Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent

[magnamentis]

As I say in the first post in the thread, if you want to replace 'imminent' with 'could basically happen any time' that's fine, and I think the evidence still supports the statement.

There has always been a vast body of relatively hot and salty water below the freshwater 'lens' in the Arctic Ocean that makes sea ice possible.

We now know that this vast body of hot salty water has gotten much hotter (and presumably saltier...do we know about that?).

And as the authors of the study also point out, they expect major disturbances of the layering structure that has been keeping the hot, salty lower water from interacting with the surface, fresh(er)-water lens...basically at any time.

The article also points out that there is enough heat (and salt, presumably) in that lower level to keep the region ice-free for most of the year.

Add those all together, and I think you can defend at least a version of the title of the thread, especially since at the same time 'Atlantification' and plain old feedbacks are also assaulting the same ice from every other direction.

If anyone doesn't like the title of the thread, though, they are of course free to start their own thread with their own more sensible title, and then they can enjoy being the target of slings and arrows of skeptics! 

if you mean "could happen any time" together with "year round" it's a clear now, can't happen and this is physics, calculating the energy needed to melt all the ice and keep the arctic ice-free in winter is simply not there and can come from nowhere in such a short time that the terms "imminent" or "could happen any time" are valiid and quite far from it.

also to does not matter if some insist that "everything is possible" and find millions of cherry picked arguments to feed their bias. nothing helps if basic physics is involved.

year round BOE will not happen any time soon while BOE in summer will happen soon but not during the next 5 years, except if some would start to invent thresholds again that are nowhere to meet the term but their bias, 1M km2 for example, totally arbitrary and 1M km2 has nothing to do with ice-free, because 1M km2 a certain average thickness is  A LOT of ice and not "NO ICE".

To say it won't happen in the next five is a bit ignorant. Unless the decline in volume decides to flatten out.

i only debate what the thread title is and that says "year round" and we have not even reached one day of ice-free in summer.

i'm getting tired of this bullshit talk, extremely far fetched and if someone tries to come to reason the wording diverts into insulting territories.

it's impossible by laws of physics (energy needed to melt all the remaining ice year round) and that's the opposite of ignorant.

what i can see is that like the yellow press someone opens a thread with a provoking title and then the discussion quickly becomes a discussion about something else, in this case about first ice-free arctic in summer (seasonal) while seasonal is already to much to describe a few days of ice free at best during the next 5 years.

thank god i found my ways to avoid to see this kind of BS from regulars.

[magnamentis]

if you mean "could happen any time" together with "year round" it's a clear now, can't happen and this is physics, calculating the energy needed to melt all the ice and keep the arctic ice-free in winter is simply not there and can come from nowhere in such a short time that the terms "imminent" or "could happen any time" are valiid and quite far from it.

All the energy is right there.  It might not be within snorkeling distance, but it is within SCUBA diving distance of the ice.

It's all about the Arctic heat budget and rate of heat transport. 

A BOE requires a sufficiently large heat budget combined with a rate of transport (into and out of the Arctic) that exceeds the ability of local conditions to maintain temperatures that overwhelm the ice.

Increasing ocean enthalpy increases that heat's accessibility to transport.  The only argument right now over is how soon that heat "spills" out of its deep reservoir and how fast it moves.

yes but not for "year round" during the next 5 years. as to your statement as such and in general it's of course correct.

[wili]

The lead article states that there is already enough heat in the lower, saltier layer to melt all of the ice in the region throughout most of the year.

It also states that they expect the lower layer to get mixed up with the upper layer at some indeterminate time.

So I'm still not sure why that doesn't mean that the region could become (nearly) ice free throughout (nearly) all of the year at any time. But I'd be happy to learn from my betters. 

And it's not just the heat that would do the melting, it's also the saltiness.

