Poll now closed. Results below will be submitted to ARCUS on Sept 1st.
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’m late getting this online this month as other things took precedence.
For reference, here’s last months forecast poll and the final submission with all other forecasts from other groups. The final forecast poll you can participate in follows.
The value used by ARCUS in the forecast 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.
Right now the NSIDC value is about 5 million square kilometers.
[ UPDATE: NSIDC’s Julienne Strove from NSIDC writes in comments:
“Note, the NSIDC value today is 4.66 million sq-km.”
Of course NSDIC doesn’t publish the daily values like JAXA does, so we all have to guess since we aren’t privy to that information.
The 5 day average graph is all the public gets. And of course, any estimate is hampered not only by the average, but also by those coarseness of the Y axis. I’ve asked before for NSIDC to publish the daily value and the response has been that they have more important issues to attend to. However, clearly the ARCUS forecast group is watching this number and it is important to the final forecast done by over a dozen groups now. So you think it would be valuable to post the daily data. -Anthony]
Here’s the latest JAXA graph:
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
Here’s the poll for the ARCUS August outlook, it will run until Sept 1st at midnight PST.
(NOTE/UPDATE: This poll was originally exactly like all the others done over the last several months, but one snarky commenter (the first one) complained that I was a “manipulator” because it didn’t have more lower values. Of course he never bother to ask why or look at the history of the other polls.
I had considered initially adding those lower values for this poll, but then figured I’d be derided for changing the poll and not being consistent with the other polls. In retrospect, I’ll be criticized no matter what I do, so within 20 minutes of it going online, I decided to extend this poll with 0.1 million km increments down to 4.0 million kilometers. I’ve also removed the options for voting 5.5 to 6.0 (which existed in prior polls) since they are outside the current bounds of possibility based on previous September history. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the current value is at 4,9m sq km, the minimum can’t be above that. Even if the ice extent were to recover from now on, we’d have reached a minimum below 5,0m sq km. Of course, since the goal is to guess specifically the _September minimum_, I should retract my remark.
But in my opinion, the minimum for a specific month or week or date is not nearly as interesting as the absolute minimum of a melt season.
So, to me, it seems completely absurd to expect a 5,1m sq km “sea ice minimum”.
@Scottish Sceptic: You wrote: “Lord Monckton has for me always had the right approach: to admit the truth. CO2 does cause some warming, but the climate models are wrong in the amount of warming because they include massive and unsupportable positive feedbacks which multiple lines of evidence disprove (failure to predict the present absence of warming, Spencer, Lindzen and Choi and many others.)”
I completely agree. The Arctic Sea Ice Extent is quite likely to bottom out below 2007’s level this year, and without a wind blown reason. It’s just melting away in place. There’s also probably less area and less volume than in 2007. In other words, the trend continues. But we’ve won the main argument, i.e., whether or not CO2 is going to drive the world into a catastrophic warming that we can only avoid by taxing ourselves back to the Stone Age.
We do our position no good by failing to admit (or sometimes even see) the obvious. I’ve guessed (and it was a guess) “Under 4.5” in all three polls thus far, and will go with “4.2 to 4.3” in this poll. This guess was entirely predicated upon my observation that the freeze-up last winter appeared to be very slow compared to earlier years, so I just assumed the thaw would be more aggressive than last year. So far that appears to have been the case. Last year I was cheering for 2010 to beat 2009 and I consider myself completely unconvinced by the warmist case. But that doesn’t mean one ignores reality. The ice was in far better shape at this time in 2007, if the concentration charts are accurate, and much of the area still covered at the minimum in 2007 is already open water this year. The parts still covered this year (but not in 2007) look like they could melt in place quite easily over the next two weeks.
Frankly, it has bothered me some that the prevailing view in here over the past few months has seemed to be that none of this is even happening. R. Gates might (or might not) be wrong on the theory, but I suspect his view of the current state of the ice is more accurate than that of most of the commentators in here lately. As you said, Scottish Sceptic, just admit the truth. Failing to do so only weakens the larger case being made so effectively now.
Rate of Change: http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2131/20110831.png
Chocolate pipe wrench currently says 4.3 +/- the icing sugar.
My guesstimate and vote is 5.4 to 5.5 Million km2, I’m not educated to make guesstimates nor is the sea ice extent my area of expertise, but just for a bit of fun I’ll go with 5.4 to 5.5 Million km2 for four reasons.
1. It looks like La Niña Will Return This Winter.
2. Many parts of Europe have experienced it’s coldest summer in 20 to 50 years respectively.
3. Low solar activity.
4. Temperatures drop faster than they rise.
I didn’t vote because it’s only weather. The minimum ice extent will depend on factors like wind strength and direction, water temperature and cloud cover. In other words it’s a weather forecast. Fun as it is, I think you are only guessing unless there is a basis for your forecast – such as more or less of the driving factor(s). Has anyone looked for correlations between year on year ice extent and weather patterns? I think it be interesting to explore that.
