JAXA 2019 Arctic SIE September daily minimum: July Poll

[Juan C. García]

The poll is for the minimum Daily Arctic sea ice extent in September 2019, as measured by JAXA (ADS-NIPR-VISHOP).

September mínimums have been:

 Year               Extent
                  10^6 km2
1980's Avg.     7.19
1990's Avg.     6.49
2000's Avg.     5.41
2010's Avg.     4.33
2000               6.04
2001               6.55
2002               5.51
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
2016               4.02
2017               4.47
2018               4.46

Order by lowest to highest:

[Juan C. García]

As of today, Same bin than last month poll:
3.5 - 4.0 M km².

[Stephan]

I stay with 4.00 ± 0.25 M km²

[oren]

As of today, Same bin than last month poll:
3.5 - 4.0 M km².

Same here, keeping 3.5-4.0. This takes into account a range of probabilities, though on the whole my vote should have budged down somewhat compared to last month.

[Rich]

2.75 - 3.25

[gerontocrat]

4.00 million km2. I have said it so it will be so.

[mmghosh]

3.5 to 4.0
There should be at least 2 sub 4.0 values in this decade.  Next decade should be in the 3's 🥺🥺🥺

[Sterks]

Going down two steps to 3.25 - 3.75. Let’s vote for a clear “under 4 million”. Ready to move it before closing

[Paddy]

Sticking to 3.75 - 4.25 for now.

[petm]

3.25 - 3.75

Obviously depends a lot on summer storms, autumn winds, etc.

[Coffee Drinker]

My prediction is 4.25

[b_lumenkraft]

My prediction is 4.25

Are you in the 3.75 - 4.25 or 4.00 - 4.50 bin? That's both 4.25.

[gerontocrat]

My prediction is 4.25

Are you in the 3.75 - 4.25 or 4.00 - 4.50 bin? That's both 4.25.

And don't forget 4.25 to 4.75. The Lumenkraft Hedge Fund makes its play?

[b_lumenkraft]

From the back of my head, there was a voice, "is that all?", but i didn't listen to it. Thanks for making it clear i can't do numbers Gerontocrat.   

[Killian]

Preliminary Scenarios (just a wee bit early for me, may revise.)

1. Good ice retention conditions (mixed Westerlies/Easterlies, few or no significant dipoles, cloudy, mid to low Fram export, e.g.): Between 4.00 and 4.50 million km^2

2. Mildly good melt/transport conditions: Between 3.75 and 4.25 million km^2

3. Good melt conditions (Consistent Westerlies, relatively sunny, a strong cyclone or two, strong Fram export): Between 3.50 and 4.00 million km^2

4. Strong melt conditions (multiple or long-lasting dipoles, strong Westerlies, lots of high pressure/sun, high Fram export): Between 3.25 and 3.75 million km^2

Feel #2 is most likely, #3 next. I usually wait one more week, so we'll see.

Yeah, a bit of a copout, but science doesn't do predictions, it does scenarios. :-)

[magnamentis]

 

[DavidR]

3.5 - 4.0. To  emphasize the probability that we will be below 2016, particularly because temperatures in May and June were generally higher than 2016 in both the Arctic and the high Arctic according to NOAA - ESRL.  Catching 2012 requires unusual weather in August  and September that  is possible but not probable.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

[icefisher]

4.26-4.30, so fourth lowest.  Thinner ice spreads resulting in more 15% cells.  Still expecting a new low volume October 4 - 8.

[Pavel]

Between 3.25 and 3.75 but I think it won't beat 2012, at least it need strong melt conditions

[Nightvid Cole]

I say 2.5 - 3.0 million km^2, I think we will beat 2012 because June was so exceptionally hot in the Siberian/Pacific sector and concentration is already dropping precipitously there. (previous hottest Junes were 2007 and 2012 in that region).

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=2000&lat1=90&lat2=68&lon1=90&lon2=225&iseas=1&mon1=5&mon2=5&iarea=1&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries

[jdallen]

I say 2.5 - 3.0 million km^2, I think we will beat 2012 because June was so exceptionally hot in the Siberian/Pacific sector and concentration is already dropping precipitously there. (previous hottest Junes were 2007 and 2012 in that region).

