ADS-JAXA 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: May poll

[Juan C. García]

Knowing that NSIDC and Cryosphere Today are having problems, one of the great sources for Sea Ice Extent is the Japanese group ADS-JAXA, formerly known also as IJIS.
This ADS-JAXA extent poll will run for 10 days (until May 19th). Until then you can change your vote. There will be a new poll next month.

These are the daily September minimums (in millions km2):

1980's Avg:   7.23
1990's Avg:   6.55
2000's Avg:   5.48
2003:   5.93
2004:   5.68
2005:   5.18
2006:   5.63
2007:   4.07
2008:   4.50
2009:   5.05
2010:   4.62
2011:   4.27
2012:   3.18
2013:   4.81
2014:   4.88
2015:   4.26

You can use the comment thread below to motivate your choice, but discuss various SIE data sets in this dedicated thread.
You can also see the actual graph published by ADS here.

[abbottisgone]

I guessed between 4.0 and 4.25, retaining a mustard seed of faith!

[Juan C. García]

I don't want to jump the gun here, it's up to Neven, but can we start the polls on the minimum soon?  I know we have limited sources of data this year unfortunately.  I will throw in my totally uneducated and intuitive vote but I really want to know what all you knowledgeable people are predicting.  Thoughts?  Is it too soon?

At this point, I'd say the best we can do is probabilities, not absolute predictions.  There is too much which can change, it's too stochastic.

But to humor your intent, let me post this.

Baseline averages              2003-2015   2007-2015
2003-2015 Average Loss         7804249         8243351
5/8 2016 Extent                      11782166     11782166
2003-2015 Loss STDEV            862377          580786
+2                                             5702671       4700387
+1                                             4840294       4119601
Average                                     3977917       3538815
-1                                              3115540       2958029
-2                                              2253163       2377243

So, if we use 2007+ as our baseline, we've got pretty close to a 50% chance of passing 2012.  I'd say that's the best we can predict at this point.

Either baseline, we have close to a 66% chance of beating 2007/2011/2015.  I'd say that's the best prediction we can make at this point.

From my point of view, I think that we have 50% chance to be at the same level of 2012. And I should say that It concerns me. I cannot accept that the Arctic sea ice is at completly bad shape at this moment and the media does not seem to care.

It is also worrisome if there is an increase in sea level rise, with an increase of melting at Greenland, like it happened at 2012.

Anyway, I vote at the 3.00-3.25 interval, that will be similar to 2012.

[Okono]

This is enormously parlous to predict, more so than in prior years, because the ice is doing many novel things right now.  The uncertainty is just too much for me to make any SWAG, so I went for under 1.5m km^2 just for fun.

[abbottisgone]

This is enormously parlous to predict, more so than in prior years, because the ice is doing many novel things right now.  The uncertainty is just too much for me to make any SWAG, so I went for under 1.5m km^2 just for fun.

As my Grandfather said: all you've got in this world is your health and sense of humour!

(Where is the 'gulp' emoticon when you need it  )

[Watching_from_Canberra]

This isn't particularly scientific, but I took today's JAXA sea ice extent graph and simply cut/pasted the 2000's average trajectory on to the end of the 2016 line.  Essentially, I just cut off the plots after today's date and moved them down.  As it happens, the 2000's average and 2012 figure almost coincide for today's date.  This is convenient because it shows two different possible trajectories from today.

I drew a box across to the axis to indicate where the adjusted minima occur.  If the rest of 2016 follows the 2000's average trajectory, the minimum occurs at approximately 4.5 million km2.  If the rest of 2016 follows the 2012 trajectory, the minimum occurs at just over 2 million km2.

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

[abbottisgone]

This isn't particularly scientific, but I took today's JAXA sea ice extent graph and simply cut/pasted the 2000's average trajectory on to the end of the 2016 line.  Essentially, I just cut off the plots after today's date and moved them down.  As it happens, the 2000's average and 2012 figure almost coincide for today's date.  This is convenient because it shows two different possible trajectories from today.

