Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

What will be the JAXA maximum this year?

>14.75 million
0 (0%)
14.5 to 14.75 million
0 (0%)
14.375 to 14.625 million
0 (0%)
14.25 to 14.5 million
0 (0%)
14.125 to 14.375 million
0 (0%)
14 to 14.25 million
1 (1.6%)
13.875 to 14.125 million
13 (20.3%)
13.75 to 14 million
15 (23.4%)
13.625 to 13.875 million
19 (29.7%)
13.5 to 13.75 million
12 (18.8%)
13.375 to 13.625 million
2 (3.1%)
13.25 to 13.5 million
2 (3.1%)
13.125 to 13.375 million
0 (0%)
13 to 13.25 million
0 (0%)
<13 million
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 63

Voting closed: January 31, 2018, 09:09:05 AM

Author Topic: January Poll: JAXA Maximum  (Read 10453 times)

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 53
January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« on: January 15, 2018, 09:09:05 AM »
Poll closes end of January. Give us your best bets on the outcome for maximum sea ice extent this freezing season. You can adjust your vote any time before the poll closes.

Bins and format are the same as for the December poll, ie narrow overlapping bins.

Previous years:
2017: 13.88
2016: 13.96
2015: 13.94
2014: 14.45
2013: 14.52
2012: 14.71
2011: 14.13
2010: 14.69
2009: 14.66
2008: 14.77
2007: 14.21
2006: 14.13
2005: 14.4

<modified the title, as IJIS doesn't put out data anymore; Neven>
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 11:37:22 AM by Neven »

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: January Poll: IJIS Maximum
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2018, 09:11:04 AM »
Personally I've gone down half a step to 13.75 - 14m. A new record by a smallish margin now seems slightly more likely, although my expectation is something similar to the last three years.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7695
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1061
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2018, 11:36:30 AM »
Here's a link to the December poll, for those - like me - who want to see what they voted.

I'm going down half a step as well, to '13.875 to 14.125 million'.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8661
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3405
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2018, 12:02:04 PM »
And I've gone down half a step - to 13.625 to 13.875 million, simply because if history is a guide (haha) a record low is more likely than not.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2196
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2018, 12:14:11 PM »
... simply because if history is a guide (haha) a record low is more likely than not.

This. There was like... !Many Tons¡ of more ice just 14000 years ago! Gotta be going down!
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8661
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3405
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2018, 12:33:51 PM »
... simply because if history is a guide (haha) a record low is more likely than not.

This. There was like... !Many Tons¡ of more ice just 14000 years ago! Gotta be going down!
Like more recent history, man.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2196
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2018, 12:38:56 PM »
... simply because if history is a guide (haha) a record low is more likely than not.

This. There was like... !Many Tons¡ of more ice just 14000 years ago! Gotta be going down!
Like more recent history, man.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2018, 02:50:31 PM »
I'm keeping my vote unchanged: 13.75 to 14 million km2.
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.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2001
  • Likes Given: 1745
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2018, 06:05:22 PM »
I'm keeping my vote unchanged: 13.75 to 14 million km2.
Same.

cats

  • New ice
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2018, 06:47:53 PM »
I think (guess  :) ) it will stay under 14 million, so down a bin to 13.75 - 14

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2018, 02:21:20 AM »
Tough one this because the increases from today's date to the maximum vary so much. Six of increases over the past 10 years would take the maximum above 13.875, but 8 of the last 15 would see it below 13.750 and that's where the average increase would put it.

Most of the increase from now on will be in the Pacific and the commentary seems to indicate that the Pacific will not be conducive to ice formation this year. 

So I am going with the math and opting for 13.625 to 13.875.

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8661
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3405
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2018, 09:37:43 AM »
Tough one this because the increases from today's date to the maximum vary so much. Six of increases over the past 10 years would take the maximum above 13.875, but 8 of the last 15 would see it below 13.750 and that's where the average increase would put it.

Most of the increase from now on will be in the Pacific and the commentary seems to indicate that the Pacific will not be conducive to ice formation this year. 

So I am going with the math and opting for 13.625 to 13.875.
Which was sort of my calculation and then, of course, yesterday up goes extent in one day by 150k km2. Ho hum
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2018, 07:54:36 AM »
So I am going with the math and opting for 13.625 to 13.875.
Which was sort of my calculation and then, of course, yesterday up goes extent in one day by 150k km2. Ho hum
The increase in extent over the past week has only  been 203K,  this includes the 150K mentioned above so the trend and average increase to maximum are back to 13.750. Only 4 of the increases in the past 15 years would now lead to a max above 13.875 while five would lead to a max below 13.625.

