Poll: Global Sea Ice Area Oct-Nov 2023 Peak

[John_the_Younger]

Cannot change vote. (Polll open for 3 weeks.)
Per the graph below, we'll use the NSIDC 5-day trailing average for Arctic + Antarctic Sea Ice Area.
Can someone provide values for the NSIDC (5-day trailing) May 2023 peak, 2018 November peak and 2016 May and October peaks?

Extra kudos to anybody who votes for Option 4 and it "wins"! (although only Option 1 is a win for us all)

[John_the_Younger]

I see that 4 people have voted (2 with me for record low Oct/Nov max), but just haven't commented.  The good news about my pessimism is that I'm usually wrong.   

[oren]

Is it possible to restate the poll question in numbers? I've had a hard time understanding the bin ranges in a hurry.

[John_the_Younger]

Only if someone with the knowhow gives me the numbers

[oren]

Eyeballing the chart gives the following approximations:
Above 2018 November peak - >19.5M.
Between 18.5 million km2 and 2018 November peak - 18.50-19.50.
Between 18.5 million km2 and 2023 May peak - 17.80-18.50.
Between 2023 May peak and 2016 October peak - 17.60-17.80.
Below 2016 October peak - <17.60

I would suggest to republish the poll using these numbers as basis but making the bins more similar in width (<17.5, 17.5-18, 18-18.5, 18.5-19.5, >19.5). Else, reword the bins so the between X and Y always starts with the lower threshold, to prevent confusion:

Above 2018 November peak
Between 18.5 million km2 and 2018 November peak
Between 2023 May peak and 18.5 million km2
Between 2016 October peak and 2023 May peak
Below 2016 October peak

[Paddy]

I went for “ below 2016 October peak”, but I think the chances of that are less than 50%, and was also rebooted by “between 2023 March peak and 18,500,000”. The gap between the 2023 march and 2016 October peak is too small to vote for, and a result above 18,500,000 seems unlikely this year.

[John_the_Younger]

The nomenclature of options has changed (per Oren's numbers/influenced by suggestion - thanks!) but the intent of the options has not changed: 
Option 1: Oct-Nov 2023 SIA will be in 3rd or higher place
Option 2: 'barely' 2nd place
Option 3: 'solid' 2nd place
Option 4: 2nd place and repeating 2016's Oct-Nov peak being less than same year's May peak.
Option 5: lowest Oct-Nov peak

Nature sometimes does things in regular increments [think mica plate spacing] and sometimes doesn't [think duration of interglacial periods].  In this case, I think the 'relative' is more interesting than the 'absolute'.

Edit: I added the terms "Opt[ # ]:" to the options as I call them options, and used corrected Gerontocrat numbers (to 3 decimals)

[oren]

Thanks, I think now it's much clearer.
I went for the 16.6-17.8 option.

[gerontocrat]

Attached are the Oct/Nov Maxima and the May/June False maxima for Global Sea Ice Area from 2000 to 2023 plus the decadal averages.

At the moment history says that a solid 2nd place is the most likely result BUT recently daily Arctic sea ice area losses have been gradually increasing and daily Antarctic sea ice gains returned to well below average.

click to enlarge and click maximise for best readability

[John_the_Younger]

Interesting that Gerontocrat's "2023 projection" calculation has 2023 thread the needle for Option 4!

[The Walrus]

Interesting that Gerontocrat's "2023 projection" calculation has 2023 thread the needle for Option 4!

Perhaps that is why it has garnered the most votes - at the moment.  I tend to trust his data, and have voted accordingly.

[John_the_Younger]

I don't doubt that, Walrus!

[gerontocrat]

On this day the projected maximum using the last 10 years average remaining gain is 18.05 million km2 on 4th November, 0.44 million km2 above the extraordinary low in 2016.
The plume graph shows a maximum just below 18 million km2. The difference is due to the different timings of the maximum in each year.

Interestingly while the expected date of the daily minimum is early November, it is in October when the projected monthly average is at its lowest.

Excluding 2016 (as an outlier) gives a range of outcomes from 17.19 to 18.97 million km2, with just 1 out of the 9 years at a record low (2021).

Excluding 2016 from the calculation of the projected maximum would give an average result for the maximum of 18.25 million km2, which may or may not be a more realistic figure.

What seems to be solid is a 2nd place result, which would be also above the false 2023 maximum of 17.72 million km2 on the 24th May.

The range is high, there are on average 96 days to the maximum, and any guess has to look at expected sea ice change in the Arctic and the Antarctic - two very different environments and recent sea ice history.

So I plump for 2nd place, and a maximum above the false maximum.

But whatever happens, its is likely that the 2023 annual daily average sea ice area will be lowest in the satellite record

ps: My data says the false maximum was 17.72 million km2, while the poll says 17.905.

[John_the_Younger]

ps: My data says the false maximum was 17.72 million km2, while the poll says 17.905.

I corrected the poll ("17.773" - re-reading this thread's post #8) because intent has always been to use the 2023 May false(?) max. [I'm guessing "17.72" is a typo for "17.772" but I rounded it up...]

