When will the Arctic go ice free? (poll 2)

[crandles]

Last poll
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2348.0.html

voting closed July 2018
2018-2019 12 (17.9%)
2020-2025 21 (31.3%)
2026-2030 13 (19.4%)
2031-2040 15 (22.4%)
2041-2060 2 (3%)
2061-2080 0 (0%)
2081-2099 1 (1.5%)
2100-beyond 3 (4.5%)

Will views have changed much since then?

[Freegrass]

Thanks Crandles! 

My money is on 2035-2040 to dip below 1 million m² if we can have "a perfect summer" somewhere around that time...

On a regular basis I would say from 2045 onward...
Unless arctic ocean stratification completely collapses before that time of course.

[oren]

Sticking with my previous vote of 2026-2030 as the dice rolls accumulate.

[Aluminium]

2041-2060. Didn't vote in previous poll.

[I’M IN LOVE WITH A RAGER]

I selected 2026-2030 since I don' think we will be quite so lucky as to reach the later end of the range without at least one summer of disastrously aligned conditions; however, in my mind the full confidence interval I expect the first sub 1M km^2 summer is sometime between 2028-2035 based on current models and projections. Hopefully that is incorrect and the true date falls far later outside this range, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[Paul]

If we get a winter like 2016-17 and a summer season  like 2007/11/15/20 then going below 1 million could happen in the 2026-2030 range but I think more realistically it will probably be more likely in the 2041-60 range.

Of course any negative feedbacks could counteract that like did the well below average temperatures over land during 2016/17 play a role in a slower snowcover retreat in Spring 2017, how much of a role did any increased snowcover on the ice pack during the melting season?

In many ways, the main melting season is really not all that long so to lose around 13 million square miles of ice in just 5 months(less than that for the basin) is quite a tall order especially in the CAB where the ocean is deeper and landmass influence is much less.

[Stephan]

According to my long-term graphs a sea ice extent of less than 1 M km² is likely to occur in the late 20s.
Didn't participate in the first poll, but I would have voted for the same bin.

[HapHazard]

No real idea. Models, I feel, will break down more as time goes on. The way things have been going since I started paying more attention (late 80s early 90s, thanks Gramps), our climate - or perhaps weather would be more accurate - feels like a spinning top, which wobbles more and more as it slows down. (not my imagery, I remember someone else here posting that) I'd have better luck predicting stock or crypto prices to the penny, years in advance. lol

So, I'll guess before 2030.

[FredBear]

Although "data" keeps heading back into bottlenecks of similarity I feel that one year there will be ill winds that will literally topple the numbers and confidence that we will reach the 2030's without a wipe-out is rather optimistic     .    .    ?

P.S. Are any of the satellites flying near the polar areas measuring energy radiating from those areas (and is it increasing as we see things change?)?

[El Cid]

I think we are in slow transition mode since 2007/10. It might last another year, another decade or much longer - In a chaotic system forecasts are quite though. But if slow transition is true it will definitely be after 2030, maybe well after

[Richard Rathbone]

No change. Renewables are still cheap enough that sufficient CO2 may never be emitted.

[Juan C. García]

I keep my vote on 2031-2040. A wider range would be 2026-2050. I think it is going to happen.

[johnm33]

26-30 all that needs to happen is for the CAA to clear enough to allow a mass exodus of ice and the freshwater lens to pass. Hycom shows a continuation of Atl. waters flowing that way, one warm surge at the wrong moment weatherwise could lead to a persistent flow. Whatever amount flows out will be replaced by Pac./Atl. waters at higher temps and would reduce the inertia presently resisting it's ingress. I'd guess a one in ten chance of this happening any year in the next decade so 26-30 within the limits of the poll seems right.

[crandles]

31 votes in perhaps enough for a quick look:

Median vote is now 2033
2.5 years ago median vote was 2026.

So moved 7 years later in 2.5 years.
At that rate .... 

Anyway, seems more people believing the slow transition type curve as you would expect with more data to support it.

[kassy]

That is probably not all.

I voted 26-30.

My general claim is ´this decade´. I could still have gone for 20-25 but the chances are better with the other bracket since 20 and 21 did not deliver. 

[Juan C. García]

31 votes in perhaps enough for a quick look:

Median vote is now 2033
2.5 years ago median vote was 2026.

