Cryosphere Today 2014 Arctic SIA daily minimum: June poll

[Neven]

ATTENTION: There are two polls on the ASIF. One is for NSIDC sea ice extent monthly/September average minimum, the other is for Cryosphere Today sea ice area daily minimum. Make sure you are aware of the difference before voting. You can discuss various extent/area data sets in this dedicated thread.

-----

This CT SIA poll will run for 10 days (until June 11th). 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 29th:



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
    2013: 3.554

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

[Neven]

I'm starting out more or less conservatively: Between 3.0 and 3.25 million km2

[Peter Ellis]

2010 replay (see the other prediction thread). 3.0 to 3.25 million.

[Pmt111500]

given the two last year flukes? of maximum (2013) and minimum (2012) can't go that high.

[johnm33]

I don't think I was quite the lowest of the low last year but close and horribly wrong, the underlying fundamentals [sea temps?] have been increasing volume loss for years and despite last years hiccough that continues.  So no more than 5 and it could all go so 2.5[-]
 [low volume- low area]

[Frivolousz21]

Going for 3.0-3.25km2.

Wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit lower.

[werther]

Bloody,
I always tend to forget the 'correlation' between SIA and SIE. Nevertheless, I concur with Friv on 3,0 to 3,25 Mkm2 SIA and about 4,0 Mkm2 SIE.
Not a record, but close.
Can I vote for 2015 please?

[SteveMDFP]

My guess:  2.1, an all-time record, by a modest margin.  Reasons:
1.  Exceptionally warm winter in the high Arctic, per DMI
2.  Spring wind fields producing export of probably well-above-average ice volume at the Atlantic side
3.  That exceptional mass of warmish N Pacific water near the Gulf of Alaska -- I think it's moving warmth into the Arctic by more than one mechanism
4.  Ongoing trends.  We're in an era of steep declines.  Most summers (or at least many summers), should yield record-breaking melt.  A record-breaking melt is the safest bet, actually.
5.  Ever-higher CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.  I think an East Siberian Sea largely denuded of summer ice could well belch out very worrisome amounts of methane
6.  Continuing notable Atlantic-side ocean warmth
7.  Concurrence with friv's alarm at this spring's weather patterns so far (though this and #2 are mostly the same reason).

[Yuha]

2014 is likely somewhere between 2012 and 2013. At this point I go for the average of the two: 2.884.

[icebgone]

This year is looking very similar to 2010 so 3.13.

[idunno]

I went high, 3.25 - 3.5; based on cold SSTs stretching all along the path of the gulf Stream from the Carribean thru the mid Atlantic.

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.5.29.2014.gif

[Juan C. García]

Between 2.75 and 3.0 million km2

[DavidR]

After reviewing the April PIOMAS data on DOSBAT again, http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/piomas-april-2014-gridded-data.html I  have dropped both my estimates by 0.5M Km2.  It looks to  me like we would need a year like last year to protect the 2012 records. Anything more conducive to melting should see the records smashed.

[jonthed]

2.5 - 2.75

I see conditions being reasonably conducive to a good rate of decline soon, but with so much thicker ice in the Beaufort Sea, I don't think we'll get that close to the 2012 value. I also fully expect ruined ice in pathetic floes to spread the area to a higher value than it deserves.

[Tor Bejnar]

I remain a pessimist (dispite last year).  I will guess that the 2014 CT SIA daily minimum will barely set a new minimum record (2.234 million sq km).  Only barely because there is more MYI than in recent years.

[cats]

More cautious than last year but still think the min should be around 3.0 - but just a guess

[wanderer]

I'll wait until June 10th - as this week seems crucial!

[Alistair]

Have gone for 2 - 2.25 (equal or slightly better than 2012).  The whole arctic is looking quite broken and the DMI 80N temps are staying a lot closer to average than last year.  Today's CT Area loss of almost 300k is enough to convince me that if we continue to see even an average summer there will not be a lot of ice left in September.