As the Arctic Ocean becomes more and more ice free, wind will become a larger and larger factor in both issues of transport and issues of layer mixing. Fresh water will be pushed out of the Arctic much more easily, and that will tend to draw the heavier, saltier, warmer water up from below, will it not?

Also, as storms get more intense (since GW is tending to make all storms), we will see higher and higher waves. There are records of waves in other oceans reaching about 25 meters. That's half way to the 50 meters where the warm, salty water currently resides.

https://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/massive-wave-sets-southern-hemisphere-record/news-story/9a7cf565ff65e51961a8ed9acdefecbf

It looks to me that the main countervailing force is increased fresh water inflow from snow-melt and ice sheets. Whether these inflows can keep up with forces pushing fresh water out from the AO and bringing salty water up from its depths...I expect is pretty hard to determine.

Anyway, thanks to all for the discussion. And sorry if it rattles some to put the case in dramatic terms...I find the Arctic to be pretty darn dramatic, myself. And the consequences of what may be about to happen...even more so! 

[crandles]

The lead article states that there is already enough heat in the lower, saltier layer to melt all of the ice in the region throughout most of the year.

A one off quantity of heat that may well be enough to melt all the ice. But what would happen to the heat budget? Surely that would be massively affected with the water venting huge amounts of extra heat each winter due to lack of ice/much thinner ice for it to pass through. After venting this heat burb, would the ice return to normal levels over the next 2 or 3 years? Oh yes, there is the salt as well; but ice formed is relatively fresh by expelling cold briny water which then sinks. So this returns the salt to lower levels. Maybe the salt distribution takes a bit longer to return to something close to recent distribution.

I wouldn't want to risk carrying out this experiment even if I was a lot more confident that nothing particularly dramatic happens and soon returns to normal because even a small chance of something dramatic should be avoided if possible. But we are doing the experiment and so we have to live with the risk. However, I don't see that it makes sense to assume the likely consequences are catastrophic or that the chance of something dramatic happening is more than a low chance. If experts thought there was a high chance of something catastrophic then they would be clearly and loudly saying so.

AIUI the suggestion was that the mixing only occurs to significant extent at the edges of the continental shelves rather than all over the Arctic ocean. Elsewhere the stratification is really rather stable. Yes, changes are happening and eventually this will cause other changes but we don't really know whether this will be slow, fast, only in some locations, or over wide areas, or...

[gerontocrat]

The lead article states that there is already enough heat in the lower, saltier layer to melt all of the ice in the region throughout most of the year.

Firstly:-
The lead article quoted the Professor who was the lead author of the study as saying-
"this heat is trapped below the surface layer. Should it be mixed up to the surface, there is enough heat to entirely melt the sea-ice pack that covers this region for most of the year."

Wili, methinks that small difference in wording is all the difference in the world. The region is the Beaufort Gyre - the ice pack does cover the region for most of the year. The Professor was not saying that the released heat would keep on melting ice for most of the year.

The study quite specifically says:-

It is instructive to set the resulting heat content
increases in context alongside sea ice. The capacity for sea ice melt of the
additional heat content (the increase of ~2 × 10^8 J m2 over 30 years)
equates to a change of about 0.8 m in thickness, taking the latent heat of
melting to be 2.67 × 10^5 J kg−1 and the density of sea ice to be 900 kgm3.

The additional heat accumulated over 30 years per m2 is sufficient to melt 0.8m thickness of sea ice per m2. - ONCE.  Not all year, not every year - ONCE. And confined to the region of the Beaufort Gyre, which for this study is a small part of the Arctic Ocean.

The study is important - giving another mechanism for acceleration in sea ice decline, perhaps not confined to the study area. But it never merited " Holy Shit" status.

[bluesky]

AIUI the suggestion was that the mixing only occurs to significant extent at the edges of the continental shelves rather than all over the Arctic ocean. Elsewhere the stratification is really rather stable. Yes, changes are happening and eventually this will cause other changes but we don't really know whether this will be slow, fast, only in some locations, or over wide areas, or...