[John_the_Younger]

NSIDC 5 Day trailing Average -  GLOBAL SEA ICE AREA:  16,022,159 KM2 as at 05-Aug-2023

...
Average remaining sea ice gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in November 2023 of 18.08 million km2, 0.47 million km2 above the 2016 record low sea ice area maximum on 28-10-2016 of 17.61 million km and at position #2 in the 45 year satellite record
On this day the projection is no longer for a record low maximum.  In 15 out of the last 18 years sea ice gains from now are more than enough to keep the 2023 maximum above 2016’s record low. The possibility of a record low maximum is therefore very low
...

[Paddy]

I’m getting a little more confident in my “new record low” poll choice, which is seldom one I’d select.  Only 46 days until the equinox in Antarctica, and then albedo feedback will start to factor in there to help keep Antarctic Sea ice at a record low, on top of the effect of rising sea and air temperatures towards both poles.

I’m more often wrong than right, of course.

[John_the_Younger]

from Gerontocrat's data and projections:

Average remaining sea ice gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in November 2023 of 17.92 million km2, 0.31 million km2 above the 2016 record low sea ice area maximum on 28-10-2016 of 17.61 million km and at position #2 in the 45 year satellite record
On this day the projection is no longer for a record low maximum.  In 14 out of the last 18 years sea ice gains from now are more than enough to keep the 2023 maximum above 2016’s record low. The possibility of a record low maximum is therefore very low

I'll note 17.92 is within Option 3.

[Paddy]

from Gerontocrat's data and projections:

Average remaining sea ice gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in November 2023 of 17.92 million km2, 0.31 million km2 above the 2016 record low sea ice area maximum on 28-10-2016 of 17.61 million km and at position #2 in the 45 year satellite record
On this day the projection is no longer for a record low maximum.  In 14 out of the last 18 years sea ice gains from now are more than enough to keep the 2023 maximum above 2016’s record low. The possibility of a record low maximum is therefore very low

I'll note 17.92 is within Option 3.

I love how different the extent predicted ranking is from that for area:

Average remaining sea ice gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in November 2023 of 23.06 million km2, 0.71 million km2 below the record low of 23.76 million KM2 in 2016, and at position #1 in the 45 year satellite record

There are 3 years out of the last 18 where sea ice gains from now would make the 2023 maximum greater than the record low of 23.76 million km2 in 2016. Therefore history says the possibility of a new record low this year is 5 to 1.

[John_the_Younger]

I just noticed that myself.  It gives "hope"(?) to us who voted for a low maximum.

[gerontocrat]

Things change....

In 12 out of the last 18 years sea ice gains from now are more than enough to keep the 2023 maximum above 2016’s record low. The possibility of a record low maximum is therefore increased to a 1 in 3 chance.

I attach the Global sea ice area graph with a projection based on the average daily change of the last 10 years. The maximum from this is 17,67 million km2, 0.14 million km2 lower than the arithmetic projection. This is due to the influence of the different timing of the maximum in each of the last 10 years on the graphical projection, which is ignored in the arithmetic projection (see attached).

But after all that to be or not to be a record low maximum looks like a close-run thing and closer every day.

click images to enlarge

[Paddy]

Thank you Gero!

Out of curiosity, in how many years on record would remaining increase result in option 3 or higher, as opposed to 4 or 5? (Don’t feel you have to answer this nonsense if it’s a chore!

[Sublime_Rime]

The reason I chose the lowest option is not just due to the Antarctic anomalies, but that I think we're in for a slow refreeze due to the El Nino and astoundingly high SSTs in the Arctic.

Edit: also that the Antarctic anomalies might cause a low albedo feedback to enhance melting by October. Just speculation as we are in uncharted waters...

[gerontocrat]

Things change....

I attach the Global sea ice area plume graph with a projection based on the average daily change of the last 10 years. The maximum from this is 17.55 million km2, 0.14 million km2 lower than the arithmetic projection of 17.69 million km2, and would be a record low maximum.

This is due to the influence of the different timing of the maximum in each of the last 10 years on the graphical projection, which is ignored in the arithmetic projection (see attached).

But after all that to be or not to be a record low maximum looks like even more a close-run thing and closer every day.

click images to enlarge

[John_the_Younger]

Notice: about 43.5 hours to place your bets, I mean votes.  [This is not a paid advertisment.]

[gerontocrat]

NSIDC offline with technical difficulties in the last hours in which to vote and the one-day data from Nico Sun shows a new record low global sea ice area is probably too close to call.

I will try again later.

click images to enlarge

[John_the_Younger]

2 hours and a bit left to vote on this thrilling climate catastrophe happening [...or words to that effect].

[gerontocrat]

The last post.....

[John_the_Younger]

3 minutes left!

[John_the_Younger]

Now we watch Gerontocrat's data and projections and wait for the October-November peak. May the ice freeze!

[John_the_Younger]

How exciting!

(I get sick and don't look for 4 days and the ice does freeze!  I guess my fever drew heat away from the poles - anecdotal evidence? )

[John_the_Younger]

Gerontocrat's projection continues to suggest an Option 3 outcome ("solid 2nd place"), but it has been trending toward an Option 4 outcome ("2nd place, but like 2016, below the same year's May peak") for a few days (I think).


