Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 5to10

Pages: 1 2 [3]
101
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 11:23:07 PM »
5to10, I think you are under-appreciating the power of the polar winter. The ice does not cool the air and water during the winter. When the sun goes down, the long polar night sucks the energy to space and cools everything, generating ice. Yes, storms and open water can delay refreeze, but not for 6 long months. This year we had a delay of about one month in the peripheral seas, and basically no delay at all in the central CAB itself. Should we get an almost total melt-out, I expect the refreeze delay to reach maybe 2-3 months, but it can't last the whole winter.
The normal temps in midwinter are around -30oC. It takes around -10oC to freeze relatively calm and relatively fresh open ocean water. Storms could cause a lot of turbulence and mixing. And open water venting heat could cause an added anomaly of let's say +10oC. But in a long winter there will come a calm cold day that will manage to generate an initial ice layer, which will then serve as a basis for calming the sea and generating more ice.
After such a winter, you might even still get a maximum ice extent similar to recent years. Many regions of the arctic currently stay at their max extent for 4 months or more. Even a shorter freezing season may bring them to the same extent at some point. But volume will be much lower, and the next summer even more prone to total and early melt-out. After some years like that I can't say what is going to happen, but I suggest not to get carried away with short term expectations.

Thank you for the reply. I'm not meaning to suggest total loss of ice outweighs sundown, I'm just wondering how much of an effect, if any, the existence of large volumes of ice has on said temperatures. You're basically saying it's miniscule in comparison, that's good. Not that the situation looks much better.

102
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 10:44:19 PM »
Which causes more harm? (1) A completely ice free Arctic for a month,give or take. OR (2) A really large percentage of the Arctic free of ice for multiple months. Which one will lead to more insolation and finally to more freezing season storms and high SST's, and a weaker vortex?

Obviously the latter, I understand that. Still I have a strong gut feeling that there are huge unforseen consequences when we hit essentially ice free even for a month, as if some kind of important threshold we haven't yet considered will be crossed either when/soon after it happens, or at some point leading up to it.

103
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 10:24:17 PM »
I get that not one nor the other are strong enough, but we haven't reached ice free yet. I'm wondering if both warmed air and warmed water, in an essentially ice free arctic, would tip the scale.

I mean, the smaller the amount of ice = the warmer the water AND the warmer the air, so perhaps there are thresholds wherein tipping points are reached, that we have yet to meet, in regards to ice volume. We need to account for all of these variables together to reach a reasonably sound prediction. We are dealing with exponential change..

Hoping based on your info that slow and linear "appearing" is how it will continue (Though it's not really slow and linear...).

104
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 09:39:32 PM »
5to10 has a concern that once the Arctic goes essentially ice free (EIF), the water will heat up and "game's over".

I highly suspect 5to10 is under appreciating how much heat will get sent to space during the early winter, even with inversions*, etc.  The first year the high arctic loses most of its ice, it will most likely do so late in the season, and (as others have recently posted) the sun will be relative low and there will be little heating of the ice-free water.  Even over time as the high Arctic melts earlier and freezes over later, it will continue to grow thick enough to survive past the solstice.  Remember, the first half-meter grows fast and while Arctic ice volume currently peaks in April, high Arctic volume peaks even later. 

I understand two things might change this soon to be realized 'new' normal:  storms mix up warm salty waters (preventing freeze up) and storms keep the high seas ice free due to turbulence (preventing freeze up).  I expect temperatures, however, will continue to be cold enough for over a meter of ice growth for quite a while (decade or more after the first EIF).

But what I 'know' is basically gleaned from Neven's blog and forum, not from any particular expertise.
_____
* - See  “Arctic temperature layers and inversions” thread.

I mean the air would heat up too, right? And it already is without all the ice gone as temp inversion reversal (?) seems to show. Logic seems to indicate that will only speed up as there is less and less ice? Both the warming of the air and the water simultaneously, and no ice there to cool.. I imagine that will have great impact on the next seasons ice formation, is what my unlearned intuition says. If it re-freezes, it will be drastically lower than the trend until now, seems a fair position.

Even if I'm wrong in these ideas, perhaps more educated people will be inclined to think about the issue in a bit of a different way while refuting, and perhaps new info will come out of it.