I drew a box across to the axis to indicate where the adjusted minima occur.  If the rest of 2016 follows the 2000's average trajectory, the minimum occurs at approximately 4.5 million km2.  If the rest of 2016 follows the 2012 trajectory, the minimum occurs at just over 2 million km2.

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

What a perfect way to illustrate how much of an anomaly 2012 was...

Jokes aside, I was reading nevens blog today and I think Wayne was saying how 1998 really was the demarcation point to recent history's foray into a new Arctic sea ice domain... The implication being that big el ninos (  Que mi hablar amigos?) are permanent change!

Could it be because I've just recently got into writing cryptic crosswords..... Just saying!

[6roucho]

This is enormously parlous to predict, more so than in prior years, because the ice is doing many novel things right now.  The uncertainty is just too much for me to make any SWAG, so I went for under 1.5m km^2 just for fun.

It's becoming a gamble now, with picking the timing of a possible state change being like picking the timing of top of a market. When in doubt, presume the market has turned. In which case, lowball guesstimates are as worthwhile as any other. I still went for 2-2.25 though, using similar reasoning to Watching From Canberra.

[DoomInTheUK]

I see, the second Neven goes on holiday a poll suddenly springs up!

I went for just under 2012 - but the caveat is that it'll be thin, broken up and just about hanging on. The way the last few years have gone though I feel I could make a reasonable argument for just about any figure.

[6roucho]

It's in the lap of the weather.

[Jim Pettit]

This isn't particularly scientific, but I took today's JAXA sea ice extent graph and simply cut/pasted the 2000's average trajectory on to the end of the 2016 line.  Essentially, I just cut off the plots after today's date and moved them down.  As it happens, the 2000's average and 2012 figure almost coincide for today's date.  This is convenient because it shows two different possible trajectories from today.

I drew a box across to the axis to indicate where the adjusted minima occur.  If the rest of 2016 follows the 2000's average trajectory, the minimum occurs at approximately 4.5 million km2.  If the rest of 2016 follows the 2012 trajectory, the minimum occurs at just over 2 million km2.

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

FWIW, I maintain a graph that does all that work for you:

[Watching_from_Canberra]

Thanks - that's much more useful.  I had noticed that graph on the daily graphs page but hadn't appreciated what it was doing.  Looking at that suggests a reasonable possibility of record low.  Certainly wouldn't bet the house on it though.

[abbottisgone]

Thanks - that's much more useful.  I had noticed that graph on the daily graphs page but hadn't appreciated what it was doing.  Looking at that suggests a reasonable possibility of record low.  Certainly wouldn't bet the house on it though.

I especially like the note: so thoughtful 

[magnamentis]

just for the records, game on   

My Vote: Between 2.75 and 3.0 million km2

[OldLeatherneck]

While it's a bit early to predict anything with certainty, I stuck my neck out and selected 2.75 - 3.0.

My only rationale for this is that the stage seems set for well above average losses in the very near-term.  According to my simplistic modelling, if 2016 losses from today forward till early September exceed average losses by 10%, it would be essentially tied with 2012. I can see a path for greater losses than that.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a wild ride this year!!

[seaicesailor]

3.25 - 3.50 Mkm2, initial guess.
Initial momentum for Arctic ice meltdown.
But, plenty of resilient ice within 80N+ and piled up from CAB toward ESS.
Plus, the old ice at Beaufort is far from the coast and will take much time to melt.
Plus, the GAC was a black swan until demonstrated otherwise.
So close to 2012 but not below.

[crandles]

I like Rob Dekkers work indicating snow cover is important
eg http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/07/problematic-predictions-2.html
as submitted to SIPN: https://www.arcus.org/files/sio/23168/dekker_june2015.pdf

Snow cover looks very low this year so I don't see any reason not to expect a big melt. Went for 2.75-3 (though I have done any calculations using this method to see what it suggests.)

