NSIDC 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: July poll

[Neven]

ATTENTION: There are two polls on the ASIF. One is for NSIDC sea ice extent monthly/September average minimum (the one that is used for the SIPN sea ice outlook), the other is for JAXA sea ice extent daily minimum (provided by ADS, previously by IJIS). Make sure you are aware of the difference before voting. You can discuss various extent/area data sets in this dedicated thread.

-----

This NSIDC extent poll will run for 10 days (until July 12th). Until then you can change your vote. There will be a new poll next month.

Here's how things are currently looking based on data up to June 30th:



These are the September minimums for the last 11 years (in millions km2, found here):

    2005: 5.57
    2006: 5.92
    2007: 4.30
    2008: 4.73
    2009: 5.39
    2010: 4.93
    2011: 4.63
    2012: 3.63
    2013: 5.35
    2014: 5.28
    2015: 4.63

You can use the comment thread below to motivate your choice, but discuss various SIE/SIA data sets in this dedicated thread.

[Neven]

I voted 4.25-4.5 for now, may change it before voting closes in 10 days. Last month I voted 4.0-4.25, so up one bin.

[Lord M Vader]

I put my vote for 4,5-4,75 Mn km².

Given the lack of melting momentum during June it's hard to imagine an average SIE to be below 4,5 Mn km² which only 2012 and 2007 have managed wo do. If high pressure is going to dominate through July and the beginning of August, I think 4,51-4,59 Mn km² is a possible outcome for average September SIE.

Best, LMV

[Juan C. García]

I am going with 4.00-4.25. I still believe that 2016 is going to be below 2007.

It is time to happen! After all, 2011 and 2015 were close to be under 2007 (In fact, 2011 was under 2007 value, according to Bremen University). 

[VeliAlbertKallio]

I have felt necessary to readjust the my previous sea ice area minimum estimage down by further 1 million km2 (to 1.75-2.00 million km2) due to the US Navy's revised estimates on sea ice thickness: https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif In my view the revised estimates make important corrections to earlier assumptions used.

[seaicesailor]

Keeping it at 4 to 4.25 m km2. A late momentum can make a lot of harm given the horrendous conditions of the ice in the Pacific side and the ice burning at the Atlantic side. Very hot CAA Canada in general and Greenland. Would be strange it finishes above 2007.
However this momentum building might be short-lived and many more educated guesses point toward higher values. Ready to go up a bin or two i guess.

[magnamentis]

i opted for 4-4.25 here and 3.75-4.0 in the other poll. i find it interesting that the majority voted 3.75-4.0 here while in the other poll that will provide lower result the main vote is higher than here, at least as per this afternoon. i think neven's post 2 in this thread has not been considered or it's me :-)

[Sleepy]

I'll stick with the same as last month, 4.25-4.5.

Edit; adding to magnamentis comment, what I find interesting is the ADS June poll, as it clearly reflects opinions in comments during May on this forum. Now, I can use every hyperbolistic word imaginable to describe my own opinions and feelings about climate change, but those will not melt the ice up there. Well, maybe if I'm angry and active enough I might contribute with a few watts momentarily. But as my nick shows, I'm mostly neither.

[slow wing]

Before voting, I'm going to wait and see how much, or little, damage the currently building deep low pressure system is going to do to the ice in the Arctic Basin over the next few days.

[bbr2314]

Before voting, I'm going to wait and see how much, or little, damage the currently building deep low pressure system is going to do to the ice in the Arctic Basin over the next few days.

The model linked above would imply a fairly horrific outcome (lower thickness higher extent vs other NRL model).



Here's the uncorrected which has higher thickness but lower area, which plunges further after the coming event...

[abbottisgone]

I'm doubling down- AGAIN  : 3.75 to 4.00 thanx buddy    ( )

[Michael Hauber]

4 - 4.25

[magnamentis]

Before voting, I'm going to wait and see how much, or little, damage the currently building deep low pressure system is going to do to the ice in the Arctic Basin over the next few days.

[HUMOUR]
sure it's more careful to vote mid months once almost there and more facts laying on the table
HUMOUR END]

just what crossed my mind but with a big smile, hope it's well taken, else accept my apologies and i'll remember.

[slow wing]

Ah no, I don't mind the humour 

Ah alright, I'll do a guess now but I might change it when I see Wipneus' PIOMAS volume plots and what the storm has done.