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=2000&lat1=90&lat2=68&lon1=90&lon2=225&iseas=1&mon1=5&mon2=5&iarea=1&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries

I pondered that for a while before electing to be a bit more conservative.  It did convince me to move my vote down a bucket but not quite as far as you did.  If the CAB doesn't hold, your guess is probably right.

That in itself is disturbing... pretty much, a new low this year hinges on what amounts to an environmental coin toss.... 

[bill kapra]

4M. The weather won’t be as extreme this year and so extent will remain close but not a minumum. But that will mask the underlying dynamic of slushy, thin ice throughout.

[magnamentis]

4M. The weather won’t be as extreme this year and so extent will remain close but not a minumum. But that will mask the underlying dynamic of slushy, thin ice throughout.

how do you know how the weather will be ?

especially since the weather already IS even more extreme this year ?

just curious where one gets his matter of fact sounding information from

[bill kapra]

Sorry, thought we were speculating....
figuring on reversion to the mean but one never knows!

[jdallen]

Sorry, thought we were speculating....
figuring on reversion to the mean but one never knows!

Indeed we are.

[gerontocrat]

3.5 to 4.0
Just under 4.0 million. Of this I am absolutely 100% certain/uncertain (choose depending on mood)

Went down one bin after looking at the June PIOMAS data.

[b_lumenkraft]

Between 2.75 and 3.25 million km^2

Went down a bit.

[oren]

Moved down to 3.25-3.75. I believe it will be between 3-4, so this better represents my probability function.

[Juan C. García]

Moved down to 3.25-3.75.

The same: 3.25-3.75M km².

[kynde]

3.5 - 4.0
This is a compromise between the great momentum so far and some recent years failing to quite live up to theirs.
Also I'm assuming the will be no GAC solely because the occurrence rate of them is so low although this year admittedly its possibility is higher than normal.

[Neven]

I believe that the 2012 record can be broken, and so I have no choice but to choose the bin that 2012 is in: Between 3.00 and 3.50 million km^2

[DavidR]

I've moved down to 3.25 - 3.75. I expect  the minimum to be closer to a record than second place.  A double century break on NSIDC today,  suggests that high melting rates are entrenched for now. And I  am reminded that 2016 plummeted late, after high June and July  temperatures across the Arctic. 2019 has been generally warmer than both 2012 and 2016 through May and June, and is also running hot in July.

[jdallen]

+1 DavidR

[magnamentis]

Sorry, thought we were speculating....
figuring on reversion to the mean but one never knows!

ok, no problem, i like speculating (with stop losses of course LOL) all good

[magnamentis]

I believe that the 2012 record can be broken, and so I have no choice but to choose the bin that 2012 is in: Between 3.00 and 3.50 million km^2

a remain in my original bin 3.25-3.75 game on

[RealityCheck]

Jumping down 1 bin to 3.5 to 4.0 based on latest data, 2019 with lowest status by all metrics for the date - but also, not going lower since I think the 2012 event was so exceptional it is unlikely to be repeated - yet... I hope I am not wrong...for the sake of the planet, and more importantly, to win the poll! 

[Treform2]

Putting gut where mouth is 3-3.5

[D-Penguin]

I believe that the 2012 record can be broken, and so I have no choice but to choose the bin that 2012 is in: Between 3.00 and 3.50 million km^2

With the same logic, I remain with my original selection, 3.00 and 3.50 million kM^2.

[magnamentis]

sometimes i ask myself what is the purpose of a poll that can be changed, i mean to change the slot each time something happens makes it quite easy to get near the truth.

sometimes i miss a point, hence don't hesitate to enlighten me (nicely LOL)

[DavidR]

sometimes i ask myself what is the purpose of a poll that can be changed, i mean to change the slot each time something happens makes it quite easy to get near the truth.

sometimes i miss a point, hence don't hesitate to enlighten me (nicely LOL)

The point is to allow people to vote early but adapt to the same data that  later voters can see.  Otherwise there would be an advantage to voting late, but this would lead to  some people missing out on the vote entirely.  Would our votes have changed if there had been a sudden spate of ice retention weather leading to  low melt  in early July rather than what  we have seen. Its the vote at the closing  date that is fixed.
Also allows people to  make a mistake and fix it.

