Once again, I’m going to give WUWT readers an opportunity to make a forecast for submission, based on voting. See the poll at the end.
I’ll run this poll each month in the week before the deadline, and we’ll see how we do as the minimum approaches. The value used by ARCUS is the NSIDC value as they say here:
The sea ice monthly extent for September 2010 was 4.9 million square kilometers, based on National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) estimates.
So don’t be using the JAXA graph to forecast minimums, though it it useful for determining short term trends as it is more responsive than the NSDIC graph below, which is averaged.
Here’s the latest JAXA graph: 
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
On May 30th I submitted the results of the first poll to ARCUS to be included in their June Outlook, as shown below:
Download High Resolution Version of Figure 1.
WUWT is second highest, at 5.5 million sq km. Notably missing this year is “Wilson”, who in the last two years started out with impossibly low values such as 1 million sq km. I’ll repeat the poll next week in preparation for the August Outlook. In the meantime, check the WUWT Sea Ice Page for the latest.
and here is the July results, WUWT is still second highest, but down to 5.1:
Download High Resolution Version of Figure 1.
Here’s the poll for the ARCUS August outlook, it will run until July 31st at midnight PST.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, I know nothing! However, I voted fo 5.1-5.2Mkm². Having said that it probably doesn’t really matter what the actual level is at, presuming that it doesn’t exceed 2007. Somebody somewhere will stick a ruler on the trend line & calculate to some umpteenth decimal place that the “rate of melt” was faster than ever recorded before, or some such spurious statistic, just to keep the alarm bells ticking over, or that old chestnutter of “natural forces masking the clear manmade signal”. You see it has to be worse than we thought. Although if these weak & feeble natural forces are so powerful in the first instance one has to ask what is the problem in any case!
Nothing at all. Life would continue uninterrupted and unaffected. Business as usual.
Well one thing would happen, there would be a run on Beer, Wine and Prozac, probably diapers too. The bed-wetters would be a mess, first from panic and then later from withdrawal fatigue due to investing so much into so little.
Any AGW cultists care to offer a different scenario?
AndyW says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:04 pm
How come people are still betting greater than 6.0 given the current value? That would have to be a massive turnaround with a very poor August followed by a very quick refreeze to give a September figure that high. Stranger things have happened I guess.
The poll seems quite spread out now.
Andy
Optimists one end, pessimists the other and the rest in between.
I have reduced my estimate, not least because the observed area is less than my previous estimate. Reality must continue.
There is still time to cross the 2007 line, which it seems to be tryong to do, but there is no worry if it does not only that my latest estimate will be wrong again.
What about ice thickness?
Last day 100000 kilometer disapper on the end of July >>>wow
I’ve bet on 5.3 from the start and I’m sticking to it. 5.3 it will be and I will win all the money. Oh, yes!
The planet appears to be cooling, and in the short term less ice increases the cooling rate and as we all know, sea temperature is not in itself the only (nor at times the most significant) factor determing the extent of ice/ice loss. The weather patterns are currently such that I recogn that for now we will come close to the 2007 level and I would ‘guestimate’ around 4.7 million sqKm +/- 200,000 sq km.
As a number of people have observed, why the fixation with summer minimums? The waters will refreeze we can be certain of that and I for one would be far more concerned if the ice season was gradually increasing and the trensd was for a significant increase in the summer minimum. I shiver at the thought of seeing such a trend, but do not get hot under the collar at seeing a little less summer artic ice. Its no big deal. .
I’m guessin’ 4.5 to 4.6 square klicks but, really, if it’s less, what does it matter?
It’s been less before and we still muddled through.
Personally, I’m looking forward to the first bottles of Yellowknife Caskets wines. It should be a great vintage!
Seems that Trenberth has turned/is turning
“In light of these several observations, Trenberth concludes that “major challenges remain to improve model simulations of the hydrological cycle.” And until such is accomplished and it is proven that the models can at least correctly simulate something as basic as precipitation, it would seem unwise in the extreme to make major global-economy-impacting political decisions on so flimsy a basis as what today’s climate models are currently predicting, not only with respect to the meteorological phenomena that are discussed by Trenberth, but with respect to the many other extreme weather and climatic events that the world’s climate alarmists use to terrorize the public on a never-ending basis via their over-the-top rhetoric about impending catastrophic consequences if anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced.” from Co2 site
Brian says:
July 27, 2011 at 7:00 pm
lol At Global Cooling.
It’s about as likely as Jesus return.
I’m going to say 4.4-4.7
LOL at global warming.