J says:
August 31, 2011 at 8:33 am
What is the state of our understanding of underwater volcanoes in the arctic? Do they exists? Are they active? Are there studies about their influence on arctic ice?
———-
Google search:
Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
>>Julienne Stroeve says:
August 31, 2011 at 6:58 am
Note, the NSIDC value today is 4.66 million sq-km.<<
Julienne (or others), what is a link to the daily values? I can only find the monthly averages. Thanks.
REPLY: I have asked NSIDC (via Walt Meier) several times to post the daily values, and the response has been that they have more important things to do. Here’s a good example of why they should. People are using the graph ad I did to try to get the current daily number, and the X-axis is so coarse you have to guess. – Anthony
HenryP says:
August 31, 2011 at 8:20 am
“I’m very puzzled everyone going on about the amount of arctic ice
in the meantime big oil in arctic Norway and Russia are going ahead with exploration
I mean how do the people think the oil got there in the first place?
Surely, there must not have been any ice at some stage in the past because oil is a product of (old) vegetation….”
Continental Drift! When that old vegetation was young and alive, the land it thrived in was considerably further south of where it is now.
I find it interesting that since Aug 24, there appears to be very little change to the ice extent on the Cryosphere today comparison plots (yet ther other graphs on the sea ice reference page are still going down . . .). There is a little reduction in extent towards the top of the plot, but it doesn’t look like it should be sufficient to warrant the decrease seen in the extent of other plots. Perhaps just a difference between systems and how it is measured . . .?
YET the concentration sure is getting greater in the ‘center’ of the plot. Even if the extent ends up close to 2007, still no ‘death spiral’. And the next few years will be interesting to watch ( . . .with the low solar activity, and any PDO/AMO/EL Nino/La Nina changes . . . ).
The NSIDC did put out – together with the NIC – daily MASIE numbers. But they are not the same.
Bragging rights.
Merrick says:
August 31, 2011 at 7:08 am
Somebody please help me understand what I seem to be missing.
Final ARCUS Forecast – What will the September NSIDC Arctic minimum extent be?
The answer is in the question.
Hi Rod, one thing to note is that the ARCUS forecast is for the monthly mean for September, not the actual minimum value. So keep that in mind when choosing your value.
The 4.66 million sq-km value of today is the actual value, not averaged over 5-days which is what we show in our time-series plot that Anthony references in this blog. The reason we use a 5-day running mean is to filter out noise from weather effects. I wasn’t aware that Anthony had asked Walt several times to post the daily values. I suppose one problem with that is what values to post, the actual daily values or the 5-day running mean with the understanding that these values change? I would have to check in with Walt though to better understand why the daily values are not publicly available. Of course you could derive them yourself, since the actual gridded data are available via ftp, and using the data together with the area-per-pixel files we provide, anyone can compute their own ice extent numbers.
REPLY: You can’t figure out which one to post? Ummm how about the one you just cited, the data set that yelds 4.66 million sq-km? If it is good enough to embarrass me here wit in comments, then surely it must be good enough for public consumption. Obviously you had that value at your fingertips, why can’t the taxpayers of the United States you serve get it? JAXA does this, why can’t NSIDC? – Anthony
Merrick says:
August 31, 2011 at 7:08 am
Somebody please help me understand what I seem to be missing.
We’re voting no the final minimum sea ice extent number, right? Or did I get that wrong?
Final ARCUS Forecast – What will the September NSIDC Arctic minimum extent be?
September minium!
That’s one reason why ARCUS should use the JAXA/AMSR-E figures, which come out daily. Another reason is that the satellite JAXA/AMSR uses is less subject to breakdowns, and is more reliable. Those reasons are why Intrade uses the JAXA/AMSR figures for its betting.
Anthony, I think you misread me, I wasn’t trying to embarrass you at all, simply wanted to give the number to help your readers make their choices.
My guess was 4.6 and I might as well stick with it, but 4.3 seems likelier.
Has anyone ever looked at the 1979-2000 baseline to determine whether it is a good basis for comparison? Were the AMO and/or PDO in positive or negatives phases during that time? Is it a representative period?
Thanks for the information Julienne. I’d forgotten that you’re with the NSIDC. My apologies.
I guess, though, that I’m with Anthony on this. If all the data is there for us to derive the daily extent, which I haven’t looked at, but I assume consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of individual grid stats, then how much more difficult can it be to add a file that lists the derived daily result, exactly as JAXA does (with whom my only complaint is I wish they’d add the new result to the top instead of the bottom so that I wouldn’t have to scroll down every time I look at it)? In fact, doing so increases the odds that errors will be more quickly uncovered in either data collection or calculation, because others are checking the figures daily.
