Poll: When will there be open water at the North Pole?

[pikaia]

While an ice-free Arctic would be a major landmark, another landmark would be open water at the North Pole. Since the thickest ice is not at the pole this is likely to occur significantly earlier, with ice hanging on along the CAA. When do you think this might be? The University of Bremen ice concentration map is already showing rather low concentration near the pole.

This poll will run for 30 days. You may change your vote.

[AmbiValent]

I would usually understand the question as "When can you get to the North Pole in a non-icebreaker ship?" and answer it with "Within 10 years". But with the question being about no ice within 100 km of the North Pole, I will have to opt for 40s or later.

[abbottisgone]

I would have to say never!

To me under 2 mill and the world panics!!

[crandles]

Can we assume that ice crystals in clouds don't count nor ice in ships refrigerators? 

A few floes less than a metre that are not detectable?

2040s' seems very late. Even assuming stoats some ice in 2050 that is likely to be near CAA rather than pole and it is only one day there will be some years well before then when sea ice is unusually low.

I went for 2021-2025. 2016 wouldn't greatly surprise me.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm looking at it from a " ice in the basin but none over the pole" view. I have already seen ice extents that , with a swift kick up the jaxie, would have left the pole ice free?

As such I think it could be any year as long as we have low ice and a rather well placed storm/H.P. combination?

The trans polar drift does run over the pole does it not?

[DavidR]

I would have to say never!

To me under 2 mill and the world panics!!

Unfortunately  Panic wont stop the melting!

Looking at the 2012 distribution I would estimate the extent would need to be lower than 1.75M for the pole to be free so I don't think it will occur this year, but next year has a shot as the El Nino warmth continues to roll into the Arctic.  If it doesn't happen then it probably wont  happen until 2020-2025. By 2020 average temperatures in the Arctic will exceed those of 2010-2012 and the extent minimum will heading straight to zero.

[DoomInTheUK]

GW - Given how fractured and mobile most of the pack seems to be, I'm with you on this.
With the right nudge, at just the right time, we could see it within a few weeks, or we might have to wait several years for the floes to move out of the way.

[Okono]

We don't need to see things melt out completely in the CAB; we just need to get sufficient melting in peripheral seas and ice transport out of the CAB with enough energy supplied by convective oceanic and atmospheric heat and insolation on low albedo to prevent refreezing.

I feel we are likely to fulfill each criterion this year handily, so I also went full monte and elected 2016 as the year.  I feel more confident about this than my 1.5m km^2 guess on the other poll, which was more for fun.

[magnamentis]

just for the record, i voted 2020 

[Phil.]

Any chance of a map showing a 100km radius around the pole to get a feel for what we're talking about?

[pikaia]

Any chance of a map showing a 100km radius around the pole to get a feel for what we're talking about?

It is about 0.9 degrees, which is about the size of the grey blob here:


So look for blue completely surrounding it.

[Pmt111500]

2014.    Oh, this was a question of the future? Well then I'll need some more info of what is open water. I think it was estimated that if there's a circle of 80 km in diameter of open water, you can't anymore see ice from the command deck of a regular ice breaker. Oh, a 100k. 2017? Maybe?

[Buddy]

When will there be no ice within 100Km of the North Pole (for at least one day)?
2016

August 2016......

[Tor Bejnar]

I voted for the first 5-year option.  As I believe it could happen any year, I'm going for one of the "5 for the price of 1" options.  After I voted, I was startled to see all the anonymous 'this year' votes.

[Michael J]

I think that if the ice becomes mobile that the pole could be ice free with current minimum extents. There is certainly enough open water in September for the ice to move into.

[philiponfire]

I voted 2016 as I think there is a real possibility that it will happen this year as an outlier. Next year being the more likely year for that and a new record low overall.

[AbruptSLR]

I also voted for 2016, in order to be consistent with my vote for 2.0 to 2.25 million sq km for the minimum daily September JAXA pole; and because I think that we are about to see warm air advect into the Arctic Basin from Canada and that an associated stable high pressure system over Greenland will facilitate export out of the Fram in June.

