It seems that the Serreze “death spiral” might be on hold. From UCAR/NCAR:
Arctic ice melt could pause in near future, then resume again
BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.
The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.
But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.
“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
Kay explains that variations in atmospheric conditions such as wind patterns could, for example, temporarily halt the sea ice loss. Still, the ultimate fate of the ice in a warming world is clear.
“When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer,” Kay says.
Kay and her colleagues also ran computer simulations to answer a fundamental question: why did Arctic sea ice melt far more rapidly in the late 20th century than projected by computer models? By analyzing multiple realizations of the 20th century from a single climate model, they attribute approximately half the observed decline to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the other half to climate variability.
These findings point to climate change and variability working together equally to accelerate the observed sea ice loss during the late 20th century.
The study appears this week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
Rapid melt
Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979, the extent of summertime Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about one third. The ice returns each winter, but the extent shrank to a record low in September 2007 and is again extremely low this year, already setting a monthly record low for July. Whereas scientists warned just a few years ago that the Arctic could lose its summertime ice cover by the end of the century, some research has indicated that Arctic summers could be largely ice-free within the next several decades.
To simulate what is happening with the ice, the NCAR team used a newly updated version of one of the world’s most powerful computer climate models. The software, known as the Community Climate System Model, was developed at NCAR in collaboration with scientists at multiple organizations and with funding by NSF and the Department of Energy.
The research team first evaluated whether the model was a credible tool for the study. By comparing the computer results with Arctic observations, they verified that, though the model has certain biases, it can capture observed late 20th century sea ice trends and the observed thickness and seasonal variations in the extent of the ice.
Kay and her colleagues then conducted a series of future simulations that looked at how Arctic sea ice was affected both by natural conditions and by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The computer studies indicated that the year-to-year and decade-to-decade trends in the extent of sea ice are likely to fluctuate increasingly as temperatures warm and the ice thins.
“Over periods up to a decade, both positive and negative trends become more pronounced in a warming world,” says NCAR scientist Marika Holland, a co-author of the study.
The simulations also indicated that Arctic sea ice is equally likely to expand or contract over short time periods under the climate conditions of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Although the Community Climate System Model simulations provide new insights, the paper cautions that more modeling studies and longer-term observations are needed to better understand the impacts of climate change and weather variability on Arctic ice.
The authors note that it is also difficult to disentangle the variability of weather systems and sea ice patterns from the ongoing impacts of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
“The changing Arctic climate is complicating matters,” Kay says. “We can’t measure natural variability now because, when temperatures warm and the ice thins, the ice variability changes and is not entirely natural.”
About the article
Title: Interannual to multidecadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world
Authors: Jennifer Kay, Marika Holland, and Alexandra Jahn
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters
Link to the paper is here
Cassandra King,
It’s not a fact yet that the cosmological constant was a mistake.
Nobody knows for sure, what really is going on but Big Bang expansion certainly doesn’t work.
Smokey,
Love the graph you linked. Can you source it for us? Thanks.
Arctic sea works as a thermostat. An ice layer insulates the water by hobbling its ability to lose heat through evaporation, radiation, and conduction. It will continue in that capacity unless and until there’s none of it even in the winter. At the point the thermostat is wide open and can’t open any further. Until that point it continues to function and will limit how much the northern hemisphere ocean can warm or cool. I understand the interest in it due to the fact that it’s a handy guage of whether the ocean is receiving more or less energy. That said it’s a fool’s errand to watch every little change because winds play a large role in any one year over its extent where at times the wind will help spread it out and make it greater in extent or push it together into a lesser extent.
Peter Plail says:
August 12, 2011 at 1:15 am
NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay said”… Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, ….”
If ice loss peaked in 2007 then for 4 out of the last 10 years the observed ice loss has not accelerated, it has not even stayed the same, it has reversed. I am astounded that a trained scientist can misrepresent such facts. Accelerating means getting faster each time period, such misuse of scientific terms betrays poor scientific rigour and further confirms my doubts about the credibility of so many climate “scientists”.
_____
The loss of Arctic sea ice on a year to year basis continues, and will end with a ice free summer arctic sometime this century. The only real discussion is about the path it will take to get there.