[AmbiValent]

I went for 2.25 -2.5. Could easily be more, but could also be less. I think there will be a strong core of thick ice north of the CAA and Greenland to the North Pole, and I'm at least 80% sure that both passages will be open, given the ice in Kara and Beaufort is already under heavy attack. Other than that, I think it will heavily depend on the weather.

[oren]

Whoever started the poll, could you please enable editing?

I voted for 3.50-3.75 but after watching the graphs I will change to 3.25-3.50 .
I believe 2012 was an anomaly with the GAC doing most of the anomalous work. Certainly something like that could return this year, and in that case a blue arctic could be in the cards; but I think the more probable path is an above-normal melting season starting from an already low point, and ending beyond all other years except the GAC year.

[Juan C. García]

Whoever started the poll, could you please enable editing?

I don´t know why we are unable to change our vote. I am sure that I choosed the option in which we can change the vote, but it is not working and the poll edit page does not give me the option to change this variable.

[Archimid]

I guess I'm the first to bet on 0. It's  a good pick I think. Here is why

1. Just like  "greater than 5", it only has one side. Once its reached I win(but we all lose).

2. EL niño is still going on and with chances of coming back. Even if we get a la niña, it will be moderate and so far running late, so the atmosphere will remain much warmer than average for at least the early summer, increasing the chances for all kinds of crazy weather.

3. From what I gather here and everywhere else, this winter was unprecedented in the scientific record. Of course the same could be said for  many years in the record,  the record is not old enough and the ice has been shrinking since the begging of records. But still, the severity of it coupled with SST's of the Pacific and Atlantic make it particularly unprecedented.

[jplotinus]

1.75-2.00 here. I hope it's not that bad, but if a "1" handle should occur, the chances that even mainstream media might begin to "get it" will be increased.

[Glenn Tamblyn]

I went for 3.0-3.25

Extent is ahead of every other year and volume is near record lows. And the state of the ice makes it look vulnerable.So at first glance you would think a record likely. But. 2012 was unlike other years. Instead of the curve starting to bottom out around mid/late August, 2012 kept descending sharply. To be confident of beating 2012 we would need something similar this year - Jim Pettit's graph highlights that.

If something like that were to happen this year, a new record is possible.

[Tor Bejnar]

Using Jim Pettit's graphed projections, I went for half-way between the 2007 and 2012 possibilities (just over 2.5 m km^2).

[Vergent]

[OSweetMrMath]

I usually make predictions for the monthly ice extent based on the NSIDC, not the daily extent based on JAXA. I am considering setting up predictions from JAXA because of the satellite problems affecting the NSIDC data. Until then, we can still do some comparisons. Based on the March data, my prediction for the NSIDC monthly extent in December was 4.7 million sq km, around the same level as in 2008. We don't have official NSIDC data for April yet, but all other sources show the April ice as low. However, after adjusting for the trend, ice extent in April does not have a large impact on ice extent in September.

Therefore, I am currently predicting that the JAXA daily minimum extent will be slightly below the 2008 minimum, or 4.25 - 4.5 million sq km. Based on my model, 4.0 - 4.25 would also be a reasonable prediction. The prediction error is large enough that much lower extents (3.0 or so) are not impossible, but my model does not justify predictions at that level at this time.

[werther]

I voted in the 3.75-4 Mkm2 box. It is a mean September value. It could get slightly lower on the minimum day.
I expect this to be a preppers' year, much like '10 or '11. Volume will be severely hit. But there's still an awful lot of it to be crushed.