(Thanks, Gerontocrat, for regularly posting the graph with the projection in the Global Sea Ice thread.)

[Paddy]

Gerontocrat's projection continues to suggest an Option 3 outcome ("solid 2nd place"), but it has been trending toward an Option 4 outcome ("2nd place, but like 2016, below the same year's May peak") for a few days (I think).


(Thanks, Gerontocrat, for regularly posting the graph with the projection in the Global Sea Ice thread.)

I still think option 5 is pretty likely. No sign yet that refreeze in the Arctic is going to be sufficiently faster than melting in the Antarctic that we catch up to 2016’s sea ice area. And a projection based on the average of previous years is not a certain guide with changing trends (for instance, the average date of the Arctic minimum is September 10th, but we haven’t seen a minimum that early for many years).

[gerontocrat]

People are suggesting are make my projection algorithm more complex.

But if we are entering a new sea ice state and violent changes in weather patterns, maybe the point is that relying on historical averages and seeling norms becomes increasingly unrealistic, though having a record of deviations from these norms may be of value.

The next month or two as Arctic freeze and Antarctic melt take charge will be interesting, especially as I, for one, do not have a clue as to the influence the El Nino has and will have on events.

[John_the_Younger]

Getting exciting for the majority of voters! (image from Global sea ice thread - credit Gerontocrat)

[John_the_Younger]

At this time, Gerontocrat's projection suggests Option 3 (and a single voter in the poll) will "win."  Option 2 is still in the running, though.  My Option 5 hasn't a chance, which makes us all winners in the sense that "More polar ice is good for children and other living things."

[John_the_Younger]

It's really looking like Option 2 (2nd place & greater than 18.5...) will span what we get. (image from Gerontocrats' post)

[gerontocrat]

I thought I would add a bit of confusion

2023 Global sea ice area is already miles above the 2016 maximum of October of 17.61 million km2.

But on the other hand, in 2016 the 'false' maximum was in mid- June at 19.07 million km2, and the current projected 2023 maximum is -0.22 below below that false maximum, which would make 2023 the lowest maximum for the full year in the satellite record

[John_the_Younger]

Gerontocrat,
Thanks for that! Given the "small but meaningful" Option 4, I should have created a "small but meaningful" Option 1b that spanned from 19.07 to 19.508 (2nd place for the year and 2nd place for the season). ... And noted what you here note ...

Oh well, live and sometimes learn.

[John_the_Younger]

(from Gerontocrat's post)

It's looking like we are about to have a pair of winners.  (Congratulations! )  And as there is at least as much ice as everybody voted for, we're all winners!

[John_the_Younger]

Boy do I now wish I'd created the 1b option! (19.07 to 19.508)

NSIDC 5 Day trailing Average -  GLOBAL SEA ICE AREA:  19,012,343 KM2 as at 08-Nov-2023

[Richard Rathbone]

Boy do I now wish I'd created the 1b option! (19.07 to 19.508)

NSIDC 5 Day trailing Average -  GLOBAL SEA ICE AREA:  19,012,343 KM2 as at 08-Nov-2023

If you had split option 2, I'd probably have got it wrong . This looks like the only poll for this year's ice that I've guessed right, and its not over yet.

[John_the_Younger]

NSIDC 5 Day trailing Average -  GLOBAL SEA ICE AREA:  19,081,304 KM2 as at 09-Nov-2023
...
- Area is also 0.03 million km2 MORE than the 2016 false maximum of 19.07 million km2

Let's hear it: three cheers for winter's ability to freeze water!

[gerontocrat]

NSIDC 5 Day trailing Average -  GLOBAL SEA ICE AREA:  19,081,304 KM2 as at 09-Nov-2023
...
- Area is also 0.03 million km2 MORE than the 2016 false maximum of 19.07 million km2

Let's hear it: three cheers for winter's ability to freeze water!

But what will happen next?

[John_the_Younger]

But what will happen next?

You'll declare the global sea ice max and I'll declare we have two winners.
 

Oh, the earliest next: I'll plant some daffodil bulbs after I post this.

[John_the_Younger]

With medium confidence I call the Global NOVEMBER maximum for both sea ice extent and area
...
NSIDC GLOBAL 5-day Trailing Average Sea Ice AREA
The November maximum was on 11th November, 7 days later than average.
At 19.15 million km2, it was 2nd lowest in the 45 year satellite record, 0.85 million km2 below the linear trend, 1.00 million km2 below the 2022 maximum, but 1.53 million km2 above the 2016 record low November maximum.
...

Two voters choose the winning Option 2 bin.  Thanks all for playing!

[kassy]

Ten percent correct answers. Hard year?

[John_the_Younger]

My take: We (collectively) are generally pessimistic about the Earth's sea ice (that's why many of us are here), and this poll, being a bit odd and somewhat irrelevant, allowed participants' pessimism come through.

[kassy]

It was also July when the votes were cast and a lot happened since. At the time the numbers hinted at option 4 so that might have helped too.