This is what the following research paper has demonstrated, during the GAC over the ice free Beaufort sea in August 2012, that the ocean stratification was stable. A year round BOE is likely a long long time away. Having a BOE for a few weeks in the summer getting to a month and more will be already very dramatic and maybe we should think about these consequences first, than to a all year BOE that we probably don't have the capability to forecast when and how it is going to happen.

Wind-driven mixing at intermediate depths in an ice-free Arctic Ocean"
Ben J. Lincoln et al , 2016
Geophysical Research Letters
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GL070454

[bluesky]

Dear Gerontocrat, thank you for reframing the debate based on the rational of the article. The situation in the Arctic is already very dramatic and would not require to be painted more dramatic than it is.

[bbr2314]

It is about to get very cold very fast over most of Canada. Snow cover should be expanding rapidly through D10. Some snow will melt but refreeze may actually commence shortly in Foxe Basin, and Hudson Bay is quickly approaching freezing. Will the benefit of proximity to the CAA / continental displacement of the polar vortex result in a very early refreeze? I think so. It has been variably or mostly below freezing most recent days. Some FYI / potential MYI remains as well.

We were wondering why the SWE response happened this spring. The above maps may lend credence to the notion that the changes in Bering and Barentz have overwhelmed other factors to result in a pattern conducive to this. There is simply so much heat, and at depth, it is like a switch has flipped.

The Hudson / Bering +Barentz shift is particularly interesting because the Hudson's relative lack of depth meant that even with less sea ice, the amount of heat it takes up is limited by its volume. So even if they are all ice free in summer, it is Bering and Barentz that deal with deep ocean currents / more depth / ability to accumulate much more heat on a year over year basis. Paradoxically this may increasingly turn Hudson Bay into a redoubt for sea ice (as we saw in very muted melt this year). That would also have major implications for the adjacent continental bodies + force worse WACCY weather with progressively worse seasonal perturbations to the jet stream as HB trends in the cold direction while Bering and Barentz head for subtropical.

[wili]

crandles wrote regarding stratification:

"...changes are happening and eventually this will cause other changes but we don't really know whether this will be slow, fast..."

Thanks for agreeing that we don't know when year-round BOE may happen...could be any time. That's my whole point.

[Rod]

Thanks for agreeing that we don't know when year-round BOE may happen...could be any time. That's my whole point.

You are not accurately quoting crandles.  I have not seen any credible poster that agrees a year round BOE "could be any time."  Your paper was a good one. However, it does not support the proposition that you say it does. 

These discussions are getting tiresome. 

Right before you posted your doom and gloom comment, bbr posted a 10 day model run at 850 hPa and pretends the next ice age is coming.  Neven should delete his posts every time he posts a 10 day model run and he needs to explain why he always posts 850 hPa data. 

This is an open forum and everyone's opinion is welcome. But, it is starting to be hard to take things seriously when people dont seem to even want to do the most basic research before posting what they claim are statements of fact. 

[bbr2314]

Thanks for agreeing that we don't know when year-round BOE may happen...could be any time. That's my whole point.

You are not accurately quoting crandles.  I have not seen any credible poster that agrees a year round BOE "could be any time."  Your paper was a good one. However, it does not support the proposition that you say it does. 

These discussions are getting tiresome. 

Right before you posted your doom and gloom comment, bbr posted a 10 day model run at 850 hPa and pretends the next ice age is coming.  Neven should delete his posts every time he posts a 10 day model run and he needs to explain why he always posts 850 hPa data. 

This is an open forum and everyone's opinion is welcome. But, it is starting to be hard to take things seriously when people dont seem to even want to do the most basic research before posting what they claim are statements of fact.

The D10 output is almost identical. The pattern is going to be unusually stable (in its new chaotic way) due to the massive insolation anomalies in Bering and Barentz. This is all derived from what's now becoming obviously an overriding factor for sensible weather in many locations.