[P-maker]

This year bears resemblance to other remarkable years. I base my guess of 2.1 (+/- 0.6)  x 10E6 km2) on the following indicators:

1)   May SSTs are well above average in the Caribbean, which normally leads to excessive ice loss in the Arctic in September
2)   May snow cover in the NH has never been lower, which normally leads to excessive melt ponds in the Arctic
3)   Ice extent in the peripheral seas has never been lower, and the ice has never been thinner
4)   1998, 2007 and 2016 were all heavily influenced by ongoing/vanishing  El Nino events
5)   2016 NH late summer may be heavily influenced by tropical cyclones  lifting warm air into the Arctic
6)   2016 NH wild fires will be shading the mid-latitudes and darkening the remaining Arctic snow surfaces
7)   2016 will provide surprises hitherto un-observed by man, which will take us all by surprise
   2012 was the odd year heavily influenced by the late season GAC, thus of no statistical significance
9)   2016 will provide the new base load figure for Arctic sea ice extent – leading to a total collapse in 2025 (5 year average < 1 million square km).

Cheers P

[AbruptSLR]

I voted between 2.0 and 2.25 million km2; because I expect a Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016 to do some damage before mid-summer:

[P-maker]

ASL,

I'm always open for a GAC, but please remember that an early, mid-summer and late GAC will impact Arctic sea ice extent in a completely different manner.

As long as we agree on the numbers, I have no problem discussing the details of how we get there.

[AbruptSLR]

ASL,

I'm always open for a GAC, but please remember that an early, mid-summer and late GAC will impact Arctic sea ice extent in a completely different manner.

As long as we agree on the numbers, I have no problem discussing the details of how we get there.

By the end of July I expect a fair amount of open water in the Arctic Ocean, so that by the first week in August a GAC can thrive at the ice/water boundary for some time and stir-up deeper warmer water to surface that might continue ice extent loss after the solar intensity starts to diminish.

[Carex]

I will throw my penny in the just under 2.0 pot.  I am going low because for the last two years the ice has been in poor condition and vulnerable to an Arctic storm.  I don't think we will dodge the bullet again, I'm betting on two significant storms.  Now it the chicken will just poop on my square.

[abbottisgone]

1.75-2.00 here. I hope it's not that bad, but if a "1" handle should occur, the chances that even mainstream media might begin to "get it" will be increased.

If it's under 2.00 I bet Trump will be doing some serious talking points on it!

[anotheramethyst]

I said between 2.5 and 2.75 partly because of the crazy start and partly because of the similarity to the 1998 el niño.  While 1998 did seem to usher in a new era of sea ice, I don't think every monster niño will necessarily do that.  There was a lot more multiyear ice to destroy back then.  I do think this year will be lowest on record, but I make no predictions about next year. 

[abbottisgone]

I said between 2.5 and 2.75 partly because of the crazy start and partly because of the similarity to the 1998 el niño.  While 1998 did seem to usher in a new era of sea ice, I don't think every monster niño will necessarily do that.  There was a lot more multiyear ice to destroy back then.  I do think this year will be lowest on record, but I make no predictions about next year. 

Why would there being more multi-year ice back then make any difference to whether monster el ninos keep having a permanent effect?

[seaicesailor]

I said between 2.5 and 2.75 partly because of the crazy start and partly because of the similarity to the 1998 el niño.  While 1998 did seem to usher in a new era of sea ice, I don't think every monster niño will necessarily do that.  There was a lot more multiyear ice to destroy back then.  I do think this year will be lowest on record, but I make no predictions about next year. 

Why would there being more multi-year ice back then make any difference to whether monster el ninos keep having a permanent effect?

It makes sense. 1998 much more abundant MYI would resist much better the NH warmth of this year.

[anotheramethyst]

I guess I wasn't clear.  Basically I was thinking 1998 melted a lot of multi year ice which would weaken the arctic in following summers as well.  Unfortunately, now there is hardly any multi year ice, so theoretically we could see a blue ocean event and then have it all refreeze to first year ice in the winter, which isn't too different from the ice we have now.  I could be wrong, of course.  There are other feedbacks that could kick in instead.

[abbottisgone]

I suppose you're both right: I was trying to get you to put it in words and I was hoping to come up with a different angle on the whole idea by the time you responded.