[magnamentis]

sometimes i ask myself what is the purpose of a poll that can be changed, i mean to change the slot each time something happens makes it quite easy to get near the truth.

sometimes i miss a point, hence don't hesitate to enlighten me (nicely LOL)

The point is to allow people to vote early but adapt to the same data that  later voters can see.  Otherwise there would be an advantage to voting late, but this would lead to  some people missing out on the vote entirely.  Would our votes have changed if there had been a sudden spate of ice retention weather leading to  low melt  in early July rather than what  we have seen. Its the vote at the closing  date that is fixed.
Also allows people to  make a mistake and fix it.

OK sounds reasonable, thanks for taking the time, very much appreciated.

[Juan C. García]

sometimes i ask myself what is the purpose of a poll that can be changed, i mean to change the slot each time something happens makes it quite easy to get near the truth.

sometimes i miss a point, hence don't hesitate to enlighten me (nicely LOL)

The point is to allow people to vote early but adapt to the same data that  later voters can see.  Otherwise there would be an advantage to voting late, but this would lead to  some people missing out on the vote entirely.  Would our votes have changed if there had been a sudden spate of ice retention weather leading to  low melt  in early July rather than what  we have seen. Its the vote at the closing  date that is fixed.
Also allows people to  make a mistake and fix it.

Regarding this, only one day to vote or change your vote. 

[Paddy]

Changing down half a bin to 3.5 - 4.0. We're well below most previous years and falling fast.

[SteveMDFP]

For these polls, I make my choice when they open, and don't change it.  It's supposed to be a prediction.  So I picked "Between 2.75 and 3.25" and I'm standing pat.

[BenB]

I went for 3-3.5. Apart from the GAC, 2012 was by no means exceptional from here on in, and we're ahead on most measures at the moment. I went for 2.5-4.0 in Tor's exclusion poll, which I'm a lot more confident of.

[Killian]

I think the June preconditioning info is really interesting, but am expecting we'll see yet another post-2012 relatively-ice-retaining weather profile overall. While my own look at things, posted in the data thread, suggests less melt/export than in '07, '16 and '12 would be enough to hit a record IF '19 is the lowest extent on 7/19, I see the weather mitigating what otherwise might be an easy record.

However, if we get some significant winds blowing through the Fram and a strong dipole or two, I'd expect to be very close to or below '12.

Scenario I: 3.7M km sq.

Scenario II: 3.15M km sq.

[slow wing]

Missed the cut but would have gone "Between 3.25 and 3.75 million km^2".

That's dropping down 2 bins from my prediction last month, after a month's brutal weather for the ice.

That agrees with my eyeballing of the Navy ice thickness prediction. Like last month, I drew a boundary line partitioning the ice pack at, for this month 0.7-0.8 metres thickness (last month was 1.3 m thickness) - depending on how close the line is to the edge of the ice pack.

Like last month, on comparing by eye with the area inside 80 degrees latitude -- which is 3.9 million km^2 -- the enclosed area is a little less: about 3.5 million km^2 of ice, including a couple of 100,000 km^2 in the CAA.

So that confirms the bin I'm predicting as "Between 3.25 and 3.75 million km^2".

[Gumbercules]

I picked the lowest option. Isn't it possible that previous trends can be broken? As in, not merely breaking a record, but changing the shape of the loss/growth curve. The general shape of the curve doesn't need to stay the same as it was in previous years. Maybe there is a tipping point at which even after peak loss days, you keep on losing ice, till you reach a tipping point, and there is so little ice left, spread around enough that it just goes vanish and though we're in the time of the year of slowing losses they accelerate again on a sufficiently large scale to clearly be a paradigm shift and not just a blip?

[Pragma]

though we're in the time of the year of slowing losses they accelerate again on a sufficiently large scale to clearly be a paradigm shift and not just a blip?

It's a question of physics. Things don't just accelerate spontaneously, there needs to be something driving the acceleration.

What do you suggest that would be?