Gore says 5 years, now NOAA says 30 instead of 100 years. Place your bets.
Ice-Free Arctic Summers Likely Sooner Than Expected
NOAA News April 2, 2009
Mean sea ice thickness in meters for March (left) and September (right) based on six models. Top panels: September ice extent reached the current level by these models. Bottom panels: Arctic reached nearly “ice-free summer” conditions.
High resolution (Credit: University of Washington / NOAA)
Summers in the Arctic may be ice-free in as few as 30 years, not at the end of the century as previously expected. The updated forecast is the result of a new analysis of computer models coupled with the most recent summer ice measurements.
“The Arctic is changing faster than anticipated,” said James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and co-author of the study, which will appear April 3 in Geophysical Research Letters. “It’s a combination of natural variability, along with warmer air and sea conditions caused by increased greenhouse gases.”
Overland and his co-author, Muyin Wang, a University of Washington research scientist with the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean in Seattle, analyzed projections from six computer models, including three with sophisticated sea ice physics capabilities. That data was then combined with observations of summer sea ice loss in 2007 and 2008.
The area covered by summer sea ice is expected to decline from its current 4.6 million square kilometers (about 2.8 million square miles) to about 1 million square kilometers (about 620,000 square miles) – a loss approximately four-fifths the size of the continental U.S. Much of the sea ice would remain in the area north of Canada and Greenland and decrease between Alaska and Russia in the Pacific Arctic.
“The Arctic is often called the ‘Earth’s refrigerator’ because the sea ice helps cool the planet by reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space,” said Wang. “With less ice, the sun’s warmth is instead absorbed by the open water, contributing to warmer temperatures in the water and the air.”
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
h/t David Walton
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
sigh! *bangs head on wall* Even if it melts off in the summer, wouldnt it return every winter? So unless someone has plans to cure that nasty winter thing… then my guess is that we will have ice at the poles until the earth no longer exists.
Lets match my crystal ball to their model. Betcha we will see average ice up to and over the 1979 – to whatever date mean for about… the next 10 years. Since our science is not based on observation, I guess popular guess wins eh?
Well if Al Gore takes a herd of those flame throwing cows up there he might get the job done, otherwise I would say nothing much more than the normal ebb and flow, though with the deep minimum likely working tward larger extent.
When you model with linear best fit to 1979 to 2007 you probably get this kind of result.
I wonder though whether the folks at NOAA have considered the likelihood of ice in the arctic not in fact having a linear relationship to time (or whatever they are modeling).
If they have, I wonder whether they would publish the results.
So what are they saying, that within 100 years, its gonna be above freezing temperatures in the arctic? Thats what this sounds like, and i HARDLY believe it. How in the blue hell will there be a SEVERE increase of temperature in the arctic like that? In order for all the ice to melt away like that, it would need to be ABOVE +32 Degrees farenheit! These so called “scientists” are mad! I cannot see that happening within 50 or 100 years.
The summer Arctic sea ice minimum occurs near the autumn equinox, when the sun is disappearing below the horizon. So it has very little effect on the earth’s radiation balance.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Ah, the great computer modeling-without real observation.Observation is needed.There may be something else going on. I put down my Quatloos on No melt in 30 years-if ever…
So, what is it that NOAA is telling us their model is predicting?
That the Japan Current will go through the Bering Sea and melt everthing North of Greenland and the Baffin Islands?
I hope they didn’t base thier model on the false readings coming out of Siberia.
The ones that showed massive heating in one of the coldest pieces of real estate trodden by man. Anthony already fried that chicken with the sensors located next to heating pipes.
And in fifty years there will be new, more robust computer models. Then, when they come out with a new forecast of near complete summer ice melt a few decades hence, you can really, really, truly believe them then because they’ll be so much better.
Right.
Now, what was that story about a boy crying wolf?
Oh all right, I bet 55 years:
30 years: time for the current cold PDO phase,
25 years: time into the next warm phase before the pole melts.
Also, I hereby define “polar summer” as “August”.
I’m assuming that Little Ice Age recovery warming provides most of the warmth for the ice-free pole.
I will let others,wiser that I,rip into the science. I just find the last paragraph breathtakingly arrogant.
“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.”
When I look at the Arctic Regional Annual Mean Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2005, from about 1918 to 1938 there was a 2.5 C increase in temperature. Then it declined until about about 1970 and started increasing again. The period between about 1940 and 1977 was a cool phase PDO. From 1977 to about 2000 was warm phase PDO. Now that we have entered a cool phase PDO, it would seem to me that arctic temperatures should decline. My bet is that over the next 30 years, the sea ice increases, not decreases as projected by the the MODEL. I would like to know about the range of temperature data used by the MODEL. I wonder it is like so many other studies that only used warming phase PDO cycle data. Any ideas?
