As regards my humour, I have to say it wasn't intended as humour. My comment would and does apply to everything one reads. My smiley was a reflection of what I thought the responses might be. It was the juxtaposition. I was correct.

Yes, the IPCC rooted in scientific enquiry, but producing a report shown to have errors: There you go - don't believe everything you read.

Four's posts are 100x times better than your posts GTW which are characteristically vile and condescending.

The fact is we DO NOT KNOW the extent to which current arctic ice levels are due to anthro forcings and /or natural forcings. There is some evidence that scientists and their models do not have a good understanding of natural forcings as was demonmstrated in 2007. The models and scientists not only failed to predict the record minimum then, but about a year or so after the event, they attributed it to natural variability in the form of anticyclonic conditions allowing sunshine through to melt the ice and unsual wind patterns which encouraged unsual levels of ice discharge out the Fram strait.

Natural forcings are always present and result in large fluctuations in arctic ice extent. Unfortunately, we do not have reliable records prior to the satillite record. But what we do have is temperature records from land-based parts of the arctic which show large temperature fluctuations which will almost certainly have been caused  by large fluctuations in ice extent as they are today.

Iceman;124025:

<IRONY>Four's posts are 100x times better than your posts GTW which are characteristically vile and condescending.</IRONY>

Fine, so who here think that? No one.

Please stop this misrepresentation - rtick to commenting on what people say, not what you want them to have.

One of their tactics to shut down people being to wonder if their opponents have a psycholigical illness? On no, that's you isn't it

Each to his own, Iceman.  I wasn't being rude to you so it's not entirely clear why you feel it necessary to post in this tone?  I think you are in a small minority if you find Four's antagonism and baiting more acceptable than my ripostes.

I dont' recall making any firm statements about the contribution of AGW to the loss of ice.  Yes, we all know that there are natural fluctuations.  This has been discussed and accepted.  What is quite clear is that the rate of change seems not to be explicable by any known natural forcings.  This isn't my interpretation, I am merely repeating what is being said.

Part of your point appears to be a variation on the usual confusion between weather and climate.  Why would the climate models be expected to predict the unusual synoptics of 2007, which caused the record low that summer?

Devonian was referring to this post by Four:

Anyway, we've gone way off topic. The latest news on Arctic Sea Ice is that it continues below the levels it was at in the run up to the record breaking 2007 melt season:

Therefore I would say that similarly favourable conditions this summer would lead to a new record being set, and regardless of the weather this summer it will almost certainly be in the 5 lowest in the satellite record.

I agree. This is a logical prediction based on current extent and the increasingly fragile state of much of the ice.

I didn't think we were allowed to make such statements any longer?  Isn't it being called unnecessary alarmism or worse?

More seriously, this is my view - I am tracking the daily values and comparing with past winters and we are still running close to another date low.  As I posted earlier, an end to the re-freeze in early March, i.e. in line with the average, is likely to leave the ice at or close to a new low maximum.  Not a good place to start if we were to have (un)favouable conditions in the summer.

I think there is a degree of alarmism in the above - looking at the charts, the area which is well down on where it should be is Baffin/Newfoundland - but that is clearly down to the unusual synoptics experienced this winter with warm winds consistently in a region which should be frigid.

Why do you think that is "alarmist"?  Nobody is saying it is alarming, merely that based on current trends there is that possibility.

In any event, are you saying that the recent synoptics have been unique?   I find it difficult to accept that the synoptics are responsible for the ice extent fairly consistently hitting new lows for much of the last three months?

The reality is that the ice extent has been fairly consistently 15% down on the 1979-2000 mean for the time of year since November and as much as 30% down at the minimum achieved at the end of the melt season.  

If you look at the graphs you will find that the ice extent values this century are clustered well below the previous mean values and that 2010 has been tracking since the autumn at the bottom of the cluster.

This isn't supposed to be alarmism, merely an extrapolation of what we have been seeing in recent years. I know there are some, e.g. Stephen, who maintain that the ocean heat from the sustained string of predominant La Ninas is still having an effect and that it is unrelated to AGW.  That's fine - time will tell which is the main driver for the downward trend.

Or indeed, whether the downward trend is sustained. I happen to think there is something in the argument that increased meridionality has led to a warmer Artic (and also a cooler mid latitude in the NH). I also find it hard to believe that AGW is responsible for what is happening in the Artic - we are supposed to believe that an increase in GHG has warmed the oceans and led to Artic ice melt. Personally, I think other factors are in play.

