Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

What will the ADS (IJIS-JAXA-NIPR) 2016 Arctic SIE September daily minimum be?

Above 5.0  million km2
1 (0.7%)
Between 4.75 and 5.0 million km2
0 (0%)
Between 4.5 and 4.75 million km2
0 (0%)
Between 4.25 and 4.5 million km2
3 (2.1%)
Between 4.0 and 4.25 million km2
9 (6.3%)
Between 3.75 and 4.0 million km2
15 (10.6%)
Between 3.5 and 3.75 million km2
24 (16.9%)
Between 3.25 and 3.5 million km2
13 (9.2%)
Between 3.0 and 3.25 million km2
17 (12%)
Between 2.75 and 3.0 million km2
17 (12%)
Between 2.5 and 2.75 million km2
13 (9.2%)
Between 2.25 and 2.5 million km2
11 (7.7%)
Between 2.0 and 2.25 million km2
7 (4.9%)
Between 1.75 and 2.0 million km2
4 (2.8%)
Between 1.5 and 1.75 million km2
1 (0.7%)
Between 1.25 and 1.5 million km2
0 (0%)
Between 1.0 and 1.25 million km2
2 (1.4%)
Between 0.75 and 1.0 million km2
3 (2.1%)
Between 0.5 and 0.75 million km2
0 (0%)
Between 0.25 and 0.5 million km2
0 (0%)
Between 0.0 and 0.25 million km2
2 (1.4%)

Total Members Voted: 139

Voting closed: June 14, 2016, 07:03:29 PM

Author Topic: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll  (Read 23188 times)

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2016, 03:36:31 PM »
I have been lurking for several months and decided to vote.  My background is I am an owner of a company that does R&D ...

I am sorry I am an outlier, but my vote is 4.25-4.5 km2.  I can't say I have a clear reason other than there has been an unusually high amount of snow in the Sierra Nevadas in California.  Also there is a photo that has been posted showing some station in the Arctic.  I have seen comments for over a month stating that ice is falling apart.  Yet, the post a couple of days ago looks no different than the one about a month ago.  Also I see comments about melt having slowed considerably in June.  Thus, I am taking a conservative view on melting and don't see a record low coming this year.

There are opinions here for every taste. Yet, that you find  a link between anomalous amount of snow in the Sierras and more Arctic ice in September is really curious, you being involved in R&D. Again, I think you are ignoring the fundamentals.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 515
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2016, 09:25:18 PM »
My forecast method consists in taking IJIS yesterday value and then use the average drop of 2007, 2011 and 2015. I choose these years because they are the worst, taking out 2012. I believe that Arctic sea ice conditions, temperature at seas and Arctic weather have changed in the past decade, so using the second to fourth worst years is some behavior that I expect.

Even that I believe that the Arctic is going to have strong cyclones on the following decade, I just hope that we will not have it this year, so I explicity take out the influence of 2012, with his Great Arctic Cyclone.

The new forecast, using IJIS yesterday value, is 3.5-3.75. In fact, it is getting closer to 3.75-4.0.

There are only 2 days left to vote, so it is time to change your vote or do it for the first time.  ;)
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 09:40:05 PM by Juan C. García »
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2016, 09:57:08 PM »
Similar to Juan, I'm coming up a couple of buckets right now - 3.5-3.75. 

My method is statistical, and based on the average loss from this point in the melt season to minimum across the 2003-2015 IJIS numbers.  My thinking is, with the heat left by El Nino, combined with weaker ice we will see slightly better than average melt numbers, but probably not enough to pass 2012.

2003-20152007-2015
Period Average Loss60403476329050
6/12 2016 Extent1015494410154944
Period Loss STDEV595894456477
+253063844738848
+147104914282371
Average41145973825894
-135187033369417
-229228092912940
This space for Rent.