Since you were apparently triggered, here is 24 hours out which shows the PV dislocating into the CAA while the massive heat bulge over Barentz takes its first standing ovation with encores in some format pending / remaining for the rest of the foreseeable future.

[binntho]

Though I don't speak for bbr, and i'm sorry should he take this personally, but I think his statement was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as opposed to a serious hypothesis.

Well, I'm not taking anything personally here - perhaps just pointing out that "you" statements can be a cause of friction. As in claiming that I'm avoiding to acknowledge something which imputes dishonesty (intellectual or otherwise). As for bbr I really can't say, it's not the first time he has made such claims but it wouldn't surprise me if he intends them as some sort of joke.

However, though exaggerated, he does make a valid point. The paper I attached discusses how decreasing ASI cover leads to increased Autumn snowfall. I know you have seen the crazy SWE maps for last year. It started snowing early, and the volume ended up literally off the GCW scale by mid-winter.

Glaciation is driven by a either a combination of lower summer temperatures and increased Autumn/Winter/Spring snowfall versus control, or an overwhelming contribution from one factor. The paper sets out a reasonable argument for the latter of these two mechanisms. Maybe, some areas in the CAA may see positive SMBs as a result of this, in the years and decades to come (Greenland has seen this effect for the last 2 years). I dont think my argument is invalid, or I wouldn't make the point- though you may well prove to be correct.

I think you misunderstood the situation in Greenland - every year has positive SMBs, and has for probably the last 8000 years. Greenland is however losing mass fast due to increased calving into the sea, and total mass balance is going downwards at a very steady clip, with no stall or pause in the last few years.

A final point: The much-discussed paper does not show any mechanisms that could lead to glaciation. There is a very large step from an increase in snowfall in autumn (or even an increase in SWE, althought that has not been established) and glaciation. As long as global temperatures keep rising, all the snow will melt out in spring unless a hugely massive change were to occur in snowfall amounts, and I'm not seeing anything in the paper that implies any changes on any scale sufficient to lead to a new glaciation.

[Rod]

Thank you bbr for posting a more realistic time frame.  But now you have switched from temperature to pressure at 500 mb.  I feel like I'm playing wack-a-mole. 

The models I am seeing are all showing above normal temperatures over most of the arctic for the next 3 days.

You just seem to be picking out random charts and expecting us to believe they support your opinion.

I know you are smart, and I have said before that you are good at weather predictions. However, what you are showing right now does not support what you say it does.  That map just shows the pressure high up in the atmosphere. 

I'm not saying it is not an important map, but I don't see how it proves that the Hudson, Foxe Basin and CAA are about to freeze over. 

[bluesky]

It is about to get very cold very fast over most of Canada. Snow cover should be expanding rapidly through D10. Some snow will melt but refreeze may actually commence shortly in Foxe Basin, and Hudson Bay is quickly approaching freezing. Will the benefit of proximity to the CAA / continental displacement of the polar vortex result in a very early refreeze? I think so. It has been variably or mostly below freezing most recent days. Some FYI / potential MYI remains as well.

We were wondering why the SWE response happened this spring. The above maps may lend credence to the notion that the changes in Bering and Barentz have overwhelmed other factors to result in a pattern conducive to this. There is simply so much heat, and at depth, it is like a switch has flipped.

The Hudson / Bering +Barentz shift is particularly interesting because the Hudson's relative lack of depth meant that even with less sea ice, the amount of heat it takes up is limited by its volume. So even if they are all ice free in summer, it is Bering and Barentz that deal with deep ocean currents / more depth / ability to accumulate much more heat on a year over year basis. Paradoxically this may increasingly turn Hudson Bay into a redoubt for sea ice (as we saw in very muted melt this year). That would also have major implications for the adjacent continental bodies + force worse WACCY weather with progressively worse seasonal perturbations to the jet stream as HB trends in the cold direction while Bering and Barentz head for subtropical.

