We have had lots of PIOMAS fans here today. If you believe the PIOMAS numbers (which show a straight line to zero in 2016) then you necessarily have to believe that the ice is going to disappear in the next few years.
Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.
water melts ice….almost all of it is under water
Isn’t it doing exactly what it’s supposed to do?
I thought the missing heat was supposed to migrate to the poles, melt the ice, and escape into space…..
…then it gets cold again
What am I missing??
*shrug* That’s not what PIOMAS actually forecasts. The trend levels off to some extent as it gets closer to zero. You can go to their website if you like and look at the movie of their forecast up to 2050. I suppose I should give you the URL but really, what’s the point? I’m sick of doing your goddamn homework for you. Don’t you ever look things up before opening your mouth?
That is complete horse manure. Area is the same as 2008, but 40% thinner. It should be much more vulnerable.
I make no comment one way or the other about the likelihood of the forecast’s accuracy. I’m merely telling you that PIOMAS does NOT forecast complete disappearance of the ice in 2016, therefore there is no need for anyone to “necessarily believe” that extrapolation.
You do yourself no favours when you actively misrepresent easily-checked facts such as what PIOMAS actually predicts. Their data sets and code are all freely available online. Go and look them up.
Considering IceSat supports the proposed loss of 75% of Arctic ice over the last 10 years, it seems entirely reasonable to lose the remaining 25% over the next 5 years, so I agree with the linear extrapolation of PIOMAS.
Ice will get so thin that it just breaks up due to wind and wave action and is flushed out past Greenland to melt, I think this has potential to create a rapid, massive drop in extent. According to IceSat a large % of ice is already around 1m thick, so not long to go before it loses structural integrity altogether.
Focusing on extent only gives 2/3′s of the story, volume gives the whole story.
I’m happy to wager a dime(Australian) that the Arctic will be ice free for a period in September 2016.
There you have it. A long hex string who is willing to put his money where his mouth is.
How can a satellite that has been up for ~1 yr indicate that there has been a 75% drop in volume over the last 10 years? I suppose it could agree with the model at the current thickness levels, but that’s not the same as agreeing with it 9 yrs before the satellite was up.
-Scott
When you start out with measuring errors that show the ice thicker than it really is……
…keep improving your science and measurements, making it more accurate
and each time measuring it thinner
You end up showing a false rapid decline in ice thickness……
Exactly like starting out measuring melt ponds and leads as ice…
…improving your science so you can identify more water as water, and less ice
and then claiming that nothing has changed in the way you measure ice in over 30 years………..
Scott:
Using the latest Phrenology techniques and the most recently improved OUIJA Board they can find any answer you want them to find!
My understanding is that Kwok 2009 shows 5 years of data from IceSat and it strongly validates the PIOMAS calculations.
Then there can be little doubt the Arctic will be ice free in a couple of years.
According to ARGO data, North Atlantic OHC and North Pacific OHC are dropping like a stone. Arctic OHC is as well, but we’re told it is full of uncertainty. OTOH, PIOMAS, a model which one would assume must have accurate ocean data in order to get accurate results for its predictions, is validated.
Am I missing something?
2016, this means we can verify this quite soon and most people, including me, will be alive.
I have always a problem with the “in 100 years” prediction. I will be not around to verify this.
I’m looking forward to this. I put a big red X in my calendar.
Why is the arctic refreezing earlier this year? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
‘Cos the air and the water are cold up there?