Arctic Ice situation

[KonstantinosM]

What will happen when, in the short years after 2014 the arctic will be ice free in the summer?

This could be it ladies and gentleman, the world could be a lot different if by chance there are any unintended consequences. We're not climatologists here, but we can all have our educated guesses.

My view:

Worst Case scenario: Hurricanes hit the US more often causing a lot of death, certain areas get less rain than they used to, dry out and burn as a result, perhaps even a new dustbowl. Certain areas get much more rain and snow then before disrupting a significant amount of people's lives. The melting causes the release of large amounts of methane accelerating climate change. Greenland ice melts faster than predicted next to an ice free arctic (in the summer) causing rapid sea level rise the likes of which was not predicted in the current models.

Realistic Scenario: ... Climate changes but people cannot pinpoint the extra disasters on climate change and simply blame it on bad luck. The media has it's frenzy over the summer ice situation but as the winter starts and the ice begins to form again on the arctic people do not understand the difference between summer and winter in the north. Petroleum interests have to be heeded by politicians who have been bought out and everything is swept under the rug. Most people are distracted, oblivious to the change and how it might affect everyone until it does.

Best Case scenario: Arctic is free of ice in the summer, an event that causes the extinction of several animals. The change in climate is mild but noticeable. Globally there is consensus to fight the problem, many radical solutions are deployed at once, among the many solutions being feeding extra iron into the sea, like the iron that was leaked due to the melting of arctic ice that had never melted before in order for plancton to capture excess Co2.

In the years to follow the arctic gets a little more ice and eventually has ice even in the summer. It's a changed world, with more farmland available to the north. Many people have moved north and higher up. We've adapted for the change and we're slowly going to reverse it.

[bryant.coleman]

1. If the ice-cap covering Antarctica melts completely, then the ocean levels will rise by 61 meters (6,100 cm or 200 feet).

2. If the ice-cap covering Greenland melts completely, then the ocean levels will rise by 7 meters (700 cm or 22 feet).

This is how the world would look like if the polar ice caps melted:

[niothor]

1. If the ice-cap covering Antarctica melts completely, then the ocean levels will rise by 61 meters (6,100 cm or 200 feet).

Highly unlikely.
With an average of -50C termpreature it's almost impossible to melt that ice.

And if the temperature would indeed rise that much...we would already be dead by the time it melts completely.

[Spendulus]

What will happen when, in the short years after 2014 the arctic will be ice free in the summer?

This could be it ladies and gentleman, the world could be a lot different if by chance there are any unintended consequences. We're not climatologists here, but we can all have our educated guesses.

My view:

Worst Case scenario: Hurricanes hit the US more often causing a lot of death, certain areas get less rain than they used to, dry out and burn as a result, perhaps even a new dustbowl. Certain areas get much more rain and snow then before disrupting a significant amount of people's lives. The melting causes the release of large amounts of methane accelerating climate change. Greenland ice melts faster than predicted next to an ice free arctic (in the summer) causing rapid sea level rise the likes of which was not predicted in the current models.

Realistic Scenario: ... Climate changes but people cannot pinpoint the extra disasters on climate change and simply blame it on bad luck. The media has it's frenzy over the summer ice situation but as the winter starts and the ice begins to form again on the arctic people do not understand the difference between summer and winter in the north. Petroleum interests have to be heeded by politicians who have been bought out and everything is swept under the rug. Most people are distracted, oblivious to the change and how it might affect everyone until it does.

Best Case scenario: Arctic is free of ice in the summer, an event that causes the extinction of several animals. The change in climate is mild but noticeable. Globally there is consensus to fight the problem, many radical solutions are deployed at once, among the many solutions being feeding extra iron into the sea, like the iron that was leaked due to the melting of arctic ice that had never melted before in order for plancton to capture excess Co2.

In the years to follow the arctic gets a little more ice and eventually has ice even in the summer. It's a changed world, with more farmland available to the north. Many people have moved north and higher up. We've adapted for the change and we're slowly going to reverse it.

To be more precise here, "ice free Arctic in the summer" refers to the North Passage, and the sea ice there, not the land and tundra masses.  And I guess it means further something like "relatively ice free", enough for shipping and so forth.  EG, the "North Pole" is in the water.

Or are you referring to something more, like no ice north of the Arctic circle (seems that was 69N or so) during the summer?

