The third and last Sea Ice Outlook of this year has been released. The SIO is organized by the interagency "system-scale, cross-disciplinary, long-term arctic research program" SEARCH (Study of Environmental Arctic Change), and is a compilation of projections for the September 2011 Arctic sea ice extent, based on NSIDC monthly extent values. These projections are submitted by professionals as well as amateurs, such as our own Chris Randles and Larry Hamilton.
Here's the summary for the August report:
With 23 (thank you!) responses for the Pan-Arctic Outlook (plus 5 regional Outlook contributions), the August Sea Ice Outlook projects a September 2012 arctic sea extent median value of 4.3 million square kilometers, with a range of 3.9–4.9 (Figure 1). The quartiles for August are 4.1 and 4.6 million square kilometers, a narrow range given that the uncertainty of individual estimates is on the order of 0.5 million square kilometers. The consensus is for continued low values of September 2012 sea ice extent. The August Outlook median is lower by 0.3 million square kilometers than the July estimate, consistent with low summer 2012 observed values. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the arctic sea ice extent for July 2012 was the second lowest in the satellite record behind 2011; the ice extent recorded for August 1st of 6.5 million square kilometers is the lowest in the satellite record. Twelve of the contributions give a value equal to or lower than the 2007 record minimum (monthly average) extent of 4.3 million square kilometers.
And here's the figure showing all the projections (click for a larger version):
The median value went down from July's 4.6 million square km to 4.3 million square km for the September average as calculated by the NSIDC. This corresponds quite closely with the 4.24 million square km that resulted from the July poll that was held here on the ASI blog (you can vote one last time, using the widget in the right hand bar, until August 20th).
These are the September monthly average minimums in the 2005-2011 period:
- 2005: 5.57 million square km
- 2006: 5.92 million square km
- 2007: 4.30 million square km
- 2008: 4.73 million square km
- 2009: 5.39 million square km
- 2010: 4.93 million square km
- 2011: 4.61 million square km
If you want to compare this outlook with those of previous years, there's an archive on the SEARCH home page (in the left hand bar). Here's an overview of blog posts on this subject in 2010 and 2011.
The SIO has some more interesting info further down the page, which echoes what I have tried to convey in recent ASI updates:
Figure 3:
Posted by: Neven | August 13, 2012 at 23:03
A tidbit on PIOMAS from the Lindsay/Zhang outlook:
What I'd love to know, is how much of these forecasts incorporated the effects of the recent cyclone.
Posted by: Neven | August 13, 2012 at 23:07
The rules of the outlook contributions are that you use data up to 31 July only. So the answer should be not at all. (Even though it was well under way by the time the contributions are submitted and had been forecast for several days before that.)
I did throw in a mention of the cyclone which I don't take to be the same thing as using it to affect my statistical forecast. However, it is quite possible there is an effect on what forecasters do.
Posted by: crandles | August 13, 2012 at 23:24
Thanks for that info, crandles!
BTW, if we combine the 4.24 million km2 from the ASI Blog poll with the 4.5 from WUWT, we get 4.37 million km2. Just above 2007.
Posted by: Neven | August 13, 2012 at 23:32
I have a problem with value of Bo Andersen. E.g. his value in pdf http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2012/08/pdf/pan-arctic/andersen.pdf he refers to his final values (He used Arctic Roos data) as 4.1 for Area and 5.6 for Extent. In text, he mentiones 2010 values. However, in prediction, it is mentioned that he predicts 4.1 for average extent. I am a little bit confused about that.
Posted by: Patrice Monroe Pustavrh | August 13, 2012 at 23:36
I voted in the NetWeather poll and certainly altered my original punt on receiving the heads up on the storm?
I'm sure folk who did not submit until the last moment also allowed for the damage they perceived the storm capable of? I'm sure none of us really got a handle on just how much damage the storm would do though? I'm still at a loss as to what the final account will be with the mixing and fragmentation?
to me it appeared to take all the 'at risk' ice but create a replacement for that fragile ice ready to melt out over the coming weeks?
Posted by: I Ballantinegray1 | August 14, 2012 at 00:18
WUWT predicting a minimum below 2007?
Wow, even the deniers are melting now that reality has hit them in their faces, ...
there is still hope for this planet and all its inhabitants!
Posted by: Alberto Silva | August 14, 2012 at 02:14
Hi Alberto,
The WTFUP 2012 predilection is 4.5 while 2007 NSIDC monthly avg was 4.3 so your skepticism is restored.
