Arctic Could Be Sea Ice-Free in the Summer by the 2030s 67
New research suggests that Arctic summer sea ice could melt almost completely by the 2030s, a decade earlier than previously projected, even with significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Smithsonian Magazine reports: "We are very quickly about to lose the Arctic summer sea-ice cover, basically independent of what we are doing," Dirk Notz, a climate scientist at the University of Hamburg in Germany tells the New York Times' Raymond Zhong. "We've been waiting too long now to do something about climate change to still protect the remaining ice." An ice-free summer, also called a "blue ocean event," will happen when the sea ice drops below one million square kilometers (386,102 square miles), writes Jonathan Bamber, a professor of physical geography at the University of Bristol, in the Conversation. This equates to just 15 percent of the Arctic's seasonal minimum ice cover of the late 1970s, per the Times.
Previous assessments using models have estimated an ice-free summer under high and intermediate emissions scenarios by 2050. But researchers noticed differences between what climate models predicted about what would happen to sea ice and what they've actually seen through observations, according to Bob Weber of the Canadian Press. "The models, on average, underestimate sea ice decline compared with observations," says Nathan Gillett, an environment and climate change Canada scientist, to Weber.
Now, in a new study published in Nature Communications, Notz, Gillett and their colleagues tweaked these models to more closely fit satellite data collected over the past 40 years. Using these modified models, the researchers projected ice changes under different possible levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Their paper suggests that regardless of emissions scenario, "we may experience an unprecedented ice-free Arctic climate in the next decade or two." Under a high emissions scenario, the Arctic could see a sustained loss of sea ice from August until as late as October before the 2080s, lead author Seung-Ki Min, a climate scientist at Pohang University of Science and Technology in South Korea, tells CNN's Rachel Ramirez.
Previous assessments using models have estimated an ice-free summer under high and intermediate emissions scenarios by 2050. But researchers noticed differences between what climate models predicted about what would happen to sea ice and what they've actually seen through observations, according to Bob Weber of the Canadian Press. "The models, on average, underestimate sea ice decline compared with observations," says Nathan Gillett, an environment and climate change Canada scientist, to Weber.
Now, in a new study published in Nature Communications, Notz, Gillett and their colleagues tweaked these models to more closely fit satellite data collected over the past 40 years. Using these modified models, the researchers projected ice changes under different possible levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Their paper suggests that regardless of emissions scenario, "we may experience an unprecedented ice-free Arctic climate in the next decade or two." Under a high emissions scenario, the Arctic could see a sustained loss of sea ice from August until as late as October before the 2080s, lead author Seung-Ki Min, a climate scientist at Pohang University of Science and Technology in South Korea, tells CNN's Rachel Ramirez.
even with sweet fuck all (Score:5, Informative)
What reductions are those? The Keeling Curve is still in an upward trend. That is to say it is increasing at an accelerating rate. 423.67ppm CO2. We need to get it below 350 to avoid .... Blah blah blah. The point is we are yet to do anything let alone significant reductions.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't recall which scientist said that there is really nothing we can do to make an impact on the climate of the earth. But apparently not all scientists agree that we have the ability to change the course of "Climate Change".
Cleary we must be good stewards of our planet though. And hope for the best?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't recall which scientist said that there is really nothing we can do
You don't recall who it was but he/she was the important one, right?
(and I note your use of singular, not plural...)
But apparently not all scientists agree that we have the ability...
If you went to ten medical specialists and nine of them told you you had cancer and one of them didn't; would you heave a huge sigh of relief and believe you were OK?
Re: (Score:3)
Because? An assertion is not evidence.
You could defend that on the grounds that what they're calling "ice free" actually still has some ice present, I suppose. That would probably be correct, but even the summary did quantify the amount of ice they still expect to be present. Or you could defend it on the grounds that some islands would still have ice-pack on them. Or perhaps some other way/
But you give no indication of your reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Heard that before (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up "predicted" with "fake news in news papers to catch attention by headlines".
Re: (Score:3)
You've cited 3 newspapers who where citing cranks, a politician and an army.
None of this has any relevance to climate science which has had consistently the same warning for over 150 years now since we discovered how CO2 works in the 1800s, coupled with a history of models that have been remarkably accurate, if a little on the overly optimistic side when it comes to risks (We keep discovering new ways for CO2 to ruin our day).
Re: (Score:3)
Then let me cite the person the prediction came from, one professor Wieslaw Maslowski. Specifically, he said his model showed it all melting between 2013 and 2030.
Re:Heard that before (Score:5, Insightful)
Heard that many times over the decades. It is still BS.
Translation: The press has over-amplified a handful of kooks over the decades. They love doing that.
Luckily for us the graphs and real-time ice clocks don't care about your opinion. All the data shows there's less ice this year than any previously recorded year.
You won't see that on Fox news though.
Re: (Score:2)
This suggests that you really need to change the sources you pick to give you information.
P.S.: We're being invaded by a chambered nautilus from Mars. The Weekly World News told me so.
Re:Heard that before (Score:5, Insightful)
Heard that many times over the decades. It is still BS.
And yet completely new shipping lanes have already opened up in the arctic due to the receding ice. If you want to play semantics about whether it's 2030 or 2035 then sure we can have that argument. If you're saying it's BS that the ice is disappearing then be prepared to be called out as an idiot.
Re: Wasn't thatpredicgted for 2016? (Score:2, Insightful)
Moderator abuse once more. You can mod him troll if you want, but he's correct. We've had repeated apocalyptic predictions that never come close to happening. And then you get angry when someone calls out the BS?
Re: (Score:2)
Moderator abuse once more. You can mod him troll if you want, but he's correct. We've had repeated apocalyptic predictions that never come close to happening. And then you get angry when someone calls out the BS?
