely that a large percentage of humanity survives and adapt. You just have to make sure that you are ready to be part of that bunch.

[Cid_Yama]

What you fail to take into account is that warm-blooded creatures are now at the upper end of their ability to lose metabolic heat.  Yes, man has the ability to now build enclosed environments that, with inputs from the outside, and the ability to dump wastes outside, several thousand could survive, using environmental suits to allow work outside.

But that technology, with such a small population, would be lost in short order.

And CO2 in the atmosphere is forever, with regards to human time scales.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-gases-will-heat-up-planet-for-ever-1041642.html

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf

Who would want to live in that world?

It would be like trying to colonize an inhospitable planet.  With no hope for further assistance from outside. 

[magnamentis]

What you fail to take into account is that warm-blooded creatures are now at the upper end of their ability to lose metabolic heat.  Yes, man has the ability to now build enclosed environments that, with inputs from the outside, and the ability to dump wastes outside, several thousand could survive, using environmental suits to allow work outside.

But that technology, with such a small population, would be lost in short order.

And CO2 in the atmosphere is forever, with regards to human time scales.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-gases-will-heat-up-planet-for-ever-1041642.html

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf

Who would want to live in that world?

It would be like trying to colonize an inhospitable planet.  With no hope for further assistance from outside.

counting all of asia, india and africa plus the arabian peninsula he vast majority of global population are living in way above average temperature environment, hence i don't think that air temperatures and their effect on livability are a huge issue by themselves. of course hi temps come with a lot of side effects but then i understood that you refer to the sheer capability of a warmblooded body to absorb heat (more heat) no problem IMO

[Cid_Yama]

The Limits of Human Adaptability

It seems to be widely assumed that humans can adapt to any amount of warming, on the basis that humans live in such a wide variety of climates now. We show that when examined in terms of the peak value of the wet-bulb temperature (Tw), which ultimately governs the possibility of transfer of metabolic heat to the environment, the worlds present-day climates are far less variable than one might think based on mean temperature. A warming of only a few degrees will cause large parts of the globe to experience peak Tw values that never occur today; 7C would begin to create zones of uninhabitability due to unsurvivable peak heat stresses (periods when the shedding of metabolic heat is thermodynamically impossible); and 10C would expand such zones far enough to encompass a majority of today's population. It is unknown how much of our present 7- 10C cushion we can live without before experiencing significant problems, making it difficult to draw conclusions about more modest climate changes, but the limits themselves rest squarely on basic thermodynamics.

These inferences stand in contradiction to damage functions currently used in economic cost-benefit calculations. In these, climate damages increase with global mean temperature according to a polynomial form, and remain moderate (typically <30% of GDP) even for 10C or more despite the implication that most of the surface would become uninhabitable by humans and most livestock during the warm season. We suggest that more attention should be paid to the behavior of damage functions at large departures from the present climate, and that damage functions should perhaps be based on a model of interpolation from adaptability limits rather than extrapolation from calculated impacts of small changes.

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/PNAS-2010-Sherwood-0913352107.pdf

[Archimid]

Even at the unlikely case of 8C by 2100 there will be habitable places for at least part of the year. The world is simply too large. Not that many places will remain habitable for humans and probably even the habitable places become uninhabitable for part of the year but  I'm sure that using technology whatever humans are left can adapt.

Honestly I'm not worried about that. It is way beyond my lifespan. I'm worried about the changes in weather patterns that will continue to get worse as the arctic disappears. I think the usual  patterns will continue to change until the Arctic is ice free. Then they will change even more, specially on the years after the first BOE.

 Those year were there is ice in the Arctic during the winter years but no ice  in the summer will be the worst, at least as far as the Arctic is concerned. After the Arctic has warmed up enough to make winter insignificant I believe the rate of climate change will slow and the weather will become more settled. I have not yet ruled out that after the first BOE the Earth instead of warming snowballs. That could be even worse.

[rboyd]

After the first BOE it would be logical for there to be a period of severely chaotic changes as the climate finds its way to a new equilibrium. All the models that predict that places like Canada and Northern Russia may benefit most from climate change may be proven very wrong if the Northern Hemisphere climate cells undergo a major transformation, after a period of chaotic behaviour.

The resulting temperature and rainfall patterns may be very different to those that are in place currently, or assumed by climate models.

[LRC1962]

I very interesting read on climate change. Loss, Mourning, and Climate Change

“I sat on the makeshift step of what would be my refurbished porch and envisioned a yard with wildflowers. Anxious for some permanency, I guess I needed to be reminded how temporal permanency is.”

Extreme changes in weather and climate can augur great loss, because loss itself is socially and culturally constructed, and that loss can include both human and non-human life. The act of mourning these losses publicly is at once a responsibility that we have to engage with the bereaved and an effort to reconstruct meaning around it afterward. At the core, mourning is a recognition of impermanence and mortality – of the forms of life around us and of our own.

I think our biggest problem will not be the loss of the ice, I do not mean to minimize what that loss will mean to our environment. Our biggest problem will be that we will need to change how we do things and trying to use the BAU approach will only result in failure.

