We are somewhat going round in circles here.Is WAA important? yes.
Yes, we are covering some ground repetitively. But at least we're off the main thread. If someone like igs comes in, I would like to be able to respond and point him in the right direction.
Does it prove DHACSOO? No, IMHO.
Some ideas have value even if they can not be proven. I have indicated several times that my goal is not to
prove what will happen in the future. So some of the circular element seems to come from repeatedly raising proof as a standard of what is useful.
My goal is to present a logical case regarding the durability of the Arctic which contrasts with (and hopes to be more compelling than) the seemingly default linear assumption. Here, I am shadow boxing because there is no spokesperson for the linear assumption who has any burden of making a logical case that the linear assumption is true.
Compare to bathymetry and see if fits the SOO part. I think enough years show the perceived correlation to be almost a coincidence (except on the Atlantic border) - 2007 in the shallow Laptev vs. the deep ice-free CAB, 2011 and 2016 in the shallow ESS, most years in the deep but ice-free Beaufort.
The recognition of the relatively consistent boundary on the Atlantic side is a good development here IMO. SOO was developed mostly with this boundary and the CAA in mind.
This recognition would seem to favor an approach that says early season results in the Kara and Barents are less relevant than other areas of the "High Arctic" because they are not likely to portend much difference in the final outcome.
It would of course be important to try and iterate to an understanding of the factors enabling the incremental progress in certain years where the deep water boundary has been crossed on the Siberian side and both the land / depth boundary in Beaufort.
Would you care to comment on this image, and what might explain it? What the heck happened at the North Pole? Where did the energy come from, and what's to prevent from it showing up again? And why did the ESS not bow to its proximity to a heat-advecting continent?
Here the nuance of the argument is a little more subtle. We acknowledge that there will be significant variation in the weather in both directions. I try to make a distinction in characterizing future variations in the total ice outcome into two categories.
1. Chronic progression of AGW
2. Unpredictable seasonal variation
'07, '12 and '16 are examples of unpredictable seasonable variation. There is no consistency in the pattern of their progression.
I am trying to make the case that getting to a near term BOE is completely dependent upon unpredictable variation. My own explanation is that the ice is very mobile, and the shape of its distribution at minimum depends on prevailing winds and currents, with most years following the typical transport pattern from Siberia to Ellesmere/Greenland.
I will certainly pay closer attention to these attributes in 2020 and hope you will point out evidence that aims to demonstrate that connection. A big part of the benefit of a hypothesis is that it challenges us to learn and iterate to a better and better understanding.
I think the practical value of this inquiry might be encapsulated in the following hypothetical conversation.
Imagine a 32 year old woman is trying to make a decision about whether or not to have a child. She has a limited window of time to make a decision and is concerned about the prospects of civilization collapse. As part of her investigation she is intelligently investigating climate change and her inquiry includes the following two questions.
1) Is there a chance that we could experience a BOE and not have collateral consequences which make collapse likely? In other words, can we survive a BOE? (Here, I might direct this young woman to follow the work of someone like Jennifer Francis and see where that leads.)
2) The second question would be regarding the likelihood and timing of a potential BOE. Here we don't have voices of equivalent standing to someone like Dr. Francis because there is so much uncertainty.
This hypothetical scenario is reflective of a genuine concern that young people have and i have many connections to people approaching this age in the coming 5-10 years. The way we talk about the future of the ice should bear in mind the decisions that these people will need to make.
i imagine myself presenting the counter argument to anyone telling these young people that a BOE is likely in the near future. i wouldn't dare tell them that BOE isn't possible and I would definitely show them the results from previous decades. I would simply tell them that there isn't a scientific case supporting the likelihood of the trend continuing. I would emphasize the differences between the remaining ice and the already conquered ice as best I could. I would tell them that there is still some possibility that BOE and collapse could be avoided. In the absence of certainty, I would guide them toward hope.