1. Not every paper is good science nowadays, unfortunately. When i read this in the abstract of the paper you provided, quote: "Sensitivity experiments show an almost complete recovery from total removal or strong increase of sea ice after four years" - i weigh it against above mentioned "irreversible decline". Your source claims such decline would be reversible, and even more, self-occuring. Obvious conflict of data, so one of those sources must be wrong.
Which one is wrong, then? There are mechanics and numbers related to albedo, (huge) opacity of liquid water to IR radiation and significant transparency to visible light, and highest on Earth insolation in Arctic's summer. It's very easy, really, to know which one of the above sources is wrong. I am much surprised you bring in a paper which starts with such a nonsense in its abstract. I am curious why you did that.
They may model anything they want, but if their model spits out utter nonsense - then their model is wrong. I don't care why or how, intentionally or not (i'd bet on the former, though). What i care is that both my own common sense and opinions of most respected (by me, personally) scientists tell me that such an "almost complete recovery" is utter and complete nonsense.
The graph from S. Tietsche is a fantasy. Please do see actual summer ice obervatins for last three decades. I see no similarities. Ergo, another piece of... You know. Here's the mainstream data:
Let's see those dots for minimums on S. Tietsche graph and compare to what we have here, shall we (in millions km^2):
1980: 4.6 vs ~7.5
2000: 2.8 vs ~6.7
Yep, it's sure easy to talk about big recoveries when you are giving your readers _fake_ minimums, eh? =)
The point of more IR vented into space if there's less ice - i don't think is correct. Last time i checked, absorption spectrums of liquid water and ice were very similar for near IR and mid IR, and far IR has them different somewhat, but both, for whole far IR region, both liquid water and ice have much over 1000/m attenuation coefficient, which makes me think both substances absorb most of far IR in mere millimeters - so nope, where it matters (near IR), they don't differ any much, where they differ - both are basically opaque to IR frequences involved, so this whole idea about "thinner ice = more heat vented to space" seems to be a fantasy, to me. At best, that is. At worst, it'd be an attempt to misguide, of course.
2. Ok, i hear you. You "think" that 590 CO2e would be needed to have Blue Arctic happening. I don't. However, i assure you i respect your right to think what you like to think. Please feel free to keep doing it. I hope you similarly respect my thoughts, just as much - no more, no less. It seems we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that.
Your argument "athmosphere would allow more heat to escape" doesn't compute. If athmosphere stays the same CO2e 500, then i think it would allow same amount of heat to escape in frequencies blocked by CO2 and other gases with make up the "e" part. However, further noticeable temperature growth which would be caused by the remainder of the "CO2 temperature lag" since 1990s would still raise surface temperature a bit more, which would result - duh! - in a bit more evaporation of surface water, which would result - duh! - in a bit more water vapour in the athmosphere, which is, i hope you know, the main GHG. As a result, if CO2e would remain strictly the same 500 CO2e, then still with more time athmosphere would allow a bit less heat to vent into space, due to extra water vapour part. Dig?
Of course, reality is CO2e isn't 500, and won't stay constant in observable future - it'll grow. So why exactly you bring whole argument in the 1st place? Is 590 CO2e not right ahead of us? What your argument does to give any rational hope for Blue Arctic not happening? =)
Rate of SSTs rise actually observed is not a sole result of CO2e forcing. Reality has aerosols, ocean currents (changing with time as we go), biosphere feedbacks and more. Assuming linear trend for several decades ahead, which is what you do for 40...80 years, is not convincing, and i'd say misleading. Especially in case of Blue Arctic event, to which we're about half-way (extent, minimum annual) and more than half-way (volume, minimum annual) there comparing to pre-1980.
I now have an impression you are one of people who utilize wide range of all possible figures of speech, made-up arguments and outright lies to defend their points. I am sorry if this impression is wrong. If it is not, though, then i shouldn't waste more forum space to argument my opinion to you, since you probably know it's correct, but for whatever reason are unwilling or unable to express your agreement here in the forum. I can imagine both unfair but also honorable reasons to do so. Which is why i now stop to respond to your further argumentation, and won't address the remainder of your previous post, unless i see you being successful to invalidate said impression of mine (which is something you may or may not want to do, of course).
For now, good bye, and thank you for the conversation.
P.S. Just one more thing. Where, exactly, did i spell "we're all doomed"? I didn't. You won't find anything in my here posts which in any form is equivalent to "we're all doomed". Quite the opposite, i expressed my hopes - big hopes, -
in the postscriptum of one my here posts. I wonder, do you talk to me, or to someone/something which you imagined yourself? =)