Yes

If the causes of global warming and of the Arctic region are of anthropic origin, I believe it is possible to remedy it unless it is already too late, in the sense that an irreversible mechanism has already been triggered. But obviously it is necessary that there is a strong political will and great sacrifices.

I'm wondering if the Arctic could be frozen again by means of marine cloud whitening, which involves creating numerous artificial clouds over the ocean to reflect the sun's heat back into space and potentially offset the heat trapped by greenhouse gases.

Kenneth, Can you enlighten about your own prediction for the Arctic Sea ice cower in 2016 made here on RG. How close did you get?

Kenneth, You made a prediction here on RG for the Arctic Sea ice cover for in 2016 relative to 2008. Did that prediction come come close to the actual observed ice cower or was it even further off than the predictions you criticise now?

Kenneth, again no references - this Breitbart connected site is neither science nor news media: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/seven-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-would-be-ice-free-in-five-years/

Obviously we all know Al Gore isn't a climate modeler talking about his model predictions - and then he didn't actually say that appears to be quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

You can find several people who have predicted "an ice free" Arctic ("ice free" means less than means less than 1 million square kilometers, not that there is no ice at all), and selecting a few outliers doesn't prove anything. Most predictions suggest 2040 through 2060. Some of these prediction dates also depend on what is being predicted. Some are discussing an "ice free" summer only, which could happen before 2040 without the Arctic being ice free all year round.

I'm not sure what is proven by pointing toward outliers as estimates, or generalizing from outliers, or making grand historical claims, which seems to be a very bad way of having a scientific discussion.

Kenneth, in that literature, "ice free" does not mean no ice. It does not mean the polar ice cap disappears. There are various discussions of the definition of this term in the extant literature.

For example, in the 5th assessment report, IPCC doesn't refer to "ice free" but rather define the term "nearly ice-free conditions." Nearly ice-free means sea ice of less than 106 km(2) over a period of 5 consecutive years.

So, there is some need to refer to people who talk about sea ice and its definition appropriately, and not just make reference to anyone who has used the term outside of its more widely accepted definitions.

Vivek, I believe this issue was adequately explored in the following article, by several notable researchers, who point out the connection between CO2 concentrations historically, the distinction between background CO2 and different stages in earth's history, human additions to CO2 not due to background/natural CO2 production, and ice formation/melting.

Article Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should Humanity Aim?

Its not "quibbling" to define what is meant by a term. Something may exist or not exist depending on its definition, and this would seem to be an important issue when, for example, attempting to identify something in scientific terms. The fact that someone who is not a scientist (i.e., Al Gore) uses the term "ice free" in nonscientific ways should not, as a result of the scientific definition or understanding of this term, be used to suggest that scientists/scientific results are questionable given that each uses different definitions of the term. This is an example of the old idea of not comparing apples and oranges. But, mixing up definitions is useful if one is trying to imply that there is some question to be raised by using inappropriate definitions, data and contexts. Doing so is an example of a poor understanding of the extant literature on an issue, and is often offered in an effort to suggest confusion on a point that is not actually contentious.

Did nature give you carbon to use? Or did humans go "dig" it up and return it to other parts of the ecosystem? Could we say that in some way was it sequestered by nature to remove it to create a "hospitable" environment for life (as one might argue following Lovelock and the Gaia model), and that humans interfered with this process?

Speaking of missing he point....instead of just taking a line from an abstract, try reading an entire article. EG: The Hanson article you refer to above to prove your "point" about CO2 reduction via sequestration also clearly stated: " Preservation of a climate resembling that to which humanity is accustomed, the climate of the Holocene, requires that most remaining fossil fuel carbon is never emitted to the atmosphere" (p. 13). They continue "... if the world continues on a business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phase-out of unconstrained coal use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot of the 350 ppm level will be dim" (p. 14). And "Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet, preceded by a period of chaotic change with continually changing shorelines" (p. 16). And further "A practical global strategy almost surely requires a rising global price on CO2 emissions and phase-out of coal use except for cases where the CO2 is captured and sequestered. The carbon price should eliminate use of unconventional fossil fuels, unless, as is unlikely, the CO2 can be captured. " (p. 16).

Again. maybe you should read and cite more than the abstract of the article. The issue involves ways of reducing carbon emissions and a discussion of "negative emission technology." As you would note in reading the entire text, much focus is drawn to things other than your assumption about carbon capture technology -- they are not talking about some machine that takes carbon dioxide out of the air, but through the use of agricultural and forestry practices and "Intensive negative emission technologies," specifically referring to "burning of biofuels, most commonly at power plants, with capture and sequestration of resulting CO2", "direct air capture of CO2 and sequestration (Keith, 2009; NAS, 2015a), and "grinding and spreading of minerals such as olivine to enhance geological weathering..." Critiquing the idea of direct air capture, they note it " has high energy use, has not been demonstrated at scale, and cost estimates exceed those of BECCS..."

