Predicting when the Arctic will be ice-free

The birth of a new warmist factoid.

Here’s the factoid:

The data reveal that for every metric ton of carbon dioxide that’s emitted, 3 meters squared of sea ice is lost.

The study predicts around 2040 or so for an ice-free Arctic.

The abstract and media release is below.

###

screen-shot-2016-11-03-at-1-58-12-pm

###

Predicting When the Arctic Will Have an Ice-Free Summer

For every metric ton of carbon dioxide that’s emitted into the atmosphere, there is a direct correlation in the amount of Arctic sea ice that is lost, a new study shows. Scientists have had difficulty predicting when the Arctic will be completely free of ice during the summer months, but this new analysis could help provide much more accurate predictions of such an occurrence. Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve analyzed Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature data over time, deriving a linear relationship between the average monthly abundance of sea ice in the Arctic in September and cumulative carbon dioxide emissions, for a roughly 30-year period. The data reveal that for every metric ton of carbon dioxide that’s emitted, 3 meters squared of sea ice is lost. The authors used this robust relationship in a collection of climate models that are part of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5), to project Arctic summer sea ice loss. These models often underestimate the extent of ice loss, they found; Notz and Stroeve suggest that CMIP5 models, based on existing knowledge of processes that shape ice loss, may not be accurately capturing the amount of incoming longwave radiation from the Sun, and the climate’s related response. The results of this study suggest that any measure to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions will directly slow the ongoing loss of Arctic summer sea ice. Therefore, the authors note that achieving a global warming target of 1.5°Celsius, which would involve reducing carbon dioxide emissions, would help extend the lifespan of diminishing summer ice.

27 thoughts on “Predicting when the Arctic will be ice-free”

  1. So where was all the CO2 to enable the Arctic Ocean have ice free summers during the Holocene optimum?

  2. By now weren’t we also supposed to run out of oil, be skinny dipping in the Bering Sea and have no more land to grow crops on due to drought? More drivel and insanity from a group of leftover 60’s hippies and wannabes who can only make a living off of government grants and not in the real world.

  3. Any calculation that does not include both Artic & Antarctic is ludicrous. Any discussion that doesn’t acknowledge we are still in an ice age, hence polar ice, is likewise ludicrous. How does this explain why Greenland is named the way it is?

  4. It has not been established that the Arctic being free of ice during the summer months is undesirable.

    ‘Scientists have had difficulty predicting when the Arctic will be completely free of ice during the summer months’

    They have had no difficulty. They’ve been predicting it would be every year since 2008, and even as early as 1969. Predictions are easy.

    But predicting 2040 instead of 2016 is not an upgrade. It is still just noise. Just less obvious noise.

  5. i predict that the polar regions will be ice free on the day our sun, having advanced to the “red giant” phase, expands to the point where its photo-sphere engulfs our planet.

    since that’s unlikely to happen in the next few decades, color me unconcerned on the issue.

  6. I like “direct correlation”. It’s always fun to see how the language evolves. It does so as we speak, in front of the bewildered audience.

    I guess this one must have its roots in “Mathematics, the Language of Science”.

  7. “…for every metric ton of carbon dioxide that’s emitted, 3 meters squared of sea ice is lost..”

    Can you imagine how much sea ice has been lost solely due to Leonardo DiCaprio flying in private jets to all the “climate” conferences. The Paris Climate Summit alone must have eliminated miles and miles of ice as they flew in 1000’s of big shots and lackeys to have a good time on our dime.

    Until their report criticizes these famous wasters of energy and creators of CO2, we will call it what it is: fraud.

  8. I never cease to be amused every time an “ice free” warmist takes a ship to the Arctic and get trapped in the ice that “doesn’t exist”.

  9. Hey! Look on the bright side. With an ice free Arctic we could put oil rigs in there to drill for more oil.

  10. In 2008 NASA “ice scientist”, Jay Zwally was quoted: “Within five to less than ten years the Arctic could be free of sea ice in the summer.” Al Gore picked that up and ran with it in 2009… five to seven years.
    Well, here we are eight years later and now it’s postponed for another 29-30 years?

    But, the more important point is: What can possibly be done about it before 2045…even if “we”started in 1987 when CO2 was 350 ppm?

  11. Correlation does not, of course, imply causation as these idiots should know. I’ll bet one could come up with many other extraneous things that correlate with ice loss.

  12. How stupid are the people who gave these nutcases print space.
    These ‘climate change’ promoters are getting weirder and weirder.

  13. Wasn’t it 10 years ago that the famous climate scientist Al Gore claimed that there would be no more ice, zero ice in the Arctic in 5 years. Guess the soothsayers learned their lesson and put the event out a little farther in time.

  14. You can derive a linear relationship from just three points marking the vertices of triangle.

    “…may not be accurately capturing the amount of incoming longwave radiation from the Sun”. It’s around 50% of incoming radiation, but can’t penetrate sea-water, and results in evaporation and a slight cooling at the surface. Only heat from the underlying sea-water can melt much ice. Solar radiation, at the low angle in the arctic can’t do it either. Neither can the air above. Heat content of air is minuscule when compared with sea-water.

    Don’t these muppets know any physics? Or simple applied mathematics?

    Correlation is not causation.

  15. The press release gets it badly wrong. The paper says 3 sq.m of ice per metric ton of CO2 emitted. The press release (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) says “3 metres squared”, which is 9 sq.m. The American Ass obviously is one, and can’t read.

  16. “Correlation is not causation”. Not always Tony? There is a 0.9985 correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global population. What other conclusion can be drawn other than it is the sum total of human activities that has created the increase? This is not the same as the correlation between CO2 and temperature, but temperature might be between people living in “urban heat islands”?
    Each correlation should be evaluated individually?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.