Certainly atmosphere gets warmer and this limits ice production, but this is the way warmer air temperatures radiates more heat to space.
Whatever that speed is, the fact remains the atmosphere will be warmer particularly the surface, this means less ice formation than before.
So, the question is the timescale to lose the heat. The models are telling us that this is pretty fast. Even where ocean warms quite a bit, the mixed layer loses its heat and ice is being formed by December if not November
.
From November to March, starting from virtually 0 ice, a warmer atmosphere, a warmer ocean, who knows what will happen with atmospheric and oceanic circulations. You say 1.5m of ice I say 1.3m of thin warm first year ice.
I say that in a world that is warm enough to actually cause the perturbation magically created in the models the chance that the following year there won't be a BOE are almost 0.
That allows most of the ice volume to form by the maximum and the next year is not as severe as the perturbation.
That is an extraordinary claim. In none of the models discussed so far the maximum could have been remotely close to normal. There was a memory of at least three years after the events, that means the maximum took several cycles to recover. "most of the ice volume" does not form by maximum. That's memory. That's most certainly indication of hysteresis. In a system that's being increasingly forced, this type of memory is lethal.
Yes, that transfers lots of energy from ocean to atmosphere via latent heat
Yes, lots. And an open ocean transfers a lot more than a cold dry Arctic desert.
The air doesn't hold limitless quantities of water.
No it doesn't. It has a minimum and maximum humidity. The maximum is irrelevant for our discussion, since it will never get that hot. What matter is the difference between 20th century humidity, today's humidity and humidity after a BOE. It will be warmer and more humid. Much more.
Clouds/fog/ warm moist air will create situations for convection which carry heat higher into atmosphere where the heat is more easily lost to space.
Sure, among other positive feedback cycles. But I doubt that during the winter night the sum of all positive and negative will overcome the sheer amount of heat that we've put into the system. There is no magic bullet that will make the heat "drain" faster, except being warmer. The system can only be obstructed.
Rain leaves the latent heat away from the surface.
Can you explain this to me? I have trouble imagining how liquid fresh water falling on salty cold ice helps ice formation. In my mind rains convects heat into the ice. I've seen what hard enough rains can do to the ice pack over at the melting season.
So I don't see how this helps your cause when the issue is how fast the heat is lost from Ocean to space. This is a pretty fast method for ocean to lose heat.
The issue is not how fast heat is lost from ocean to space, the issue is how much of the EXTRA heat hangs around longer and delays ice formation.
And we are once again ignoring convection from the hemispheres, which was disregarded by Tiesche but Sezlacek found to be an effect of the perturbation.
So what? If the water below 50m is affected by the perturbation, I would expect some residual effects leaking out in declining fashion over the next few years. It didn't result in the model settling down to a different state.
All the experiments discussed so far result on the models remaining in a different state for up to 8 years.
The perturbation isn't meant to be a real effect, it is just to see if the history of what has happened affects where the model settles down.
All the experiments discussed so far result on the models remaining in a different state for up to 8 years.
The answer for perturbations of up to 3 months ice free appears to be no
The answer for perturbations that cause a minimum area of 2 million km2 is yes, for 3 years in extent and 5 in thickness, in a world where the climate is cold and unchanging enough to produce an ice free arctic by 2070.
In a model that produced an ice free arctic by 2050 the memory would be even larger.
Maybe in 50+ years time we will need to do more testing of perturbations of 4, 5 or 6 months ice free, but for at least the next couple of decades the answer looks to be no hysteresis imminent.
We have the models today, they are failing today. If they are wrong about this we don't have 50 years. The IPCC conclusion is wrong about this. There are serious indications of hysteresis.