[ChrisReynolds]

My prediction is that CT Area at minimum will be:

CTA - 5.311 Mkm^2 at minimum.
With bounds of +0.24Mkm^2, -0.27Mkm^2.

Where CTA is CT Area on June 20th.

But as I don't know what the area will be on June 20th, I can't make the prediction at this stage. 

[Juan C. García]

My prediction is that CT Area at minimum will be:

CTA - 5.311 Mkm^2 at minimum.
With bounds of +0.24Mkm^2, -0.27Mkm^2.

Where CTA is CT Area on June 20th.

But as I don't know what the area will be on June 20th, I can't make the prediction at this stage. 

Isn't that too high, CrisReynolds?

[Theta]

.00 and .25 since it looks as though the Arctic is going to lose a lot of ice during June and with the prospect of the East Siberian Shelf producing large amounts of methane, I think the Arctic is finished at this point.

[Jim Hunt]

Isn't that too high, CrisReynolds?

None of us know yet "what the area will be on June 20th"!

[Greenbelt]

On the plus side, temps seem to have been colder the last week or two heading into peak melting season.  On the minus side, the overall weather seems to be in a normal pattern, with no obvious trend toward either melt-favoring or melt-inhibiting conditions yet.

I tend to believe that warmer than average water temps near the ice edges and the possibility of very warm weather on the Siberian side will lead to lots of melt.  2.5-2.75

There you have it -- the forecast of ignorance.

[AmbiValent]

I voted for a repeat of the 2012 numbers of area and extent based on the PIOMAS data which looked as if the volume that was gained one year ago had been lost again. With the neweat PIOMAS data out, I now think it looks like the numbers remain above the record lows, but that can still change based on the weather.

[Frivolousz21]

Lower than 2013 for sure.

It's -700,000K lower right now with a -NAO forecasted until


 sometime later in Summer.

[LRC1962]

To paraphrase Neven (and it being Baseball season in North America), as soon as you have the Arctic figured out it throws you another curve ball. The flavour of the year for ice is Melt Ponds. Now I do not know how this year compares to last, but how much do you want to bet that the minimum we end up with is not what thew Melt Ponds said we would?
Me I am not stupid enough to even get close to that bet.

[Juan C. García]

Taking into account the great fall that CT SIA had these past 7 days, I change to the next lower level:
Between 2.5 and 2.75 million km2.

[Buddy]

I expect record low....or near record low.  Too much "heat"......and the long term trend is clearly in place.

Again....humans have such a tough time looking forward into uncharted territory.....even with the historical data points pointing the way.  First TOTALLY ice free Arctic may not be till 2020....but an "almost ice free Arctic" will be here in two years (Sept 2016).

Number 1 issue in US elections in 2016 will be climate change.

By 2020.....the planet will already be started on a MASSIVE SCALE of running towards alternative energy and away from fossil fuels (which will take decades).  You already see the SIGNIFICANT uptick in the electric side of the auto industry....and we're just at the beginning right now.



   

[Nick_Naylor]

I agree with you Buddy - but only halfway:

- The Arctic will be totally ice-free in 2016
- Global surface air temperatures in 2015 will break all prior records by 0.5C
- An iceberg the size of Alaska will calve from West Antarctica in July 2016, immediately raising sea level by a foot.
- Siberian wildfires will be so bad that scientists in Antarctica will need to wear gas masks to avoid choking on the smoke.
- The House of Representatives will pass a resolution that "God controls the climate."
- Jim Inhofe will win the Republican nomination for President, running on the following platform:
  > Global warming is a hoax
  > The Earth stopped warming in 1998
  > CO2 is responsible for all economic progress since the fall of the Roman Empire
  > NASA and NOAA must be defunded, and not permitted to waste any more money studying the "climate"
  > The US is the greatest nation on Earth
  > Why should the US do anything about climate unless China does?
  > It's not FAIR!!!
  > The US is the greatest nation on Earth

- Inhofe will have a twenty point lead in October, until his neighborhood bursts spontaneously into flames, killing him instantly. Michael Bloomberg will then defeat Glenn Beck in a close election.