[Michael Hauber]

31-40.  Things have slowed down since 2007, and we are on a slow transition/gompertz type curve.  Looking at things a bit closer and maybe somewhere 20-30 is better, as presumably at least one freak year of weather in such a period should be enough.  But I feel like sticking with the 31-40 vote anyway.

[abbottisgone]

31-40.  Things have slowed down since 2007, and we are on a slow transition/gompertz type curve.  Looking at things a bit closer and maybe somewhere 20-30 is better, as presumably at least one freak year of weather in such a period should be enough.  But I feel like sticking with the 31-40 vote anyway.

You're saying that apart from 2012 there has been a relative recovery in sea ice since 2007?

[6roucho]

2017 for me on the El Nino plus one principle, but this year must also be a predictive possibility, if only because it contains so much new information.

[6roucho]

31-40.  Things have slowed down since 2007, and we are on a slow transition/gompertz type curve.  Looking at things a bit closer and maybe somewhere 20-30 is better, as presumably at least one freak year of weather in such a period should be enough.  But I feel like sticking with the 31-40 vote anyway.

You're saying that apart from 2012 there has been a relative recovery in sea ice since 2007?

Why not? The world's been cooling since 1998.

PS - in case anyone thinks I'm serious, where's that irony smiley?

[DoomInTheUK]

Don't worry - by now the default response to the '98 comment is to take it as irony.
It's only when someone tries to back it up you'd get the 'are you serious?' response. 

[cats]

I voted for 2017, mostly because of all the FYI currently close to the pole and assuming (not a good thing to do for the Arctic sea ice) 2017 will be similar if not worse.  Almost picked 2016, but despite the FYI, don't think it is likely.

[Michael Hauber]

You're saying that apart from 2012 there has been a relative recovery in sea ice since 2007?

I said slowdown not recovery.  The downward trend is clearly slower than it had been several years ago, when volume trends were pointing towards 0 ice around 2016.

[dnem]

I'm sorry but I fail to see how two cool, cloudy years in a row (2013/14) means that arctic sea ice is following a gompertz model in its decline.  That strikes me as rampant, unjustified curve-fitting.  The dynamics of this system are highly complex and likely to be more noisy and unpredictable as it approaches an ice-free state.

[oren]

I'm sorry but I fail to see how two cool, cloudy years in a row (2013/14) means that arctic sea ice is following a gompertz model in its decline.  That strikes me as rampant, unjustified curve-fitting.  The dynamics of this system are highly complex and likely to be more noisy and unpredictable as it approaches an ice-free state.

To elaborate on Michael's comment there is a model developed by Chris Reynolds that shows that Arctic sea ice should follow a slow transition to an ice-free state, instead of an irreversible crash. This due to winter refreeze that brings the ice back even if a freak year melted most of it away. Look for it elsewhere on the forum or on Chris's site if you wish. So the slow transition / gompertz curve is not a result of curve-fitting but of modeling.
I voted 2021-2025 as weather is becoming more chaotic and one freak year is all it takes for the question in the poll, and as I'm not entirely convinced by the slow transition model due to some of its assumptions.

[icy voyeur]

Well I feel like an A$$ but this poll strikes me as foolish in the extreme.
In the first place, it's poorly formulated. It's an incredibly capricious metric that could fail to be met while extreme dynamics are in play. So what's the point?
Next, a poll that asks about what might happen in 5, 10, 20+ years? Why? To satisfy some need to commune in an elite collective awareness of an impending apocalypse? That would be a false comfort.
Worst of all, it plays into the narrative of Henny Penny or Chicken Little running about declaring that the sky is falling. This degrades from the reality of a catastrophe that can be described by staid science without the histrionics.
More colloquially, you're not helping.
Raining on the parade here but please, consider, are you helping? I don't think so.

[DavidR]

Well I feel like an A$$ but this poll strikes me as foolish in the extreme.

The objective of a poll like this is not to find a winner but  to promote discussion around a particular point.

If  a lot of people vote for open water this year or next  year, why do they think that will happen; similarly if people suggest 2030-2040 they must have  reasons.