Jim

  • New ice
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2016, 02:02:00 AM »
The early rate of ice loss seems to have eased somewhat recently - I'm going conservative with between 4.25 and 4.5 million km2!
Let's see what the coming months have to offer  8)

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2016, 07:51:36 PM »
Moving up a bucket, to 3.25 - 3.5.

jplotinus

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2016, 08:22:26 PM »
Standing pat at 1.75-2.00. The current, pre-solstice interlude of stalled melt is a condition explained by factors other than that of robust ice as nearly as I can ascertain.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #56 on: June 13, 2016, 10:30:04 PM »
Having a bad back I've been off work, and bored. So I went over the forum's previous polls. The June poll seems to me to best reflect underlying sentiment before evidence builds up over summer as to the actual likely outcome.

Green boxes show the actual bands in which the minimum fell. 5.5 to 5.0 million kmsq is added to the >5 million box as in 2013 there was only a >5 million box. 2016 is using a different metric, from comparison between those metrices (NSIDC and the one used here) one could bump votes up by two categories to match NSIDC. However, that would raise the problem that some, like me, will have translated the NSIDC expectation into the one used this year. Also the person who votes 0 each year would be dragged away from zero.  So I have not adjusted the 2016 data at all.

Original data from here:
2013   http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=358.0
2014   http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,884.msg35210.html#msg35210
2015   http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1281.0.html


werther

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 727
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #57 on: June 13, 2016, 11:13:29 PM »
During the last four weeks I saw no reason to leave my chosen 3.75 - 4 Mkm2 box. Even though Arctic weather seems to be dominated by Lows for a longer period, I think the built-in momentum is strong enough to let this melt season come in as top three.
Extent-wise.

Steven

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2016, 11:28:25 PM »
I voted for 3.75-4.0.

Method: using data from 1990 to 2016, a multiple linear regression with the following 2 predictor variables:
  • CT area for June 13th  (with 2016 value given by Wipneus here)
  • PIOMAS volume for May 31st
yields  4.2 +/- 0.8 million km2  (95% prediction interval)  for the September 2016 NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent.  The corresponding value for the ADS (JAXA) extent minimum would be about 3.8 (+/- 0.8 ) million km2.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #59 on: June 13, 2016, 11:49:37 PM »
Having a bad back I've been off work, and bored. So I went over the forum's previous polls. The June poll seems to me to best reflect underlying sentiment before evidence builds up over summer as to the actual likely outcome.

Which reminds me! I wanted to open an NSIDC September monthly average poll around the same time Juan did this one, but totally forgot about it. Of course, given the fact that there have been polls during the three previous melting seasons, it'd be cool to stay consistent and do this one again (I'm not going to do CT SIA though). Sorry for opening it so late, but better late than next month.

Here's the link, poll will be open for 1 week, so please vote, everyone!
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 792
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #60 on: June 14, 2016, 12:46:12 AM »
Bumped up one bin to 2.25-2.50 million km2 for better consistency with the vote I just did in the new monthly extent minimum poll and due to the most recent weather and forecasts adding ~200k to my expectations.

Would still be a record by a lot from 3.18 million km2 in 2012.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3107
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #61 on: June 14, 2016, 01:59:47 PM »
I felt sorry for the 3.25-3.5 bin (surrounded by more-voted-in bins), so I moved my vote up a bin (to 3.25-3.5).  I'm also influenced by the less-than-optimum weather conditions the Arctic is experiencing this past week plus.

[Note to wife: happy anniversary!]
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Lord Sloth

  • New ice
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #62 on: June 14, 2016, 06:52:01 PM »
I'm in the 3.25 to 3.5 camp myself.  I figure 2016 will be in a horse race with 2012.  Yes, 2012 is catching up with 2016 quickly, due to the 2012 cliff dive.  However 2016 will meet 2012 at the bottom of the cliff, which no other year has. 

My rational is that most of the ice outside of the Central Arctic Basin is going to melt anyways, and the real action is going to be in the central arctic basin, and the timing of the ice melt outside the CAB,is for the most part inconsequential.  The CAB has taken a real hit with consistent temperatures above the curve for the full year, and all the heat with the fading El-Nino in the system.

