Ice Free Arctic

[Devonian]

The science says that according to this theory this ... should happen. This ... has not happened. The science may be correct - the theory has not been fully vindicated. Perhaps other factors have not been taken into account? The belief has certainly been shattered!

The science predicts climate change, not weather. What's happening atm is in line with predictions - look at the trends (and don't cherry pick them).

so what will happen to weather systems then when we have a "free" Arctic? It's been ice free before and still got back to an ice age.

There are a growing number of people, me inclueded, that refuse to believe in speculative science, which seems to have been elevated to the status of a religion.

Sorry, but I'm sure you wont mind if I say scepticism is a religion (not that it gets us anywhere)? All this 'you're religious' or whatever 'warmers' get called on a particular day - where does it get us???

all i can see are people jumping up and down saying that things are melting here, and sea levels are (maybe) rising there, oh and then there's the corker of...."the sun has no effect on climate".

Simply wrong NO ONE says that.

and to top it all and this is a killer...omg... the most important summit the world has ever seen or will ever see about anything ahmen! may be delayed until next year when all of the 'oh so concerned about climate change, (changed from global warming in the past couple of years too)' brigade fly out in their jet planes to...erm Mexico is it???

There is no way on earth that any of this is a serious problem, or it would be taken seriously by world leaders!

Not if they were being thwarted by very wealthy vested interests like the various political astroturfers and their so called science that are turning public opinion against meaningful action they wouldn't...

Edited December 18, 2009 by Devonian

[laserguy]

This debate will be over once the oil runs out

And yes.....it will happen in most peoples' lifetimes.

Because that is exactly what the whole debate is about! It is more obvious almost than the fact that it's been snowing overnight. I remember just two years back when many were saying we'd never see snow again in England,courtesy of 'global warming'. I laughed then and I still am. Sorry,starting to drift again .

[Devonian]

Because that is exactly what the whole debate is about! It is more obvious almost than the fact that it's been snowing overnight. I remember just two years back when many were saying we'd never see snow again in England,courtesy of 'global warming'. I laughed then and I still am. Sorry,starting to drift again .

Ha, the old 'weather disproving climate change' argument. It's an argument with a rather obvious flaw but there we are...

[jethro]

Can you all please stay on topic and stop the sarcastic "I'm cleverer than you" style posts.

This thread is about what happens if we have an ice free Arctic, I'm sure there must be some academic articles somewhere exploring this subject, either projections for the future or reconstructions from the past; any chance of someone posting one so there is something scientific to debate here?

[laserguy]

Can you all please stay on topic and stop the sarcastic "I'm cleverer than you" style posts.

This thread is about what happens if we have an ice free Arctic, I'm sure there must be some academic articles somewhere exploring this subject, either projections for the future or reconstructions from the past; any chance of someone posting one so there is something scientific to debate here?

Yes,sorry. Good job we have Mods otherwise we'd go from talking about Arctic ice to correct choice of curtains or summat within the course of a few pages. It's always the same with anything in the CC arena,being the 'catch-all' that it is. As for the consequences of an ice-free arctic, Al Gore-ithm will let us know in due course I'm sure.

[jethro]

Lol. Point taken Laser.

To be honest it's not the drift in conversation which irks the most, it's the underlying snotty tone of needless point scoring and the entire lack of scientific substance to the conversation. Surely it's possible to discuss these topics amicably with a bit of evidence to support the points?

[Devonian]

Lol. Point taken Laser.

To be honest it's not the drift in conversation which irks the most, it's the underlying snotty tone of needless point scoring and the entire lack of scientific substance to the conversation. Surely it's possible to discuss these topics amicably with a bit of evidence to support the points?

This is interesting:

"Commentary

Arctic sea ice loss appears to have created a new atmospheric circulation pattern that brings more warm air in the Arctic, creating a positive feedback loop that causes even more sea ice loss. This feedback loop increases the likelihood that an ice-free Arctic in the summer will indeed come by 2030, as many Arctic experts are predicting. It's worth noting that such an atmospheric circulation shift was not predicted by the climate models. Indeed, the loss of Arctic sea ice over the past three years exceeds what any of our models were predicting (Figure 4). While we can rightly criticize these models for their inaccuracy, we should realize that they are just as capable of making errors not in our favor as they are of making errors in our favor."

