NSIDC 2017 Arctic SIE September average: June poll

[Neven]

ATTENTION: There are two polls on the ASIF. This one is for NSIDC sea ice extent monthly/September average minimum (which is also 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 11 days (until June 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 May 31st:



These are the September minimums for the last 12 years (in millions km2, found here):

    2005: 5.59
    2006: 5.95
    2007: 4.32
    2008: 4.74
    2009: 5.39
    2010: 4.93
    2011: 4.63
    2012: 3.63
    2013: 5.35
    2014: 5.29
    2015: 4.68
    2016: 4.72

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

[Neven]

Because it's still so early, I'm going to wait the full 10 days before voting. Right now, I have no idea which way this could go. 

[seaicesailor]

For me there a strange mix in the bag, when I commented that I am at a loss in the other thread I felt a bit ridiculous but well now I not alone in not being sure so I dont feel so bad about that anymore...
Minimum volume+early surface melt in American and pacific side+no surface melt in Laptev Kara and CAB+Bering strait and Chukchi open in record time+ high land snow cover in Russia+lots of dispersion+Barents full of ice+ MYI in the launchpad but not quite gone+ Nares making a hole in the Lincoln sea+a beaufort high that wants to stay but lows entering the Arctic with not sure what intention...
Gosh

[Juan C. García]

Because it's still so early, I'm going to wait the full 10 days before voting. Right now, I have no idea which way this could go. 

Between 3.25 and 3.75 million km2.
A little lower than 2012. Just to vote for a new record (given the low volume that we have now) and because I know that I will not know, 10 days after today... 

[Neven]

Remember, everyone, you can vote now, and then still change your vote in 10 days.

Maybe I'll vote tomorrow, just in case I forget to vote later. 

[magnamentis]

Because it's still so early, I'm going to wait the full 10 days before voting. Right now, I have no idea which way this could go. 

Between 3.25 and 3.75 million km2.
A little lower than 2012. Just to vote for a new record (given the low volume that we have now) and because I know that I will not know, 10 days after today... 

thanks, you made me aware that it's overlapping even though it was mentioned, great stuff glad it was adopted, same ballpark like you.

[oren]

My thinking, based on current record volume and considering most of the extra extent is in the away direction on the Atlantic side, is that we could end up in the vicinity of 2012 extent-wise, while making a new record low volume. It's all written on ice at this stage so no shame is being mistaken. 3.25-3.75, could be much higher or even somewhat lower.

[Avalonian]

I completely agree that we simply can't predict it yet... but my gut feeling is that we're going to see an exceedingly high Poof Quotient in the later part of the season. When I look for ice that genuinely appears safe... well, I don't see a lot of it. Some of the rest will of course survive, but still... my entirely unscientific feeling is 2.5-3 at this stage. Possibly even lower.

[StopTheApocalypse]

Regardless of what the poll shows, I think most of us probably agree that the probability of disaster this year, given the very thin ice, is high; the probability distribution is almost certainly skewed towards bad outcomes.

[icefisher]

My swag is based on a major mid august storm sweeping in from the Pacific with a 948 minimum millibar eye.  Without a major august storm the SIE September average should be 3.75 - 4.00. Multiple storms from both Pacific and Atlantic would be a disaster.  SIE below 2.5.

[subgeometer]

I hope I'm wrong but I've gone a bit out on a limb and plumped for 2-2.5million km2. It's really just a stab in the dark, but given the current low volume and thin dispersed ice I'd be surprised not to see a new record low, and if conditions are really conducive less than 1 million km2 can't be ruled out  - so I went for somewhere in between

[oren]

To all low voters who might not be aware, remember this poll is for the monthly average, not for the mid-September low.

[Pmt111500]

It looks like I've regained the alarmist position comparing to majority on the site. Nevermind, the US prez election results show that majority doesn't always matter, as does the US decision to abandon an international treaty. I'm off to pollute so my vote has more chances to win and not punish the reputation of my votes. But I'm just a single person so my acts won't matter in the large picture, right?

[Sourabh]

Neven,

I eagerly wait for early updates on melting seasons before voting. This year, there has not been any updates yet from your side. Are you planning to write a post anytime soon?

[DavidR]

To all low voters who might not be aware, remember this poll is for the monthly average, not for the mid-September low.