Cheers,
Lodger
Posted by: Artful Dodger | August 14, 2012 at 02:58
Neven,
Still off topic from last week, but hidden in a shorter thread to avoid damaging the signal of the blog.
Please open a separate thread for discussion on actions. What we saw last week needs a response. Last year, in response to your denial critics, you said ‘the ice will protect me’ - and so it has. Now we need to protect the ice. People who come to know what we have learned of the arctic will do something to help. I think that we can be trusted to maintain the standard of excellence established in technical threads. Perhaps a single exploratory thread could test the water.
Posted by: Charles Longway | August 14, 2012 at 05:16
If I recall correctly, when WUWT were doing their song and dance about the super ice growth in the Arctic, they were forecasting 5.5m or 5.6m on SEARCH
Posted by: NeilT | August 14, 2012 at 06:53
Hit post without meaning to...
Should we not use this inconsistency to beat WUWT into silence every time they pop up???
Posted by: NeilT | August 14, 2012 at 06:54
Neven:
You can add me to the list, second lowest: 4.0 +/- 0.7 10^6 km2
Posted by: Wipneus | August 14, 2012 at 08:31
NeilT, the basic technique there is "lying and exaggerating for effect," so while they can be ridiculed it's unlikely they'll shut up.
Regarding WUWT, though, and speaking as someone who compulsively adds to their traffic count once a day because... must... watch... train... wreck, I have the impression that the tone there has been goosed somewhat in response to declining traffic. Tony's recent crash-and-burn on his so-called "paper" is more evidence to that effect.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | August 14, 2012 at 09:24
Healy is where the "steamy" ice is, have a look :
http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/index.php?album=2012&image=20120814-0501.jpeg
Posted by: Espen Olsen | August 14, 2012 at 09:24
Hi Wipneus, nice to see you contributing. :-)
You wrote "A least squared regression yields a value of 3.98 +/-0.67 million km2". Does that mean the +/-0.67 does not take account of any uncertainty in the volume estimate?
I doubt that volume uncertainty remains much. At end of July we were 0.73 K Km^3 below last year but the cyclone is likely to have increased that difference. Working from latest volume data like this presumably reduces the volume uncertainty compared to just jusing volume projection from September minimum data.
Posted by: crandles | August 14, 2012 at 12:28
crandles:
Does that mean the +/-0.67 does not take account of any uncertainty in the volume estimate?
I ignored it. The uncertainty from volume would be about 0.2 10^6 km2. Combining the two independent errors would result in 0.70 10^6 km2.
Posted by: Wipneus | August 14, 2012 at 12:52
I have been mostly absent for the summer during this terrible loss of sea ice in the Arctic.
However, I cannot help noticing that the SIA summer minimums for '07, '08, '10, and '11 have all bottomed out around 3 10^6 km2.
This would seem logical in the sense that in early summer we have all factors working in unison to melt the ice: Sun radiation, increased backfeed radiation, warmer sea currents, and increased storms.
Howevery, could the flattening trend be an indication that at least now the decrease in direct sun radiation and related decrease in feedback even the score, so that the warm water still is thinning the ice, but the area remains somewhat intact?
Not many on this blog can be of that opinion, as I noticed that 81% believe that CT SIA will go below 2.8 10^6 km2.. (I have stayed in the 3.7% voting for a minimum of 2.9-3.0 10^6 km2).
I would see this as similar to the late winter high CT SIA numbers in recent years: The water is warmer, so will freeze later, but spring melting will only set in, when the sun is high enough in the sky, so there would be no reason for early spring melting to accelerate.
Comments?
Posted by: John Christensen | August 15, 2012 at 10:57
'Early spring' being mid-March-mid-April..
Posted by: John Christensen | August 15, 2012 at 10:58
John,
You mean the famous "fat arse". This is partially true. You will probably have noticed that the beginning of the "fat arse" is earlier this year than others. There is a distinct probability that this the area will not go much lower than prior years. However, the ice cannot continue thining without showing in the area and extent metrics. Other people here (crandles, Chris "dosbat" Reynolds, Chris "torcher" Biscan) have noticed that and wondered when will the year be that the area/extent crashes. Maybe it is this year (and the storm has made sure that the probability goes up), maybe next year. Who knows. However, all metrics/statistics/empirical evidence, give a rather high probability that area will reduce lower than 2007/2011. The only thing we can do is watch, wait, and test our hypotheses against the real world. If we miss something that's good, we will learn something new. That's what the models do too, you put as much physics as you think is right, make a prediction, validate/invalidate, correct and go again at it. Healthy scientific approach...
