[Tanada]

I originally picked this year so I might as well stick with that until proven wrong.

[dolanbaker]

I would have picked the "Not in my lifetime" option, but there isn't one!
So I've not voted.

[PeakOiler]

I would have picked the "Not in my lifetime" option, but there isn't one!
So I've not voted.

Agreed in that the poll should have offered a choice such as "> 2019".

I'll guess 2027. I hope I'll still be alive then!

[Subjectivist]

I would have picked the "Not in my lifetime" option, but there isn't one!
So I've not voted.

Agreed in that the poll should have offered a choice such as "> 2019".

I'll guess 2027. I hope I'll still be alive then!

I know I type this too often, but I hope you are right while I fear you are wrong.

[clif]

Same here, no after 2019 so I had no where to register my choice,

( sorta like this years election)

I'm guessing 2022 at the earliest.

[kiwichick]

I think I voted for 2019

either way it will happen .....sooner or later

[Cog]

I would have voted for 15,000 years.

[vtsnowedin]

Lets not get too excited. It has a lot of melting to do from where it is today and temperatures are still below freezing around most of the arctic circle and well below zero north of 80 degrees N Lat.
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imag ... .terra.4km

[RaniDay]

I'm guessing 2016

[onlooker]

Hey, since I created this poll = post. So presumably, I can tweek it a little. Everyone is free to put any year they want regardless of what the options are. In fact just to make it simple, one can put in a range of years. I say 2017-2019.

[dolanbaker]

OK, not in my lifetime, after 2061!

[Tanada]

Well the 2018 numbers are in from NSIDC saying 2018 is tied for sixth lowest sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean at the close of the season. Looks like the more optimistic members were right, the central ice mass is proving to be much more durable than I used to think it was.

[jedrider]

Well the 2018 numbers are in from NSIDC saying 2018 is tied for sixth lowest sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean at the close of the season. Looks like the more optimistic members were right, the central ice mass is proving to be much more durable than I used to think it was.

So, the ice is hanging on and, so, cannot yet trigger the event that Guy Mcpherson thinks will absolutely destabilize our northern hemisphere climate. Climate is already so weird even without that event. Can't wait to see what's in store next, but not really.

Besides, politics is so entertaining nowadays, that the world just must go on a bit longer.

[onlooker]

Looks like the more optimistic members were right, the central ice mass is proving to be much more durable than I used to think it was.

Hmm, yes the poll looks like it will be obsolete but at least here we can speculate on the possible timeline for the blue ocean event

[evilgenius]

You have to define blue ocean. There will be ice along the Canadian Archipelago for many years after that of the open ocean has melted by fall. Surely, the definition of blue ocean is a percentage of winter ice cover lost, not total loss of ice. My definition would have something to do with being able to sail a sailing boat, therefore not an icebreaker, to the North Pole at whatever time of the year the ice loss allows it. I think that can come as early as 2020. There are obviously extenuating circumstances, such as overall weather patterns, that could delay that. I should think that it would be possible by 2030, even with those working to preserve the ice cover. The important thing right now, however, is not whether the ice cover goes, but how the planet is dealing with the loss of ice that is occurring every year already. It's drier in one place and wetter in another. The extra heat absorbed by the open water will migrate into a system that will distribute it as that energy seeks places where there are lower energy states. To a great extent those changes appear chaotic, as any newly forming climate system would.

[Newfie]

Evil,

No handy citation but I believe that a private yacht has sailed to the North Pole in the last few years. It’s actually harder to make the transit because the route is pretty narrow and the ice can build up in it. Private yachts have been making this passage for the past 10 or so years with this year being an anomolly. No yacht made it through, and one was sunk in the process because the captain refused to listen to CCG advice. Consequently the CCG has said it will place restrictions on who can make the passage including insurance. This will make it far more difficult for folks to do it.

In recent years some pretty small boats have made the passage including a family, Mom/Dad/2 adolescent girls, in a wooden cutter and a single handed chap in a small fiberglass sailboat. He was the first person to circumnavigate the America’s single handed, non stop. Mat Rutherford

https://solotheamericas.org

I agree we need a definition, Ive no clue what it should be.

[onlooker]

"Surely, the definition of blue ocean is a percentage of winter ice cover lost, not total loss of ice"
So what would be the scientific definition of what percentage constitutes a Blue Ocean Event?

[dolanbaker]

"Surely, the definition of blue ocean is a percentage of winter ice cover lost, not total loss of ice"
So what would be the scientific definition of what percentage constitutes a Blue Ocean Event?

O suppose a good reference would be the ability to sail from the pacific to the Atlantic via the north pole without seeing any ice.
Or from Iceland to the north coast of Alaska without seeing any ice.
But as far as the Ice free Arctic, not in my lifetime...

[Newfie]

Agreed, by those definitions, not in our lifetimes.

[evilgenius]

Yeah, but what we're saying is that there is an art to this. Look at any day where you "can't see a cloud in the sky." Sometimes you can say that when there is a cloud, or even many, visible. That doesn't make the statement a lie.