Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
It is October when the minimum is set and we can see if there is any REAL decline this year, rather than variable areal measures during the full dark/cold of winter when ice doesn't MATTER much since it doesn't affect solar insolation for climate and shipping is not likely to happen even after the summers are 'ice free'.
<quoted text>
Did you miss the reference to 2030? Your reading skills are so bad they cause you to post complete crap for 'red herring issues' that are caused by YOUR cluelessness.
Not that I agree to the 2030 figure. I suspect that it will take up to 2040. While I may be cautious about the RATE of decline, I certainly see no serious debate about the eventual OUTCOME.
<quoted text>
It is October when the minimum is set and we can see if there is any REAL decline this year, rather than variable areal measures during the full dark/cold of winter when ice doesn't MATTER much since it doesn't affect solar insolation for climate and shipping is not likely to happen even after the summers are 'ice free'.
<quoted text>
Did you miss the reference to 2030?
<quoted text>
Ah, you aren't that young or impressionable. More like close minded and dim.
<quoted text>
That makes no sense. Where in the arctic? When in the arctic? And the decine in the arctic ice is steady and not debatable. It WILL be gone if AGW continues. And it will..
<quoted text>
Facts don't change to suit you. Yes. Every day you hear the facts and every day you take a trip to Uranus to avoid hearing it.
Well, stupidity is a human right. We can't enforce either intelligence or education as everyone is free to be either stupid or ignorant. Some are both..

"That makes no sense. Where in the arctic? When in the arctic? And the decine in the arctic ice is steady and not debatable."

More Measureless, Massless Molecular Mayhem..

D.E.N.I.E.D.

If there was going to be a giant yet unmeasurealbe cataclysm it would have been evident by the 70% vanishing point of the arctic ice.

Isn't that the rough estimate, it was 70% smaller than '79 at it's lowest?

Where is the catastophe?

It's non-existent. Just made up to hype panic.

Oil and Ice Tour wrote:

...
Volunteer Role Description - Event Assistant:... Casual Office attire required - i.e. no blue jeans/sneakers/tee-shirts allowed...

Check out these losers, they have to be told how to dress for the workplace!

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
yes. I did. The 'linear trend' says about 65 years, not 70 to 80. And there are two factors I mentioned that cause a 'positive feedback'. The albedo change means more solar energy is absorbed as the ice recedes, adding heat and thus accelerating the decline. Not only from permanent decrease but also in terms of lower levels at every point in the year.
And the stratification of the oceans ( from salinity changes as the ice stops extracting water and increasing the salinity of the remaining water ) will cause a layering that will allow the surface to warm faster than if the entire water content were warming.
Try to pay attention. You keep posting nonsense based on failure to read or understand a word of the article or my post.

The linear trend is about 72 years. From the update of the chart you gave in post #41:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/2009...
The trend line has 7.8 sq Km in 1979 and 5.5 sq Km in 2009. We have been over this before.

I will gladly debate the IPCC AR4 predictions if you will agree to stick with that argument. I have asked several times and each time you have failed to answer. Your history of changing the argument forces me to ask you directly.

Please note that I will debate you on the effects attributed to albedo change and salinity change in the IPCC AR4 models but not on the mere idea of albedo change and salinity change having any effect. You need to put numbers behind your speculation so that you can be shown to be wrong. Your other tactic of using indefinable or unmeasured factors in your arguments forces me to do that also.

Now again, are you going to stick with the effects attributed to albedo change and salinity change in the IPCC AR4 models as your argument?

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
The linear trend is about 72 years. From the update of the chart you gave in post #41:

I think your eyes are crooked, but 65 vs 72 isn't a big issue. The POINT is that the trend ( all else held constant) will result in an ice free arctic. Have you got that point yet? ANY clue?

And you have obviously failed to read the factors that suggest positive feedback will result in an earlier point. Must be cataracts?

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
I will gladly debate the IPCC AR4 predictions if you will agree to stick with that argument.

I find this amusing since nothing in this thread has ever mentioned the IPCC AR4 forecasts. P.S. they are not 'predictions' or 'prophecy' but forecasts based on 'emissions scenarios'. But that is a different thread.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
I have asked several times and each time you have failed to answer.

I have maintained the subject despite your ignoring my pointing out that the trend WILL accelerate from fairly obvious feedbacks.

And you keep trying to move the debate to some other area. Not sure what you want to suggest. Maybe you should read the subject line again.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Your history of changing the argument forces me to ask you directly.

The SUBJECT is the melting of the arctic sea ice will lead to a summer ice free arctic within 72 years and probably about 40 years due to feedbacks.

As to arguments, I haven't seen you produce one. Just more BS and Bafflegab.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Please note that I will debate you on the effects attributed to albedo change and salinity change in the IPCC AR4 models but not on the mere idea of albedo change and salinity change having any effect.