105
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: February 23, 2017, 08:18:19 PM »
Gents,

Allow me to intervene in your discussion. The way to define abrupt climate change is not clear at all, but I sense that you will all appreciate that these statements have been made recently in various threads here:

Quote
1)   “1C increase a year for 5 straight years, then it levels off for a few years only to rise later by another series of 1C a year for 5 years for a total of 10C!”
2) “some on the forum expect otherwise.”
3)  “A cliff is the right analogy for a range of reasons. Perhaps most starkly it’s climate change…”
4) ” I guess that I should have posted this here instead of the freezing season thread.”
5) " There may be a better thread for this line of thought..."

Having such difficulties defining whether we are falling off a cliff, whether we are in the freezing or melting season and whether poor freezing may lead to rapid melting, I think it is time to get our act together,

By getting our act together, I mean that we should all accept that we are here trying to make a coherent and collaborative risk assessment regarding the ultimate loss of Arctic sea ice. Should we lose it this autumn, we all know that it could potentially be gone forever. Permanent. Full stop. Lost!

Hence I would suggest a new unifying thread under the label: Towards an ice-free 2017. In case we do not reach this state before Christmas, there will be an opportunity to open up a similar 2018 thread.

Such a thread could unite both the various freezing and melting threads. It could include the somewhat speculative “Ice-free Arctic” thread as well as the “Arctic temperature layers and inversions” thread. Sometimes it helps to bring thoughts together.

I would like to see a slower pace here, deeper thoughts, fewer and better links and more reflection. Keeping up with all the valid contributions to this forum is a nearly 24/7 job. No wonder Neven is getting tired. So are the rest of us trying to catch up on North American and Australian contributions, when we wake up in the morning.

It is time to focus, communicate clearly and not get lost in details.

I agree, sorry for contributing to bogging this thread up but I can't seem to find anywhere existing to discuss these ideas without being offtopic. It seems like you say that the sooner the better.

From a laymans perspective, I feel like there are a lot of great minds on this forum discussing the fine details and a ton of great information is here regarding them, but I have yet to see something like a concerted work towards a more accurate model of what's going on - incorporating as many known feedbacks above a certain threshold of influence as we know of. Surely it would give a better indicator than published models which fail to account for all of them.

Even if you all started ballparking a timeframe together, or what will happen this melt season, how it will re-freeze.. But I think there is a bit of a fear to do that not just because it doesn't precisely follow scientific method (But there are kind of too many variables to do that accurately, so perhaps throwing that out the window to a degree, i.e. submission for peer review, is in order given the circumstances..), but of a gut feeling of how bad the results will be...

106
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 06:55:47 PM »
Martin G claimed that purely climate related developments might green the southern Sahara/Sahel, so Arch pointed out that politics were playing a large role in the desolation of that area. My articles are just supporting that point... (but maybe I've been misunderstanding the whole thread?)
Please note I was just playing "non-devil's advocate". My only claim is that my scenario is not worse "science" than Guy McPherson's stuff.

I'm well aware of bad things at Lake Chad, South Sudan, Darfur, etc.

According to  the map presented above by Pmt111500, Lake Chad and the Sahel might well benefit from ice-free Arctic.  For some more non-devil's advocacy google "John Liu Rwanda". Africa is learning fast that ecosystem restoration and non-destructive agriculture gives multiple beneficial returns within just a few years. Methinks the Great Green Wall of Africa is not that far away anymore. In the Marrakesh 2016 climate talks it dawned who will be the pioneers of serious climate engineering. It will not be the rocket scientists of industrial civilization:

Agri-Culture can be a serious negative feedback.

Yes but it's foolish to suggest that the entirely possible (if not probable) near term collapse of important, already existing agricultural systems as a result of inconsistent/more extreme weather (Look at calis recent rainfall..) would not heavily outweigh the minutia of effects of farming in locales you're suggesting. This does not seem a rational perspective. Not to mention the cascading effects that collapse would have.

There is really no reason to go beyond a few simple questions with this whole situation the world is facing: "Are there more positive warming feedbacks than negatives? Is the gap between their influence increasing? How fast?"

Without the negatives, we are fucked, very near term. No amount of farming in Sudanese minefields is going to have any measurable impact on what's already in motion. Sure, if everything else weren't falling apart at the same time, it might be great. But it seems way too little too late at this point.