Michael Schaefer says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:10 am
“I have a very sophisticated flight simulator program running on my computer which I love to play with it every once in a while. But does this make me a certified pilot already? I suppose not – although, if you gave me enough funding, I could start a PR-campaign aimed at convincing enough people that I am, in fact, a certified pilot and will finally be able to get my hands on the controls of a real plane.”
Actually, back in the days when personal computer simulators weren’t all that good at simulating the view out of cockpit windows (early 1990’s) I was taking real flying lessons. I was exceptionally good flying by instruments and handling the radios while flying the plane. Whether it was at night over the ocean (really scary), wearing a hood to obscure my view of the ground during the day, or just having my view of ground blocked by clouds, fog, or smog. I attribute that skill to Microsoft Flight Simulator. I think the simulator also conditions you to not fly by the seat of your pants as the force of gravity keeping your butt in the seat is not a reliable indicator of what the aircraft is actually doing. That’s because you can’t tell apart the force of the earth’s gravity from the force imparted by acceleration (including centrifugal forces) experienced inside the cockpot. So the flight simulator forces you to ignore those and concentrate on your instruments. More modern flight simulators might actually be inferior because the view out the cockpit is so realistic you can fly by looking out the window. I have used a flight simulator for quite some time but sound also provides important queues about what’s going on like the sound of your motor, the sound of the wind, and of course your stall horn attached to wing which starts to whistle when lift decreases into critical lack thereof.
So I’d agree a flight simulator isn’t going to give you the skills of a certified pilot but it certainly helps an awful lot and is probably enough to spell the difference between life and death should you find yourself in the stereotypical movie situation where the pilot of a plane you’re in has become incapacitated and there’s no one but you to bring it in for a safe landing. Flying is mostly done by checklist, knowing your aircraft, and developing motor skills. The flight simulator will develop all those skills.
So, they have finally figured out a way to change the model phrase “climate scenarios” to “climate predictions”. Let this be a referred link to any AGW poster who dares remind us that models are meant to portray only “scenarios” and are not meant to offer predictions.
Latitude says:
August 11, 2011 at 1:03 pm
warmcold, wetdry, droughtflood, snowrain……………………….
You forgot to add the new one … freezemelt.
It goes like this:
We need grant money. We model the population and determine only death and destruction gets the peoples attention (modeled based on the nightly news content). We then model that the more outlandish the claims the more money follows. So we model the press release to get numbers that maximize those dollars. We find in the models that more money flows if a villain is identified. We then throw three darts blindly at a periodic table and see that they hit on carbon and oxygen twice. We then for the first time look at real data to determine that the world is indeed producing CO2. We then do population modeling and determine that everyone complains about the weather but no one ever does anything about it. We then produce a model that correlates all weather with CO2. We write a program that periodically releases press releases correlating the most recent weather headline with our villain. We then schedule vacations around the globe to meet with our team and pat each other on the back (ok – who selected Norway in the winter!!?) Money flows – life is good. That is the IPCC process isn’t it?
Thinking more about what MS Flight Simulator, or similar software, can develop as real flying skills, motor skills would be lacking unless you have some top shelf controls, especially yoke and rudder pedals with force feedback. The force you need to exert on flight controls is a very important feedback. It would also be quite helpful to have a throttle located in the same place as the actual aircraft because when things get dicey you don’t have time to be looking about in the cockpit for the throttle. Your hand has to know where to go for the throttle without looking for it. To a lesser extent the radios and other electronic navigation aids also need some motor memory so your hand can go to them without taking your eyes and attention away from other things. It’s also handy to have some motor ability for the flap control. That’s not usually something that requires fast adjustment but at times it might. Every little bit of additional motor skill helps to make you a safer pilot.
The last paragraph describes the problem they are having with their models and predictions and that is too many variables all changing at once constantly and unpredictably.
They lost me on the “and is not entirely natural”. I am wondering what about the ice is not natural. Perhaps the ice is possessed.
steven mosher says:
“Actually smokey that is a model as well.”