I suppose I can't think of a legitimately alternative opinion: tho I am still working on it... can you hear my mind wirring?

 

[abbottisgone]

(...this is where I'm at on this,)

- the monster el ninos are a product of climate change themselves(...my assumption)
- with the end of multiyear ice we are saying there will be no more increases in the size of el ninos?? (..my supposition of what we are apparently trying to say!)

That second bit is the bit I can't wrap my laughing gear around,... so I continue to think what must happen.....

I see the end of multi year ice and the so called blue arctic as producing extra large el ninos i.e. bigger than what we have now,... heat is the last form of energy and it must impact in some way! Whilst there is multi-year ice to destroy it has been busy doing that: now what will it do? It can't just disappear with no impact!

That's my thinking at the moment...

[abbottisgone]

Does first year ice need multi-year ice for structural integrity in anyway?

Assuming it does, then the loss of multi year ice permanently affects the ability of first year ice to , um,... I don't know: but it surely must do something!

  THIS IS WHERE I'M STUCK 

I'm assuming multi year ice does something,... but what?

...what is the function of multi-year ice?

(I believe this is a thought experiment, btw!)

... the answer must be to dampen the waves in the arctic waters which will permanently break up thin ice and produce monster el ninos via a permanently massive reduction in albedo.

-> AND THERE I WAS THINKING ONLY CHEMICAL CHANGE WAS PERMANENT!!

[magnamentis]

I said between 2.5 and 2.75 partly because of the crazy start and partly because of the similarity to the 1998 el niño.  While 1998 did seem to usher in a new era of sea ice, I don't think every monster niño will necessarily do that.  There was a lot more multiyear ice to destroy back then.  I do think this year will be lowest on record, but I make no predictions about next year. 

Why would there being more multi-year ice back then make any difference to whether monster el ninos keep having a permanent effect?

no idea why there was more MYI back then, perhaps it was colder? Fact is that there definitely was a lot more multi year ice in 1998 than nowadays and that it was a lot thicker and more compact, even colder, hence stronger

[DavidR]

Comparing this poll with the June poll last year only 20% of voters predicted a record minimum then. (Spoiler alert) This years percentage is somewhat higher.

Last years poll had less voters in total than this one has so far.

[crandles]

Does first year ice need multi-year ice for structural integrity in anyway?

Assuming it does, then the loss of multi year ice permanently affects the ability of first year ice to , um,... I don't know: but it surely must do something!

  THIS IS WHERE I'M STUCK 

I'm assuming multi year ice does something,... but what?

Old MYI is generally fresher making it harder to melt and thickened through compression, ridging and slabbing.

It is easy to find quotes like

“The region is covered almost completely by seasonal or first-year ice—ice that has formed since last September,” said Meier. “This ice is thinner and weaker than the older, multi-year ice, so it responds more readily to winds and is more easily broken up.”

It is easy to jump to the conclusion that because the thinner FYI is weaker we get more ridging and thus more of this thicker deformed ice to replace the thick MYI. However it seems plausible there is another factor, time. MYI lasting longer than a decade was not uncommon so there was lots of time for it to thicken through ridging and slabbing processes. Now little of the ice survives as long as 5 years so there is less time for such thickening processes.

With competing effects, it isn't easy to prognosticate.

Perhaps age effect has run its course with low levels of old ice having levelled off in the last few years:

However even that could be an uncertain conclusion due to ice being categorised as the age of the oldest ice within it.

[6roucho]

I said between 2.5 and 2.75 partly because of the crazy start and partly because of the similarity to the 1998 el niño.  While 1998 did seem to usher in a new era of sea ice, I don't think every monster niño will necessarily do that.  There was a lot more multiyear ice to destroy back then.  I do think this year will be lowest on record, but I make no predictions about next year. 