Their point is that you need to consider numerous alternative, and assess their costs and feasibility. Referring to that argument, they note " We know no persuasive scientific reason to a priori reject as implausible a rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions" (23). Indeed, part of their argument is that you can try and capture all the carbon dioxide you want, but that's not really feasible, and that you can't do that at the same time that you allow CO2 emissions to continue to escalate.

You don't really understand the Hansen or the Anderson/Peters arguments. Both provide criticism of some forms of negative emissions technology BECAUSE their argument is that we need to reduce -- contrary to the position you take -- carbon emissions. They suggest -- especially Anderson/Peters -- that we can't wait and hope that some new technology comes along that can suck carbon out of the air. Rather, we need to limit emission now, and do so in significant ways.

Climatic impacts of the October 2011 to March 2012 El Hierro submarine volcanic eruption in the North Atlantic Ocean may be the cause of the record low Arctic sea ice during 2012. See article attached.

Vivek

The 2015-2016 ENSO may be the cause of the warming observed. Another volcanic eruption initially submarine Nishinoshima 940 km south of Tokyo may have played an important role. It has provided an explanation for the development of the North Pacific blob (see attached article).

A NOAA-sponsored report shows that the warming trend transforming the Arctic persisted in 2017, resulting in the second warmest air temperatures, above average ocean temperatures, loss of sea ice, and a range of human, ocean and ecosystem effects.

http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/arctic-saw-2nd-warmest-year-smallest-winter-sea-ice-coverage-on-record-in-2017

Regards

Yes, Why not. that is possible.

Dear Kenneth,

Given that any period in history is repeated, it would also not excluded. If the time series to examine scientifically proved that I think was possible.

Unfortunately, this is possible in several dozen years if man does not stop the climate warming up faster and faster.

Dear Vivek Kumar, Thank you very much for making very important inquiries on the Research Gate portal and inspiring important discussions on particularly important issues.

The issue of climate change, climate warming, rising average temperature on the Earth, the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth and the associated new climate disasters is probably the most important topic for discussion, research and for human activity in the 21st century.

The topics related to the greenhouse effect on Earth, which are the subject of discussion, are particularly important and scientifically important and in the context of human life.

I wish you all good and best regards

More and more research centers operating in different countries and investigating climate change state that the progressing greenhouse effect on Earth is already a fact. As a result, the risk of increasingly frequent and increasingly dramatic climate disasters is increasing. Man has less and less time to counteract these negative processes.

It is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth through destruction for future generations.

I invite you to the discussion

With the increasing temperature as a result of global warming, it is possible that the Arctic will melt one day covering all areas below the sea level. But we should put in mind that ALLAH almighty has the power to change all predictions.

Geothermal heat released through submarine volcanic eruptions may have been the cause of decadal Arctic sea ice variability. See attachment.

Has Arctic Sea Ice Loss Contributed to Increased Surface Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet

In recent decades, the Greenland ice sheet has experienced increased surface melt. The underlying cause of this increased surface melting and how it relates to cryospheric changes across the Arctic remain unclear.

The article indicates that Arctic sea ice is an important contributor to recent surface melt over Greenland through the effects of sea ice loss on the atmosphere. The study also reveals a physical mechanism underlining their connectivity using both observational data and numerical simulations.

Article Has Arctic Sea Ice Loss Contributed to Increased Surface Mel...

The reason the land ice melt in the Arctic is that the air temperature is higher than the climate normal every summer.

The article provided by Dr. Asit Kumar Batabyal shows in figure 14A a summertemperature increase of 2½-3 °C over 35 years.

Article Has Arctic Sea Ice Loss Contributed to Increased Surface Mel...

I agree with @ Hazim Al Dilaimy, nothing is stronger than the will of ALLAH.

Regarding the possibility that the arctic will be ice free some interpretation of the definition of "frosen" is needed. Obviously even with 3-5 °C increase there will still be glaciers inland on the northern part of Greenland, just like there are glaciers in Norway today. The sea will still freeze every winter but we are moving towards that the sea ice doesn't survive through the summer in some decades time (NASA graph of September sea ice cower in the Arctic over the years).

Open sea at the geographic north pole was reported in local media for at least one day around the end of the melt season of 2016, but minor holes in the sea ice at the pole has occurred several time before.

Underwater melting of Antarctic ice far greater than thought, study finds

Hidden underwater melt-off in the Antarctic is doubling every 20 years and could soon overtake Greenland to become the biggest source of sea-level rise, according to the first complete underwater map of the world’s largest body of ice.

Warming waters have caused the base of ice near the ocean floor around the south pole to shrink by 1,463 square kilometres – an area the size of Greater London – between 2010 and 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/02/underwater-melting-of-antarctic-ice-far-greater-than-thought-study-finds

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0082-z

Scientists predict that temperatures will continue to rise significantly affecting the thickness of the ice in the coming years. Several years ago they expected full melting of the ice in summer periods between 2070 and 2100. Now this phenomenon is expected to occur from 2030, Global warming is twice what it was in recent years, but who knows what will happen in the next few years may melt away much faster than expected!