So I am sticking with the math. 
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2018, 11:48:47 AM »
Quote from: DavidR
Only 4 of the increases in the past 15 years would now lead to a max above 13.875 while five would lead to a max below 13.625.

So I am sticking with the math. 

I think that the remaining growth is likely to be on the upper end of the range of prior increases. Partly this is because the extent being low means that there's more freezable sea remaining at a time when there's little or no insolation to provide feedback. Partly, also, this is because to maintain the current gap with the average we'd need to avoid good freezing conditions on both sides of the Arctic simultaneously (particularly in the Bering and Barents seas, which have the greatest deficit with the mean); while the forecast for the Pacific (Bering sea) side in the next week is actually fairly cool (see here: https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/forecasts).

Hence I'm sticking to 13.75 to 14 million.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 12:08:32 PM by Paddy »

Pavel

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2018, 08:16:42 AM »
I still at the same point like in December - 13.75 to 14. Now I even more confident things go in such way

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8661
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3405
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2018, 11:06:37 AM »
I still at the same point like in December - 13.75 to 14. Now I even more confident things go in such way

Things have changed in the last few days. I did another post this a.m.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2223.msg139690.html#msg139690
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2018, 05:11:47 AM »
The  rate of growth continues to point to a probable low maximum.
The increases to maximum from the 26th Jan for the past 15 years fall in to the following cells:
14.000 - 14.125 - 2
13.875 - 14.000 - 0
13.750 - 13.875 - 5
13.625 - 13.750 - 4
13.500 - 13.625 - 2
13.375 - 13.500 - 2

Every increase for the past 5 years falls into the bottom 3 categories.
The average figure now points to 13.70 and the trend line figure points to  13.60.

Only a few days left to change your votes.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 05:19:13 AM by DavidR »
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2018, 08:35:47 AM »
The attached graph shows SST's in the North Pacific since 2010 (Sep 2009-Aug 2010). This covers the Bering Strait and Sea of Okhotsk. The order of the years on the right represents the largest  maximum to the smallest maximum sea ice extent. Its very easy to see that there appears to  be a significant negative correlation between the temperatures in the North Pacific and the extent maximum.  With 2018  running very close to  record warm temperatures so far this year it  seems unlikely that we will see very high  increases in extent in this area this year.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2018, 02:29:24 PM »
OK guys, you and a little other research have convinced me. Going down half a step (to 13.625 - 13.875).

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 640
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2018, 02:48:59 PM »
A GIF showing the changing Poll results would be interesting.  I recall (that is, I have no proof) that, of the three most voted in bins, the top two used to have more votes than the lowest; now the lowest of the three is preferred. 

I bet it has something to do with the peripheral Arctic seas not freezing up like they used to do.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2196
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2018, 04:33:55 PM »
A GIF showing the changing Poll results would be interesting.  I recall (that is, I have no proof) that, of the three most voted in bins, the top two used to have more votes than the lowest; now the lowest of the three is preferred. 

I bet it has something to do with the peripheral Arctic seas not freezing up like they used to do.


Ok, CO2 mixes in about 2 months in the atmosphere. And the oceans suck the warmth provided by that. Taking into account that most of oceans are located in southern hemisphere it takes time until the general warming is seen in the Arctic. Thus,periphery of ice meets stable warmer temperatures soon. Ok air flow may bring exceptional anomalies to north pole butthey're just anomalies, not the absolute warmth. (modded: written viA phone in a bar.)
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2018, 05:37:11 AM »
Just  a couple of days left to change votes and I have decide to  move with the maths to  13.500-13.750.

The increases to maximum from the 28th Jan for the past 15 years falls in to the following cells:
14.000 - 14.125 - 2
13.875 - 14.000 - 0
13.750 - 13.875 - 3
13.625 - 13.750 - 4
13.500 - 13.625 - 4
13.375 - 13.500 - 2

Every increase for the past 5 years falls into the bottom 3 categories.
The average figure now points to 13.70 and the trend line figure points to  13.65.

Only a few days left to change your votes.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

Jim Pettit

  • Global Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2018, 12:58:59 PM »
FWIW, if 2018 were to follow the average increase to maximum over the past ten years, it would top out at 13.61M km2 (on March 7th). I went one bin higher.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3181
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2018, 10:04:30 PM »
FWIW, if 2018 were to follow the average increase to maximum over the past ten years, it would top out at 13.61M km2 (on March 7th). I went one bin higher.
I'm sticking with 13.75-14.0.  I anticipate a max of around or about 2017's, maybe a sliver lower.
This space for Rent.

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2018, 01:19:44 PM »
Poll has closed. Forum guesstimates have dropped a bit since the December poll, with, for instance, the modal guess dropping by two bins (ie by 250k). More analysis later.