107
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 06:27:44 PM »

And any negatives... if there are any worth speaking of.

Clouds may help out during summer.  Greenland melt should help out year round at the cost of SLR.

I thought clouds were projected to be a net positive?

As for melt.. Won't full sun on the open ocean heavily outweigh any cooling caused by it? Seems like nowhere near enough of an influence?

108
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: February 23, 2017, 06:12:43 PM »
I suppose I'm viewing the ice as sort of a buffer.. I see it as kind of a chicken/egg scenario. To some extent, to put it roughly, it's cold because there's ice, there's ice because it's cold, this system was well maintained for quite some time.

Now what? Is that just a faulty perspective?

I guess a better question would be.. Is the arctic in general warming at the same rate or a faster rate than the global average? If it's warming at a faster rate, isn't that directly correlated to the amount of receding ice (and all the positive feedbacks that creates)? As in, it would be warming a little bit faster because the ice itself helps regulate temperature.. Does the possibility of hitting such low temperatures heavily decrease or disappear with the ice?

Sorry in advance if this is all nonsense or common knowledge. I just can't fathom how, once the ice is more or less gone, it reforms to any great degree.

109
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: February 23, 2017, 06:08:21 PM »
I don't see how ice can reform anywhere near even the last freeze season once it's open ocean. Too much warming too quickly over the months following, no? I don't understand the physics of it. Shouldn't that be a huge tipping point? How does it jump back out of "essentially ice free" once it gets there?

I really don't understand this, but I'm not educated enough to. Where exactly do the cold temperatures required to refreeze substantially come from after all the ice is gone? Isn't all that ice floating there an inherent necessity to reach and maintain such temperatures? Doesn't it directly influence air/water surface temps and such?

So how does it have any chance of refreezing after essentially total melt, to anywhere near "where it should" (where we desperately want it to)?

110
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 05:51:23 PM »
Can anyone help me detail positive feedbacks amplified by the new arctic state?

Albedos
Methane release
oceanic warming/Water vapour
downward radiations increasing related to temperature inversion


And any negatives... if there are any worth speaking of.

111
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 09:52:09 AM »
.... alternative scenario. Dunno how scientifically sound it is.
Ice-free Arctic will change northern hemisphere circulation in a way that actually benefits agriculture. Except for more superstorms and yearly 1000y floods somewhere. Yet the Mediterranean will not dry out. The Sahara will shrink. The Great Green Wall of Africa reforestation project will provide jobs and food for millions.

As a betting man, my money would be against it. The old Arctic provided a stabilising influence to the climate. Jet streams might have wandered a little but on average they were in their usual places.
Agriculture depends on this stability for the growing season.

This "new and improved" Arctic (now with added storms and upto 95% ice free) will allow much more variation. Yes some years may be better, but some will be worse. I'd say on average it'll be worse. Those stable jet streams year after year really do help keep the food on your plate.

.... alternative scenario. Dunno how scientifically sound it is.
Ice-free Arctic will change northern hemisphere circulation in a way that actually benefits agriculture. Except for more superstorms and yearly 1000y floods somewhere. Yet the Mediterranean will not dry out. The Sahara will shrink. The Great Green Wall of Africa reforestation project will provide jobs and food for millions.

As a betting man, my money would be against it. The old Arctic provided a stabilising influence to the climate. Jet streams might have wandered a little but on average they were in their usual places.
Agriculture depends on this stability for the growing season.

This "new and improved" Arctic (now with added storms and upto 95% ice free) will allow much more variation. Yes some years may be better, but some will be worse. I'd say on average it'll be worse. Those stable jet streams year after year really do help keep the food on your plate.

I think it will be worse far more often, and soon. Look at Cali right now. There will be even more excess water vapour as a result of an ice free arctic, in conjunction with unstable jet streams, this is a volatile combo.

112
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: February 23, 2017, 09:46:28 AM »
If it goes ice free this year and there's nothing stopping all that water from absorbing heat... what next? This is worrisome.. Is this, for all intents and purposes, the final/one of the final melt seasons?