[bryant.coleman]

Highly unlikely.
With an average of -50C termpreature it's almost impossible to melt that ice.

Check the summer temperatures in Antarctica.



A lot of the area currently falls within the 0 degree and -10 degree range.

[niothor]

Highly unlikely.
With an average of -50C termpreature it's almost impossible to melt that ice.

Check the summer temperatures in Antarctica.



A lot of the area currently falls within the 0 degree and -10 degree range.

Even if all that ice in that region melts that would only mean less than 10% of whole ice in Antarctica.
And most of it will reform in winter.

[KonstantinosM]

I'm focusing on the arctic ice because that is going to happen soon. The difference in temperature if the ice melts will fall drastically changing climate patterns, rainfall, wind, currents.

Antarctica is a different story completely, I don't know much about it, but recently (a few weeks ago) the amundsen Glacier in Antarctica reached it's point of no return surprising a lot of people as that wasn't supposed to happen for decades.

Specifically, the ice extent has been dropping a lot during the last summers. It is noteworthy that it takes a lot of energy loss, and a lot of energy to turn ice to water and vice versa. About as much as three quarters of the way to boiling water. When something like this happens it takes a lot for the water to go from one state to the other.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

In the summers the arctic receives more sunlight as it is facing the sun, therefore if there is no ice in the summer (or even less ice in the summer) much more heat is absorbed rather than reflected back to space. That is one reason (among others) why the arctic has heated up at an incredible rate, as compared to the rest of the planet.

I'm not a professional in this area however I'm fascinated that such a big change is going to happen so soon. An ice free arctic sea in the summer. We're talking about millions of square kilometers turned from totally reflective to just about the opposite. I'm also a little bit weary of the change as it is a mystery what it will bring.


The range of possibilities here is huge, and possibly the arctic won't be ice free (in the summer) for decades to come, however a simple look at the trends points to a different picture.

Whether the arctic is mostly ice free in 2016, 2020 or 2050, the simple fact that it is lower, by more than 3 million square kilometers, in the summer, when it matters most is a really big deal.

The arctic receives almost all of it's sunlight in the summer, and ice reflects back the heat into space, as opposed to open water.

Go to this site: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e   and put in Septermber 10, 2012, then overlay the historical average data for 1980s, 1990s, 2000s

Years like that are likely to be the norm in the future.

[Spendulus]

I'm focusing on the arctic ice because that is going to happen soon. The difference in temperature if the ice melts will fall drastically changing climate patterns, rainfall, wind, currents.

Well let me note a few of the reasons why it may not happen that way. 

• Reflectivity is a function of sea ice, and thin ice cover works as well as thick ice.  But thin ice forms in just a few hours.
  
  Open sea has a much higher microscopic life content, thus produces more offsetting oxygen and absorbs more CO2.
  
  A warmer Arctic would change one of the primary atmospheric climate issues.  That is water vapor does not exist, since it becomes ice crystals.  Water vapor, the gas, and side effects from that, such as cloud layers, have the effect of preventing sunlight from reaching the surface at all. 

As we know from the climate in lower Alaska, the region is effectively a tropical rain forest, although at a lower average temperature for sure.

So the extension of a "summer Juneau climate" northwards would be what you are looking at in those circumstances. 

[KonstantinosM]

Highly unlikely.
With an average of -50C termpreature it's almost impossible to melt that ice.

Check the summer temperatures in Antarctica.



A lot of the area currently falls within the 0 degree and -10 degree range.

Even if all that ice in that region melts that would only mean less than 10% of whole ice in Antarctica.
And most of it will reform in winter.

Increased precipitation in Antarctica could lock a lot of water on the colder areas, off-setting a lot of the sea level rise that is due to thermal expansion. One third of it according to the IPCC, although the IPCC is always overly conservative.

The inside of antarctica can be viewed as a bank where we loan from it future sea level rise, but if in a 200 or 300 years we haven't paid our debt (scrubbed out CO2 from the atmosphere) we'll pay the full price. However I'm sure we'll have a good job by then so we'll surely be able to pay it back. (I wonder how many college students made that mistake) (Even now there are many technologies under development that could scrub out CO2 from the atmosphere, of course the undertaking will be massive and very slow).

Still, while parts of Antarctica are thickening others are thinning and a lot of glaciers move into the sea. Changes, even those that occur below the freezing point affect the movement speed of glaciers. The ice that makes up the glaciers and ice-sheets is younger than the glaciers or the ice-sheets themselves.