  I think the shape is going to look a bit like 2007. I've sketched it on top of the University of Bremen sea ice concentration map for 3 July 2016.

The circle inside 80 degrees North has an area of 3.9 million square kilometres so, eyeballing the area by comparison with that, I think it's within the 3.00-3.25 million square kilometres bin. I choose that then as my provisional vote.

[VeliAlbertKallio]

I wonder if someone tampered the US Navy sea ice thickness link and make a (bad) joke. All my browsers now report the ASIF link I copied from earlier post as an insecure: https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif

I would like the person who posted it in the first place to ASIF site come forward and give an explanation, if possible. It was showing very strong sea ice thinning and polnya forming yesterday. But also the older US Navy sea ice thickness graph shows major thinning and it is running normally in all browsers: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif

Just in case the first link above were fake, I think we should take action if someone conjures up junk data to ASIF formums. I suppose though, it is something to do with US Navy network set up which is not fully recognized by browsers, or the site for revised sea ice thickness model is in development. Any wisdom on that?

[VeliAlbertKallio]

Here is the post by Laurent which my three Internet browsers today suggest takes to a 'fake' web site of US Navy: https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif

This could just be a network setting issue rather than a link to site presenting fake data. (The above site showed yesterday a quite much more sea ice thinning and melting 2.7.2016 than the regular site with large polnyas forming virtually everywhere in the Arctic Ocean.)

May be Laurent or someone else can clarify the link, I enclose below Laurent's original post where this link appeared first in ASIF. I am trying to get connected to it to view its data for today (3.7.2016). Any help or clarification on this would be much appreciated. Original link on ASIF here:

 Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June) « Reply #967 on: June 15, 2016, 01:34:53 PM » Quote There is an other bias with Hycom, because there is actual thickness and the forecast which will vary (sometimes a lot, they have improve thought). What part of the Arctic are you talking to, it is better if you address a precise area so we can check with modis or over tools what is going on. yes Hycom is showing melting and that is normal, Jdallen is saying 2cm/day, it can be more. There is a newer tool with Hycom showing slightly different view on the melting. https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif I don't know which one best describe reality, as I said previously it is by crossing the informations between tools that we can have a good understanding of what is going on.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 01:45:07 PM by Laurent » http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?reportsent;topic=119.msg80279#msg80279

[Laurent]

I don't know what is your problem !? The link works fine with me. Try 2 directories above : https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/ ?

Certainly a problem of certificate ? Does someone else have the problem ?
What is the error ?
If it is a fake it is very well done... https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/

[binntho]

VeliAlbertKallio, the https site uses SHA1 encryption which many modern browsers see as being not secure enough. Perhaps it's a question of tweeking your security settings?

The site loads fine in my Chrome, but with a big red warning - and the thinning it shows is truly scary towards the end.

[Tealight]

I voted 4.25-4.5 according to my model, but maybe should vote one bin higher.

Given the current conditions I believe that large areas of the arctic don't fall below the 15% threshold by September resulting in a large extent to area ratio like in 2010 and 2012. The predicted heat this week over the Canadian side doesn't help reducing extent either.

For area 2016 is in a good position to tie with 2011 in second place.

Daily minimum Area
+1SD: 3.2
avg: 2.93
-1SD: 2.657

Average September extent
+1SD: 4.899
avg: 4.482
-1SD: 4.064

[Paddy]

Going up to 4.0 - 4.25

[Archimid]

Same post as in the other poll thread:

 PIOMASS is in. Time to make my vote. I voted 0 again. I think that the relatively slow June was mostly due to two things.
1. The Sun went very quiet.
2. A strong El niño is no longer active and it is at neutral/almost la niña. Now the La niña seemed to have stabilized. Global weather however has not. The silence of typhoons in the pacific is an eerie sign from an energy conservation point of view. Heatwaves in Russia and Canada are at full swing.  The Atlantic is remarkably warm.  The all the blobs of temperatures anomaly are still there. I think chances for freak weather are very high. I remain at 0, even when the likelihood for such event are down to weather, because the potential for catastrophic weather is there.

[epiphyte]

I just dropped 2 bins, to 3.0-3.25.  All of the periphery and most of CAB looks bad to me... Not like CAB in 2013, when there was a lot of open water, but also many big MYI floes which weren't going away. Rather, like laptev in Aug 2014 - granular at best, often amorphous. The kind of ice which gets covered in cloud one day, and when the sky clears, it's not there anymore.