So moved 7 years later in 2.5 years.
At that rate .... 

Anyway, seems more people believing the slow transition type curve as you would expect with more data to support it.

I think it depends on the time you make the poll. By example, after a second lowest like 2020, the poll will show some closer melt. And after a rebound year like 2021, the people will look it far away.

[KiwiGriff]

Oren nailed it for me.
Rolls of the dice for a 2012 weather pattern along with the declining trend .
Will probably do it 26-30.

[Fractious]

The raptors are nesting the lowest I've ever seen them nest.  2070- 2090.

[binntho]

I voted for the 30´s as I have done previously. The linear trend points that way, but I can see that more people think it will happen sooner. Which is definitely within the realms of possibility.

[Jim Hunt]

Are any of the satellites flying near the polar areas measuring energy radiating from those areas?

Yes. See:

https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/ceres-arctic-toa-energy-fluxes/

Which reminds me that it needs updating when I have a spare hour or two!

Getting back to the poll, it's a matter of when all the ducks line up in a row. It's non-trivial to predict the next non-cloudy July! I've plumped for 26-30.

[Richard Rathbone]

Once upon a time (2011/12), I was a True Believer in the Visions of the Great Prophet Wadhams and believed the The End Times (of the Arctic Sea Ice) were upon us.

However, I changed my mind.

I'm curious to know what would change the mind of those who currently hew to the apocalyptic state of the sea ice. Will they just continue revising the timing of the End Days to always be a few years away, or is there some eventuality that would precipitate a rethink?

In my case, if this poll is repeated in 3 years time, I don't foresee my opinion having been changed by anything other that an outright repudiation by COPxx of any further attempts to control greenhouse gasses. In 6 years time, I'd be getting edgy if there wasn't some sign that the Keeling curve was beginning to bend, and if I couldn't see a definite bend by 2030, I expect I'd start to see 1M as a possibility again.

[longwalks1]

2026-2031
After 13 military remands with finger printing done and ban+bar letters issued to me from military sites and/or civil arrests for antinuclear civil disobedience 1986-1992, my neural plasticity for long term hope is limited.   2026-2030, but I would have preferred  2026-2031.

My personal belief is that it will have to get to 2 million one year before it has a chance to break 1 million the next or subsequent year(s).  I really have no opinions on extent.   My vote was for area.

  One possible new poll would be a yes/no of will we have the satellites to map this and/or do you believe you will be alive when it hits 1M.   ASAT warfare or economic collapse (no more satellite launches) or nuclear war (Bull of Atomic Sci clock) could render many polls on many subjects functionally neutered before 2040. 

I have been an odd duck for a long time.   In 5th grade it was a hot May day, study hall, girls in PE, and my teacher broke the silence with, "Some people act like they are reading  big books to impress people - they are not impressing anyone.  I was reading Freuchen's 500 page Arctic Year and was entranced.   I said nothing, I knew she was wrong. 

[HapHazard]

I think it depends on the time you make the poll. By example, after a second lowest like 2020, the poll will show some closer melt. And after a rebound year like 2021, the people will look it far away.

Without doubt. Recency bias is 100% a thing. Bias isn't easily shaken off, regardless of the type. One sees it all over this forum, even; some people push one narrative & others the opposite, always digging for the stats etc. that align with their long-held notions. I remember how people in 2007 still found stats to bolster the same position they've clung to since '89.

My biased view is that there's always a "randomness" that we still cannot predict. Too many folks like to worship at the feet of smooth curves, yet there's always gonna be spikes. (talking in regards to polls like this)

[Phil.]

I voted for the 30´s as I have done previously. The linear trend points that way, but I can see that more people think it will happen sooner. Which is definitely within the realms of possibility.

I tend to agree except that at some point the linear trend will take us to a very vulnerable state and then we could see a collapse.  Looking at the ice volume the average minimum in the 2000s was ~9, in the 2010s it was ~4.5, that to me is disturbing.

[josh-j]

I'm curious to know what would change the mind of those who currently hew to the apocalyptic state of the sea ice.

I don't agree with Wadhams' outlook particularly, but until the curve is actually bending I see no reason to expect that its likely 1M will be avoided.