What will the Arctic look like when the pole is ice free?  Will the last ice be a small circle whirling round the pole or a beach side strip along the top of Greenland and Canada.

[Nick_Naylor]

Well I feel like an A$$ but this poll strikes me as foolish in the extreme.
In the first place, it's poorly formulated. It's an incredibly capricious metric that could fail to be met while extreme dynamics are in play. So what's the point?
Next, a poll that asks about what might happen in 5, 10, 20+ years? Why? To satisfy some need to commune in an elite collective awareness of an impending apocalypse? That would be a false comfort.
Worst of all, it plays into the narrative of Henny Penny or Chicken Little running about declaring that the sky is falling. This degrades from the reality of a catastrophe that can be described by staid science without the histrionics.
More colloquially, you're not helping.
Raining on the parade here but please, consider, are you helping? I don't think so.

Even if you have the perspective that everything discussed here should be directly helpful in avoiding a climate catastrophe - not everyone shares that opinion by the way - considering the possibility of events that might catch the public's attention and being able to intelligently discuss their significance intelligently if they should in fact materialize would not be a waste of time.

[magnamentis]

Well I feel like an A$$ but this poll strikes me as foolish in the extreme.
In the first place, it's poorly formulated. It's an incredibly capricious metric that could fail to be met while extreme dynamics are in play. So what's the point?
Next, a poll that asks about what might happen in 5, 10, 20+ years? Why? To satisfy some need to commune in an elite collective awareness of an impending apocalypse? That would be a false comfort.
Worst of all, it plays into the narrative of Henny Penny or Chicken Little running about declaring that the sky is falling. This degrades from the reality of a catastrophe that can be described by staid science without the histrionics.
More colloquially, you're not helping.
Raining on the parade here but please, consider, are you helping? I don't think so.

a poll is in more simple terms a question and to ask a question is never foolish IMO. further i think that this kind of question help to keep the discussion alive in a place where opinions can be shared a bit more detached from science, by far not everyone here is a weather or other expert directly related to the topic of sea-ice and climate change.

Further you ask if it helps? while i  say yes, perhaps we should ask you the other way around, what harm is done by asking such a question? definitely none, hence as long as there is no harm done to anything and anyone we are in waters of person freedom of speech or however one wants to call it.

Last but not least, even if you were or are totally right, i'm not to judge that finally, even then i'wonder where that slightly offensive semantics come from. all this can be discussed without the use of terms like "foolish to the extreme" which is a terminology in this context i would tend to call exactly that LOL

i hope my non-native english is sufficiently comprehensive, sorry for any flaws.

[abbottisgone]

Well I feel like an A$$ but this poll strikes me as foolish in the extreme.
In the first place, it's poorly formulated. It's an incredibly capricious metric that could fail to be met while extreme dynamics are in play. So what's the point?
Next, a poll that asks about what might happen in 5, 10, 20+ years? Why? To satisfy some need to commune in an elite collective awareness of an impending apocalypse? That would be a false comfort.
Worst of all, it plays into the narrative of Henny Penny or Chicken Little running about declaring that the sky is falling. This degrades from the reality of a catastrophe that can be described by staid science without the histrionics.
More colloquially, you're not helping.
Raining on the parade here but please, consider, are you helping? I don't think so.

a poll is in more simple terms a question and to ask a question is never foolish IMO. further i think that this kind of question help to keep the discussion alive in a place where opinions can be shared a bit more detached from science, by far not everyone here is a weather or other expert directly related to the topic of sea-ice and climate change.

Further you ask if it helps? while i  say yes, perhaps we should ask you the other way around, what harm is done by asking such a question? definitely none, hence as long as there is no harm done to anything and anyone we are in waters of person freedom of speech or however one wants to call it.

Last but not least, even if you were or are totally right, i'm not to judge that finally, even then i'wonder where that slightly offensive semantics come from. all this can be discussed without the use of terms like "foolish to the extreme" which is a terminology in this context i would tend to call exactly that LOL

i hope my non-native english is sufficiently comprehensive, sorry for any flaws.