As for answering the main question, it is up to weather and that is the biggest known unknown.

[wili]

I'm not sure that people are getting just what kinds of uncharted territory we are walking into here.

mag, I suggest you look into the facts about wet bulb temperatures. We are increasing not only temperatures, but also humidity levels (which increase by about 6% per degree C). When you reach 95 degrees F wet bulb temperature (that is, 95F = 35C plus 100% humidity, or its equivalent...higher temps but lower than 100% humidity...) everyone simply dies. Period.

Even if you are completely at rest in the shade in a strong breeze, under those conditions, you die within mere hours. It is simply a fact of human physiology. And the strongest and most able are as likely to die as are the weak, if not more so. The processes that under normal circumstance keep you cool (sweating and evaporation) just make you cook in your own skin that much faster.

We don't have to wait for 7 degrees C global temperature for this to start happening. We have come close at various locations around the globe already, and not just in the tropics. Parts of western Wisconsin, just a few miles from where I live, came close in the heat wave of '95.

In a context of the general societal collapse that will likely occur as more and more places approach and exceed that level, electricity and all the technology based on it will more and more frequently fail. So even those privileged to have AC will not make it under most circumstance.

We have pushed the earth out of the zone in which humans have evolved. The mechanisms that have most helped us adapt to the conditions of the last few million years will not help us, and will mostly work against us in these conditions.

Arch, when you say: "Honestly I'm not worried about that. It is way beyond my lifespan." Well, I guess I can thank you for being honest. But isn't that short-term thinking exactly part of what has gotten us into this mess. If nothing else, doesn't our present set of predicaments challenge us to question these individualistic and short term kinds of attitudes?

And I'm not sure how useful 'habitable places at least part of the year' are going to be. But at any rate, such place will not be where most people now live.

But back more specifically to the titular topic of the thread, do we have any good new science about what is predicted to happen with a Blue Ocean Event (or anything close to it)? When this first was something that some of us, at least started thinking seriously about, some ten years ago, I looked around and found precious little good science on the subject...it had been frankly outside of what most scientists had expected to happen. I admit that I have not been diligent since to keep up with the latest, but maybe someone here has? If so, please share what you've found. We are mostly just waving our hands around without some grounded modeling of these consequences, both in terms of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, not to mention carbon cycle issues.

[FishOutofWater]

I think the focus on a few weeks of 90% blue ocean in September is misplaced. Changes in the weather have been already happening for the past decade as the European Arctic seas become more like the north Atlantic. Ocean convection, mid-deep water formation, is increasing in the European Arctic.

Convection in the Arctic ocean will be the big game changer because it will release heat in fall and winter but so far it is increasing gradually. Being "ice free" for a few weeks will not suddenly change the stability of the ocean.

And for what it's worth it has happened in the geologic past and life did just fine.

There are other things in the geologic past that I won't talk about now that weren't fine but they weren't caused by a "blue ocean event".

There is much to worry about in these times where American leadership has collapsed but worrying doesn't make it better. I'm just glad to see the French and German government getting along well together. There is some good news.

[Neven]

I think the focus on a few weeks of 90% blue ocean in September is misplaced. Changes in the weather have been already happening for the past decade as the European Arctic seas become more like the north Atlantic. Ocean convection, mid-deep water formation, is increasing in the European Arctic.

I fully agree. The focus on an ice-free Arctic or blue ocean event is understandable from a PR point of view, as that image will hit hard and burn itself into the collective consciousness. But it's not a starting shot after which the consequences will suddenly start to make themselves felt. They already are, and if there is some tipping point, it doesn't suddenly start as soon as there is less than 1 million km2 of sea ice.

I hope I'm not further depressing you. Just saying. 

[Tetra]

I think the focus on a few weeks of 90% blue ocean in September is misplaced. Changes in the weather have been already happening for the past decade as the European Arctic seas become more like the north Atlantic. Ocean convection, mid-deep water formation, is increasing in the European Arctic.

I fully agree. The focus on an ice-free Arctic or blue ocean event is understandable from a PR point of view, as that image will hit hard and burn itself into the collective consciousness. But it's not a starting shot after which the consequences will suddenly start to make themselves felt. They already are, and if there is some tipping point, it doesn't suddenly start as soon as there is less than 1 million km2 of sea ice.

I hope I'm not further depressing you. Just saying. 

So we've already passed the tipping point?

I guess what I'm really afraid of is just one big melt out in June and July, making us ice free earlier than many of us thought. (Especially with the open water in Alaska and the upcoming stage 5 heat vortex) and doing real damage that could really destabilise the world climate past the point of no return in short order.

Although, If we get a September BOE, the world will not fall apart within a year thanks to the refreezing season, at least until we get a proper one next June/July, but modern humanity will be tested.

Thank you for everything, both for running this excellent forum and the blog. I have been enlightened somewhat. I'll try to make more contributing posts in future. Let's see what the rest of this rather frightening and exciting melting season has for us.