And here is a report, by a British geography professor, about the current America Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting "I am going to split my AGU Day 4 report into two posts. This one will cover the session this morning on the communication of the science of environmental change...". It talks about about Arctic sea ice and the debate we have about AGW and our effect on the environment that science as a whole has largely agreed upon. The first speaker was Dr Michael Mann a scientist I have the greatest respect for and someone who we should listen to and who's views and papers we should indeed debate amicably

Edited December 18, 2009 by Devonian

[Chris Knight]

If an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean ever were to happen in the next 30 years, what exactly would that mean?

A few days around the autumn equinox with next to no ice floating around the north pole.

Then the usual rapid freeze to roughly the same winter ice extent as recent historical extents.

Not weeks of cruise liners, oil tankers, and heavily laden container ships emitting dieselly exhausts on their dash from Atlantic to Pacific ports and back. Not even September ski breaks on the slopes of Northern Greenland.

Why should this be? We need only to look at what happens every October, as the sun sinks below the horizon at the north pole. It gets very cold.

I would suggest we move along: there is very little of interest in this area of discussion.

[Devonian]

If an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean ever were to happen in the next 30 years, what exactly would that mean?

A few days around the autumn equinox with next to no ice floating around the north pole.

Then the usual rapid freeze to roughly the same winter ice extent as recent historical extents.

Not weeks of cruise liners, oil tankers, and heavily laden container ships emitting dieselly exhausts on their dash from Atlantic to Pacific ports and back. Not even September ski breaks on the slopes of Northern Greenland.

Why should this be? We need only to look at what happens every October, as the sun sinks below the horizon at the north pole. It gets very cold.

I would suggest we move along: there is very little of interest in this area of discussion.

Chris, I find that a really amazing thing to say. It's like say if we had a winter with a week of lying snow 2 ft deep in London and snow on the ground for 90 days (something in other words unprecedented in thousands of years) we should be unmoved by that and not discuss it? Seriously, you really think something like either of those events isn't worth discussing in a climate forum?

[Chris Knight]

Chris, I find that a really amazing thing to say. It's like say if we had a winter with a week of lying snow 2 ft deep in London and snow on the ground for 90 days (something in other words unprecedented in thousands of years) we should be unmoved by that and not discuss it? Seriously, you really think something like either of those events isn't worth discussing in a climate forum?

It hasn't happened. It won't. Move along, nothing to see here.

Unless there is scientific evidence to support a different view, of course?

Edited December 18, 2009 by Chris Knight

[Devonian]

It hasn't happened. It won't. Move along, nothing to see here.

Unless there is scientific evidence to support a different view, of course?

No, it hasn't happened. However, if you read the links I posted earlier (along with the digested science via the IPCC - no jibes please) you'll know there is good evidence it might happen. To say 'move along nothing to see' is rather dismissive of that vast body of evidence.

[Chris Knight]

No, it hasn't happened. However, if you read the links I posted earlier (along with the digested science via the IPCC - no jibes please) you'll know there is good evidence it might happen. To say 'move along nothing to see' is rather dismissive of that vast body of evidence.

Sorry there is no "good evidence" that any things "might happen" - it is just plain idle (digested or otherwise) speculation - unless there is scientific, or even historical evidence that says otherwise.

[Devonian]

Sorry there is no "good evidence" that any things "might happen" - it is just plain idle (digested or otherwise) speculation - unless there is scientific, or even historical evidence that says otherwise.

Chris, that's you second (or is it third) dismissive reply to science I've posted. I obviously disagree with you, as would most scientists in the field. But, beyond suggesting you read the literature I don't think this is going anywhere...

[Chris Knight]

Chris, that's you second (or is it third) dismissive reply to science I've posted. I obviously disagree with you, as would most scientists in the field. But, beyond suggesting you read the literature I don't think this is going anywhere...