Interesting but is there any climate link between a very warm Barents see and the Hudsy Bay getting colder. Or could it be a one off due to climate variability in HB? Considering that the Arctic sea ice cover has been changing quite a lot during the past 12 years can we really conclude for an established weather pattern ( e.g. it seems that up to 2012, the Beaufort sea had less sea ice together with the Canadian archipelago, now it has been more on the Atlantic side while both Beaufort and CA has had more ice than a few years ago, it might reverse again depending on the dominant pressure pattern over the summer. Bi polar between North America and North Siberia generating more transpolar drift from the Pacific side to the Atlantic and moving more ice on the Atlantic side and less in Beaufort and CA). This is a very changing weather pattern. Not sure there is yet a new established normal weather pattern.Unless the trend of higher frequency of cyclones is moving the ice predominantly in one direction.

[Red]

Just thought you all might like to see what the environment Canada site is forecasting up north for the next week. First Iqualit:

Today   Cloudy. Becoming a mix of sun and cloud this morning. Wind northwest 30 km/h. High 9. UV index 2 or low.
Tonight   A few clouds. Wind northwest 30 km/h becoming light late this evening. Low plus 2.
Sun, 9 Sep   Increasing cloudiness early in the morning. 40 percent chance of showers. High 7. UV index 1 or low.
Night   Cloudy with 70 percent chance of showers. Low plus 2.
Mon, 10 Sep   Cloudy with 70 percent chance of showers. High plus 4.
Night   Cloudy periods. Low plus 1.
Tue, 11 Sep   Sunny. High plus 4.
Night   Cloudy. Low plus 1.
Wed, 12 Sep   Cloudy. High plus 4.
Night   Cloudy with 60 percent chance of showers. Low plus 1.
Thu, 13 Sep   Cloudy. High plus 3.
Night   Cloudy. Low zero.
Fri, 14 Sep   Cloudy. High plus 3.

...and here's Yellowknife:

Tonight   Mainly cloudy. Wind becoming northeast 20 km/h gusting to 40 overnight. Low plus 4.
Sat, 8 Sep   A mix of sun and cloud. Wind northeast 30 km/h gusting to 50. High 9. UV index 3 or moderate.
Night   A few clouds. Low plus 1.
Sun, 9 Sep   Sunny. High 11.
Night   Cloudy periods. Low plus 3.
Mon, 10 Sep   A mix of sun and cloud. High 8.
Night   Cloudy periods. Low plus 1.
Tue, 11 Sep   Rain or snow. Windy. High 6.
Night   Cloudy periods. Low minus 1.
Wed, 12 Sep   A mix of sun and cloud. High plus 5.
Night   Cloudy periods. Low zero.
Thu, 13 Sep   A mix of sun and cloud. High 7.

Doesn't look like much snow cover is about to happen!

[Red]

Opps! and Churchill on the western shore mid way up Hudson's Bay:

Tonight   Clear. Low plus 2.
Sat, 8 Sep   Sunny. Increasing cloudiness early in the afternoon. Wind becoming south 20 km/h early in the afternoon. High 12. UV index 3 or moderate.
Night   Cloudy with 60 percent chance of showers. Wind south 20 km/h becoming northeast 20 near midnight. Low 7.
Sun, 9 Sep   Cloudy with 60 percent chance of showers. High 7.
Night   Cloudy periods. Low plus 2.
Mon, 10 Sep   A mix of sun and cloud. High 10.
Night   Cloudy periods. Low plus 4.
Tue, 11 Sep   Cloudy with 60 percent chance of showers. High 6.
Night   Cloudy with 60 percent chance of showers. Low plus 3.
Wed, 12 Sep   Cloudy with 30 percent chance of showers. High 7.
Night   Cloudy periods. Low zero.
Thu, 13 Sep   A mix of sun and cloud. High 8.