...But that was August... This is early July. PIOMAS notwithstanding, I think there is more than one surprise in store...

[VeliAlbertKallio]

I suggest that the sea ice minimum would be about 750,000 to 1 million km2 in NSIDC. (A lot of that assessment hinges on assumption that the updated model by US Navy is an improvement onto the older Navy model which would suggest one million km2 larger sea ice area.)

On the lines of Arctic News editor, I think it possible that if the Arctic Ocean's sea ice fell to very low levels, the freezing season could be postponed some 4 weeks to early days of October. Thus the minimum sea ice idea could occur a bit later this year than on the previous years due to high sea temperatures - especially if the melt is driven more from the base of sea ice than usually (due to entry of warmer sea currents, riparian discharges and vertical mixing of the ocean).

It follows from the above that there appears a judgemental bias in Neven's poll titled as "NSIDC 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum", when in fact this minimum might appear in October instead. Therefore, Neven's idea of sea ice minimum equalling month of September represents a bias and in contravention of the opinion expressed by the editor of the Arctic News blog. Let me suggest that we interprete the above as applicable to the actual yearly minimum, whatever month that may be. I do not see point setting up a poll in September for the October minimum if circumstances so arised as the end of season melting is overall very small and stagnant.

I think my above propositon is acceptable to everybody that the "SIE minimum in September" is read as "annual SIE minimum" whatever month that might be. Agreeable to everyone? 

https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif

[Tor Bejnar]

VeliAlbertKallio,
Note the very first post in this thread includes

ATTENTION: There are two polls on the ASIF. One is for NSIDC sea ice extent monthly/September average minimum (the one that is used for the SIPN sea ice outlook), the other is for JAXA sea ice extent daily minimum (provided by ADS, previously by IJIS). Make sure you are aware of the difference before voting. You can discuss various extent/area data sets in this dedicated thread.
...

(highlighting aded)  I'd be very surprised if the October monthly average was less than the September average, even if the actual minimum was during the first few days of October.  (Ice growth in October exceeds ice loss in September.)

[Neven]

VeliAlbertKallio, I'm speechless.

[icefisher]

Moved up 1 bin from 4-4.25 to 4.25-4.5.  June weather = ice retention.  Added more ice in ESS and CAA at seasons end.  Range 4.19-4.31.  May go back down if dipole strengthens or lengthens.  Weather becomes more dominant as the melt season continues.  4.25 looks doable at this time.

[OSweetMrMath]

For the last two months, I have voted in the IJIS-JAXA poll, but my vote was based on my NSIDC monthly prediction, so this month I'm voting in the appropriate place. My current prediction is 4.6 million sq km, so I voted in the 4.5-4.75 bucket. This is consistent with my votes in the other poll, considering the measurement differences between the two. As always, my prediction is based on the model I describe in http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1363.0.html, updated for the most recent data.

[slow wing]

Poll closes in a day or so. I'll stick with my provisional reasoning and value of Reply #13
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1594.msg82273.html#msg82273

So 3.00-3.25 million square kilometres and a new record, beating the previous record of 3.63 in those units from 2012.

  Mainly from inspecting EOSDIS Worldview, I view the ice as generally in worse shape than in previous years, including 2012. I consider that it is also more aggressively eaten away at 'the sides' than in 2012: both in the Beaufort Sea and from the Atlantic side.

Admittedly, 2012 was ahead at this time of year in many places on the Russian side. Particularly, the ice still looks in OK condition in the region spanned by 5 to 10 degrees of longitude from the Pole and 90E to 150E. However, the ice is flaking away more on the Atlantic side of that. So I am quite uncertain on how much of that ice will survive the melt season.

Also, how much heat has gone under the ice on the Altantic side in the past few months? And how available is any such heat to melt the ice above it? The Atlantic side has been hotter than usual for all of 2016 so far so I'm guessing that will enhance the bottom melt on the Atlantic side over the next 2 months. It's just a hunch though - the water temperature and flow data isn't there to check it.

It's going to be a fascinating couple of months 

[Sleepy]

I'll go up one bin to 4.5-4.75.

