Cryosphere Today 2013 Arctic SIA daily minimum: June poll

[Neven]

THIS POLL WILL RUN FOR TWO WEEKS (until June 20th). YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR VOTE. MIND THE DIFFERENCES WITH THE NSIDC SEA ICE EXTENT MONTHLY/SEPTEMBER MINIMUM. THIS IS CT SEA ICE AREA DAILY MINIMUM.

Same text as last month's poll:

It should be 'fun' and interesting to hold a poll each month, to see how opinions change according to sea ice rhythm and pace. These monthly polls can then also function as a dedicated thread for everything concerning Cryosphere Today sea ice area. Daily updated data can be found here.

Again, this poll is for Cryosphere Today sea ice area daily minimum (unlike the other popular measure: NSIDC sea ice extent monthly minimum), so we're looking for the lowest total Arctic sea ice area number on any given day at the end of the 2013 melting season.

Here's how things are currently looking based on data up to June 4th:



These are the daily minimums for the last 7 years (in millions km2):

    2005: 4.092
    2006: 4.030
    2007: 2.919
    2008: 3.004
    2009: 3.425
    2010: 3.072
    2011: 2.905
    2012: 2.234

Again, try to use this thread to discuss CT SIA mainly. There are other threads for the other topics, and if there isn't, feel free to open one.

I will open a new thread for the 2013 CT SIA minimum July poll once this month is done. Keep voting. It'll be interesting to see if there are shifts in voting patterns as the melting season progresses.

[Richard Rathbone]

I'm shifting up a couple of bins based on a relatively slow May. The volumetric melt from end May to minimum is remarkably stable from year to year. Assuming its on the high side I come in a little under 2.5 but I'd shift that up another bin if the big June cliff doesn't appear on schedule.

[Neven]

Richard, depending on whether the Cliff appears or not, you can still alter your vote until June 20th.

I've shifted one bin up from the previous poll: 2.25 to 2.5 million km2

But might also change that depending on the cliff.

[ChrisReynolds]

I've shifted up one bin to 2.0 to 2.25 to reflect an upward shift of my notional probability density function. I still think a new record is feasible, but it will require a melt as aggressive as 2012, but not impeded by the MYI intrusion into the ES and Chukchi.

[lochbryn]

I voted 1.75-2.0 m km2 purely based on the trend. 2007 brought a new initial state, with a 25% reduction in the daily minimum, followed by 2008-11 with minimum variation.  The 2012 season brought another new initial state for 2013, with another 25% reduction in the daily minimum.  Based on reading the great work here, I would argue that the stage is set for falling off the cliff. While we are basically at the same spot we were in 2012 at this date, the ice is primed for more melt than 2012 because there is more FYI.  Given the slow start, I have moderated my temptation to go lower.

[johnm33]

I'm no longer expecting complete meltdown, though still think it's possible, we're only one outlier event from catching up with previous years. Also the Russian missions problems confirm many peoples fears about the reliability of volume indicators. So I've gone for .75/1 which is the middle of my expectations [up from0/.25]. If frivolous is right about the coming weather this looks like an ideal time to see the effect of the tides/ currents with the new moon almost upon us.

[wili]

I'm not sure why few people think there could be another '07-like mega-melt or worse again.

Does anyone think the ice is stronger now than then? Is it not, instead, much weaker, thinner, saltier, slushier, more full of air holes, more fractured with leads...and as the melt season proceeds, more covered with pools of water?

A few extra bad storms, bright days, periods of accelerated transport out the Fram, or combinations of the above, and we'll be near, at or beyond the amount of melt we saw in '07.

Of course, at best, we likely have only a very few more years for a repeat of '07 to be possible--after that there will be too little ice at minimum for that large of a drop again.

[AndrewP]

3.0-3.25

could be anywhere between 2.25 and 4.


IIRC Chris Reynolds was predicting aggressive melt by this time of year due to the high proportion of FYI. That has failed to materialize, and PIOMAS is running above several recent years. Given volume is on the high side of the 2010-2012 period, an average of those three years, or perhaps a bit higher, would seem like a reasonable prediction.