Not really. It’s empirical evidence from ice cores.
Steve,
The graph was made by Petit, et al. Sorry, I didn’t save the original paper.
gmak says:
August 12, 2011 at 5:14 am
What about the contention that it is the Arctic Ice VOLUME that is declining? Isn’t this more important than the extent of ice coverage? Or am I missing something.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/arctic-ice-melt-0810.html
Tired of the whole name-calling from both sides.
____
Volume is the best overall metric, and is of course declining, and this is consistent with more warmth in the Arctic. Some skeptics want to point to wind and try to insinuate that it’s just the wind pushing the ice out of the Arctic or some nonsense like that. Wind play a role in ice export, but the loss of volume is from more warmth overall. The melting of the permafrost, which is also occurring, can’t be caused by wind, as it doesn’t blow 10 feet underground the last I checked. We’ve simply got more warmth in and around the Arctic and it’s melting. Pretty simple.
Ian H says:
Wheeee…this is fun. I’m waiting for the next model to tell us all Arctic sea ice will be gone by the year 2250…or depending extraneous conditions it will cover 1/3 of the globe. Either way it will definitely be caused by anthropogenic global warming.
Ian E says:
Oh, the sweet sound of alibis being forged. Next they will be saying that we might get a mini-Ice-Age, but it will surely be followed by more warming!
Ian & Ian – they’re definitely hedging their bets. I recently saw a program where they flat-out said “Global warming” could cause another ice age. No matter what happens, they were right!
Slightly OT, but still….
About this polar bear thing: Has anybody actually confirmed that a reduced ice pack is actually bad for the polar bear population, or is it just an assumption? What studies have been done?
How do we know that the current ice pack is optimal or less than optimal? Was the ice pack during the Little Ice Age more conducive to the polar bear population? And how about the animals the polar bears hunt? There is a strong relationship between predators and their prey. A low population of prey will only support a small population of predators. Is more ice better for the seal population, or is more open water better?
Exit Question : What does a polar bear eat?
Answer: Anything it wants.
Leaving the model discussion aside, it does appear to me that the Arctic ice extent could easily challenge the 2007 lows this year. The 2007 loss has been described many times as “wind-driven” and so it’s reasonable to consider that year to be an anomaly in the relatively consistent dropping of Arctic ice extent over the past couple of decades. That would make 2008, 09, and 10, not recoveries, but more back on trend, with 2009 a rebound from 2008 and 2010 continuing the downtrend.
We’re already below 6mm km2 so 5 mm km2 by the end of August is likely, and 4.7 to 4.8 should easily be reached by the Sep low. Given the relatively low concentration of the ice and the fact that wind hasn’t seemed to play much of a role so far, just in place melting, it wouldn’t be surprising to have it at 4.6 to 4.8 mm km2 by the end of August and for the low to go below 4.5 in Sep.
Toss a good 2007 wind into the mix and it could go much lower, I suspect. If the world is cooling, it appears that it’s going to be late showing up in the Arctic. Oh, and I do suspect it’s cooling. I’m just observing what appears to be happening year by year and have been logging guesses of under 4.5 since the first poll here, based mainly on how slow things appeared to freeze up last winter.
So Mr. Gates, we finally have your um…scientific position.
Anthropogenic CO2 will cause the disappearance of summer Arctic ice EXCEPT when it doesn’t!
You are absolutely certain that all summer sea ice will be gone, by century’s end, but anthropogenic CO2 must first cause the apparent sea ice to increase. Once this is completed, then the way is clear, for the total annihilation of summer sea ice. Or is it possible, you have come to the conclusion, that our climate or ice models, are not much better than muttering “booga booga”, under the full moon, while casting chicken bones.
It seems to me that your efforts would have been better spent, dragging a row boat across the Arctic, looking for non existent sea ice. Sometimes the reality of sudden, imminent death can create crystal clear epiphany. GK
“Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979, the extent of summertime Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about one third.”
So the satellite measurements started at the end of a cooler period of time (when an ice age was “imminent” & polar ice expanding)? Because if you start measuring from the peak, things do generally go down…
My, hasn’t Mr R Gates changed. A year ago he was a semi-sceptic, now he is a card carrying AGW-er.