We've been going downhill for so long, even when renewables are cheap and whatever, until the curve actually changes I will not be optimistic. For all we know, we could end up cutting emissions loads but then having it all offset by feedbacks.

I'm not at heart a catastrophist, I think anyway, but the Keeling Curve basically says it all for me. Once that looks better, we have more room for optimism.

I voted 2030s. If pushed I'd say late 30's, but with error bars so big it could be in the 20's or 40's...

[Paul]

Oren nailed it for me.
Rolls of the dice for a 2012 weather pattern along with the declining trend .
Will probably do it 26-30.

I can't see how a 2012 style pattern would give a BOE, yes it delivered record lows but it was still above the 1 million threshold by well over a million square miles and we all know the CAB will have the most resilient in the end and it will be interesting too see if a BOE includes a true ice free north pole or not.

I still think it will be until the 2040s at least until we see the first BOE, I think the lower you go, the slower the decline as an unexpected cold summer/winter could halt any momentum. All that said, we have seen in some years recently what an early melt and way above average sea temperatures can do especially during the early part of the refreeze season and maybe one year that slow refreeze may have an influence on the following melt season.

[Phil.]

"it will be interesting too see if a BOE includes a true ice free north pole or not."

It wouldn't surprise me to see a true ice free North Pole before a BOE, the ice boundary gets fairly close to the pole from the eurasian side in several years recently.

[The Walrus]

There have been numerous claims as to when the arctic will go ice free, based on the linear trend.  Using a simple linear trend of the minimum Arctic sea ice extent (NSIDC), the sea ice extent will fall below 1M sq. km. in the year 2059.  We all know that nothing will follow a straight line, and that the sea ice will vary from year to year.  In 40 of the past 43 years, the measured sea ice extent has been within 16% of the linear trendline.  Using this variance, the sea ice could dip below 1M in 2057.  The record low of 2012 was almost 30% below the trendline.  Using a 30% variance, the sea could dip below 1M as early as 2054.

Many have remarked that the recent trend has deviated from the long term.  Tamino has stated that using changepoint analysis, the recent trend line of the average extent anomaly (since 2007) is not statistically different from the early trendline (1979-2003). 

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/arctic-sea-ice-2/

Extend his analysis to the annual minimum, the Arctic sea ice appears to have converged with the early trendline in 2021.  A continuation of this trendline would generate a BOE in the year
2089, not counting annual variations.  This may be more realistic that the three-step approach that many have presented in which the recent (15-year) trend is lower than the early trendline,

Vox_mundi linked to this recent paper which stated,  "Under the optimistic scenario, if carbon emissions can be brought to heel by then, some summer ice could persist indefinitely. However, under the pessimistic scenario, in which emissions continue on their current path, summer ice would disappear by 2100"

https://phys.org/news/2021-10-arctic-ocean-ice-area-survive.html

Based on all the data, the possibility of an Ice-free Arctic this decade seems rather remote.

[The Walrus]

"it will be interesting too see if a BOE includes a true ice free north pole or not."

It wouldn't surprise me to see a true ice free North Pole before a BOE, the ice boundary gets fairly close to the pole from the eurasian side in several years recently.

I quite agree.  The pole is much more likely to have open water long before the ice falls below 1M sq. km.

[dnem]

I voted 26-30. The role of the dice will give likely give us such unprecedented melt weather and/or poor freezing weather that the pack will lose structural integrity and collapse. Extremely mobile ice will leave the pole well clear of ice with the remaining mobile ice pushed south and Atlantic-ward before the 1 million km2 threshold is reached.

This is obviously just a raw guess informed by extreme events occurring around the world with increasing frequency.

[Rodius]

I voted 2020 - 2025 last time.
I am sticking with the same this time.

The only reason I think this is still possible is my experience with nature tends toward everything being okay for a long time and suddenly it isn't.

I have been in 2 decent earthquakes, 1 flash flood, a large bush fire, and have seen the destruction of a Tsunami... those events have skewed my thinking somewhat when it comes to nature.... so, with that skew in mind, the arctic looks good for a few decades at the moment, but when it happens I think it will go from looking okay to under 1 million suddenly and unexpectedly and sooner than we think.

Just one tipping point would do it, maybe an El Nino, a methane burst, something like that, and the ice will just disappear before our eyes and we will be surprised because just months before it happens, it will still look like it wont happen.