[bryant.coleman]

Increased precipitation in Antarctica could lock a lot of water on the colder areas, off-setting a lot of the sea level rise that is due to thermal expansion. One third of it according to the IPCC, although the IPCC is always overly conservative.

Precipitation might increase very slightly. But the overall ice cover will be reduced very noticeably. A lot of the glaciers in the border regions will break, and drift towards the ocean.

[KonstantinosM]

I'm focusing on the arctic ice because that is going to happen soon. The difference in temperature if the ice melts will fall drastically changing climate patterns, rainfall, wind, currents.

Well let me note a few of the reasons why it may not happen that way. 

• Reflectivity is a function of sea ice, and thin ice cover works as well as thick ice.  But thin ice forms in just a few hours.
  
  Open sea has a much higher microscopic life content, thus produces more offsetting oxygen and absorbs more CO2.
  
  A warmer Arctic would change one of the primary atmospheric climate issues.  That is water vapor does not exist, since it becomes ice crystals.  Water vapor, the gas, and side effects from that, such as cloud layers, have the effect of preventing sunlight from reaching the surface at all. 

As we know from the climate in lower Alaska, the region is effectively a tropical rain forest, although at a lower average temperature for sure.

So the extension of a "summer Juneau climate" northwards would be what you are looking at in those circumstances. 

The net change in sea ice extent is hugely negative. Therefore the first reason is nonsense. Here is an analogy, the TV in the living room is shrinking by 10 inches. You state correctly that we don't care how thick the TV is to which I say I didn't mention thickness in the first place. I really like to eat herring but I'm not that easily distracted.

So, ice cover on the sea surface can be offset by...clouds created by (insert unknown process) that prevents the sunlight from hitting the surface to the same extent as it being completely covered in ice. (I'm interested if you have proof)

The extension of forests right in the middle of the arctic ocean is at best, a bad joke. Is your point that there are going to be trees growing on the open saltwater in the middle of the ocean in the summer or at any time?


What I want to focus on is not CO2 levels, or methane levels, but a change in the temperature of the arctic caused by the change of ice extent in the summer. The winter in the arctic is also irrelevant as there isn't as much sun there in the winter.

Algae sucking CO2 there can be nearly irrelevant and has, up to now been irrelevant as the composition of the atmosphere is still moving towards more CO2 despite all the melting ice and release of iron into the oceans.

[KonstantinosM]

Increased precipitation in Antarctica could lock a lot of water on the colder areas, off-setting a lot of the sea level rise that is due to thermal expansion. One third of it according to the IPCC, although the IPCC is always overly conservative.

Precipitation might increase very slightly. But the overall ice cover will be reduced very noticeably. A lot of the glaciers in the border regions will break, and drift towards the ocean.

Antarctica is both thinning and thickening, in different parts. East and West. Glaciers can speed up on their way to the sea and I wonder whether any land may start showing. However the extent as of yet is at levels that are record high, although record high, unlike the arctic is really close to the average. So it can lose volume with speeding glaciers, but the extent hasn't changed much.

The arctic is a completely different story.



http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2889

The west antarctic sheet is melting which will cause an increase in the sea level over a big period of time.

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=3024

If there is -4 Million sq km of ice in the arctic the +1 Million sq km in the antarctic doesn't balance things at all.

[Charlie Prime]

Anyone who learned the Scientific Method in sixth grade should be able to distinguish between the Science Fraud that is AGW and actual Science.

It's just plain sad how uneducated the Public are.

Perhaps they deserve to be taxed into poverty.

[bryant.coleman]

Talking about the Arctic, can anyone explain this?

[KonstantinosM]

Anyone who learned the Scientific Method in sixth grade should be able to distinguish between the Science Fraud that is AGW and actual Science.

It's just plain sad how uneducated the Public are.

Perhaps they deserve to be taxed into poverty.

Charlie you wouldn't know reality from oil company and Koch brother propaganda if it bit you in the ass.

You offer no proof and your post is bordering on being spam.

Yes, six graders know more about this planet than you do, but you don't need to drive the point home by posting drivel.

[KonstantinosM]

Talking about the Arctic, can anyone explain this?

The warming of the world is uneven. The arctic warms faster. Less ice in the summer means more heat gets into the water causing more ice to melt. This positive feedback loop is the cause of the image.

