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.
Just The Facts says:
July 28, 2011 at 10:53 pm
For today, I found this: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/
then this file: masie_extent_sqkm.csv
yyyyddd, (0) Northern_Hemisphere,
whose last 2 lines (07/28-29/2011) is this:
2011208, 6959039.69,
2011209, 6895118.35,
And that compares to 07,28,2011,6641250 for JAXA
My vote: 5.081556674 million square kilometers
RACookPE,
Thanks for the reply and the discussion.
“Yet, the CO2 CAGW effect is (theoretically at least) required to be highest in the summertime Arctic since (1) solar summertime exposure is highest there the greatest number of hours per day, and 2) the low temperatures mean that water vapor pressure is very low. Thus, the effect of CO2 should be maximized … just where it is measured at being not only not at its maximum, but measured temperatures have been decreasing the faster as measured CO2 rises.
I’m not sure I agree that summer should be when the effect is the strongest — in fact I can a couple reasons why it should not be.
1) As I already stated, the open water (or melt water on top of the ice) will moderate the temperature, making it very difficult for the temperatures to vary.
2) During the winter, the ONLY incoming radiation is from the atmosphere. With no GHG, the surface would be radiating straight to the 3 K background of outer space. The GHG’s provide at least SOME IR radiation to help keep the surface warm.
These are just conjectures. Does anyone have a link to predictions of how much warming would be expected in different seasons in the Arctic based on CO2 changes?
Measured temperatures have not exhibited much of a decrease to be sure, but the decrease is NOT the +4 degree C increase that Hansen-GISS claims in the NASA red plots across the Mercator projection of the Arctic tundra down in Canada.
“The Arctic” is a big area — certainly much bigger than 80-90 degrees north latitude. It is quite possible that 80-90 north has not shown an increase, while other areas (like the arctic tundra in Canada) have warmed by +4 C. The two are not mutually exclusive.
And I am sill not sure Hansen (or others) were discussing +4 C summer temperatures. Do you have a link to the map you mention above?
“Wrong. DMI temperatures this summer have remained within 1/2 degree of the “average” – which is itself weighted by the previous 50 years of “higher” temperatures. That is NOT “way above average”.
Perhaps I was not clear. I was discussing the temperatures so far this year. See http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
“We are discussing ONLY summertime temperatures because “summer” in the high Arctic is the only time of year that the sun is visible, and, to keep on the subject of sea ice extents and a supposed positive-melting-sea-ice-albedo-feedback, you need sunlight as a prerequisite.”
I disagree that only summer is important for a number of reasons.
1) The conditions all the way to the edge of the ice and beyond matter to the melting/freezing of the ice. This is well beyond the arctic circle in the winter, so even in the dead of winter, there are sunlit areas along the edges of the ice. Less extent in the winter will affect the albedo feedback.
2) “Sea ice floats on the surface of bodies of water and ranges from 0 to about 10 m thick with average thicknesses of 3 m in the Arctic and 1.5m around Antarctica. Under the stress of wind and ocean currents, sea ice cracks and moves around. The cracks expose areas of relatively warm ocean water to the cold atmosphere during winter that sets up a large exchange of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere. ” http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/cryosphere_what.html
The temperature of the winter air would affect the refreezing rate of these open areas.
No-one listened to me back in May when I said 4.6 because there is a lag between El Nino (early 2010) and low sea ice. So the consensus was 5.5 then. I’m sticking with 4.6, and I think I’m going to be closer than the WUWT consensus, just because I used one fact which may or may not be a fact.
I’ll get my bid in for 2012 early too: 4.9.
Rich.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 28, 2011 at 7:25 pm
You are correct that there are very limited stations above 75N+ and especially 80N+, most of them are between 64N and 75N. The 4c rise is only based on monthly data from the 1960’s and this can be shown with no infilling of areas where there is no data.
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7617/arctictempstrend.png
I have observed over the years summer temperatures hardly change using available data including ocean buoys. Around this time of year I can say temperatures will be between 0-3c maximum above 80N over the ocean and this will be shown.
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gif
The GISS does not take 80N+ into account considering the large lack of no data (infilling doesn’t count), so this warming is from elsewhere and the area above 83N+ at least during summer is a different environment and therefore behaves different. (observed on a yearly basis)
Is the estimating over here? I vote for 4.63E6; but I’m not sure if I’m past deadline?
mccall
Matt;
“the large lack of no data “. Now, there’s a brain-twisting concept! A shortage of no data? Would it be repaired by supplying more no data? Or just by using no data from somewhere else? What would be sufficient no data?
😉
Sticking with 5.2
The handwriting is on the wall. A repeat of 2007 (40% open Arctic) means an “ocean effect” record snow cover extent for the Arctic shores and Northern Hemisphere again (like in 2008) and albedo induced colder temperatures which will result in snowfall where rain “normally” would fall. But snowy winters will soon be the new “Normal” as a result.
Like Mortgage rates, we’ll be “in the fours” for sea ice!
RACookPE1978.
DMI doesnt have observations. The data is generated by a model. That model relies on radiative physics. I’ll assume you accept that physics
We see a trend on volume:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110816_Figure5_thumb.png
Also the surface is back to 2007 level:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Last year, the melting went longer than previously.
1979-2000 average seems to be the lowest on Sept 7th or 8th.
2007 lowest was aroung sept 17th.
If the high pressure keeps on Artic, we might see a lowest sea ice extent later (sept 20th).
In that case, breaking the 4Mkm is not out of reach.
The current path seems to go toward less than 4.1.
At least the volume is having a consistent trend year after year.
I feel volume is more important that surface.
A flat iceberg will melt faster than a round one.
More contact with water allows more heat treansfert.
Seems obvious with me.
What is up with that?
Do we really need ice in the artic?
Hurricanes do a pretty good job at cooling the atmosphere.
They take cold air from higher altitudes (lower pressure in hte eye) while shipping heat high in the sky.
Now is the real question:
when artic is is gone (already in the system), what will happen when there is not cold water to freshen up the sea?
Can we expect cat 5 hurricanes to hit as far north as Canada in the next decades (10-20 years)?
We are way past denial, we should focus on impacts.