[icefest]

- An iceberg the size of Alaska will calve from West Antarctica in July 2016, immediately raising sea level by a foot.

Can you explain this a bit more? Where will you get all that non-floating ice out of the inside of  the continent in one piece?

[Nick_Naylor]

A series of moulins will intersect, weakening the entire ice sheet, which will separate dramatically when a 9.8 earthquake goes off right underneath the weakened ice sheet. It's totally foreseeable

[jdallen]

A series of moulins will intersect, weakening the entire ice sheet, which will separate dramatically when a 9.8 earthquake goes off right underneath the weakened ice sheet. It's totally foreseeable

Nick... Please stop trolling.

[slow wing]

This early, I just took the 2012 and 2013 values as minus and plus one sigma, respectively.

So 2.89 +/- 0.66 million square kilometres.

That falls within the "2.75-3.00" bin.

[ChrisReynolds]

Just missed it, oh well.

Regarding my 20 June prediction method, the result of which will be a few days after because 20 June is a Friday, so I think that'll come out the following Monday.

The average CT Area losses from 12 June to 20 June for years 2007 to 2013 are 0.899M km^2, for comparison even 2013 lost 0.939M km^2 over this period. Assuming that the losses from now to 20 June are average the CT Area on 20 June would be 8.444M km^2.

Plugging that number into the calculation gives a range of daily September minimum CT Area of 2.895 to 3.401M km^2. This range includes the years 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011. So based on the assumption of average losses from now to the 20 June, 2014 stands a chance of knocking a year out of the lowest five years and even being the second lowest, although 2012 seems unattainable without something very unusual.

Fingers crossed for monster losses in the coming 8 days.   

PS - the average deviation from the central estimate for hindcasts is virtually zero.

[crandles]

PS - the average deviation from the central estimate for hindcasts is virtually zero.

I am trying to work out why it isn't exactly zero; from the method described shouldn't it be exactly zero?

[ChrisReynolds]

It's 8.88178E-16, small enough to be considered zero, possibly due to rounding error in the calculation of average loss from 20 June to minimum.

[OSweetMrMath]

That's just floating point error. All computer calculations have an error of magnitude 1E-16 times the values in the calculation. Differences less than 1E-14 are not just small enough to be considered zero. They are indistinguishable from zero.

[AndrewP]

I would have voted in the 3-3.25 bin

[Neven]

You can vote next month, AndrewP!

[ChrisReynolds]

Updating my reply #33.

No monster losses, but...

We now have data from 12 June to 17 June, over that period total loss has been 0.662 (the sum of interday losses over that period). I stated that assuming average losses for the period 12 to 20 June, a 20 June CT Area of 8.444 was implied. We're now 0.317 off this target with three days to go until 20 June. Losses over the period 12 June to 17 June have averaged 0.11, three more days of average loss and we hit about 8.444.

All figures in million kmsq for CT Area.

[k largo]

Updating my reply #33.

No monster losses, but...

We now have data from 12 June to 17 June, over that period total loss has been 0.662 (the sum of interday losses over that period). I stated that assuming average losses for the period 12 to 20 June, a 20 June CT Area of 8.444 was implied. We're now 0.317 off this target with three days to go until 20 June. Losses over the period 12 June to 17 June have averaged 0.11, three more days of average loss and we hit about 8.444.

All figures in million kmsq for CT Area.

Don't jump to a conclusion yet Chris! Elsewhere Wipneus is predicting two days of uptick. 

[Jim Pettit]

Don't jump to a conclusion yet Chris! Elsewhere Wipneus is predicting two days of uptick.

Indeed, SIA increased 19k in the latest update, and should go up a similar number tomorrow. 2014 is now 986k behind 2012, and will have to work hard to maintain even that gap if the predicted Arctic warm spell fails to materialize. By this day in 2012, area was already below 8 million, and even 2013's numbers were lower. (2014 now trails 2012, 2010, 2011, 2007, 2008, 2006, and 2013.)