And the site:
https://weather.gc.ca/canada_e.html

[gerontocrat]

Some snow will melt but refreeze may actually commence shortly in Foxe Basin, and Hudson Bay is quickly approaching freezing. Will the benefit of proximity to the CAA / continental displacement of the polar vortex result in a very early refreeze? I think so. It has been variably or mostly below freezing most recent days. Some FYI / potential MYI remains as well.

...... may increasingly turn Hudson Bay into a redoubt for sea ice (as we saw in very muted melt this year).

"listen very carefully, I will say this only once" (From 'allo, 'allo)

I attach below two area graphs for Hudson Bay (includes Foxe Basin) for 2018.

The first is for the current part of the year. Looking at that one might think there are significant variations over the years.

The second graph is for the whole year. This puts variations over the years into perspective. The Hudson Bay Sea Ice is remarkably stable over the years and has been almost impervious to climate change in the Arctic. This is a big contrast to most other seas of the Arctic.

In 2018 melt was a bit late by one to two weeks, but caught up in the end - area being just under 7,500 km2 on Sept 6th, close to the average for both the 2010's and 2000's, and about half the average area of the previous two decades. 7,500 km2 of ice in a basin of 1.2 million km2 is - not a lot. There is similar data for extent.

Melting was not very muted this year. The lateness was well within annual variations. Will it refreeze? of course. Early ? Maybe. EDIT But maybe not - Just read Red's data on temps. (I love real data)

The Hudson Bay is not, as yet, an advertisement for Quebec, Ontario (and the CAA?) to become the newest ice sheet on the planet.

This thread was based on a poorly written press article and poorly understood remark by the lead author. The sound and fury - signifying something, but not a lot.

[oren]

Thank you geronotocrat for your sobering comments. The heat at depth can melt the Beaufort ice, once, I too thought that's what the article said. As to the claim that HB melt was muted this year, it has been repeated often on this forum, but repetition does not ensure veracity. HB sea ice is at its usual near-zero and will refreeze in October.

[Pmt111500]

Shores of Hudson Bay might be the place for Winter Olympics 2050-3000AD. Ah well, if no one builds a venue to Antarctic Peninsula or Ellesmere before.

[gerontocrat]

Thank you geronotocrat for your sobering comments. The heat at depth can melt the Beaufort ice, once, I too thought that's what the article said. As to the claim that HB melt was muted this year, it has been repeated often on this forum, but repetition does not ensure veracity. HB sea ice is at its usual near-zero and will refreeze in October.

Hullo again, Oren.

I think I should be grateful for the posts with which I strongly disagree. It has made me go back to the data and have a proper scrutiny and rethink of my own conclusions. I would not have gone through that study on heat archived in the BG and read it properly if not for the "Holy Shit". Not only that but various comments from several of those people posting over the last few months with whom I have had disagreements in the past has pushed me forward to a possible new way of looking at sea ice past, present and possibly the future..

And the trigger to do something about it has come from etienne, who has just started a new thread "Well done but it's not over."

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2397.msg171718.html#msg171718

I quote from his post:-

"Gandhi believed in the scientific method of:
- accumulation and presentation of evidence;
- review of the logical processes employed for arriving at a conclusion;
- joint examination of these processes and evidence;
- replaying that tape by which one has arrived at a conclusion so that one may detect the point where divergence commenced;
- investigating whether the refusal to see evidence and logic is the result of ego-centric attitudes and perceptions and if it is found that this is what leads to intransigence, then
- divesting oneself of ego-based considerations that have only a limited place within the unalterable paradigm of interdependence that rules humanity;
- reassuring the “adversary” that the effort is not to deny his needs and interests, while promoting introspection in the adversary through love and the readiness to suffer (voluntary suffering).

In spite of all these efforts on one’s part, one may not be able to dissolve intransigence on the other side.

I am not Gandhi - I admit to abject failure on the last two parts of that list. Anyway, the idea is to look for a single number for each sea on which to base conclusions. As perfection is denied to mere mortals, it might be two numbers. I am going off-line now to start work on "the methodology that belongs to me" and "I may be gone for some time". (Though at my age comfort breaks and a look around are a frequent necessity).