That is how I think nature works... all good right up until it isnt.

No science thinking involved, just nature being a bitch.

I remember when we thought Larsen B Ice Shelf was going to be good for a century, then it fell apart in one summer.
That is what I think will happen in the arctic.

[dnem]

FWIW I basically agree, but voted 26-30 just because I think it will take a few more rolls of the dice for the big weather number to come up.  The 800k "lead" the ice has over 1st place at the moment could disappear in 3 or 4 days during an extreme event.

[The Walrus]

FWIW I basically agree, but voted 26-30 just because I think it will take a few more rolls of the dice for the big weather number to come up.  The 800k "lead" the ice has over 1st place at the moment could disappear in 3 or 4 days during an extreme event.

I voted much later.  Even though extreme events happen, nature has checks and balances.  One hot summer is followed by a cool one.  The west coast of the U.S. was experiencing very hot and dry conditions last summer.  That changed suddenly, and us not experiencing heavy rain and snow.  Similarly, whenever the Arctic sea ice declines to a new low, the following year, it grows back, exceeding the previous levels.  When the ice was declining  slowly, minima occurred more frequently.  Whenever there a sudden jump one year, the subsequent minimum was longer in occurring.  The minimum in 1999 was slightly below the previous (270k), and the following minimum occurred three years later.  The ensuing minima were similar (120k) in 2002 and (320k) in 2005.  Then the big drop occurred in 2007 (>1M), and the next minima did not occur for five years.  The drop in 2012 was also large (780k).  No new minima have occurred since. 

Every time, the sea decreases significantly, it recovers slightly the following year(s).  There has never been an observation during the satellite era in which two minima occurred in simultaneous years.  The average span between minima has been four years.  Based on the satellite data, it would take at least three more drops like 2006 and 2012 to reach an ice-free state.  To paraphrase gerontocrat, my theory which I developed myself, is that the two large drops were exceptions and not the rule ( being eclipsed by five other occurrences of much lower drops).  Hence, reverting back to long term trend, the Arctic will not become ice-free for many decades.  This excludes the claims that the ice has leveled out or the decline decreased over the past decade, in which case, decades could be changed to century.

[Paul]

I still refer that as you get nearer the bottom, the more variability there will be and it could take longer than many think before we go down to ice free conditions.

At the end of the day, If the maximum extent is around 14 million squared miles, it will take alot of energy and warmth to melt 13 million square miles of ice, obviously there is less than that in the basin itself but the melt season in the basin itself is shorter still and with temperatures in the CAB hovering around zero all summer it will take quite something to reach ice free conditions. The CAB with its deeper waters, higher latitude and thicker ice(moreso nearer the CAA) means its almost a different Arctic compared to areas closer to continental landmasses. That said you just never know with the Arctic and a new record can never be ruled out.

[The Walrus]

31 votes in perhaps enough for a quick look:

Median vote is now 2033
2.5 years ago median vote was 2026.

So moved 7 years later in 2.5 years.
At that rate .... 

Anyway, seems more people believing the slow transition type curve as you would expect with more data to support it.

With 52 votes now in, a clearer picture is emerging.  Granted this may be skewed by different voters, but the current situation looks like this:

Timeframe   Old       New
                  Poll       Poll
2018-19:   17.9%     0.0%   No surprise as the Arctic did not become ice-free
2020-25:   31.3%     7.7%   Big drop, supporting the slow transition curve
2026-30:   19.4%   32.7%   Possibly just a shift due to the two years since the previous poll.
2031-40:   22.4%   38.5%   The new mode, which is 10-15 years later than the previous poll.
2041-60:     3.0%    9.6%    Big jump from previous.
2061-80:     0.0%    1.9%    Only 1 total vote in the combined polls, hence it is not significant.
2081-00:     1.5%    0.0%    Same as previous timeframe.
2100+         4.5%    9.6%    Another big jump from the previous poll.

It is apparent that the contributors to this recent poll believe that an ice-free Arctic will occur much later than previous voters.  Combining the brackets yields this analysis:

Time         Old         New

< 2025     49.3%      7.7%   
2026-40    41.8%    71.2%
> 2041       9.0%    21.2%

Significantly fewer voters feel that an ice-free Arctic is imminent.