That is not to say that I am a complete sceptic on AGW, just that I am sceptical about some of the claimed effects, especially at this juncture.

We could , of course, remember the studies in northern hemisphere circulation (prior to the 2010/11 winter) were firmly pointed towards the Arctic Amplification driving the expulsion of 'polar air' and 'ingress' of T.M. air.

Now I know you'd like 30yrs of records before you accept this 'change' (as you feel we've been here before?) but sadly , 30yrs from know the 'changes' will be established.

When we look at past 'rapid climate shifts' they take less than 15yrs to complete.

Think of a 'wheel of fortune' with pegs separating the categories and a sliver of wood at 12 O'clock 'clicking on the pegs as they pass. When the wheel slows down you can see the peg push the wood (and the sliver 'bow' as the pressure mounts) Enough 'impetus' and eventually the peg 'wins' and you click into the next category.

The wood is 'clicking into the next category.

We can no longer stop the 'step change' but it will be of a magnitude than anyone 'sat around' waiting for their 30yrs of records will end up looking very daft.

We have watched 'unusual Arctic plunges' for at least 8 years now , so much that even I 'predicted' our early winter (and severity). I accept some 'natural drivers' will either augment this (last years 'low solar' blocking) or 'offset this (our 'slush and muck' end to this UK winter) but every 1 in 3 (on average) will now give us our 5 to 8 week 'Arctic Blast'?

Time will tell but , and you can measure me by this, somewhere in the N.H. will suffer this 'expulsion' of polar winter air onto them next winter and some portion of the Arctic will be 'record mild' as the WAA infill's in the void the spill out caused. We can also expect the 'weird pressure extremes' we have seen across the Arctic until winters are near 'ice free' up there.

Something else to take on board.

Some Greenland glaciers run slower in warm summers than cooler ones, meaning the icecap may be more resistant to warming than previously thought.

see -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12285230

If we believe some of the posters to this thread, I thought we knew how Arctic sea ice melts.

Scientists and explorers will shortly set off on an expedition aiming to discover how Arctic sea ice melts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12279028

Well, there is a group on here who claim that the science is so uncertain that no conclusions can be drawn but they can be certain that everyone else is wrong.

January Arctic ice thickening significantly since 2009
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/weather-preparedness/13-billion-cubic-feet-of-new-arctic-ice/

That's a rather misleading extract, Dave.

How about:

• The scientists emphasise the icecap is not "safe from climate change", as it is still losing ice to the sea.


• The explanation is that hotter summers cause so much meltwater to collect that it runs off in channels below the ice - meaning it does not lubricate the glaciers so efficiently.


• Satellite observations show an overall loss of ice across Greenland.


• But thinning is greater along the coast and in the south, while some central areas have thickened, perhaps due to increased snowfall.

Well, actually not really if you bother to do the maths...

The calculation, if you can call it that, is a crude estimate obtained by eye-balling the snapshot of ice thickness.  It ignores the fact that there is less ice area in 2011 than either 2009 or 2010 at rthe same date. About 5% less in fact....

If you average this seemingly huge number across the Arctic basin it works out to be about 5% more ice volume (accepting for now that the 'calculation' has validity).  So, when you factor in the 5% lower ice extent I think you end up back at ZERO....

So, great news, at best we haven't lost any more ice volume, taking a simple snapshot across three years....

Anyway, it is worth repeating the disclaimer on the site:

disclaimer: no attempts were made to calculate the overall sea ice change (globally, or in the entire northern hemisphere) – the map loop shows slight reduction at southwest Greenland (Labrador Sea), some reduction in Hudson Bay, while some increase at northeast Greenland (Greenland Sea) – possibly an overall neutral effect there. The vast majority of apparent change is in the Arctic Ocean.

Do enlighten us Dave, how does Arctic sea ice melt?

Daft question - of course it's not melting. It's all a huge conspiracy by communist tree-huggers manipulating the data and sneaking people onto the satellites to change the images....

Some Greenland glaciers run slower in warm summers than cooler ones, meaning the icecap may be more resistant to warming than previously thought.

                                              ................ demonstrates the uncertainty with regard to icecap melt too.