You deny the effect of absorbing 95% of the solar energy vs reflecting 85% having an effect on heat gain in the arctic? Or stratification of the ocean causing a higher SST? The latter, by the way, can be found easily in the paleoclimatology records. Not a 'new thing' but one that has happened in the past under similar warming.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to put numbers behind your speculation so that you can be shown to be wrong. Your other tactic of using indefinable or unmeasured factors in your arguments forces me to do that also.
Now again, are you going to stick with the effects attributed to albedo change and salinity change in the IPCC AR4 models as your argument?

What do you want? To claim that the oceans will be ice free in 72 years because you can prove the linear trend but don't believe in climate feedbacks?

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
The linear trend is about 72 years. From the update of the chart you gave in post #41:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/2009...
The trend line has 7.8 sq Km in 1979 and 5.5 sq Km in 2009. We have been over this before.
I will gladly debate the IPCC AR4 predictions if you will agree to stick with that argument. I have asked several times and each time you have failed to answer. Your history of changing the argument forces me to ask you directly.
Please note that I will debate you on the effects attributed to albedo change and salinity change in the IPCC AR4 models but not on the mere idea of albedo change and salinity change having any effect. You need to put numbers behind your speculation so that you can be shown to be wrong. Your other tactic of using indefinable or unmeasured factors in your arguments forces me to do that also.
Now again, are you going to stick with the effects attributed to albedo change and salinity change in the IPCC AR4 models as your argument?

AR4 now seems quaintly conservative, which is consistent with IPCC pattern; each Assessment Report has been overwhelmed by subsequent data. Such is the speed at which both climate changes and climate science now move.

Where the final disappearance of summer sea ice is concerned, more data is coming to light this year that suggests an ice-free Arctic Ocean is closer than we think. Whether that is ten years away, or thirty or sixty, is utterly meaningless. What matters is that it is happening soon, and its feedbacks will accelerate warming even more, leaving an extremely costly bill for our kids to pay.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/arti...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/tec...

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

I find this amusing since nothing in this thread has ever mentioned the IPCC AR4 forecasts. P.S. they are not 'predictions' or 'prophecy' but forecasts based on 'emissions scenarios'.

I find it extremely amusing that you don't understand the English language.

Three words, all synonymous, FORECAST, PREDICTION, PROPHECY.
Here's hoping you know what, "synonymous" means.
DUH.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
AR4 now seems quaintly conservative, which is consistent with IPCC pattern; each Assessment Report has been overwhelmed by subsequent data. Such is the speed at which both climate changes and climate science now move.
Where the final disappearance of summer sea ice is concerned, more data is coming to light this year that suggests an ice-free Arctic Ocean is closer than we think. Whether that is ten years away, or thirty or sixty, is utterly meaningless. What matters is that it is happening soon, and its feedbacks will accelerate warming even more, leaving an extremely costly bill for our kids to pay.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/arti...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/tec...

That was a very convoluted way of saying that you do not have data to support your alarmism.

Show us the data that supports a 30 year ice free arctic conclusion!

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

I think your eyes are crooked, but 65 vs 72 isn't a big issue. The POINT is that the trend ( all else held constant) will result in an ice free arctic. Have you got that point yet? ANY clue?

If its not a big issue then why do you keep brining it up? Read the chart and tell me what point you disagree with (trend at 7.8 sq Km in 1979 or 5.5 sq Km in 2009).
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/2009...
And I have repeated posted that it will likely result in an ice free arctic (that what the 72 year estimate is all about). Did you just forget that part, or are you so busy bickering that you have to make up things to argue about?

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

I find this amusing since nothing in this thread has ever mentioned the IPCC AR4 forecasts. P.S. they are not 'predictions' or 'prophecy' but forecasts based on 'emissions scenarios'. But that is a different thread.

No it’s the same thread, you are just forgetful. Try re-reading posts 87, 97, 99, 102, 105...
If you are saying that you did not use the forecast from the IPCC AR4 models then where are you getting your numbers from? Are you just guessing?

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

I have maintained the subject despite your ignoring my pointing out that the trend WILL accelerate from fairly obvious feedbacks.
And you keep trying to move the debate to some other area. Not sure what you want to suggest. Maybe you should read the subject line again.
The SUBJECT is the melting of the arctic sea ice will lead to a summer ice free arctic within 72 years and probably about 40 years due to feedbacks.
As to arguments, I haven't seen you produce one. Just more BS and Bafflegab.

Again you accuse me of just what you do, you failed at your earlier claim (remember post #3) that the sea ice volume data inducated an earlier ice free arctic. Now you still have not backed up your claim that feedbacks will cause melting at a faster rate. Tell me how you derived your 30 year (now 40) prediction so that I can debunk it. Either you know how the conclusion was made or you are just parroting a source you trust without understanding it.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

You deny the effect of absorbing 95% of the solar energy vs reflecting 85% having an effect on heat gain in the arctic? Or stratification of the ocean causing a higher SST? The latter, by the way, can be found easily in the paleoclimatology records. Not a 'new thing' but one that has happened in the past under similar warming.