[sydb]

I'm sticking with my 1.75-2.0 despite the slower initial melt. I think that advected heat from the Atlantic will play a bigger role in the late season melt. If the June cliff fails to materialise, then I'll think again about it.

[Bob Wallace]

I'm not sure why few people think there could be another '07-like mega-melt or worse again.

I doubt hardly anyone thinks that there couldn't be a 2007-type super melt year. 

But 2007 was, as we all recognize, an unusual year and that makes it a low probability event.  So certainly possible, but not probable.  Could happen, probably won't happen.  At this point no reason to suspect is will happen.

I think most of us feel that a '07 super-melt season would create a sea ice free ocean by the fall.

[Pmt111500]

I'll withold my vote until very late. Meanwhile, here are the losses in CT ice area (3 day averages) in recent years. We're now at day #154 and it looks like the 'century period' starts in 4 to 8 days, 2010 being a late  bloomer in this respect. In earlier years (1995-2006) this period of fast melt has started in 6 to 12 days, so (eyeballing) there is a 2 to 4 days shift to earlier post 2007. But anyway, it looks like 2013 has some serious catching up to do if it wants to get even with 2012. The earlier years image is an unclear sphagetti graph, I know, note though (eyeballing) the highest melt rates are on years (1998-2002) of high solar flux.

I thought of going to aestivation for two weeks, and prepare myself to be amazed by the losses, but I doubt I can be off this site that long :-)

[ChrisReynolds]

IIRC Chris Reynolds was predicting aggressive melt by this time of year due to the high proportion of FYI. That has failed to materialize, and PIOMAS is running above several recent years. Given volume is on the high side of the 2010-2012 period, an average of those three years, or perhaps a bit higher, would seem like a reasonable prediction.

You recall correctly. But the prediction of aggressive melt still holds - the cold temperatures have overcome the FYI factor to retard the early melt season. Now things are starting to warm up we should see a rapid melt commence. The issue for the end of the season is whether PIOMAS volume can lose enough to make up for the late start. We'll know more about that by mid July.

[ivica]

I'm still sticking to 1.75-2.0
and wondering about Arctic Melt Pole and Cyclone circling around, attached:

[Whit]

I'm still sticking to 1.75-2.0
and wondering about Arctic Melt Pole and Cyclone circling around

Look. The beginning of a polar donut.

1.75-2.0 here as well.

[wanderer]

I'm sticking to 1.75-2.0 too... something is rotten!

[Shared Humanity]

Looking at the CT image for June 6, it seems to suggest that the persistent cyclone has been pushing the sea ice up against the coast of Alaska and eastern Russia while reducing concentration in the CAB. We even see slight reductions near the CA and Greenland where much of the MYI hangs out. It almost seems as if the cyclone is also pushing the MYI towards the Fram. With volume still not dropping fast, can we determine if much or any of the MYI has been moved into the Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian and Laptev seas? Could this suggest a large drop in volume this year?


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

There has been a lot of discussion on other threads about the possibility of stronger cyclones this year due to the energy available as open water forms. The GAC of 2012 may be the new normal. With the current state of the ice in the CAB, could we be setting up for a final flushing of Arctic sea ice? The image is beginning to look like a large toilet bowl.

[AndrewP]

IIRC Chris Reynolds was predicting aggressive melt by this time of year due to the high proportion of FYI. That has failed to materialize, and PIOMAS is running above several recent years. Given volume is on the high side of the 2010-2012 period, an average of those three years, or perhaps a bit higher, would seem like a reasonable prediction.

You recall correctly. But the prediction of aggressive melt still holds - the cold temperatures have overcome the FYI factor to retard the early melt season. Now things are starting to warm up we should see a rapid melt commence. The issue for the end of the season is whether PIOMAS volume can lose enough to make up for the late start. We'll know more about that by mid July.

That was one of my points at the time. It is still possible to get cooler weather in the arctic and positive feedbacks have not yet created perma-warmth in the arctic. A significant portion of the warmth the last 5 of the last 6 years has been due to weather patterns unrelated to climate change or positive feedbacks.  2009 demonstrated this, and 2013 is on its way to demonstrating this as well. I have a feeling some of the predictions in this thread will end up looking just as silly as the WUWT predictions do most years.