We live in a world where the press loves tales of armageddon and amplifies the kooks to infinity.
Nobody should be trying to put exact days/dates on things like this but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I hope those who (rightfully) mock apocalypse predictions from doomsday cults notice how close the "Ice free Arctic" prediction has come to this.
Re:Wasn't thatpredicgted for 2016? (Score:5, Informative)
Now, in a new study published in Nature Communications, Notz, Gillett and their colleagues tweaked these models to more closely fit satellite data collected over the past 40 years. Using these modified models, the researchers projected ice changes under different possible levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Their paper suggests that regardless of emissions scenario, "we may experience an unprecedented ice-free Arctic climate in the next decade or two."
Re: (Score:3)
The answer is right there in the summary. Did you even read the story at all?
Of course not.
a) The model probably gives a range of values from 2030 to 20XX so they correctly say "Could be 2030".
b) The press grabs hold of the story and prints "Scientists say all the ice will be gone by 2030!".
c) When it doesn't happen on December 31st, 2029 we all laugh and say "The dumb scientists were wrong again!" then get on with our lives.
Meanwhile: The ice is melting.
(and the press continues unabated)
Re: (Score:2)
People who update their forecasts based on data.
Re:Wasn't that predicted for 2016? (Score:2)
Their paper suggests that regardless of emissions scenario, "we may experience an unprecedented ice-free Arctic climate in the next decade or two."
Just like all those previous predictions did: they tweaked the data and came to a prediction that fitted the existing data than any before. If the prediction is vague, it's worthless, if it's precise and didn't occur the way it predicted, it's wrong. Up to now all those dramatic doomsday predictions turned out to be wrong.
The only sane approach is to shelf the predictions until they prove their mettle - in this case for another 7 odd years and then check whether they were better than the rest. But this won'
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's listening to wolves howling. It's hard to tell how close they are, but it's moronic to claim the wolf doesn't exist when you can hear it howling just because it hasn't arrived yet.
Re: (Score:1)
So it begins (Score:2)
So it begins, when that happens, the Arctic Countries will start the oil rush. Some have tried limiting development with treaties, but IIRC Russia and the US have balked at that. And I think Canada had some issues too, which I do not remember. This was from a series of articles I read years ago.
Again, does not look good for Climate Change. Buy your Arctic Beach Front property now :)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The current Arctic beaches at sea level will be submerged by Thwaites Glacier melting. Or by the thermal expansion of the ocean warming. Or both.
We've heard that before (Score:1, Troll)
In An Inconvenient Truth, it was claimed that "Research says the Arctic could be Ice-free in fifteen years." Fifteen years later, it is still "in fifteen years"...
Re: (Score:1)
many people believe that "some world-wide epidemic" may have been engineered to do exactly that - and many other people believed Al Gore 15 years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Many people are conspiracy-crazed right wing morons with two-figure IQs. Sensible people realize Gore got it pretty much right.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we could simplify it and say "the Arctic will be ice free when fusion is viable"?
Re: (Score:2)
In An Inconvenient Truth, it was claimed that "Research says the Arctic could be Ice-free in fifteen years." Fifteen years later, it is still "in fifteen years"...
But still, the graph showing there's less ice this year than any previously recorded year has to be wrong, yes?
Maybe they're falsifying data. Yeah, that must be it.
Re:We've heard that before (Score:5, Insightful)
15 years after it came out multiple new shipping routes had opened up through the arctic and sea ice was at record lows. This isn't nuclear fusion perpetually away. We have a very clear trend we can see.
When? (Score:1)
2013 [bbc.co.uk]
2012 [climate-po...atcher.org]
2008 [newscientist.com]
And a true prediction: 4000 BC [sciencedaily.com]
clueless (Score:2)
Sounds like it not an actual model but just statistical interpolation?
If you come up with a prediction based on your "model' and it does hold up then you don't just "tweak" it. You say "sorry guys my model is crap we need to learn more.".
Re: clueless (Score:1)
Extrapolation
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a decent point, but an insufficient one.
Yes, they definitely need a better model. But the model is actually fairly good, and this is a quick adjustment to give a result that better fits what is known. OTOH, it's an adjustment without a physical model behind it, so it's not a good basis for an explanation.
That said, LLMs usually produce valid sentences. They make mistakes, because they're just statistical predictors, without a lot of valid theory underneath them. But MOST of the time the sen
Hypothesis and Disproof (Score:5, Informative)
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain .com, Aug. 7, 2008
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab .com, June 19, 2015
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
All those dire warnings...and then
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
For more “Best of the Web” from The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto
For a more reasonable estimate, (Score:2)
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publi... [usgs.gov]
"For the Bering Sea, median March ice extent is projected to be about 25 percent less than the 1979-1988 average by mid-century and 60 percent less by the end of the century. The ice-free season in the Bering Sea is projected to increase from its contemporary average of 5.5 months to a median of about 8.5 months by the end of the century. A 3-month longer ice- free season in the Bering Sea is attained by a 1-month advance in melt and a 2-month delay in freeze, meaning the ic
Could (Score:2)
but won't.
Could (Score:2)
Could. hahahahaha.
Payback time... (Score:1)
Maybe idiots shouldn't be allowed to tweak models? (Score:1)
What experts. Oh we just play with the knobs and oh look what happens?!?! These guys would normally be playing simcity, but why do that when there is just too much money in environmental doom.
Re: (Score:1)
A decade early, or a decade and a half late? (Score:1)
crying wolf (Score:1)
Just gonna leave this here (Score:2)
HOW I GOT MY EX BACK WITH THE HELP OF A LOVE SPELL (Score:1)
HOW I GOT MY EX BACK WITH THE HELP OF A LOVE SPELL (Score:1)