I've no doubt that SIA will begin to fall soon. But a new record this year is at this point pretty much out of the question. Here's a telling stat: on average, nearly half of all area that's lost every year has been lost by this date. This year, it's dropped by just 4.7 million--while the record is still 6.5 million away.

[ChrisReynolds]

Updating my reply #33.

No monster losses, but...

We now have data from 12 June to 17 June, over that period total loss has been 0.662 (the sum of interday losses over that period). I stated that assuming average losses for the period 12 to 20 June, a 20 June CT Area of 8.444 was implied. We're now 0.317 off this target with three days to go until 20 June. Losses over the period 12 June to 17 June have averaged 0.11, three more days of average loss and we hit about 8.444.

All figures in million kmsq for CT Area.

Don't jump to a conclusion yet Chris! Elsewhere Wipneus is predicting two days of uptick.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I am merely relaying what the numbers show.

[ChrisReynolds]

My CT Area prediction for 2014 daily minimum is now out.

3.0 to 3.3 million kmsq CT Area for the 2014 daily minimum.

More detail here:
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/ct-area-2014-prediction.html

[Steven]

Chris, in the blog post linked above you write:

The resultant prediction for NSIDC Extent September monthly average is 4.06 to 4.75M km2.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it looks like this "resultant" prediction for the NSIDC September extent is not compatible with your prediction for the CT area daily minimum?    The midpoint of the range of your prediction for CT minimum area is 3.15 million km2  (~6th lowest on record).    In contrast, the midpoint of the range of the resultant prediction for NSIDC September extent is 4.4 million km2  (~3rd lowest on record)?

P.S. The September monthly NSIDC extent data, available here, are slightly different from the averages of the Sep 1-30 daily values.

[ChrisReynolds]

I used the equation described to translate, those are the results. Anyway, both of the mid points you state are third lowest.

NSIDC Extent Sept Monthly avg,
2012   3.580151667
2007   4.280468
2011   4.568184 .......... ~4.4.
2008   4.695042333
2010   4.872050333
2013   5.244060667
2009   5.269371667
2005   5.510016
2002   5.831183
2006   5.868885667


CT Area September monthly average,
2012   2.408440423
2007   3.021266403
2011   3.16900825 .......... ~3.15
2008   3.183266037
2010   3.286627827
2009   3.651526183
2013   3.729635557
2002   4.203259123
2006   4.212372323
2003   4.263447213

Perhaps a mismatch would happen due to comparing monthly and daily values?

CT Area daily minimum
2012   2.2340095
2011   2.9047396
2007   2.9194391
2008   3.0035558
2010   3.0721295 ......... ~3.15
2009   3.4245975
2013   3.5543971
2006   4.0169191
2002   4.0347104

That seems to be the problem. I think you're comparing apples and oranges...

Let me know if you agree.

[Steven]

Let me know if you agree.

No, I don't think this is the cause/solution of the problem.

Your prediction interval 3.0-3.3 million km2 refers to the CT area daily minimum.    The same is true for your equation  NSIDCSeptemberExtent ≈ 1.8527 x CTArea^0.8298.

Applying that equation to the midpoint 3.15 of the 3.0-3.3 range of CT area daily minimum, gives about 4.8 for the September NSIDC extent.    This is substantially higher than 4.4.

BTW, using the September NSIDC extent values in the previous link, the equation becomes NSIDCSeptemberExtent ≈ 1.844 x CTArea^0.8438,   if I calculated correctly.    Applying that equation to the midpoint 3.15, gives about 4.85 for the September NSIDC extent.

[ChrisReynolds]

Thanks Steven,

I've not changed the equation, so the one used on the spreadsheet is daily to daily, not daily to monthly.

So it's now: 4.6 to 5.0 million kmsq NSIDC Monthly average sea ice extent for September 2014. And I agree with the mid range of 4.8.

Thanks Steven.


Because the NSIDC range based on 20 June CT Area doesn't overlap with my end of May SIPN prediction based on May volume I'm going to see what the end of June situation is before considering what I submit to SIPN in July.