Dev, I have just re-read this post from the beginning. You link to two blogs only - where's the science in that? Had I linked to the Air Vent, or Junk Science - would you have taken that as serious evidence?

Now argue your point properly, or admit that there is no point in speculating about a mythological concept like an "Ice-free Arctic", at least in the near future. I said "move along" previously - you now state that this is not "going anywhere...". We agree!

[Solar Cycles]

Dev, I have just re-read this post from the beginning. You link to two blogs only - where's the science in that? Had I linked to the Air Vent, or Junk Science - would you have taken that as serious evidence?

Now argue your point properly, or admit that there is no point in speculating about a mythological concept like an "Ice-free Arctic", at least in the near future. I said "move along" previously - you now state that this is not "going anywhere...". We agree!

Chris is spot on Dev, all this assuming doesn't make it evidence, sure we can speculate, but that's all!

[Devonian]

Dev, I have just re-read this post from the beginning. You link to two blogs only - where's the science in that? Had I linked to the Air Vent, or Junk Science - would you have taken that as serious evidence?

I take the Met Office seriously, I take NSIDC seriously. The two blogs were written by named scientists, you can (as you have done so far) just dismiss them but they simply report what is going on. They are serious reports of the science, please read them. Dr Masters is widely respected, the other proff is a messenger, he's reporting on the AGU and I though that interesting. Neither is (if you've read them you'll know this) advocating a position but reporting. beside, what have you posted that we might discuss? Not a thing...

Now argue your point properly,

Are you a school teacher? You have the gall to say that having not posted an iota of evidence yourself???

or admit that there is no point in speculating about a mythological concept like an "Ice-free Arctic", at least in the near future. I said "move along" previously - you now state that this is not "going anywhere...". We agree!

No need to play games with my word, Chris.

There is plenty in the literature, the IPCC, NSIDC, The Met Office that is science and not speculation. Continually dismissing everything in the way you have doesn't help, it just looks like a refusal to engage in debate.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Devonian

[Chris Knight]

I take the Met Office seriously, I take NSIDC seriously. The two blogs were written by named scientists, you can (as you have done so far) just dismiss them but they simply report what is going on. They are serious reports of the science, please read them. Dr Masters is widely respected, the other proff is a messenger, he's reporting on the AGU and I though that interesting. Neither is (if you've read them you'll know this) advocating a position but reporting. beside, what have you posted that we might discuss? Not a thing...

Are you a school teacher? You have the gall to say that having not posted an iota of evidence yourself???

No need to play games with my word, Chris.

There is plenty in the literature, the IPCC, NSIDC, The Met Office that is science and not speculation. Continually dismissing everything in the way you have doesn't help, it just looks like a refusal to engage in debate.

That's all you are doing Dev, word games. Come on, lets have a sensible discussion.

There is nothing in the scientific literature that makes a strong case for future Arctic summer conditions. Not by Mark Serreze or David Barber, or any other Cryosphere experts. Many isolated sound bites, which have been exaggerated from "may" to "will" with regard to open water at the pole, were made in the summer of 2008, before the ice failed to match the record loss of 2007.

All that can be said by such experts is that if the models are right, then it will happen, but the question I asked several posts back was:

"If an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean ever were to happen in the next 30 years, what exactly would that mean?"

and then I suggested:

"A few days around the autumn equinox with next to no ice floating around the north pole."

What would you expect?

Hang on I know the answer, Dev: A knock-down argument, no discussion.

We know your views on the various climate agencies that can do no wrong. That is not the point.

The point is that an "ice-free Arctic" would be a very brief phenomenon, not much different to the September of 2 years ago, and of no real lasting consequence. The Arctic winter radiation balance makes that clear.

Any evidence to the contrary?

Sorry, Dev, I missed this on first reading of your links.

I know how you feel

Edited December 19, 2009 by Chris Knight

[Guest mycroft]

That's all you are doing Dev, word games. Come on, lets have a sensible discussion.