Socratic method 

[oren]

Granted this poll is not really "helpful" in the adult sense of the word, but it's fun nevertheless.

[pikaia]

Well I feel like an A$$ but this poll strikes me as foolish in the extreme.
In the first place, it's poorly formulated. It's an incredibly capricious metric that could fail to be met while extreme dynamics are in play. So what's the point?
Next, a poll that asks about what might happen in 5, 10, 20+ years? Why? To satisfy some need to commune in an elite collective awareness of an impending apocalypse? That would be a false comfort.
Worst of all, it plays into the narrative of Henny Penny or Chicken Little running about declaring that the sky is falling. This degrades from the reality of a catastrophe that can be described by staid science without the histrionics.
More colloquially, you're not helping.
Raining on the parade here but please, consider, are you helping? I don't think so.

The reason that I asked the question is just out of curiosity; I had no other motive. I am sure it will happen one day, and then it will be a newsworthy event, even though it is of no great significance in itself as anything more than a milestone.

I actually have no idea when it will happen. I would not be surprised if it is this year, but I would not be surprised if it takes ten years or more, so for that reason I have not voted. However, I was surprised how popular 2016 was, and if I had known I would have broken it down further.

As for being about what might happen in 5, 10, 20 years, there are plenty of other threads which do exactly the same thing, so I don't see anything different about this poll. And given that most of us accept AGW, and this is a minor website, anything that is said here is unlikely to have a global effect, and of course the poll is not intended to.

[Laurent]

I am not fan of polls but I must admit there is a very interesting social fact emerging from it, that doesn't really matter if the poll will happen or not but how the people perceive it does matter. We need action, a collective action, individual can act but if there isn't global change, it will be worth nothing, so that collective perception is important.

[LRC1962]

Whether you do it by poll or just ask the question, I believe it is a valid question.
We have threads that deal with the passageways and whether or not the will open and when. We have threads dealing with when we will see ice free and how to define it. This question asks about open water over a small area with the location being the North Pole.
Think about it. That means you are having export through the Fram. There needs to be little ice on that side of the Arctic. Lastly, the Gyre needs to be in such a state that it can not get enough ice to cover the North Pole for a 24 hr time period. Not as dramatic as ice free, granted, but the implications are staggering. 20 years ago how many would you have bet that being possible before 2100?
BTW I put it for 2016 just because I do believe conditions are in place that we could see no ice on the NP this  year.

[6roucho]

Well I feel like an A$$ but this poll strikes me as foolish in the extreme.

I'll play the counter-A$$$ and say that whether questions are helpful has nothing to do with science.

All questions that provoke scientific discussions are interesting, even those that are poorly formulated. Open discussion soon defines terms. Helpfulness is a political word. Formulating questions to have the right political effect is politics.

But of course that doesn't invalidate your response. If ever there's a time for scientists to consider both its now.

[be cause]

following on from dreaming that the pole would be clear of ice this year .. I voted 2016 a few days ago . Looking at Laurent's animation of sea ice off Svalbard and the CAB contribution to melting figures atm I suggest the 'easy ice' this June is in the CAB !  Every day 'ice free' is looking more probable this year  .

[epiphyte]

Unusually for me, I won't be voting in this poll. Watching the debate going back and forth, it strikes me that it's one of those questions which there is no way to answer with anything but a guess, and that in failing to recognize that people are becoming at once increasingly polarized and less rational.

Even if you accept the "slow transition" logic (...which I absolutely do not, BTW) expecting an ice-free north pole not to happen until after 2030 would IMO be like thinking you can play roulette all night at an off-strip casino and not get hit with a zero, or double-zero, or triple-zero. Even given current FYI thicknesses an ice-free north pole wouldn't have been impossible at any time from ~2007 onwards, and in all likelihood it will become increasingly probable year upon year going forward.

At the same time, given what we already know about 2016, I'd say 30-50% for this year and the same for 2017. W.r.t 2018 on I'd guess a 1 in 4 chance, given that it doesn't happen in 2016 or 2017. So IMO it will be sooner, rather than later.

