« Will Petermann calve another one this summer? | Main | PIOMAS August 2017 »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

NeilT

Bill I did notice it and I hope you'll take my apologies for not commenting on it when you know I am extremely interested.

I made the mistake, on the forum, of stating my claims that 2016 would be the penultimate year of a 5 year cycle when the vast majority of people on the thread believed it would be a record breaker. I made the bigger mistake of making these predictions between early May and early June 2016.

Given that this year is not over and that my prediction of 2016 may, yet, fail, I hope you can forgive me for not making any big thing about cycles and what they do to melting expectations.

I have made no real predictions about 2017 apart from voting for an end extent somewhere either above or below the 2012 low. The reason I voted for that is precisely because of the 5 year cyclical variation which we are watching unfold. Simply put the weather, at the peak of a 3 year melting cycle (two growth, three melt in the cycle of 5 years), would have to be exceptional to "stop" significant melting from happening.

What we are seeing today is that the entire pack, right up the pole, is vulnerable to moderate storms and that ice which is neither thick, nor integrated, can vanish in a day, rather than the week or more it took 2012 with the GAC.

As such, that vulnerability driven by the 5 year cycle peak, is what is driving my expectation of an end result closer to 2012 (above or below), than to 2007/2016.

My comments last year were also driven by vivid memories of 2006 and how it unfolded. It was uncanny just how close the two effects were and it fits very well with the 5 year cycle vison.

Every time I talked about this I was clear to state that 2016 was in the context of post 2007 and 2012 years. In other words the same cycle event, with similar weather, was going to deliver much lower results in terms of remaining ice.

However these results, still, comparatively to 2007 and 2012, were going to produce end year minimum results which echoed the same year in the previous cycle. Even though they may not be records in their own right. I was correct, 2016 was more comparable to 2006 and 2011, with the exception that 2016, if cycles were repeating exactly, would have finished very close to 2012 rather than being almost the same as 2007/2011.

The cycles do not repeat exactly, how could they, solar insolation cycles on a ~10 year rotation and the impact is different between the beginning and end. Also solar cycle 24 has been roughly half as intense as cycle 23.

My point in that being outright numbers do not make the cycle nonsense. 2003/4 ice grew in the Arctic and declined in 2005/6/7. 2008/9 ice grew and declined again in 2010/11/12. 2013/14 ice grew in the arctic and declined again in 2015/16 and, it would be safe to assume, 2017.

That, to me, is a cycle regardless of the outright numbers or whether a new record was achieved or not.

If we accept the cycle is there, then a broad expectation can be set that 2018 will fall somewhere outside the top4/5 for melt. Regardless of whether 2017 beats 2012 for melt or not.

For me, that is much more reliable than whether the end number is lower than the previous year or not and whether the end of a cycle (as 2017 is), beats the previous records or not.

This is why I also say that we're much more likely to see a Black Swan event in 2022 than in 2017. Each cycle, essentially, drops the volume towards the end before ticking up a bit for 2 years. That can't go on. If we saw the same volume loss in 2020/21 as we have seen in 2015/16, there wouldn't be much left to melt in 2022 regardless of cyclical drops.

So I'm not really talking much about cycles until the end of the 2018 melt season. Which is where my, end spring, 2016 predictions, run out.

Daniel Bailey

Hmmm. I questioned this claim by Wade:

"it takes a lot more CO2 than we currently have in order to melt down the arctic"

And he had no answer for it. He also made this claim:

"sunlight penetrates all the way down to 700 to 900 meters"

Which is clearly unphysical. And therefore both stand debunked.

Further, we know that (per Cheng et al 2017) the oceans are warming top-down, with the surface warming from increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 reaching into the abyssal depths themselves:

"OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal timescales.

All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean."

And:

"The new result (Fig. 6) suggests a total full-depth ocean warming of 33.5 ± 7.0 × 1022 J (equal to a net heating of 0.37 ± 0.08W/m2 over the global surface and over the 56-year period) from 1960 to 2015, with 36.5, 20.4, 30.3, and 12.8% contributions from the 0- to 300-m, 300-to 700-m, 700- to 2000-m, and below 2000-m layers, respectively."

This claim by Wade also needs substantiation:

"We're probably looking at a 15 to 20 degree change in daytime high for these regions by the time they completely melt down"

It has never been the habit of participants in this forum to simply make things up. At least not when I regularly participated in it, back in the day.

I hope such is not de rigueur these days.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)