Its as likely as the global Marxist revolution for which all you AGWers hunger and thirst.
Just because a hazardous and speculative theory about indefinite temperature rise linked to CO2 (in the face of contrary evidence from the palaeo record) is made by the elite and their attendant gullible majority, it doesn’t make it any less stupid and improbable.
I went for 5.2.
steven mosher says:
July 27, 2011 at 9:45 pm
“Worse – the DMI HAS measured the temperatures at 80 north latitude every day since 1958.”
DMI uses a model to construct the temperatures.
Both DMI temperatures and PIOMAS are a mixture of measurements and model calculations.
But I’m guessing – just guessing here – that you like PIOMAS and dont like the DMI temps.
There are opposed bumps on the log at each end; 5.4-5.5 vs >4.0<4.5. The former is closer to the true answer, of course, which is 5.2.
🙂
That’s my estimation as well for the same and other reasons such as that thickness has somehow managed to increase in some areas (10N 180) thus pointing maybe to low ocean temperatures in those regions. May 25 versus July 25 How did thickness increase that much in two months when things are supposed to be melting?
Its a shame there are so few NSIDC historical graph records to compare against. So judging from the 2006 graph I’m going to reduce my minimum estimate from 5.5 to 5.2 as I think that the 2006 drop of just over 1 million sq. kilometers from end of July to September is about what we can expect. To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if see either a very low minimum or even completely unexpected august increases in ice extent. Its glaringly obvious that we do not yet understand all the variables at play, which makes for interesting science.
Adriana Ortiz says: July 28, 2011 at 3:57 am
/////////////////////////////////////////
Is that really an accurate quote from Trenberth? Sounds far too rational. A recognition that the models cannot adequately model a key driver of climate and therefore a cautionary stance should be taken with respect to their ‘predictions’ and economic policy ought not to be based upon model ‘prediction’ how very sensible.
It is not 1st April, is it? .
My prediction:
Not as ice-free as it was in 1911 when Amundsen made the historic journey through the Northwest Passage.
Wake me up when there’s a commercial shipping lane open.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..
Further to my last post, it appears that Trenberth is merely conceding/recognising that there are problems with the models. It does not appear that he is saying that they should not be relied upon until such time as they can properly model precipitation etc.
I have two methods with my spreadsheet (both combine predictions based off of CT’s area metric and JAXA’s extent metric and then converts that to a monthly NSIDC value). They are 4.495 and 4.675. I’ll average these, so my prediction is 4.585 million km^2. I know they only report to three significant figures…so I’m exactly right whether it’s 4.58 or 4.59 😉 .
-Scott
Wait… I’ve seen a True Believer citing the Arctic ice “melt-off” as “definitive proof” of AGW… now that I see these graphs, I see that four years ago the ice was even “thinner”. So if there’s a trend, it’s swamped by other causes of annual variation, right?
BTW — my prediction is that in 5-10 years, the Arctic sea ice extent will be an “abandoned metric” for the AGW crowd. Like the prediction that the children of Britain will never again see snow, the Arctic will confound their predictions, and they’ll quietly stop citing it as evidence. They will, instead, find something else to wave around as “proof”.
The minimum ice extent will be a record low of all time. This is the beginning of another election year in the USA and the government subsidized scientists will find a way to carve out pot holes and embayments and ignore thin ice to get the number they want.
Did you see in the news the guys that saw the four supposedly drowned polar bears are under investigation and out on administrative leave? Another snow job if you ask me. Cheaters.
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html
I know that I tend to be optimistic, so I adjusted down a couple of clicks.
Best guess from an interested observer:
4.7 – 4.8
@Dave Springer: Amundsen in 1911?
You mean 1903-until 1906. Why did it take 3 yeas?
It is ironic to read older Blogs with new graphs like this: look for the sentence
“Ice volume has increased by 25% in the last two years, and those looking for a big melt are likely going to be disappointed.” in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/
and then take a look on the current graph just bleow the quote.
Funny, I think.
4.29
Surely if there is a strong correlation between CO2 and Arctic temperature/ice you can predict the amount of ice next month by the predicted amount of CO2 in the atmosphere [which is easier to predict]. Isn’t that what correlations are?
The trend line for September ice extent 1979-2010 declines by about 81,000 square kilometers per year. If you believe in that downward trend, the best guess for September 2011 would be 5.2 million square kilometers. If you believe in 60-year cycles we’re overdue for some cooling and you should guess above 5.2. If you believe extent will continue its decline and at an accelerating rate, guess below 5.2.