“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment”
I can sleep well knowing my government has got it all figured out.
I remember as a kid, during summer, my Icy Pole would melt….. Then you would have sticky orange flavoured syrup all down yer chin, on and on yer shirt. All over the place.
It really is a terribly thing when yer Icy pole melts 😉
Now that I’ve all growed up, I ‘ve found that it’s CO2 that’s done responsible fer it.
…. Is there no end to the evil?
(I’m being sarcastically obtuse for those unfamiliar to wit)
The Gorical says 5 years eh!!! 2014…Remember that folks and confront him with it… or will he say that cooling IS consistent with the warming???
Here we go again!!!
Elsewhere, “sun angle” has been presented as being important in the amount of radiant energy absorbed by water. Overhead sun (vertical rays) are claimed to reach into water (up to 100 m) – especially in the visible wave lengths where about 50% of the energy is. A viewer with the sun behind and an ocean below will notice the water appears nearly black – most all visible light absorbed. In contrast, sun striking water at an acute angle seems to reflect. If you are on the west side of a lake and the sun is to the east and low – the reflected glare can be nearly blinding. Little energy enters the water.
Because the Arctic is at 70 degrees N, or more, the Sun is never high and thus energy ought not to be greatly absorbed there when the area is ice free. (Rough water compicates this assessment, I realize.)
Further, when the Arctic has a cover of water, rather then ice, the water more easily loses heat to the atmosphere. Already cold, does the water not tend to cool more unless the air surface temperature is higher than its own temperature. What is the summer surface air temperature there? Isn’t it about 0 degrees C, on average? A colder ocean doesn’t make for a warmer planet, I don’t think.
Also, I found an interesting quote on the John Daly site. It is about the possibility of a less ice covered Arctic – some years ago:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
So, the proper response to this report would seem to be “So what?”
So what is NOAAs prediction for this NH Summer melt – more, or less than last year?
Who writes this tripe? I agree with Keith. “NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.” This is hugely arrogant and reeks of elitism. Is this a science organization or a PR firm?
Wow. More predictions based on models. They even refer to the model output as ‘data’. Wow.
This gives me confidence in predicting summer ice will be approximately the same as now in 100 years. You can seldom go wrong betting against the models given their track record 😉
I wonder how many of us will still be here in 30 years to see if they are correct this time round?
If they are wrong does anybody know who to take legal action against for recompense on all the unneccessary spending that has been forced upon us?
Addition to my comment above.
Like. Can we sue dear old Al Gore’s estate?
There’s something inconsistent about the two statements “The Arctic is changing faster than anticipated” and “NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun”. Which statement should we believe? Or is the answer ‘neither’.
It’s amazing to me that any scientist would think anything about this planet would remain static. Do they really expect that sea ice, sea levels, CO2 levels, etc ad nauseum would remain the same if humans hadn’t achieved an industrial society? If they really think this, I’d like to know what they’re smoking.
I think I posed the question 4 years ago to the editor of the Independent newspaper, a particularly vociferous ‘global warming doomsday prophet’, the following question to consider when proposing what this article is seeking to shoot down:
‘It is well known that the sexual drives of women increase in their thirties. Does this mean that they will become so obsessed with sexual intensity in their fifties and sixties that the mere sight of a vaguely presentable young man will send them into such a torrent of sexual fervour that bacchanalian orgies in the streets are an inevitable result?’
I believe I answered my own question with the words: ‘I do not think so….’
You know what would be fascinating? If they took book against climate models at Vegas. Say five year payouts.
I mean there’s supposed to be this big consensus supporting model predictions. What would happen if the supporters of climate models were actually asked to put their money where there mouths are. There’s some big money, and deep pockets on the alarmist side. If they actually believed in the models, and genuinely thought there was easy money to be made investing on the models you’d think they’d say, hey why play the stock market. This is easy money. Bet they wouldn’t though. It would shock if you get shorter odds than 10 to 1 betting on the models. You could get a 100 to 1 on Hansen’s models, I bet.
I’d be selling the farm to bet against them if you could even get even money. Just think how rich you could be just betting against annual “weather” forecasts from the “experts”.
Sea ice extent would be a fun bet too. Vegas should consider that one.
Steven Goddard (20:20:52) :
“The summer Arctic sea ice minimum occurs near the autumn equinox, when the sun is disappearing below the horizon. So it has very little effect on the earth’s radiation balance.”
what about the radiation increase from the warm uncovered water back to space. did anyone estimate this effect on the radiation balance ?