If we get another 2012 summer, we could be below 3.0, but with an average arctic summer, we should match or beat the 2012 minimum, but it will probably be a nail bitter.


Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #63 on: June 14, 2016, 06:58:00 PM »
Good to see you, LS. I've released your profile, so you should be able to post directly now.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 515
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #64 on: June 15, 2016, 05:44:49 AM »
Thank's everyone for your comments and vote.

After reading the last posts of The 2016 melting season I still don't have a clue of where we are going to be at the end of this melting season. Hope to know a little more on July, even that the true we will know it until September.  :P
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

philiponfire

  • New ice
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #65 on: June 20, 2016, 07:27:42 AM »
Juan how about starting a July poll? tempus fugit.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #66 on: June 20, 2016, 11:27:03 AM »
Yes, and open the August poll too, while you're at it.  ::)

It's June...

Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

philiponfire

  • New ice
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #67 on: June 20, 2016, 11:49:21 AM »
Hey Neven it was a reasonable and polite question no need to be sarcastic. the June poll is over 16 days before the end of June so obviously June is over. Why only have the poll open for ten days in the first place?

What exactly is the bad thing about beginning now to collect data and comments for the July poll which is presumably also going to close mid month? Maximising exposure and participation makes sense to me.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #68 on: June 20, 2016, 12:32:27 PM »
Hey Neven it was a reasonable and polite question no need to be sarcastic. the June poll is over 16 days before the end of June so obviously June is over. Why only have the poll open for ten days in the first place?

Because it coincides more or less with the submission deadline for the SIPN Sea Ice Outlook. It's also interesting to see how voting progresses during successive months. This gets lost if polls are spaced too close together. The polls are snapshots.

Comments can go to the IJIS or 2016 sea ice extent and area data topics.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 12:50:24 PM by Neven »
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #69 on: June 28, 2016, 07:59:51 AM »


There are opinions here for every taste. Yet, that you find  a link between anomalous amount of snow in the Sierras and more Arctic ice in September is really curious, you being involved in R&D. Again, I think you are ignoring the fundamentals.

I have no doubt I am not considering all the data that you are.  I guess when the time is up we'll see who wins - those who follow market fundamentals like you or momentum traders like me (to use a stock market analogy).  To be honest, I have read and reread a lot of the analyses on these fora and see lots of conjecture based on lots of minutia that may or may not mean anything or have the predictive value some believe (or hope) it does.  Sometimes, as with the market, it's more guessing than anything else!

Analysts pour over market data and using sophisticated algorithms make all kinds of intelligent investment decisions.  Yet, some say that throwing darts and randomly picking stocks works as well or better than following the analysts.  I have been talking to analysts lately, and none predicted the mayhem caused by Brexit.  And they have no reason to not predict these sorts of things.
Feel The Burn!

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #70 on: June 28, 2016, 08:41:22 AM »


There are opinions here for every taste. Yet, that you find  a link between anomalous amount of snow in the Sierras and more Arctic ice in September is really curious, you being involved in R&D. Again, I think you are ignoring the fundamentals.

I have no doubt I am not considering all the data that you are.  I guess when the time is up we'll see who wins - those who follow market fundamentals like you or momentum traders like me (to use a stock market analogy).  To be honest, I have read and reread a lot of the analyses on these fora and see lots of conjecture based on lots of minutia that may or may not mean anything or have the predictive value some believe (or hope) it does.  Sometimes, as with the market, it's more guessing than anything else!

Analysts pour over market data and using sophisticated algorithms make all kinds of intelligent investment decisions.  Yet, some say that throwing darts and randomly picking stocks works as well or better than following the analysts.  I have been talking to analysts lately, and none predicted the mayhem caused by Brexit.  And they have no reason to not predict these sorts of things.
Joining issues is fun but it's just random words in the end..
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

Paladiea

  • New ice
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2016, 04:51:26 PM »
Any and all comparisons to economics will fail because economics is not a science, and it is based on some terrible and outright false assumptions.