Posted by: DrTskoul | August 15, 2012 at 11:16
Has UNI Bremen hit a record already? At least the graph shows as much....Maybe I am crosseyed
Posted by: DrTskoul | August 15, 2012 at 11:18
And let the compaction start!!
Posted by: DrTskoul | August 15, 2012 at 11:23
I agree; we are hovering just above 3 10^6 km2 about 10 days earlier than in 2007 and 2012, so it seems this year will be a good test of just how solid this bottom really is..
Posted by: John Christensen | August 15, 2012 at 11:51
>" (I have stayed in the 3.7% voting for a minimum of 2.9-3.0 10^6 km2)."
Are you aware and considered that the smallest decline from 11 Aug (last data 3.113) to minimum is 0.28. So if we are luckly enough to get decline that is only equal lowest, then that puts minimum at 2.83.
As the area has been low during the past couple of months then the ocean should have absorbed a lot of heat and there should be a strong bottom melt season? Perhaps the holy nature of the pack means lots of heat was absorbed but efficiently used already in bottom melt to get the area down to what it is now?
Posted by: crandles | August 15, 2012 at 11:52
Oden North of Greenland +/- 84 N:
A new sub "mountain" is discovered near The Lomonosov Ridge, it is about 1000 meter:
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/pages/39700/Multibeam.jpeg
Report from Oden:
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/sv/Sjofartssektorn/Sjofartsforskning/Polarexpeditioner-med-isbrytaren-Oden/LOMROG-III/8-augusti-20121/
Posted by: Espen Olsen | August 15, 2012 at 12:27
CT-SIA [to be clear on what is broached on] latest chart updates with a minimum projection line creeping up:
With how much still to melt in prior years from today: http://bit.ly/CTNHM2
The simpler version, with just the projection line and how much 2012 has already passed prior years [and how much still to go to pass the last 4 prior year minima that were lower than present day: http://bit.ly/CTNHMn
-30K km^2 needed to pass 2010. My worst case present possible minimum 2.64. No matter what all those FS visionaries, lower or higher than any previous record is at this time pretty much academic. The overall state of the Arctic: cow dung.
Posted by: Seke Rob | August 15, 2012 at 13:21
DrTskoul wondered:
First of all, UNI-Bremen has had corrected it's minima for 2007 and 2011, uplifting the values to about 4,6 millions km².
According to todays UNI-Bremen chart the record should be tied indeed, solely to UNI-Bremen standards of course.
OTOH, Arctic SIE according to IARC-JAXA
should be at 5.020.313 km2 on 15th of August.
Even taken into consideration the 15th of August Tokyo time might be midday 14th in Europe, 400.000 km² of difference comes a bit over as disturbing.
Well, what's in a record?
Posted by: Kris | August 15, 2012 at 13:23
Over the past two days, UniHamburg KlimaCampus's (Beitsch et al) live SIO outlook has gone stark raving bonkers:
The September mean NSIDC SIE estimate updated on Aug 27 has dropped to 0.6 M km^2.
Project FTP folder, updated daily @ around 7:30 CET
Open the file "estimate.png" for the daily updated prediction of Sep avg SIE. Clearly, this is NOT your father's Arctic.
Posted by: Artful Dodger | August 27, 2012 at 11:45
... and +/- 0.1 M km^2 margin of error at that... well they could not put it at 0.6 of course: "stark, raving, bonkers", just a case of Nurse Ratched having botched a left-handed lobotomy [the expert was out :].
Posted by: Seke Rob | August 27, 2012 at 12:27
Lodger,
The anomaly.png in that folder appears to be blank. On the assumption that the concentration data is used in their prediction model, I suspect they might have fed a zero into their calcs, causing it to...well, politeness forbids...
Posted by: FrankD | August 27, 2012 at 12:31
Just when i was beggining to think i was a pessimist.
I was wondering if the typhoon down by japan would track north and found this
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/ens/allmaps_f048_nh.html
which i can't understand, here
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/ens/ens.html#nh
on
http://www.weathercharts.org/
Posted by: johnm33 | August 27, 2012 at 12:33
Hi Frank,
Yeah, it's a funny correlation they've discovered (and they use for their estimate). They calculate the area of sea ice in one square in the Central Basin on the North edge of the Beaufort Sea, and divide that by another area to the NE of Greenland.
Funny, the Beaufort sea ice all gone, and eatin' into the Central Basin now...
All the old rules are obsolete now. This is not your father's Arctic
Cheers,
Lodger
Posted by: Artful Dodger | August 27, 2012 at 12:38