Mr Gates are you now saying that the 2007 “record” melt was not primarly wind driven?
R. Gates
“Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway….”
So belief (have faith) is what we are being asked to have. Sir, you are belatedly beginning to get what sceptics are all about. Belief has no place in science. Beliefs are anathema to science. Beliefs have stifled science. Belief implies the perfectly viable option of disbelief. You observe phenomena and attempt to understand it. You construct an hypothesis and then you and others try to falsify it. If it is falsified, it doesn’t matter what one believes. This has been the problem all along – models and so-called theories that have not been proven require belief to carry them. I see now that even the concept of denier (heretic) ties into a belief system in the minds of the proponents. Thoughtful people here are not saying I don’t believe it, they are saying prove it.
[Snip. Labeline others as “denialist” unacceptable. ~dbs, mod.]
R. Gates says:
August 12, 2011 at 7:06 am
“The loss of Arctic sea ice on a year to year basis continues, and will end with a ice free summer arctic sometime this century. The only real discussion is about the path it will take to get there.”
My argument is about the imprecise use of language by a so-called professional. Accelerating ice-loss means it gets faster each year. Whatever you might speculate about the future (and I think your record is getting stuck on this issue), the loss is simply not getting faster. This is another attempt to conjure up images of catastrophic runaway climate events, but the evidence seems to suggest a slow rise in temperature and an equally slow decline of melting ice, probably to the benefit of mankind by extending the areas of the earth which are suitable for agriculture.
Can’t cite any reports or facts, this is just an opinion, which places it in the same category as your view of the future of Arctic ice.
As “Skeptic” said way above, “where are the trolls?”. Have they all left the ship? By now they should be covering these replies with red herrings – yet no one has done so. WUWT?
I should also add that true skeptics evaluate each paper on its own merits, not which “side”
it seems to support.
And Gar Pearse is wrong on a couple of points about science.
Firstly, no theory is ever proven.
Secondly, there is much to be gained from an understanding of Popper’s ideas on falsification, but the fact is his extreme interpretation is simply not how science works.
Scientists generally look for evidence to support a theory, and if a theory is well supported by numerous lines of evidence, will not abandon it because of a single or several contradictory results.
When the orbits of some planets did not conform to Newton’s theories, undiscovered planets were postulated to explain the anomolies. In some cases suitable planets were found.
In the case of Mercury, the planet was never found, becuase the problem was indeed with the theory, and it took Einsteins General Relativity to overturn Newton. But even then although strictly “false” Newtons approximation is good enough for Nasa to send spacecraft with pinpoint accuracy to the furthest ends of the solar system.
A retry then: By the way I did not “label” anyone a denialist. I said that denialism was an attitude of mind opposite to true skepticism. Do you have a problem with that?
Jason gives the game away. Apparently his idea of a skeptic is one who does not change his mind.
I was a skeptic when I did not consider the evidence for AGW sufficiently well established. I remain a skeptic having concluded that accumulating evidence was well established. But not certain, and in the light of further evidence, I may change my mind again.
A skeptic also evaluates each piece of evidence on its own merits, recognising that some evidence may be interpreted as supporting AGW or not supporting AGW, and conclusions based on these assessments will shape his overall position.
Many of those who claim the honourable title of skeptic are no such thing. The have a fixed position and refuse to accept or consider any evidence that challenges their permanently fixed belief. They often exhibit the attributes of the psychological condition that Sigmund Freud called- but perhaps I won’t go there.
So the D word is out but I note that it is acceptable in the comments to call those who conclude that AGW is occuring “warmistas” “alarmingly stupid” “trolls” using “weasel words”, accuse climatologists of being akin to people who fake resumes and question if they taught ethics at home and post after post accusing the authors of the study and scientists in general of being corrupt individuals who are trying to scam further grant money “scam scam scam”
The sensitivity is a little one sided don’t you think?
[Reply: Please read the site Policy. Moderation is done with a light touch here. But the line is drawn at equating scientific skeptics with Holocaust deniers. ~dbs, mod.]