If volume is running above the previous 3 year average, why the hell would you predict area over 1 million sq km lower than the 3 year average? That's not to mention that area is also running above the previous 3 year average, which means positive feedbacks will be delayed as well.

[Tor Bejnar]

Early melt is slower than expected (cold temps, but why cold temps?), but poor ice quality is happening early (at least in CT's Arctic Basin).  I never suspected that parts of the Canadian side of the Arctic Basin might approach slush puppy conditions before near-complete Arctic ice melt-out.  OK, it isn't slush puppy-ish yet, but I'm now suspecting the possibility.  It seems weather will be more influential than ever during the melting season.  My 1.75-2.0 guess remains unchanged at this time.

[Neven]

Huge drop for the 6th: 246,652 km2.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of those.

[Shared Humanity]

Huge drop for the 6th: 246,652 km2.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of those.

With the reduction in concentration over the pole, will this be an area which you would expect a big, near term, contribution to these large drops?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

What would happen if we get a nice sunny pole over the next couple of weeks?

[Jim Pettit]

Huge drop for the 6th: 246,652 km2.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of those.

Me, neither. IJIS SIE had that large drop a few days ago before going AWOL, so I figured we'd have a good century break or two with CT SIA. But that double century break is the largest since the second week of June last year (in the middle of that remarkable 11-day span that saw SIA drop by a record 1.872 million km²). At any rate, 2013 has crossed the 10 million km² mark on Day 158, just three days after it did so in 2007, and seven days later than it did in 2012.

FWIW, area dropped by 310 km² over the first week of June last year; this year that's been 715 km², the third highest drop for the first week of June on record.

Still got some catching up to do, though; the total June loss last year was 3.24 million km², so this month needs another 2.53 million km² just to get even with last year, and that would mean an average of about 110,000 km² per day over the next three weeks. We'll see...

[Steven]

If volume is running above the previous 3 year average, why the hell would you predict area over 1 million sq km lower than the 3 year average? That's not to mention that area is also running above the previous 3 year average, which means positive feedbacks will be delayed as well.

You have a point there.  I also voted for a value in the upper part of the poll (3.0 - 3.25 Mkm2). 

Last year the open water in the Kara and Beaufort Seas acted like a giant solar collector.  This year, these seas are still mostly covered.

Recently we had a lot of ice movement from the Central Arctic toward the fringes.  But this appears to be a reversible process.  If high pressure returns to the Central Arctic, the ice could move back before the polynya's have a chance to gather heat.  Just a guess 

[Richard Rathbone]

If volume is running above the previous 3 year average, why the hell would you predict area over 1 million sq km lower than the 3 year average? That's not to mention that area is also running above the previous 3 year average, which means positive feedbacks will be delayed as well.

You have a point there.  I also voted for a value in the upper part of the poll. 

Last year the open water in the Kara and Beaufort Seas acted like a giant solar collector.  This year, these seas are still mostly covered.

Recently we had a lot of ice movement from the Central Arctic toward the fringes.  But this appears to be a reversible process.  If high pressure returns to the Central Arctic, the ice could move back before the polynya's have a chance to gather heat.  Just a guess 

The fringes have been thick all winter. Its a question of whether that ends up net positive, because they melt anyway and when it gets to the centre it goes fast because there's not much there, or whether it ends up net negative because it slows the melt enough that it never gets to the centre before the sun goes down.

Last month I was betting on the net positive, but after May turned out to have a relatively small volume loss I am back on the fence. A slow start to area loss wouldn't have made me change my mind, that was to be expected, but I wasn't expecting a slow start to volume loss.

[ChrisReynolds]

Huge drop for the 6th: 246,652 km2.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of those.

That's exactly the day I had marked in my spreadsheet for the June Cliff. It's so impressive I can't help but wonder whether it will stand.

[Neven]

That's exactly the day I had marked in my spreadsheet for the June Cliff. It's so impressive I can't help but wonder whether it will stand.

Oh, it will stand alright. CT rarely, if ever, revises data. And double centuries aren't uncommon for June.