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2018, 12:29:56 PM »
Since my last post extent has rocketed by 240K km^2.
Both the average and the trend now point to 13.750-13.875. Which  all  goes to  confirm that  we should never tell the Arctic what it  is going to do! ;D

It  looks like half of us will be wrong and half of us right. But who are we to  explain the vagaries of the Arctic :)
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2018, 06:25:51 PM »
Apologies for never crunching the figures for the promised comparison of guesstimates; there just didn't seem much to say beyond what eyeballing the graphs makes obvious. Especially since what's actually happening is now much more interesting than what people were guessing might happen.

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2018, 11:41:31 AM »
Following the storm the predicted range based on the rise to  maximum has spread out quite a bit.

The increases to maximum from the 12th Feb for the past 15 years falls in to the following cells:
14.000 - 14.125 - 3
13.875 - 14.000 - 1
13.750 - 13.875 - 2
13.625 - 13.750 - 6
13.500 - 13.625 - 2
13.375 - 13.500 - 0
13.250 - 13.375 - 1

A reasonable cold period in the Pacific could still cause the record not to be broken  but three quarters of the estimates are predicting a new record low.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2018, 04:08:24 PM »
Extent has now climbed as high as the modal bin (13.66). Only time will tell how much further it goes...

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2018, 03:14:34 AM »
Two weeks on and  the figures have changed dramatically with less than half the rises to  maximum predicting a record.  The new estimates are
14.125 - 14.250 - 1  (+1)
14.000 - 14.125 - 4  (+1)
13.875 - 14.000 - 3  (+2)
13.750 - 13.875 - 4  (+2)
13.625 - 13.750 - 3  (-3)
13.500 - 13.625 - 0  (-2)
13.375 - 13.500 - 0
13.250 - 13.375 - 1  (-1)

Neither the trend nor the mean (269K) rises, predict a new record low. However within 6 days, 4 years will have passed  their maximums so it is still possible for a new record to  occur.

Most  of the rise in the past fortnight has occurred in Baffin, Barents and Okhotsk. These have been offset to some by falls in Greenland and Bering. According to Wipneus:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/amsr2-extent-regional.png
all of these patterns changed in the last couple of days. The Baffin to Barents area will see a lot of warmer air over the next  week according to  ClimateReanalyzer:
 http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.arc-lea.t2

My view expressed earlier is that Bering will remain low this year. With less cold air coming off Siberia and North America over the next  two weeks the rises in the adjacent seas, Baffin Barents and Okhotsk will disappear and an early maximum is likely.  Nevertheless I can't see my original estimate winning at this stage.

 
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 11:50:27 AM by DavidR »
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3181
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2018, 06:33:57 AM »
Two weeks on and  the figures have changed dramatically with less than half the rises to  maximum predicting a record.  The new estimates are...

<snippage>

My view expressed earlier is that Bering will remain low this year. With less cold air coming off Siberia and North America over the next  two weeks the rises in the adjacent seas, Baffin Barents and Okhotsk will disappear and an early maximum is likely.  Nevertheless I can't see my original estimate winning at this stage.
I consider the trade-off of more extent in Baffin and Okhotsk for less in the Bering, Barentz and Chukchi, to avoid a new "min-max" to be a very poor one.
This space for Rent.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2018, 05:07:09 AM »
I'm keeping my vote unchanged: 13.75 to 14 million km2.

JAXA (March 1st, 2018) at 13.76 km2  ;)
Now I am barely right. I wonder how much it will increase.
Will it be a new low record? On a few days we will know...
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.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2001
  • Likes Given: 1745
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2018, 07:51:18 AM »
It's coming back into the fold, but all is not right with the arctic sea ice. I think it's too little to late. But hey, at least my poll bet is in the money.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7695
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1061
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2018, 10:35:27 AM »
I didn't vote, but somehow I don't think there will be a record low maximum this year. But it probably won't exceed 14 million either.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2018, 12:27:20 PM »
Hi Neven.

Your vote is at the top. Given the last days of cold, this could be right.

Here's a link to the December poll, for those - like me - who want to see what they voted.

I'm going down half a step as well, to '13.875 to 14.125 million'.
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.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7695
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1061
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2018, 01:30:35 PM »
That's weird. Normally, your choice is in bold, but I'm not seeing any bold, which is why I assumed I didn't vote. Maybe I didn't press the button, or wanted to wait, but then forgot to vote.