For example, economists assume the market is moved by people acting rationally. They continue to hold onto this absolutely debunked idea regardless of the evidence that shows otherwise, with Brexit being the latest example.

And this is all I will say on the subject because it's clearly off topic.
The most enjoyable way to think about heat transfer through radiation is to picture a Star Wars laser battle, where every atom and molecule is constantly firing at every other atom and molecule.

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2016, 02:16:26 PM »
Having a bad back I've been off work, and bored. So I went over the forum's previous polls. The June poll seems to me to best reflect underlying sentiment before evidence builds up over summer as to the actual likely outcome.

Green boxes show the actual bands in which the minimum fell. 5.5 to 5.0 million kmsq is added to the >5 million box as in 2013 there was only a >5 million box. 2016 is using a different metric, from comparison between those metrices (NSIDC and the one used here) one could bump votes up by two categories to match NSIDC. However, that would raise the problem that some, like me, will have translated the NSIDC expectation into the one used this year. Also the person who votes 0 each year would be dragged away from zero.  So I have not adjusted the 2016 data at all.

Original data from here:
2013   http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=358.0
2014   http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,884.msg35210.html#msg35210
2015   http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1281.0.html

OK, the 2016 IJIS daily minimum hasn't been called yet, so I'm jumping the gun a bit here.  But at the moment it looks like the minimum was just a bit over 4.0 x 10^6 km2.  Assuming that doesn't change, it looks like we unfortunately reversed the recent years' trend towards improved collective forecasting.

In June 2013, 99% of our predictions for IJIS daily min were too low.  No one got it right, and 1% were too high.

In June 2014, 95% were too low.  2% got it right, and 2% were too high.

In June 2015, we did a bit better.  Only 66% were too low, 10% (!) were correct, and 27% were too high.

This year, we did worse again.  91% were too low, 6% were correct, and 3% were too high.

So in three of the past four years, more than 90% of us have over-estimated how much ice would melt, by an average of about 1 million km2.  (Note to self: next year, remember this when answering the June poll!    ??? )

On the plus side, participation in the poll is increasing:
2013: 69 respondents
2014: 95 respondents
2015: 106 respondents
2016: 142 respondents




Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 515
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2016, 03:19:44 PM »
This year, we did worse again.  91% were too low, 6% were correct, and 3% were too high.

We have to take into account that on June 1st, 2016 was 440,000 km2 below any other year. With that margin, the forecast that was made in this Forum seems correct to me.
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #74 on: September 24, 2016, 06:53:40 AM »
This year, we did worse again.  91% were too low, 6% were correct, and 3% were too high.

We have to take into account that on June 1st, 2016 was 440,000 km2 below any other year. With that margin, the forecast that was made in this Forum seems correct to me.
So those who were correct in late May/June was actually wrong? :)

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #75 on: September 24, 2016, 08:08:59 AM »
This year, we did worse again.  91% were too low, 6% were correct, and 3% were too high.

We have to take into account that on June 1st, 2016 was 440,000 km2 below any other year. With that margin, the forecast that was made in this Forum seems correct to me.
So those who were correct in late May/June was actually wrong? :)
Most of us were off, but not by that much.  Just eyeballing the distribution, I'd say a large number if most of us were within 1 SD of the final.   

Considering the winter refreeze and the state of things in June, that's not bad.
This space for Rent.

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #76 on: September 25, 2016, 02:04:14 AM »
I voted high at 4.25-4.5, but I wasn't stone cold high!
Feel The Burn!

budmantis

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: ADS-IJIS 2016 Arctic SIE September minimum: June poll
« Reply #77 on: September 25, 2016, 08:24:00 AM »
I voted low, 2.75 to 3.00, but I based my estimate on more favorable melting conditions, which was possible but I'm happy to say didn't materialize.