[ChrisReynolds]

OK, then I'll allow myself a provisional:  WOOO HOOO 

[icebgone]

Congratulations Chris.  I was not expecting this big a break until June 15.  I expect to have one or more triple century breaks before the end of June.  This one was close given the early date.  I suspect that the ice on the Canadian side is ridging up and hidden under the clouds.  Combined with the early fracturing, persistent cold, and slow down in Fram export the Beaufort may be a late comer to the melting party.  This should also delay the opening of the NW passage.  After a slow start Greenland is finally getting in the spirit of melt. The dome is still cold though, so just some peripheral melting for the next month or so.   

[Jim Pettit]

Oh, it will stand alright. CT rarely, if ever, revises data. And double centuries aren't uncommon for June.

True. Over the past 10 years, there have been an average of two double CT SIA century breaks every June, on top of an additional 10.1 single century breaks. (2012 had four of the former, and 12 of the latter.)

[brianwind]

I'm offering my opinion as an amateur naturalist nonscientist obsessing about arctic sea ice.
2012 may have been another 2007, but we remain in a strong trend. Based on all the evidence, we will likely see major melting later this month into july and august. So I am predicting 1.5-1.75 by September. That cyclone up there right now will be gone with just a little more warming. After that, it will be all sunshine for 3 months.

[ChrisReynolds]

The dome is still cold though, so just some peripheral melting for the next month or so.   

It's a 'woo hoo' of joy at something exciting, not being right or anything minor like that. 

Actually I think this drop is due to real reduction of concentration, and melt ponding masquerading as open water.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-ct-area-june-crash.html

This seems to be supported because CT Area regions show no step drops, apart from the Central Arctic, which is well away from the sea ice edge.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

Jim Pettit,

Thanks for keeping an eye on the numbers for us.

[Neven]

Another substantial drop: 161K. This is when 2012 started it's impressive run of 10 century breaks in 11 days time, including 3 double century breaks. 2013 has its work cut out.

I'm not sure, but I'm not seeing any big changes on the day-to-day UB SIC comparison, so perhaps sub-century break drops in the next day or two?

[ChrisReynolds]

CT Area Anomalies updated to yesterday's data 8/6/13.



Note that 2007, 2011 and 2012 all show drops in June of this sort. And after each year a new record was set, but that is only three years.

[BornFromTheVoid]

A sizeable contribution from Hudson Bay on yesterdays drop.



With the warmth expected to stay across Hudson Bay for the next few days at least, I'd expect it to contribute around 200k to the area drop over the next 5 days, with maybe another 150k lost from the Baffin sea area.

[ChrisReynolds]

Thanks BFTV,

I must admit I overlooked Hudson Bay.

[Andre Koelewijn]

Sticking to my earlier prediction of 1.25-1.5 M, with insufficient reason even to modify the reasons:

(23 May:)
Voted between 1.25M and 1.5M km2, again.

As I wrote on April 7th in the previous poll:
Based on an eye-balled guess from the figures since, roughly, 2005.
Yet, I hope it will turn out to be higher, which would then be a result of good weather (i.e. bad for melting).
I believe the amount of ice mid-September is determined by both area and volume, and the downward trend of PIOMAS doesn't promise a rebound - and note that the declining PIOMAS-average has been clearly too high in the past years.

Although the melt slowed down a bit recently, I'm afraid it will soon pick up again. Much will depend on the weather from Mid-July till end of August, but where last year showed a vast amount of rather thin ice around the pole (see Apocalypse4real's site), this year North (!) of the 'HYCOM black ice' North of the CAA and beyond more melt is likely to take place, especially when storms mix all up along the edges.


OK, it was a bit cold lately, on the other hand the cliff is here again.

[icebgone]

We are currently 300k above 2012 area as we enter the 1MM 2012 drop zone.  I can only count about 700k of potential melt area in the next five days.  So 600k above 2012 by June 15.  Until Nares clears out  continued growth in Beaufort and CAA volume from cyclonic movement so 2.25-2.50 by minimum.  Just do not think ES and Beaufort are at as much risk this year.  CA may hold out despite its weakened condition if it has a source of ice from it's perimeter for replacment.