Nice try, but I specifically said that you need to put numbers to the feedback effects before I will argue them with you because I know your tactics. And simply citing the absorptivity of open ocean and a partial ice/snow/ocean combination will not cut it. How about this, just give us an estimate of the date that the effects will likely cause deviance from the current trend will be measurable, also explain how you derived that date. Be careful because warmer temps can also mean more clouds and greater precipitation rates, and a change in wind patterns winds. You will also need to account for the curvature of the earth, its very complex (hint: use the IPCC models as a start).

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

What do you want? To claim that the oceans will be ice free in 72 years because you can prove the linear trend but don't believe in climate feedbacks?

Quite simply, I want you to give specific quantitative argument, not “more BS and Bafflegab”

It's the body heat of all the overpopulated seals making the ice melt...lol

The EU banning(caving into slut Pam Anderson and her gang of PETA thugs) Cdn seal products only makes a conservation problem worse on the eastern coats of Canada.

I hope the EU pays attention to Russian hunters who go into bear dens(Siberia) when they are hybernating to catch them and pays attention to the lovers of horse meat in Europe.

^ above should say eastern coast...

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>I find it extremely amusing that you don't understand the English language.
Three words, all synonymous, FORECAST, PREDICTION, PROPHECY.
Here's hoping you know what, "synonymous" means.
DUH.

Rofl

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
Really?
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology:
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
http://www.m4gw.com :2005/m4gw/2007/06/scientist_c alls_global_warming.html
==
At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.
Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education.
Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—
in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies.
He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.”
He has authored five books
and more than 230 other publications
and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as
the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/ma...

No one, at least none of those that actually know what they're talking about, have EVER discounted the natural process of climatological fluctuation, i.e. heating/cooling trends that have occurred since the early origins of planet Earth.

What, however, IS in contention (erroneously so according to prevailing science and climatological mapping via ice core research) is the degree of the impact of anthropological (man made) influence on the natural cyclic process of the Earth's climatic system.

To this end Dr. Bryson's conventional perspective on the matter is a bit behind the times, that is, outdated as his methodologies are outmoded.

What would be of interest to me and of, perhaps, particular significance to the AGW debate is his review of the incontrovertible data revealed in the Vostok Ice Core samplings (links to which I've posted in previous comments in this thread).

Further, in that it is Dr. Bryson's opinion that humanities' effect on the climate is 'minute' at best, perhaps this only serves to quantify the long held contention that the so-called 'temperate comfort zone' in which we've lived, propagated and prospered on our World is an especially fragile one indeed, subject to even the most minute influences that birth potentially cataclysmic ramifications?

Again, I'd enjoy hearing his perspective on the Ice Core samplings as they are correlated with his current data...Perhaps you'd care to contact him and pose the query, posting the results once he's replied to you?

Firstly, I'd like to compliment you on refraining from the typical idiotic ramblings you've shown a certain propensity for posting here, I appreciate it and will express my appreciation for your civility in social blogging etiquette by actually responding to you instead of ignoring you altogether...Thank you.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
Then there's the Butterfly Effect, small changes in a chaotic system can create unpredictable, distant, greatly magnified reactions. Watch Jurassic Park, Jeff Goldblum does a good job explaining chaos theory.

I am aware of "Chaos Theory" and do not need some bit rate actor parroting a practiced line from some script that was written for him to explain ANYTHING to me (though it IS a good cultural reference point that is relevant to numerous demographics).

Brian_G wrote:

Climate is extremely old, dynamic, chaotic system. We can’t predict climate change, or control it in any significant way.

You'll get no contention from me on the point of climate's dynamism, however, utilizing the cryogenically frozen atmospheric data contained in the Ice Core samplings (referenced and linked earlier in thread), coupled with our centuries worth of observations of prevailing weather patterns, we can do a damned good job of mapping the trends.

In particular, the folks that put together the "Farmers' Alamanac" ( http://www.farmersalmanac.com/ ) are particularly proficient at forecasting the weather based on the monitoring of previous crop yields and losses, but this all concerns weather FORECASTING versus the effects on the weather we've SEEN and can see NOW, today, i.e., the vanishing Ice Shelves and Glaciers.

Brian_G wrote:

We deal with chaotic systems, we cope with them. We don't control or forecast them.
Climate change is inevitable, we'll end up using the same strategy we always have, adapt or die.