As to which result, obviously the daily result is most useful as it’s trivial to then compute a five-day average, whereas it takes a bit of work to re-engineer the daily result from the five-day average. But then, given what is already available, why not just post both?
Seriously, Anthony has a point. And as another taxpayer, I would like a clear explanation why this information is being withheld when I’ve paid for it and since it’s of obvious interest and would be so trivial to add to the site. I mean, it’s not a “Call your Congressman” issue, but why post all the data except the final calculations? Seems silly to me.
Besides, dribbling it out like this is just confusing. Is the 4.66 for “today” a number for yesterday 8/30, or is it really the result for today (8/31) and therefore one day ahead of the JAXA number? In either case, it’s low enough that it gives me more comfort in my 4.2-4.3 forecast, so thanks.
Anthony, as an alternative, if the daily NSIDC numbers remain unavailable, why not just switch next year’s poll (assuming there is one) to the JAXA numbers? Might as well give them the benefit of your traffic since they’re the most generous with their data (at least in this case.)
I’m not sure why the NSIDC wouldn’t want to set the standard, but that would seem to be their choice if they decide not to publish the data for their users. As with other markets, people would drift to the best service available. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the comment someone made earlier about the reliability of the satellites might be obvious if we saw daily data from NSIDC (just speculating now) and that might be the actual reason that it’s not being made available.
As with anything else, when there’s a void in the information stream, people start speculating as to the possible reasons, in an attempt to fill that void…
Kevin Macdonald says
When that old vegetation was young and alive, the land it thrived in was considerably further south of where it is now.
henry@Kevin
Good point. You could be right. But I think there were also periods in earth’s history when there was no ice at all on the poles.
.
Also, it seemed the Dutch seafarers in the 15 and 16th century were convinced that a northern sea route to Asia existed or did exist from some time before
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/53182/Willem-Barents
I am convinced that that route may have been open during what has become known as the Medeviel Warm Period.
So there is nothing new for the arctic to lose a bit of ice.
It seems to be a NH thing.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Julienne says:
August 31, 2011 at 9:39 am (Edit)
Hi Rod, one thing to note is that the ARCUS forecast is for the monthly mean for September, not the actual minimum value. So keep that in mind when choosing your value.
The 4.66 million sq-km value of today is the actual value, not averaged over 5-days which is what we show in our time-series plot that Anthony references in this blog. The reason we use a 5-day running mean is to filter out noise from weather effects. I wasn’t aware that Anthony had asked Walt several times to post the daily values. I suppose one problem with that is what values to post, the actual daily values or the 5-day running mean with the understanding that these values change? I would have to check in with Walt though to better understand why the daily values are not publicly available. Of course you could derive them yourself, since the actual gridded data are available via ftp, and using the data together with the area-per-pixel files we provide, anyone can compute their own ice extent numbers.
Hi Dr. S!
Thanks for proving the gridded data. I noticed that you asked some questions on the R help list
do you write R? Maybe if I get some time I’ll write up an R package for folks who want to process the data themselves and make their own animations and calculations
REPLY: I have asked NSIDC (via Walt Meier) several times to post the daily values, and the response has been that they have more important things to do. Here’s a good example of why they should. People are using the graph ad I did to try to get the current daily number, and the X-axis is so coarse you have to guess. – Anthony
The graph of the 5day average shows significantly less than 5.0 so what’s the problem?
The NSIDC did put out – together with the NIC – daily MASIE numbers. But they are not the same.
MASIE extent is derived from an entirely different set of data products above and beyond microwave products and its a smaler grid — 4km
Bremen Prelim map is out and shows another massive loss day coming. After tomorrow this will slow down a lot and we can go from there. This one is going to be huge though, maybe record setting if it was September But August is going out with a bang. Likely 100-150K on all three major reporting places.
As for thickness. Buoys and ships both say thickness is at all time recorded lows. We can either pretend this data doesn’t exist or accept it and make better predictions on it. This is clearly backed up by the thousands of photographs taken by Polarstern, Healy, and the Laurents.
There is less measurements in the Southern Canadian Basin. However this buoy is close:
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2011D.htm
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2011C.htm
The thickest ice stil resides near the Greenland coast towards the CA Islands but since nearly the entire CA Islands have completely melted out with only winds pushing ice back into that area recently the old storage of thick ice is completely gone.
Most of this came from bottom ice melt. I have a feeling those computer models that track thickness do not do well with that or even cover it. But real time analysis shows incredible ice loss from this feedback.