On average this makes about 220K difference. Last year it was almost double that and in 2007 only  half. 2012 was just about average. And that's not taking into account the odd way NSIDC actually  calculate it.

[Pmt111500]

<clip>

 And that's not taking into account the odd way NSIDC actually  calculate it.

Oh yeah I forgot that particular piece of inaccuracy. Gotta move my vote one notch up.

[Neven]

Neven,

I eagerly wait for early updates on melting seasons before voting. This year, there has not been any updates yet from your side. Are you planning to write a post anytime soon?

Sourabh, I've taken a break from blogging this year (except for posting monthly PIOMAS updates), so you'll have to glean the info from the 2017 melting season thread, and other corners of the Forum.

[Richard Rathbone]

Too early to do anything but extrapolate the trend. Figure 3 in http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/10/rapid-ice-growth-follows-the-seasonal-minimum-rapid-drop-in-antarctic-extent/

Since last year was almost exactly on the trend, that makes it 4.5 in round numbers for this year.

[Paddy]

Gone with "same as the lowest we've had" [3.5 to 4.0], like on the other poll. But it really is way too early to tell.

EDIT: Moved down one bar on each poll having seen some of the analyses on here.

[RikW]

I've got a bad gut feeling about this melting season. And though Extent numbers don't drop very fast currently, World View pictures doesn't look good. I fear we will be in for a bad surprise but based on the numbers that feeling can't be logically true yet. So I just go for the 2012 record

[Sterks]

Being consistent with my volume prediction, and with the belief bathymetry imposes hard limit to the minimum extent, I vote on a record or near record value: 3.25 - 3.75 m km2.

[Archimid]

I voted with the pack. Right now is so hard to tell anything.

[Chuck Yokota]

I voted 2.25-2.75 million because I think volume will be driving extent this year.  1000 km3 = 1 million km2 x 1 meter thick.

[Rob Dekker]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I just entered my vote as 5.4.

Reason is mostly the massive land snow anomaly that was reported for May :
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=5


In my regression formula, that snow anomaly, combined with the moderate ice area/concentration numbers, results in 5.4 M km^2 (NSIDC) extent left over in September.

Now, I don't put much confidence in this prediction, for various reasons :

1) May is early to make predictions, and the standard deviation of my prediction is 460 k km^2, which is only moderately better than a simple linear trend (SD 550 k km^2). In other words, the prediction does not have much 'skill'. June should be a lot better.

2) 2017 is so far running at record low volume numbers (by PIOMAS) due to the warm winter. Quick calculations suggest that First Year Ice is some 10% thinner than in prior years. Once melting starts seriously, this should accelerate the decline in SIE, and even with average volume melt could easily lead to record low volume (and SIE) numbers this year.

3) Snow melts quickly, so this May anomaly may not last long. If it disappears in June, then point 2) may take over and we may see some serious cliff in July.

But overall, I am optimistic that this land snow anomaly will at least slow down the decline of SIE this melting season, and if the anomaly sustains over June, then 5.4 M km^2 is not unrealistic.

[johnm33]

I went for 2-2.5 the ice looks smashed so as things warm a little more I expect rain and lots of it. With the ice as it is I suspect widespread distribution of salt, from flash frozen spray, to accelerate melt, and to greatly increase surface area until meltponds form. With things as they are in Lincoln and CAA I anticipate tidally driven export becoming a serious factor too.

[Nightvid Cole]

I went higher this year, I think it will not go below 4.5 M. This is because I looked at NASA worldview and right now the Arctic is whiter than any other recent year at this time, even 2013 and 2014. This indicates very little melt ponding and the great majority of the sun's rays hitting the Arctic are bumped back out to space.

[magnamentis]

I went higher this year, I think it will not go below 4.5 M. This is because I looked at NASA worldview and right now the Arctic is whiter than any other recent year at this time, even 2013 and 2014. This indicates very little melt ponding and the great majority of the sun's rays hitting the Arctic are bumped back out to space.

your opinion is all yours but please stick to facts, even with all the fragmentation extent is around 4th lowest and volume is lowest. sound a bit like either playing advocatus diaboli or going for the opposite as a win-win statement, if wrong, no-one is surprised and if right one's the guy.

the ice is in the worst state ever, this is the fact and images do not always tell the entire truth nowadays. a bit more or less contrast and all looks totally different, many enough examples
floating around here.