113
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 05:19:29 AM »
Yes, such rapid changes happened. They were local. I don't think that circulation changes from ice-free Arctic could do that now. There was more going on when the huge ice shield dissolved at the last deglaciation, with huge meltwater lakes suddenly gushing into the ocean:
Quote
Lake Agassiz's major drainage reorganization events were of such magnitudes that they had significant impact on climate, sea level and possibly early human civilization. Major freshwater release into the Arctic Ocean is considered to disrupt oceanic circulation and cause temporary cooling. The draining of 13,000 years ago may be the cause of the Younger Dryas stadial.[1][8][9] The draining at 9,900–10,000 years ago may be the cause of the 8,200 yr climate event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz

All he is suggesting is that abrupt climate changes can and have occurred, and are occurring right now, is he not?

There may have been "more going on" then in terms of the root causes of that particular chaotic warming/cooling cycle. But we're not dealing with the same root of a potential abrupt change. Different scenario now.

I mean, the arctic is not going to cause the same type of rapid change. But just considering albedos alone and how quickly that could change ocean temps... Hell, the temperature inversion thread.. How can you say it won't cause SOME TYPE of rapid change? Civilization is built on a very precarious tightrope. If things change too much, too quickly, large parts of it will break down soon after. Losing essentially all of the ice in the arctic and exposing a dark ocean may be a massive global change that ends up being too much, too quick. It's not an unreasonable statement. We just have to wait and see.

Nobody can accurately model or predict what is to come.

114
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 04:34:33 AM »
5to10

Got a reference for that claim about rate of warming?

I didn't delve into it much further, but this video explains the warming periods.


115
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 23, 2017, 04:08:40 AM »
Should I rename this thread to People-free Planet?  ;)
Maybe "Ice-free Arctic & People-free Planet"...

Just came across another "near term climate catastrophe" video, where ice-free Arctic is the starting point. Guy McPherson declares: "I think we're headed for at least 8.7°C temperature rise within the next decade". (Wrrrrr... it was more fun watching Lord Monckton proudly proclaim his denier nonsense...)

Here's an alternative scenario. Dunno how scientifically sound it is.
Ice-free Arctic will change northern hemisphere circulation in a way that actually benefits agriculture. Except for more superstorms and yearly 1000y floods somewhere. Yet the Mediterranean will not dry out. The Sahara will shrink. The Great Green Wall of Africa reforestation project will provide jobs and food for millions.

Ice core samples indicate that earth has experienced a period of 1c warming as well as 5-10c warming *per year* in the past. It is not impossible. Anthropogenic climate change is moving things along faster than any other time we know of. I'm not sure why it seems so outlandish when evidence shows things are warming up and there seem to be positive feedbacks stacking more and more as time progresses..

116
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 22, 2017, 08:54:11 PM »
Should I rename this thread to People-free Planet?  ;)

Man, I would love to have a more optimistic perspective, but optimism is not realism.

Personally, if I'm being irrational in my perspective, I want to know so that I can think rationally about it instead. I have not come across much of any realistic, optimistic information that discredits at the very least a near term partial collapse of civilization scenario, which has immediate effects on dimming, which will just continue to snowball...

Ice-free arctic seems like the first in a series of rapid, extreme incoming global changes. This cannot be good.

117
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 22, 2017, 07:21:58 PM »
JMP - most posters here are not subscribing to an "end of all things" scenario when we reach an ice free Arctic.  I'd caution you about telling us to "get real"; I'd offer you the suggestion that you apply yourself to digesting the serious science which has been assembled on these forums before attempting to school us.

We will likely survive climate change as a species. There is a distinct non- zero chance that civilization might *not*, with the attendant prompt deaths of millions if not billions of human beings.

Back to topic - I'd put the probability of a sub 1 million km2 SIA pack happening this season at about 30%.  It hinges on three factors - how much insulation gets past clouds, how much open water we have at the equinox, and where PIOMAS volume stands at the start of the active melt season.

I am confident this will massively and permanently affect global circulation such that that end of season summer extent will not recover in our lifetimes, or even that of our manys great grandchildren.  In many global locations this will disrupt agriculture in profound ways which even without the prompt danger of 35C wet bulb temperatures will threaten billions of people. It is an existential threat we cannot marginalize.

Is it not true that if civilization collapses, global warming intensifies?

So near or total extinction is certainly soon to follow after widespread collapse, no? Even partial collapse of industry/transportation will reduce dimming, which will then quickly lead to full collapse as warming hastens, correct?