[abbottisgone]

I would have to say never!

To me under 2 mill and the world panics!!

Unfortunately  Panic wont stop the melting!

Looking at the 2012 distribution I would estimate the extent would need to be lower than 1.75M for the pole to be free so I don't think it will occur this year, but next year has a shot as the El Nino warmth continues to roll into the Arctic.  If it doesn't happen then it probably wont  happen until 2020-2025. By 2020 average temperatures in the Arctic will exceed those of 2010-2012 and the extent minimum will heading straight to zero.

You don't mince words!

 

If the markets see an arctic collapse by 2020 we're all buggered in my obviously humble opinion!!

 

[DavidR]

You don't mince words!

No point mincing words when the ice is crumbling.

[6roucho]

I don't share the view that markets will react negatively to an ice-free Arctic. Rather, they'll mobilize capital around new opportunities, not least exploration by oil & gas interests.

Of course public opinion might put two and two together and relate fossil fuels to warming to such a degree (sic) that exploration become problematic, but I doubt it. Nations like Russia and China will ignore public opinion either way.

Business opportunities will also arise (sic, again) from sea level increases. Moving coastal infrastructure will be a multi-generational project for rich nations, and corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton will be at the forefront of that. The price will be paid by the world's poor, and they have no role in markets.

The markets are far more at risk from banking malfeasance and the broken money system than Arctic sea ice melt.

[abbottisgone]

You don't mince words!

No point mincing words when the ice is crumbling.

Hey maybe we can allhave a ice pie    ... Wait: that would be more appropriate in espens thread 

I think we might need some of those mushrooms some of those other guys were talking about back at Nevens in that pie to go with it... Oh yeh, the future is lookin' marginally better now!

  

[DavidR]

I don't share the view that markets will react negatively to an ice-free Arctic. Rather, they'll mobilize capital around new opportunities, not least exploration by oil & gas interests.

Business opportunities will also arise (sic, again) from sea level increases. Moving coastal infrastructure will be a multi-generational project for rich nations, and corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton will be at the forefront of that. The price will be paid by the world's poor, and they have no role in markets.

I  have to agree with you the 'Markets' will balance the needs of all interests not just those wedded to old technologies that are funding the dishonesty campaign around global warming.

An ice free pole or Arctic will be a symbol of the issue but not a market breaker.  As you say one long term effect of flooded cities will be the opportunity to build new cities, tidal barriers, bridges etc. Even the insurance industry will simply price itself out of markets where it is likely to major losses. It already does this in places like Florida where homes are practically uninsurable because of the risk of hurricanes and sea level rise.

The politicians and commentators who currently collude with the fossil fuel industry will  be long  gone before the effects of their dishonesty is unequivocal

[Michael Hauber]

Even if you accept the "slow transition" logic (...which I absolutely do not, BTW) expecting an ice-free north pole not to happen until after 2030 would IMO be like thinking you can play roulette all night at an off-strip casino and not get hit with a zero, or double-zero, or triple-zero. Even given current FYI thicknesses an ice-free north pole wouldn't have been impossible at any time from ~2007 onwards, and in all likelihood it will become increasingly probable year upon year going forward.

Maybe its like expecting to play about 15 spins without getting a zero.  We've gone dozens of spins without getting a zero, keeping in mind of course that the odds are increasing all the time, and perhaps a zero wasn't even reasonably on the wheel before say 2007.

[philiponfire]

Isn't this an interesting year?
The ice may not reach the state described in the rules of this poll but I think it is now a real possibility that there will be enough open water all the way to the pole for a small conventional boat to theoretically zigzag between the remaining dispersed floes and metaphorically plant a flag there.

[slow wing]

Worldview with the Terra is showing rubble with open water to within ~125 km from the North Pole, at around 100E to 140E.

So far as can be seen through the clouds, the ice near the Pole is in better condition on the Western side and the ice at the North Pole itself is still intact at the moment. It will be interesting to see how the ice around the North Pole looks after the compacting dipole storm that is imminent.