[Rob Dekker]

I went higher this year, I think it will not go below 4.5 M. This is because I looked at NASA worldview and right now the Arctic is whiter than any other recent year at this time, even 2013 and 2014. This indicates very little melt ponding and the great majority of the sun's rays hitting the Arctic are bumped back out to space.

I tend to agree.
Compare this year's pan-Arctic picture :
https://lance3.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic.2017157.terra.4km
where there is pristine white ice and snow covered land all along the Siberian coastline,
with the picture from the same date last year :
https://lance3.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic.2016157.terra.4km
where a snow-free Siberia and blue ice suggest that melting was in full swing all along Siberia.

That May snow anomaly certainly has a significant effect, suggesting that there are fewer melting ponds, especially along the Siberian coast, than last year.

And last year ended up at 4.7.

[magnamentis]

I went higher this year, I think it will not go below 4.5 M. This is because I looked at NASA worldview and right now the Arctic is whiter than any other recent year at this time, even 2013 and 2014. This indicates very little melt ponding and the great majority of the sun's rays hitting the Arctic are bumped back out to space.

I tend to agree.
Compare this year's pan-Arctic picture :
https://lance3.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic.2017157.terra.4km
where there is pristine white ice and snow covered land all along the Siberian coastline,
with the picture from the same date last year :
https://lance3.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic.2016157.terra.4km
where a snow-free Siberia and blue ice suggest that melting was in full swing all along Siberia.

That May snow anomaly certainly has a significant effect, suggesting that there are fewer melting ponds, especially along the Siberian coast, than last year.

And last year ended up at 4.7.

you mentioned the key word that is mostly responsible for the "visual" errors in assessments

"SNOWCOVER"

that snow cover spoils the view and once gone the effect you mentioned will be pulverized.

also snowcover is exactly what i had in mind when i said that images don't show the entire truth,
just think about glaciers and their snow covered fissures and crevasse. looks all homogeneous from the air but beware from believing it and go for a careless walk LOL

[Tealight]

@Rob

Maybe you can develop a new or modified formula which includes PIOMAS volume. It is definitely a useful metric to describe the state of the sea ice .


My model prediction is 4.1 million km2, but I have an interdecile range of 3.2 - 5.1. The high snow cover slows down melt in my model as well, but due to the record low sea ice volume it still predicts a second place with a slight chance of a new record low.

If my model is correct then there is a 10% change we get below 3.2 million and 10% change above 5.1 million.

For the daily sea ice area minimum I get 2.513 million km2
Range:   1.964 - 3.112

[Rob Dekker]

@Rob

Maybe you can develop a new or modified formula which includes PIOMAS volume. It is definitely a useful metric to describe the state of the sea ice .

Yes. I have some ideas for that, but did not have the time to validate them.

My model prediction is 4.1 million km2, but I have an interdecile range of 3.2 - 5.1. The high snow cover slows down melt in my model as well, but due to the record low sea ice volume it still predicts a second place with a slight chance of a new record low.

If my model is correct then there is a 10% change we get below 3.2 million and 10% change above 5.1 million.

These numbers suggest that the standard deviation over the residuals in your method are about 550-600 k km^2. Is that correct ?
If so, your method has little 'skill', since a simple linear trend has 550 k km^2 SD.
With 460 k km^2 SD, my method has little 'skill' too, and neither do most of SIPN projections.

Maybe May is just too early for skillful predictions of September SIE.

[seaicesailor]

I voted 3.5-4.0 M km2.
This is the first June in years that goes so clearly anticyclonic, and while the HP has been pulling air from the continent with the cold anomaly and not many melt ponds are really visible, it still has brought over zero temps to a significant portion of the Arctic (snow melting, ice warming up, bottom melting soon to kick up). This situation will be sustained for days.

Also, significant portion of the Pacific side is open water, and there is plenty of insolation.

The land snow cover has so clearly delayed melt in ESS and Laptev, and I guess all the warmth coming from Eurasia will lack some punch during the summer. That is a very important factor.

Still let's see what happens with all that ice thinner in average as never before, with the thicker MYI sitting too close to the Atlantic Ocean.