[oren]

Sorry Walrus, 2040 is imminent as well for all practical purposes.
At least we got double the rate of >2040 voters this time.

[ChrisReynolds]

I've gone for so long I am not even a sea-ice amateur anymore. So consider this a WAG. Sometime next decade, but maybe in the early part due to the STAGGERING summer heat we've been seeing in Siberia.

BTW, I had the misfortune to have a Steve Goddard video in my YouTube feed. Over a decade being wrong, but still going strong. W--ker.

[Rodius]

It seems like people are fond of pushing things out to 15 to 20 years for stuff to happen.... for example, fusion energy has been 20 years away since the 1960s.

[interstitial]

If we have a strong melt season this year than most predictions will move up by about the same amount they moved out last year. This supports the similar to this year bias on sea ice predictions for next year. Except it is a little further out. Trying to ascribe some significance to this shift is in my opinion too much of a stretch.

[The Walrus]

If we have a strong melt season this year than most predictions will move up by about the same amount they moved out last year. This supports the similar to this year bias on sea ice predictions for next year. Except it is a little further out. Trying to ascribe some significance to this shift is in my opinion too much of a stretch.

I do not believe that one season affects peoples opinions by that much.  The shift between the two polls occurred over four melting seasons.  I think that carried more weight than just one season, and is significant.

[interstitial]

If we have a strong melt season this year than most predictions will move up by about the same amount they moved out last year. This supports the similar to this year bias on sea ice predictions for next year. Except it is a little further out. Trying to ascribe some significance to this shift is in my opinion too much of a stretch.

I do not believe that one season affects peoples opinions by that much.  The shift between the two polls occurred over four melting seasons.  I think that carried more weight than just one season, and is significant.

The poles were 4 seasons apart but by peoples comments much of the shift in attitude seems to be more recent. IMO

[The Walrus]

If we have a strong melt season this year than most predictions will move up by about the same amount they moved out last year. This supports the similar to this year bias on sea ice predictions for next year. Except it is a little further out. Trying to ascribe some significance to this shift is in my opinion too much of a stretch.

I do not believe that one season affects peoples opinions by that much.  The shift between the two polls occurred over four melting seasons.  I think that carried more weight than just one season, and is significant.

The poles were 4 seasons apart but by peoples comments much of the shift in attitude seems to be more recent. IMO

Hard to tell if the comments were formed by the past four seasons, or just this past one (or possibly more).  However, looking at the minima over the past four seasons and how they affect the trend can be telling.  The attached plot shows the minima since the Arctic ice started its decline (1996).  The difference in the two trend lines results in a seven year difference in the year in which the Arctic becomes ice-free, 2041 compared to 2048.  Surprising similar to crandles' analysis in post #13.  Both polls were performed after the ice had increased from the second lowest minimum on record.  Granted last year was a larger increase, and could have had more of an impact, but four of the past five years had been above the trendline.  I think that is weighing on people's minds also. 

[trm1958]

The poll results seemed a little more optimistic than the previous one.

[The Walrus]

The poll results seemed a little more optimistic than the previous one.

Yes, in the previous poll, almost half choose before 2025, compared to just 4% in this poll.  Twice as many chose after 2040 this time around; 20% compared to 10% previously.

[interstitial]

by my count there are three ice free arctic polls. a moderator should lock two of them.

[Unaffiliated]

If I was here my vote would have been for the 2040-60 bin 2045-55 for a more confined prediction.
I'm splitting the difference between the analytical (follow the trend line) and the intuitive (the change will be sudden and rapid) both are valuable. if we overlay a 2012 melt event over the trend line we are still 20-30 years from that being a BOE. Before we get to a BOE or atleast regular BOE conditions we need to see a fundamental change in the mechanism influencing ice conditions either the removal of a protective factor such as the collapse of the jet stream and polar vortex or the introduction of a new destructive force like the northward migration of Atlantic cyclones

[HapHazard]

I see potential for a large outlier to bring that year much much closer, albeit only for that one year (much like how 2012 hasn't repeated yet). I suspect that "rubble-fication" + heightened Fram export will set the table for that, at which point it's up to the weather that season (as is tradition).

Who would have predicted the temperature records this year, or the Antarctic freezing season? I don't see why the same won't happen in the Arctic before the trendlines "allow" it.