There is nothing in the scientific literature that makes a strong case for future Arctic summer conditions. Not by Mark Serreze or David Barber, or any other Cryosphere experts. Many isolated sound bites, which have been exaggerated from "may" to "will" with regard to open water at the pole, were made in the summer of 2008, before the ice failed to match the record loss of 2007.

All that can be said by such experts is that if the models are right, then it will happen, but the question I asked several posts back was:

"If an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean ever were to happen in the next 30 years, what exactly would that mean?"

and then I suggested:

"A few days around the autumn equinox with next to no ice floating around the north pole."

What would you expect?

Hang on I know the answer, Dev: A knock-down argument, no discussion.

We know your views on the various climate agencies that can do no wrong. That is not the point.

The point is that an "ice-free Arctic" would be a very brief phenomenon, not much different to the September of 2 years ago, and of no real lasting consequence. The Arctic winter radiation balance makes that clear.

Any evidence to the contrary?

Sorry, Dev, I missed this on first reading of your links.

I know how you feel :lol:

One of the most sensible posts i've read for a long time.

As he said, too many "mays" have become "wills" because its become convenient to put that message across.

What will be the argument/excuse if Artic ice bounces back.... Oh it's part of the natural cycle?

[Gray-Wolf]

One of the most sensible posts i've read for a long time.

As he said, too many "mays" have become "wills" because its become convenient to put that message across.

What will be the argument/excuse if Artic ice bounces back.... Oh it's part of the natural cycle?

Sadly Mycroft even with the alleged 'recovery' of the past 2 years (from the maybe not so freakish 07'?) the trend for loss continues unabated (in fact hasn't the 10yr average losses increased ?) if you look at the 'amount' of ice in the Arctic ,it's mass, as opposed to just it's spread or 'extent'.

If we are being fed good data then we have a summer pack that is now prone to complete melt out if it either gets warm enough or windy enough to drift ice into melting zones.In the past the central core stayed roughly put (being a massive ice island) and was thick enough not to be melted out even over a warm summer.

We know that this thick ice island has been thinning since the late 50's and now it appears to be in it's death throes.

During that 60 years we have had cold as well as warm summers/winters but this hasn't mattered as it appears that the water the ice sits in has continued to warm and melt it out from below........for at least 60 years.

This is no 30yr PDO phase, no 11 year sunspot phase, infact it's no phase I've ever come across.

This is not 'natural variation' ,this is abnormal, to me this is man made.

[Guest mycroft]

Sadly Mycroft even with the alleged 'recovery' of the past 2 years (from the maybe not so freakish 07'?) the trend for loss continues unabated (in fact hasn't the 10yr average losses increased ?) if you look at the 'amount' of ice in the Arctic ,it's mass, as opposed to just it's spread or 'extent'.

If we are being fed good data then we have a summer pack that is now prone to complete melt out if it either gets warm enough or windy enough to drift ice into melting zones.In the past the central core stayed roughly put (being a massive ice island) and was thick enough not to be melted out even over a warm summer.

We know that this thick ice island has been thinning since the late 50's and now it appears to be in it's death throes.

During that 60 years we have had cold as well as warm summers/winters but this hasn't mattered as it appears that the water the ice sits in has continued to warm and melt it out from below........for at least 60 years.

This is no 30yr PDO phase, no 11 year sunspot phase, infact it's no phase I've ever come across.

This is not 'natural variation' ,this is abnormal, to me this is man made.

G.W

Sorry i just do not buy that..

with the greatest respect HOW do we know this has not happened before,saying that this is no

natural variation is quick and easy soundbite that is always used by the doom and gloom merchants

as a species we have no way of knowing whether this is a part of a cycle or a long term trend of the natural kind.

As for good data,i take it you would not use the last debarcle of the Hadow lead trip (Catlin Survey)

where they drilled... with hand held ice auger to surmise the thickness of the ice.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd not like to do 7m+ with a hand auger!!! good job we're down to 2m eh?

[Gray-Wolf]

G.W

Sorry i just do not buy that..

with the greatest respect HOW do we know this has not happened before,saying that this is no

natural variation is quick and easy soundbite that is always used by the doom and gloom merchants

as a species we have no way of knowing whether this is a part of a cycle or a long term trend of the natural kind.