By the way, the NSIDC now computes the monthly average as the average of daily extents. This would have yielded around 4.3 M km2 in 2016.

[Richard Rathbone]

By the way, the NSIDC now computes the monthly average as the average of daily extents. This would have yielded around 4.3 M km2 in 2016.

Thats not what their documentation says.

http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/#jan-2017 says they made a change to how they calculated the monthly figure, but they still take an average concentration for the month and calculate the extent from that, not from the daily extents. Its also clear elsewhere in that document that they calculate extents from average concentrations for both the daily and the monthly extents.

There was a rumor I saw somewhere on the forum or blog that it had happened, but I think someone misunderstood what the change in January was.

[seaicesailor]

Alright, thanks for the correction, I was one of the deluded then.

[Steven]

I voted for 4.0-4.5 million km².

This is based on multiple linear regression with the following two predictor variables:

• PIOMAS volume at the end of May
• sea ice area on 8 June as calculated by Wipneus from gridded NSIDC sea ice concentration data

I used data for the last 20 years.  The regression gives an estimate of 4.27 +/- 0.9 million km²  (95% prediction interval)  for the September 2017 NSIDC extent.

[magnamentis]

I voted for 4.0-4.5 million km².

This is based on multiple linear regression with the following two predictor variables:

• PIOMAS volume at the end of May
• sea ice area on 8 June as calculated by Wipneus from gridded NSIDC sea ice concentration data

I used data for the last 20 years.  The regression gives an estimate of 4.27 +/- 0.9 million km²  (95% prediction interval)  for the September 2017 NSIDC extent.

whenever something extraordinary happend and/or will happen data and patterns from the past will not have helped but will give the uninitiated a feeling of safety.

things are different and so will be the outcome while this most not be the outcome of extent.
last year things were different and the outcome was different, but mostly the winter climate as well as the ice volume was affected.

however, there was a huge reduction in ace over all which did not really show well in extent minimum but sooner or later, the ever reduced volume as well as genereal "quality" of the remaining ice will show in extent numbers and since it will happen once that the 15% threshold will be passed ist will be a sudden drop, something like an ASID ( abrupt sea ice drop ) LOL

[Neven]

For now I have voted 'Between 4.0 and 4.5 million km2'. I'll be sure to vote lower next month if I see a couple of parameters move that way (SSTs, ice pack turning blue, PIOMAS, and of course, SIE measures themselves).

[Rob Dekker]

I voted for 4.0-4.5 million km².

This is based on multiple linear regression with the following two predictor variables:

• PIOMAS volume at the end of May
• sea ice area on 8 June as calculated by Wipneus from gridded NSIDC sea ice concentration data

I used data for the last 20 years.  The regression gives an estimate of 4.27 +/- 0.9 million km²  (95% prediction interval)  for the September 2017 NSIDC extent.

Steven, your method suggests a SD of 450 k km^2, which is really good for a May -> September projection.

Did you consider entering in SIPN ? Entries are still open until Monday 6pm :
https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2017/june/call
https://goo.gl/forms/kKSpPgjyD9B4I1IC3

[Thomas Barlow]

I chose between 3.0 and 3.5 million because I think the volume in Arctic Ocean is record low, and could crash (leaving  peripheral areas to make up the damage a bit).

[Tealight]

These numbers suggest that the standard deviation over the residuals in your method are about 550-600 k km^2. Is that correct ?
If so, your method has little 'skill', since a simple linear trend has 550 k km^2 SD.
With 460 k km^2 SD, my method has little 'skill' too, and neither do most of SIPN projections.

Maybe May is just too early for skillful predictions of September SIE.

I never really calculated the standard deviation for extent. My model is albedo based and it can only calculate how much ice melts, but not how it is distributed over the month of September. The conversion from my area numbers into extent is more of a guessing game.

What I found out is that the compaction ratio alone influences the NSIDC September extent at least as much as the remaining melt conditions.

Normal variation for me due to compaction ratio is +-200k, but last year was extreme with +900k. Because of the very mobile ice pack I increased my forecast range this year to hopefully catch the final NSIDC extent number.

[Albatross]

Long time lurker...finally made my first post and voted for a minimum between 3.5 to 4.0 mil km². Albatross from SkS.

[Neven]

Welcome to the ASIF, Albatross. I've released your profile. And thanks for voting.