[Tigertown]

On the lines of Arctic News editor, I think it possible that if the Arctic Ocean's sea ice fell to very low levels, the freezing season could be postponed some 4 weeks to early days of October. Thus the minimum sea ice idea could occur a bit later this year than on the previous years due to high sea temperatures - especially if the melt is driven more from the base of sea ice than usually (due to entry of warmer sea currents, riparian discharges and vertical mixing of the ocean).

It follows from the above that there appears a judgemental bias in Neven's poll titled as "NSIDC 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum", when in fact this minimum might appear in October instead. Therefore, Neven's idea of sea ice minimum equalling month of September represents a bias and in contravention of the opinion expressed by the editor of the Arctic News blog. Let me suggest that we interprete the above as applicable to the actual yearly minimum, whatever month that may be. I do not see point setting up a poll in September for the October minimum if circumstances so arised as the end of season melting is overall very small and stagnant.

I think my above propositon is acceptable to everybody that the "SIE minimum in September" is read as "annual SIE minimum" whatever month that might be. Agreeable to everyone? 

Dude!!! Why you gotta dis Neven like that?

[jdallen]

I think my above propositon is acceptable to everybody that the "SIE minimum in September" is read as "annual SIE minimum" whatever month that might be. Agreeable to everyone? 

VeliAlbertKallio - I would ask, before you toss something on to these forums, with attitude and judgement, that perhaps you *FIRST* communicate with the owner privately first?  Judgemental bias?  Do realize how absurd that sounds?

[Neven]

I'll go up one bin to 4.5-4.75.

Me too. I don't see this one going much lower than 2011 and 2015.

[Neven]

Dude!!! Why you gotta dis Neven like that?

He's dissing himself. He'll vote 0 every year, no matter what the poll parameters are. I really wonder how many people are going to vote below 1 million km2 next month, and how genuine they are. 

[Tor Bejnar]

My vote is up two bins, now aiming for a 2nd or 3rd place for 2016 minimum (4.25-4.5).  End-of-June PIOMAS results tells me that weather is more important than I previous thought. (Some people - like me - are slow to learn!)

[AbruptSLR]

My vote is up two bins, now aiming for a 2nd or 3rd place for 2016 minimum (4.25-4.5).  End-of-June PIOMAS results tells me that weather is more important than I previous thought. (Some people - like me - are slow to learn!)

Of course if weather is more important than you previously thought and the weather changes to sustain a GAC at the end of July or the beginning of August, then we could see another change in momentum into the 3.25 to 3.5 range.  Just saying

[Tor Bejnar]

...which pretty much makes this poll just a crap shoot, within limits.  (But it's fun!)  Folks who use a multi-year based model to project their entries are likely to do better than "I believe" folks.

[VeliAlbertKallio]

My apologies for the oversight pointed out by Tor Bejnar. Indeed, I would also be very surprised if sea ice average of October were lower than in September. Tor also correctly noticed and pointed out my rather embarrasing error of thinking the sea ice at its minimum point, rather than citing the month's average. As per Neven's comment: "VeliAlbertKallio, I'm speechless." I am sorry of my carelessness as you did emphasise this issue at the beginning of thread and I yet failed to take a proper notice of it. I also wonder if others who suggest very lower SIE aras, are also making same error and citing the minimum point rather that month's average.

As per my reasoning, I stated in my comment that my suggestion follows solely the sea ice melting as expressed on the model: https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif. I do have taken prints, day-to-day, to compare this model's sea ice loss rates and these suggest me considerably less sea ice than the older version where the loss of ice mass is less intense: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif The University of Bremen map shows ice heavily fractured this year, but the ice loss there is also less agressive: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png I suggested in my comment that the ice would remain twice as large if the older US Navy or other sea ice models were followed.

I never intended to participate in JAXA poll. I will stick on NSIDC poll only and I have amended it to monthly average SIE estimate for September here based on my estimates of rate of ice losses as seen (until 10.7.2016) on model: https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif (My bet is still very low at 1.75-2 million km2.) 2016 is the first time I take part in this poll. I have not forecasted sea ice losses since years 2005-2006 period when I hit the summer 2007 jackpot over the Arctic Council's "Arctic Impact" report.

[Neven]

VeliAlbertKallio, that model is most likely wrong, as it isn't corroborated by any other data. Also see here.

I may have to go and ask the NRL to put up some caveat-text on their website, because too many people are taking these maps at face value and then run with it.  It can come to no good.

[P-maker]

Just under 3 M km² for the records. Mainly based on visual information provided during the past month.