Toodle-pip

[wili]

ger wrote: "I think I should be grateful for the posts with which I strongly disagree. It has made me go back to the data and have a proper scrutiny and rethink of my own conclusions. I would not have gone through that study on heat archived in the BG and read it properly if not for the "Holy Shit"."

You're welcome! 

But really, I am humbled and awed by the depth of expertise the members on this board bring to this and other issues. I am glad if my bit of goad prompted some of our wisest and smartest to review these issues afresh and for the excellent conversations sparked thereby. Apologies to those it may have upset, but it does sometimes take a bit of sand to form a pearl! 

ETA:

But just again to add further to the fray: Even if the added heat available is just enough to lead to (near) year-round (near) BOE in the entire Beaufort Gyre area...do we really have any idea what such a momentous event would lead to?

Certainly lots more big waves promoting further mixing of deeper, saltier, warmer water toward the surface;

And certainly lots more water vapor in the region, leading to much more heat being held/reradiated...near the surface;

And certainly further exacerbation of the kind of stuck, high amplitude Rossby waves that have brought lots of warm, lower-latitude air deep into the tropics in the last few years...

All of which would tend to make it more likely that there would be another (near) BOE the next year. no?

But probably there would be lots of other effects, short- and long- term that I am missing or ignorant of...and some of which are probably simply unknowable.

[Tom_Mazanec]

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/19/the-blue-ocean-event-and-collapsing-ecosystems/

In the simplest of terms, Greenland’s 16° C temperature increase in less than a decade is mind-blowing, especially in consideration of the survey team’s statement that it: “Confirms the significance of sea ice for past abrupt warming events.”

Hmm! Déjà vu, the Arctic sea ice scenario today seems curiously similar to the British Antarctic Study. Prospectively, that’s really horrible news!

[Shared Humanity]

I tend to not visit this thread often as the title is off putting...a year round Arctic BOE is not imminent IMHO. The lengthy, cold Arctic winter night will continue to freeze much of the central Arctic. That being said, the linked article just above does a good job of summarizing the fact that weather impacts of the disappearing ice is already upon us and going to get much worse regardless of having frozen central Arctic seas in the winter.

[FishOutofWater]

That counterpunch article is sloppy from a scientific perspective. The vast continental area of Eurasia will still get cold in the winter when there's less (or no) sea ice in the Arctic ocean in the winter. Snow will still fall over Siberia and the jet stream will still be intense on the margin of the western Pacific with Eurasia.

We have climate models that can be used to analyze these scenarios. There are papers reporting the results of such studies. If you're going to write articles about the BOE event you should read about those studies before you write your story. It doesn't look like this author did that.

[Tom_Mazanec]

BOE closer than thought:
https://eos.org/scientific-press/ice-free-arctic-summers-could-happen-on-early-side-of-predictions

[b_lumenkraft]

From Toms link:

Abstract

The Arctic Ocean is projected to become seasonally ice‐free before midcentury unless greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly reduced, but exactly when this could occur depends considerably on internal climate variability. Here we show that trajectories to an ice‐free Arctic are modulated by concomitant shifts in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). Trajectories starting in the negative IPO phase become ice‐free 7 years sooner than those starting in the positive IPO phase. Trajectories starting in the negative IPO phase subsequently transition toward the positive IPO phase, on average, with an associated strengthening of the Aleutian Low, increased poleward energy transport, and faster sea‐ice loss. The observed IPO began to transition away from its negative phase in the past few years. If this shift continues, our results suggest increased likelihood of accelerated sea‐ice loss over the coming decades, and an increased risk of an ice‐free Arctic within the next 20–30 years.

[gerontocrat]

There is a thread "when will the arctic go ice-free".

Surely time to stop this shit, holy or otherwise.