So.. The pertinent question is, how long do we have left until that partial collapse happens? Is it already happening? How fast could it happen, over the course of days? Weeks? Years?

The biggest concerns seem to be food supply and economics. How do we keep this all from unraveling as our food supply is slowly devastated? It seems to me that everything is speeding up, and speeding up faster as time progresses. I can't see it taking very much longer for everything to fall apart. Everyone is too focused on the concept of TOTAL collapse or extinction via solely the consequences of climate change being "unlikely".

I don't think people are giving enough weight to the notion that only partial collapse needs to occur, which it already appears to be, for the whole thing to come crashing down soon after from the shockwave. It seems like everyone is looking at the issue in black and white: "No way warming/climate alone will kill us/collapse all of civilization in 10 yrs at this rate". Well, take into account partial collapse and partial loss of dimming and where are we left off?

Am I wrong here? I'm not the type to discount rational objection, I just see too many scenarios wherein we don't have more than 10, maybe 20 yrs left.. likely less.. and I have yet to hear or read any realistic, optimistic scenario that discredits the idea. I don't look to be pessimistic or optimistic, but realistic, and thus far this is where I'm left standing.

118
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 22, 2017, 08:00:45 AM »
I posted about audio feedback. I realize it's crude and not exactly the same, but the similarities exist both in relation to feedback mechanisms at play, and the collapse of society/near or total extinction, well enough for the comparison I hope.

The changes may seem slow and steady, until suddenly they just.. aren't anymore. It doesn't take much to go from teetering on the brink to doomed, is all I mean, if there is any truth to certain apocalyptic (albeit not peer reviewed) NTHE predictions. So many phenomena happening faster than any other time in recorded history. It's just.. kind of... pointing towards bad news soon.

119
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:58:05 PM »
Thanks, and sorry if I come off as alarmist or doomsdayish. However from all the information I've processed the past few months, I have trouble ending up elsewhere.

I appreciate all the posters here, this is a wealth of information that very few seem aware of.

120
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: February 21, 2017, 06:40:44 PM »
Cld_Yama:

Though I am a layman, I am inclined to agree with you intuitively.

How on earth could anyone imagine anything but total societal collapse in the next 5-10 years, given the plethora of available information? Discount "cherry pickers" all you want, but have you looked around and noticed the orchard is becoming a lot more productive as time progresses?

The way I see it... If we're truly dealing with exponential change and not just a phase.. We are fucked in 5-10 years (society collapses). In the past, yearly temperature records may have been broken every several years. More recently, years have been breaking the priors records for temperature consecutively. Then, months began breaking their own records consecutively.

I don't have to be a learned scientist to grasp that if this is not just a phase, but an exponential longterm trend, that soon it will be weeks and perhaps even days in the very near future.

As an audio guy, I know feedback always starts quietly, seems to rise in a linear manner.. until it just suddenly stops seeming linear anymore and it almost immediately blows your speakers.

You people know all this. I'm not a scientist, again, but even a layman can grasp that potentially none of you are able to account for all current feedback mechanisms at play here, or exactly how the effects of an ice free arctic will cascade into other fields of envirosci, and that it's unlikely any of the models can be accurate in relation to time (at least when it comes to ice-free or EIF arctic). Are you not able to recognize that these flaws likely pop up in other fields.. that a lot of models are wrong or missing key things.. That perhaps, it's nigh impossible to model the apocalypse?

All I'm saying is, depending on the severity of the feedback mechanisms related to global warming, I seem to land on the conclusion that we have WAY less time than commonly predicted.

Am I not wrong in stating that according to the temperature inversion thread, NO models on arctic warming have thus far accounted for the feedback mechanisms (Specifically water vapour in that thread, if any, certainly not all of them?) Then my god, how do you come to any conclusion other than rapid collapse? This planet is so intimately connected that I just cannot picture anything other than a rapid plunge into chaos once the arctic remains ice free. Dominoes will just continue to topple after that.

I simply cannot believe anyone who says they know the full consequences or the speed of the consequences related to an ice free arctic, but my intuition screams that our downfall will be fast and furious afterwards. Pull your lungs out of your body and see how life is afterwards. Crude comparison, but the point is there. That is an absolutely phenomenal amount of change in a phenomenally short period of time.

Pages: 1 2 [3]