[Steven]

Steven, your method suggests a SD of 450 k km^2, which is really good for a May -> September projection.

Did you consider entering in SIPN ? Entries are still open until Monday 6pm :
https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2017/june/call
https://goo.gl/forms/kKSpPgjyD9B4I1IC3

Rob, I wasn't intending to submit this to the SIPN.  The method I used isn't really new, since I'm obviously not the first one who uses sea ice volume and/or area at this time of year to predict the September minimum extent.

The method I used performs better than a simple linear trend of September extent.  But there are certainly better methods.  E.g., Schroeder et al.'s method based on modeled May melt ponds has a better forecast skill than mine.  But apparently their forecasts tend to be somewhat too high in recent years.

[CameraMan]

The land snow cover has so clearly delayed melt in ESS and Laptev, and I guess all the warmth coming from Eurasia will lack some punch during the summer. That is a very important factor.

Agreed, but delay is not avoidance.   ESS and Kara look to take a hit this week, and given how thin much of the ice is, I'm thinking much will melt out by Sept, even with a late start.   Extent hasn't shown the drops yet, but more "ice" is becoming rubble and slush.

So I'm also guessing 3.5 - 4   Hoping that I'm wrong and more survives.

[Yuha]

4.0 - 4.5 as half way between 2012 and 2016.

[Rob Dekker]

Rob, I wasn't intending to submit this to the SIPN.  The method I used isn't really new, since I'm obviously not the first one who uses sea ice volume and/or area at this time of year to predict the September minimum extent.

The method I used performs better than a simple linear trend of September extent.  But there are certainly better methods.  E.g., Schroeder et al.'s method based on modeled May melt ponds has a better forecast skill than mine.  But apparently their forecasts tend to be somewhat too high in recent years.

Schroeder's May melt pond method has a SD of 500 k km^2 :
https://www.arcus.org/files/sio/25659/sio-2016-june_cpom_schroeder-feltham-flocco-tsamados.pdf

Your method is better than that, and thus I would encourage you to enter in SIPN.

[greatdying2]

3 to 3.5: With so much thin ice there is a very good chance that this year will blow right past the previous record.

[DavidR]

Rob, I wasn't intending to submit this to the SIPN.  The method I used isn't really new, since I'm obviously not the first one who uses sea ice volume and/or area at this time of year to predict the September minimum extent.

The method I used performs better than a simple linear trend of September extent.  But there are certainly better methods.  E.g., Schroeder et al.'s method based on modeled May melt ponds has a better forecast skill than mine.  But apparently their forecasts tend to be somewhat too high in recent years.

Schroeder's May melt pond method has a SD of 500 k km^2 :
https://www.arcus.org/files/sio/25659/sio-2016-june_cpom_schroeder-feltham-flocco-tsamados.pdf

Your method is better than that, and thus I would encourage you to enter in SIPN.

I agree, submitting your estimates to  SIPN encourages you to think through and quantify your thoughts and to go back and review them later to look for the reasons you were wrong.  I  would say a standard deviation of 500K is about average for both the amateurs and the professionals.  There really are far to many unknown variables in play this early in the year to get  much  closer.

[N00bi-Wan]

Voted for 3.25 - 3.75, mostly based on Jim Pettit's volume projections.

Volume is unprecedentedly low, but moreover the severe deficit in FDD during the freezing season altered the quality of sea ice. It's more vulnerable than ever.

My intuition thus is that, even more than in 2016, bottom melt will be the real killer this melting season.

A record or near record NSDIC September SIE seems then in order.

[gerontocrat]

In the total certainty that I shall be shot down in flames I am going for 4.2 million km2. Pourquoi ?
The June cliff, like the British summer, is being promised a few days down the line but keeps on not happening. So I have ignored the extraordinary melt from now to minimum that occurred in 2007 and 2012. So for 2017,I end up with a fairly ordinary melting season, but does reflect that the rate of melt is increasing over the years.

However, herewith a quick and crude "reductio ad absurdum".
NSIDC says that September extent has reduced by about 13 percent per decade. PIOMAS reckon September volume has decreased by about 20 percent per decade.

What if this continued for 50 years from 1979?
Volume at zero.
Extent still at 35 % of 1979.
Absurd.

At some point something has gotta give. I just don't think it is this year.