We CAN control the climate, at least to the extent of regulating our direct effect on it in the form of removing or limiting all of the mechanisms of anthropogenic influence that we've exerted on it over the years, e.g., we've the technology to rid the air of all of the CO2 and a majority of numerous other harmful gases while increasing the atmospheric ozone at the same time, potentially repairing the damage to the Ozone layer we've caused by the release of refrigerants.

But do you know what the real irony in all of this is? Our deforestation of our world ( http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/env... ), the Earth's natural filtration system, has in large part led to the current status of our compromised air quality and excessive warming through collection of gases in our atmosphere, and we KNOW this, yet we continue logging, as though lumberjacks cannot learn another trade or something, SHEESH!!

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
We CAN control the climate, at least to the extent of regulating our direct effect on it in the form of removing or limiting all of the mechanisms of anthropogenic influence that we've exerted on it over the years, e.g., we've the technology to rid the air of all of the CO2 and a majority of numerous other harmful gases while increasing the atmospheric ozone at the same time, potentially repairing the damage to the Ozone layer we've caused by the release of refrigerants.
But do you know what the real irony in all of this is? Our deforestation of our world ( http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/env... ), the Earth's natural filtration system, has in large part led to the current status of our compromised air quality and excessive warming through collection of gases in our atmosphere, and we KNOW this, yet we continue logging, as though lumberjacks cannot learn another trade or something, SHEESH!!

As someone who grew up in logging and who has studied forestry, let me make just one small amendment to your otherwise terrific points. If it is done sustainably, logging can actually boost carbon uptake, especially in temperate and boreal latitudes, because growing forests there consume more carbon than mature forests do. In fact, the global climate would likely be warming more than it is if not for the robust regrowth of North American forests over the past century.

N. has made many valuable contributions to our climate argument and I appreciate his comment about "sustainable" logging. While we search for an efficient carbon sequestration technology, nature has already mastered this trick; trees.

Neither nature nor man can control climate, we never will. Climate change mitigation has never been tried or tested. Adaptation is the only strategy we have to deal with climate change.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
That was a very convoluted way of saying that you do not have data to support your alarmism.
Show us the data that supports a 30 year ice free arctic conclusion!

You cannot have DATA to support a FORECAST.

And your reference to MODEL OUTPUT from the AR4 'climate scenarios' is stupid as MOST GCM models do NOT model the polar (or equatorial) regions well. Which is why the IPCC report did not make much in the way of 'forecasts' for polar regions ( only temperate where the models do well).

The POINT here is that even with no 'feedbacks', the arctic can be assessed as likely to be ice free in 70 years or so just from the data trend. And with the OBVIOUS feedback effect of greater solar insolation, shorter ice covered periods, salinity stratification, etc, it is almost CERTAIN that the time to ice free summers will be drastically faster than the simplistic 'if this goes on' estimate.

I don't believe the 20 years is likely. The graph hides the fact that the trend is small compared to the baseline. But seventy years is also unlikely due to the feedback effects, so I will accept any estimate in the thirty to fifty year range as 'common sense'.

That said, we are well past the 'tipping point' of ice free summers in the arctic and the rapid breakup of Larsen B shows us that our 'conservative estimates based on well established knowledge' cannot realistically forecast the rapidity of the now inevitable climate change. i.e we may be surprised by some factor that makes the change much faster than expected. Just look at how ONE year can affect the ice ( 2007 ) and we don't have thick multiyear ice to 'defend' against a sudden loss of ice area.

Your argument that 'you can't prove it' is true, but irrelevant in terms that it isn't about 'proof' of a specific target date. It is about the facts and the current inevitability of an ice free summer arctic season in the near future.

It is now a matter for 'betting' on the date, since there is no 'prophecy' available, nor has GOD even criticised us for our messing about, so it's unlikely we will ever get one.

I will put up $1000 that it happens before your 70 year 'forecast'. Heck, I will bet that it happens in less than 50 years (based on my 30 to 50 years estimate) to give you some slack. What are you willing to put up?

Brian_G wrote:

N. has made many valuable contributions to our climate argument and I appreciate his comment about "sustainable" logging. While we search for an efficient carbon sequestration technology, nature has already mastered this trick; trees.
Neither nature nor man can control climate, we never will. Climate change mitigation has never been tried or tested. Adaptation is the only strategy we have to deal with climate change.

agreed. if you think the seas will rise four feet, probably a lot less expensive to build dikes and relocate than the billions that could maybe affect the temperature a tiny bit.

of course, clean efficient energy is obviously good, all warming aside...

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

You cannot have DATA to support a FORECAST.

Are you saying that climate models don't contain data that FORECASTS, PROPHECIES, PREDICTIONS are based on??

Can you tell me if, apart from Alaska, that most of the USA is ice free yet, because I'm wondering what the original residents thought was happening as the ice melted all those years ago?
Did they panic as the ice sheets receded?
Are you panicking because they no longer exist?