Why would there being more multi-year ice back then make any difference to whether monster el ninos keep having a permanent effect?

no idea why there was more MYI back then, perhaps it was colder? Fact is that there definitely was a lot more multi year ice in 1998 than nowadays and that it was a lot thicker and more compact, even colder, hence stronger

My understanding is that old ice export through the Fram used to be offset by new ice growth in the Beaufort Gyre, where perennial ice could persist for years, and thus become multi-year ice in its turn. Warmer waters in the southern part of the Gyre have interrupted this incubator process. This year I guess we can hypothesize that it doesn't work that way any more.

[Siffy]

I picked between 0.5 and 0.75. I've only been watching Arctic for a few years but looking through all the MODIS images I've not seen any year where it looks like every where is melting out at a decent rate like this one and more importantly where GFS temperature maps show consistently above average temperatures almost every where in the Arctic.

The forecast for the next seven days looks fairly brutal as well with most of the snow cover over the Beaufort sea ice, Chukchi sea ice and ESS getting torched. All this in mid may well before peak insolation.

Looks like a massive amount more energy will be absorbed this year in comparison to others. Not to mention the already very large surface area of open water in the Beaufort.

I really don't understand all the posts which are acting like this will be a 'priming' year and won't breach the 2012 record. I mean yea it's totally possible it won't if the weather changes massively and we get really aggresive anti melt conditions but literally nothing it hinting at this right now, even just middling conditions for melt look like it will slaughter the 2012 record.

[6roucho]

I think it's the psychology of making open predictions, Siffy. People feel exposed by picking outliers, perhaps in part because outliers have been predicted before and not eventuated. The obvious concern shown on threads here that the ice is on the verge of an abrupt decline doesn't aooear to be reflected in the votes. Count me in the category. I thunk it but I didn't vote it.

[DoomInTheUK]

If my fading memory serves, back in the good old days, ice would spend 5-7 years in the Beaufort Gyre before either heading out of the Fram or piling up along the CAA coast. Now it's down to 1-3 years and much more either melts out or goes through the Fram. The loses along the CAA aren't being replaced and the old thick MYI is being torn apart.

[Tealight]

I chose a conservative 2.75 to 3.0 million km2. Currently we are on course for a record low and with a storm in August I expect it to go as low as 2.0 million km2. If June/July turn out to be cold then it will just be close to the 2012 minimum.

[seaicesailor]

I picked between 0.5 and 0.75.

[...]

I really don't understand all the posts which are acting like this will be a 'priming' year and won't breach the 2012 record. I mean yea it's totally possible it won't if the weather changes massively and we get really aggresive anti melt conditions but literally nothing it hinting at this right now, even just middling conditions for melt look like it will slaughter the 2012 record.

I think it's the psychology of making open predictions, Siffy. People feel exposed by picking outliers, perhaps in part because outliers have been predicted before and not eventuated. The obvious concern shown on threads here that the ice is on the verge of an abrupt decline doesn't aooear to be reflected in the votes. Count me in the category. I thunk it but I didn't vote it.

L.O.L.

@6roucho So you affirm that people feel exposed by picking outliers . . . when more than half of the people are voting at or below 2012, which is the mother-of-all-outliers?

@Siffy You may not understand some posts but I don't understand some others. East Siberia has snow depth anomalies above 0.5 meters in large extents of flat lands adjacent to the ESS coast, see map here
https://www.ccin.ca/home/ccw/snow/current
I expect snow depths over the ice may be similar in a region where PIOMAS estimates and CRYOSAT-2 observations indicate +2m and +3m ice. Then North Greenland coast has +3m and +4m ice with similar snow depth according to TOPAZ. A lot of ice and a lot of snow.
It is going to take a lot of heat to end with less than 1Mkm2, but everything is possible.

[DoomInTheUK]

@seaicesailor - I suppose the question is: Is 3+M ice with snow on a different beast when it's being broken up and pushed around than when it's sat quietly being an insulating layer. My gut feeling is that waves might turn out to play a big part in the melt this year.