Parametric Study of Prompt Methane Release Impacts III: AOGCM Results Which Respect Historical PIOMAS Measurements

Of immediate widespread concern is the accelerating transition from Holocene-like weather patterns to unknown, and likely unstable, Anthropocene patterns. A fell example is irreversible Arctic phase change. It is not clear if existing AOGCMs are adequate to model anticipated global impacts in detail; however, the GISS ModelE AOGCM can be used to locally compare and extend the PIOMAS Arctic ocean historical ice-volume dataset into the near future. Arctic Amplification (AA) mechanisms are poorly understood; to enable timely results, a simple linear, Arctic TOA grid-boundary energy-input is used to enforce AA, avoiding the perils of arbitrary modification of relatively well-studied parameterizations (e.g., restriction of cloud-top height to induce local warming). Only PIOMAS springtime/max and fall/min Arctic ice-volume decadal, linear trends were enforced. This temporally-broad grid-boundary modification produces a surprisingly detailed consonance with monthly trends in the historical PIOMAS dataset from 2003 to 2021, and is integrated to 2050. The result is a zero-ice-volume, summer/fall half-year, beginning ca. 2035 (onset 1-sigma of ± ~5 years), with mean annual Arctic temperatures increasingly trending above freezing. Persistent, Arctic phase change follows this half-year transition about 20 years later. Also present in later stages, the 500 hPa height minimum is no longer nearly-coincident with the pole, suggesting jet stream disruption and its consequences. Hypothesized large clathrate-methane releases likely associated with Arctic temperature and phase change are also examined. A basic assumption is that the Arctic ice (i.e., temperature) must be preserved at all costs. This work establishes a reasonably detailed timeline for the Arctic phase change based on well-studied AOGCM physics, slightly tuned to decades of PIOMAS data. This result also points to the Arctic as a key, near-term site for localized, nondestructive intervention to mitigate Arctic phase change (e.g., Stjern [2018]), thereby slowing the Holocene -> Anthropocene growing-season disruption. Although such an intervention cannot itself accomplish the requirements of the IPCC SP-15 [2018], nor Planetary Boundaries theory, delaying the Arctic phase change will likely extend the time-window for accomplishing those critical tasks and ultimately to at least slow the rate of increase of climate emergencies.