This is the whole reason for this thread! When there is no multi-year ice in the arctic this whole process will be much faster and this is what we're heading into right now.

[Balthazar]

Gulf Stream waters are salty, that's why melting Arctic ice could cause its gradual shifting closer to the south. So I wouldn't care about hurricanes or ocean levels... Much bigger problem is the shift of the Gulf Stream, which prevents Europe from freezing to death.

[Spendulus]

I'm focusing on the arctic ice because that is going to happen soon. The difference in temperature if the ice melts will fall drastically changing climate patterns, rainfall, wind, currents.

Well let me note a few of the reasons why it may not happen that way.  

• Reflectivity is a function of sea ice, and thin ice cover works as well as thick ice.  But thin ice forms in just a few hours.
  
  Open sea has a much higher microscopic life content, thus produces more offsetting oxygen and absorbs more CO2.
  
  A warmer Arctic would change one of the primary atmospheric climate issues.  That is water vapor does not exist, since it becomes ice crystals.  Water vapor, the gas, and side effects from that, such as cloud layers, have the effect of preventing sunlight from reaching the surface at all.  

As we know from the climate in lower Alaska, the region is effectively a tropical rain forest, although at a lower average temperature for sure.

So the extension of a "summer Juneau climate" northwards would be what you are looking at in those circumstances.  

The net change in sea ice extent is hugely negative. Therefore the first reason is nonsense. Here is an analogy, the TV in the living room is shrinking by 10 inches. You state correctly that we don't care how thick the TV is to which I say I didn't mention thickness in the first place. I really like to eat herring but I'm not that easily distracted.

So, ice cover on the sea surface can be offset by...clouds created by (insert unknown process) that prevents the sunlight from hitting the surface to the same extent as it being completely covered in ice. (I'm interested if you have proof)

The extension of forests right in the middle of the arctic ocean is at best, a bad joke. Is your point that there are going to be trees growing on the open saltwater in the middle of the ocean in the summer or at any time?


What I want to focus on is not CO2 levels, or methane levels, but a change in the temperature of the arctic caused by the change of ice extent in the summer. The winter in the arctic is also irrelevant as there isn't as much sun there in the winter.

Algae sucking CO2 there can be nearly irrelevant and has, up to now been irrelevant as the composition of the atmosphere is still moving towards more CO2 despite all the melting ice and release of iron into the oceans.

.clouds created by (insert unknown process) that prevents the sunlight from hitting the surface to the same extent as it being completely covered in ice. (I'm interested if you have proof)

The unknown process, I stated.  Arctic cold air prevents the very formation of clouds - they are water vapor.  Warm the arctic, you have clouds.  Sun hits at low slant range, Arctic clouds block much more sun than clouds at lower latitudes.  You even been to Alaska in the summer?

the composition of the atmosphere is still moving towards more CO2

And we know that each additional increment of CO2 has an effect less than the previous increment, due to the logarithmic curve of climate sensitivity.  

But yes, I agree with your fashioning of the premises for debate - "ASSUME THAT the arctic is warming, what are the consequences?"

I have to answer they seem mostly on the good side, not the bad side.  Remember that changes in sea ice do not affect ocean levels or erode coastlines.

[KonstantinosM]

The increase in cloud cover is linear while the decrease in ice extent is exponential.

If cloud cover properly compensated this thread wouldn't exist.

[Spendulus]

The increase in cloud cover is linear while the decrease in ice extent is exponential.

If cloud cover properly compensated this thread wouldn't exist.

Interesting point of view.  I will suggest a method of exploring it.  ANY feedback mechanisms in nature have either a lead or lag characteristic to them.  These are of course superimposed on a system which is fundamentally chaotic in nature.  

Linear, and exponential...neither clearly exist.

Decrease in ice extent is two dimensional measurement of three dimensional objects bobbing around in water.  Those objects have surface which contacts with water.  Melting is primarily from the ice-water interface, obvious that is a linear function.  For still water, it is a declining linear function.  As the local water cools, melt slows.

It would seem that you cannot claim "decrease in ice extent is exponential" unless you could show an existing or predicted exponential increase in water temperature, which you cannot do.  Adding sunlight absorbed into water will not do that because as mentioned, the more surface warming,  the more water vapor and clouds in the air.  Low clouds have a cooling effect, and the effect of low clouds in the Arctic is likely 5x that which they exhibit at lower latitudes.