[Peter Ellis]

What does Nares strait have to do with the Beaufort sea?

[cRR Kampen]

I've chosen 'between 0.25 and 0.5' but actually I'm reckoning with the wipe-out now.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Looking at the Bremen concentration maps, it would seem as though some of the lower concentration area in the central Arctic have reduced somewhat.
At the same time, there has been a big drop in area/concentration in the Chukchi and Baffin seas, with moderate losses in Kara, Laptev and the Hudson Bay.

The changes look big enough to start influencing the extent measures too. It will be an interesting week...

[danp]

CT area down another 105K.  Oddly it looks as though 60K of that is from a very sharp drop in the Kara Sea while Hudson Bay had a temporary pause.

[danp]

Looks like the sudden Kara drop is probably CT catching the increasing water opening off of Novaya Zemlya as the pack has been pushed away from the coast (partly due to the cyclone) over the last several days.  So more compaction than melting.

[Pmt111500]

still holding my vote, I want to see how the Cliff continues. For fun, made a 'village idiot'-style correction due to increased ghg and albedo loss (calculated from a huge amount of SIX data points, and assuming linearity over the melt period, :-P ) to 1989 (the only year with a similar style Persistent Arctic Cyclone, according FishoutofWater at DailyKos). This yielded 2,6 Mkm2, so this might be my upper limit. I've no doubt that the correction applied is steadfastly wrong, or at least seriously deficient.

[wanderer]

CT area up a bit

[Jim Pettit]

Yes--bizarrely so. After three consecutive century breaks--including the year's first double century break--it's strange to see area increase (and that on the same day that last year saw a double century loss). However, even with that increase, June 2013 has already seen a drop of 978k km2, more than the 897k km2 seen over the first ten days of June 2012. And 2012 SIA dropped a precipitous 1.13 million km2 the week coming up, but then fell by "just" 562k the week after that; given what I see in the forecast and the current ice maps, I would guess that 2013 will fall enough over the next two weeks to stay just a bit behind 2012.

[ChrisReynolds]

From my ongoing Cliff Watch blog post. The main graphic, CT Area anomalies updated this evening.

[Neven]

I haven't said it yet, but that's an excellent graph, Chris.

My eyeball is working pretty decently too:

I'm not sure, but I'm not seeing any big changes on the day-to-day UB SIC comparison, so perhaps sub-century break drops in the next day or two?

Based on what I've seen on the day-to-day UB SIC comparison yesterday and today, I think we'll see two more century breaks. But I'm pretty stunned at how much 2013 is behind in so many regions.

[wanderer]

I haven't said it yet, but that's an excellent graph, Chris.

My eyeball is working pretty decently too:

I'm not sure, but I'm not seeing any big changes on the day-to-day UB SIC comparison, so perhaps sub-century break drops in the next day or two?

Based on what I've seen on the day-to-day UB SIC comparison yesterday and today, I think we'll see two more century breaks. But I'm pretty stunned at how much 2013 is behind in so many regions.

During the last 30 days it's been much cooler as normal. I expect things will turn fast and huge drops will follow soon.

[Bob Wallace]

But I'm pretty stunned at how much 2013 is behind in so many regions.

If we look at the PIOMAS annual minimum record we see that some years drop a bit, some a lot, and some go up.  This could simply be a "go up" year due to the variability in weather than happens.

Or perhaps the Gompertz tail is making its appearance.  Perhaps there has been a localized climatic shift that is going to cause the Arctic to be cooler for a while.  Strange things are happening with the jet stream.

We are, after all, watching a geological event more extreme than anything humans have ever observed during their time on two legs.

[BornFromTheVoid]

With the current area at 9.54 million km2, here's how we currently compare to the previous years minima.



Previous minima shown by the line, and the difference from those minima to the current extent in the columns.

[Neven]

Based on what I've seen on the day-to-day UB SIC comparison yesterday and today, I think we'll see two more century breaks. But I'm pretty stunned at how much 2013 is behind in so many regions.

Nope, another sub-Century break drop.