Thanks for checking.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2018, 08:23:19 PM »
I didn't vote, but somehow I don't think there will be a record low maximum this year. But it probably won't exceed 14 million either.
I have to say I  have completely reversed my position and now think  > 14M is quite probable. The CAB and Bering are both in a position to gain another 150K over the next 2-3 weeks and that  would be sufficient to push extent back up over 14M.  The areas that are unusually high at the moment are unlikely to see significant losses to compensate leaving  the numbers high.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7695
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1061
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2018, 11:29:42 PM »
You might be right. It depends on whether the current forecast for the coming week (high over CAB, low over Alaska, colder Arctic) will last longer, and if so, how long.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2018, 05:25:42 AM »
On March 2nd, unexpected JAXA drop (at least for me) of -22,917 km2. Now it is 13,736,896 km2.
2018 continues to be the lowest on record for the calendar day and it is 42,200 km2 below 2017 (2nd lowest on record).
Now 141,391 km2 below the lowest maximum that happened on March 6th, 2017.
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.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #39 on: March 04, 2018, 05:14:48 AM »
On March 3rd, another JAXA drop of -7,096 km2:o
Now JAXA is at 13,729,800 km2.
Even that the drop is small, the chance of having a new low maximum record is increasing.
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.

ArcticMelt1

  • New ice
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2018, 05:05:35 AM »
On March 3rd, another JAXA drop of -7,096 km2:o
Now JAXA is at 13,729,800 km2.
Even that the drop is small, the chance of having a new low maximum record is increasing.

Today, a new drop of 40k.

Hautbois

  • New ice
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2018, 01:49:43 PM »
Cross-posting my chart from the 'when' thread...

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1287
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 536
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2018, 10:23:41 PM »
The German website www.wetteronline.de has declared March 3rd as the maximum of this winter's ice season:
https://www.wetteronline.de/klimawandel/2018-03-08-me
They took the data from nsidc (National Snow and Ice Center?).  In their statement no word about "climate change" was made, but at least they published it in their "climate change" folder. I am not sure whether this post hasn't been submitted too early as it is possible that the ice will grow a little bit more in the next days. Anyway, this is the third year in row that the maximum has reached the lowest value ever measured since 1979.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #43 on: March 14, 2018, 04:52:28 AM »
New 2018 max on March 13th: 13,837,866 km2.
Still below the 2017 lowest max of 13,878,287 km2, but just by 40,421 km2.

So, it is possible that 2018 will no break the record, depending of what will happen this week.  8)

March 11, 2018    13,780,135    
March 12, 2018     13,806,788     26,653
March 13, 2018    13,837,866     31,078

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.

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2196
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #44 on: March 14, 2018, 05:53:50 AM »
I'm out on the low end of guesses so no trophy for me, but I could argue the rises above 13.75M are entirely due storm-caused breakups and thus weather. Had this been a weatherless winter I might still be in the game.
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2018, 06:41:19 AM »
I'm out on the low end of guesses so no trophy for me, but I could argue the rises above 13.75M are entirely due storm-caused breakups and thus weather. Had this been a weatherless winter I might still be in the game.

With the cold that is forecasted on the following 10 days, now I think that we could see above 14M km2.

Those who voted for dates March 1 to March 10 can tear up their betting slips and retire weeping to the bar.

It is really cold in the Arctic at the moment.

If I weep, it will because of the happiness...  ;D
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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2018, 06:52:56 AM »
gerontocrat seems to have taken a pause, JCG.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #47 on: March 14, 2018, 07:10:24 AM »
I'm out on the low end of guesses so no trophy for me, but I could argue the rises above 13.75M are entirely due storm-caused breakups and thus weather. Had this been a weatherless winter I might still be in the game.
You might know this smug saying from here; There’s no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes.
 
Made a rolling animation for dates 9-13.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #48 on: March 14, 2018, 01:13:39 PM »
gerontocrat seems to have taken a pause, JCG.

I like gerontocrat reports. I am just happy to be wrong on my freezing season forecast, even that I am not yet optimistic about the 2018 melting season.

Hope we will have also a big increase on the next PIOMAS figures, to be a little more optimistic.
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.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8661
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3405
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« Reply #49 on: March 14, 2018, 01:47:15 PM »
I am just happy to be wrong on my freezing season forecast, even that I am not yet optimistic about the 2018 melting season.

Hope we will have also a big increase on the next PIOMAS figures, to be a little more optimistic.

As regards extent it is just the peripheral seas at the moment - thin ice, a lot of low concentration, extent gains and losses at the mercy of the weather.

But volume ? All about the CAB? Air temperature anomalies,  I am convinced, either inhibit or encourage ice thickening. But I am also convinced that what lies beneath is what really matters. How much of the very high increase in Global Ocean Heat over the last 12 months (let alone since the record low extent of 2012)  has headed north? Have all those storms and wave action (shown on the freezing thread) caused heat from depth to mix with colder water just below the ice?

It will be ocean heat that does for the ice in the end? The waiting game continues.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)