As for good data,i take it you would not use the last debacle of the Hadow lead trip (Catlin Survey)

where they drilled... with hand held ice auger to surmise the thickness of the ice.

The models show us how the 'final phase' of sea ice loss operates. We get a lot of open water on the Russian side (and facing the Bering straights) but we also get a lot of wind/current driven ice piling up behind the Canadian Archipelago and north of Greenland.

What did the expedition encounter? Big fat chunks of perennial or piled up ice? what was the problem (apart from equipment failure) they had? was it not trying to traverse this 'unexpected ' landscape?

I'll make you a prediction as to how the ice will melt out come late spring and summer.The Russian side (including the Northern passage) will go before late July, So will the Bering side of things and North of Alaska. The NWest passage will have a slow melt but will be more open than last year.The North coast of Greenland will also open up in Aug. There will be an ice island to the North of the Archipelago with open water all around. This ice will be fragmented as the 'pole cam' will show us. This summer will challenge or beat the 07' 'record min'.

If we suffer a 'perfect storm' then I will predict that at min. we will have less than 25% of the average min from 1980 to 2000.

[paul tall]

I'd not like to do 7m+ with a hand auger!!! good job we're down to 2m eh?

I wonder if the mammoths were saying "this is no fluke, this is mammoth made" when the glaciers retreated.

The models show us how the 'final phase' of sea ice loss operates. We get a lot of open water on the Russian side (and facing the Bering straights) but we also get a lot of wind/current driven ice piling up behind the Canadian Archipelago and north of Greenland.

What did the expedition encounter? Big fat chunks of perennial or piled up ice? what was the problem (apart from equipment failure) they had? was it not trying to traverse this 'unexpected ' landscape?

I'll make you a prediction as to how the ice will melt out come late spring and summer.The Russian side (including the Northern passage) will go before late July, So will the Bering side of things and North of Alaska. The NWest passage will have a slow melt but will be more open than last year.The North coast of Greenland will also open up in Aug. There will be an ice island to the North of the Archipelago with open water all around. This ice will be fragmented as the 'pole cam' will show us. This summer will challenge or beat the 07' 'record min'.

If we suffer a 'perfect storm' then I will predict that at min. we will have less than 25% of the average min from 1980 to 2000.

You get kicks out of this don't you?

[Gray-Wolf]

I wonder if the mammoths were saying "this is no fluke, this is mammoth made" when the glaciers retreated.

Isn't man squarely in the frame for their extinction? I thought that ,along with Megalania, they were the first of our efforts at Environment change?......we've grown in ambition since and our now looking to be the reason for one of the top extinction events of the planet....unless the botanical/zoological science is fudged?

You get kicks out of this don't you?

I have kids one of whom has severe dependency on modern technology for his day to day continuance. What ,in Frell's name,would the' kick' be in seeing the end of our current way of being?

The Demise of the ice would truely signal the beginning of the kind of changes you would see as 'alarmist' or 'Doom saying'. Sadly it will be alarming and 'Doom' would kinda hit the nail on the head.

I am sorry that you cannot see the world through my eyes for a day. Not only would you judge me less harshly but you would also be treated to the 'why' of my seeing things this way.

That said it'll take a lot of scientific evidence to persuade me that the understanding I've gained over the past 30yrs is flawed from it's very core.

[laserguy]

Well I'm with you fully that we'll be the architects of our own demise,GW. Looking around,things are shaping up very nicely in that dept,thank you very much. But you know me well enough that I'll say it's nowt to do with a climate in flux (as always),let alone one that we as a species are directing the course of to any degree. We could all be 'carbon neutral' (whatever that's supposed to mean) but our numbers just keep on going up. Something,somewhere along the line has got to give... and the solution is a little more drastic than turning down the thermostat one degree,not leaving appliances on standby and driving electric cars (that might go a little way to plugging the energy gap before the nuke plants get lively and the wind turbines seize up thru' lack of use). But anyway,that belongs elsewhere. Last time I checked (this am!) ice extent it was stuck on Dec 29 - what gives?