The IJIS site wasn't updated over the weekend but is now up to date again.

We seem to be at that point in the cycle were the growth is slow and interspersed by occasional reductions.  We are at about 13.6m sq km now, in the same group as 2005 and 2006 and with about two weeks left before the turn, assuming an average date for the peak.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Nothing new about low summer sea ice amounts near the north pole:

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NENZC18690203.2.12

and:

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=ST18730328.2.20

That's an interesting interpretation of those extracts Stephen.  Did you spend any time cross-referencing the narrrative with an atlas and the state of sea ice as shown on Cryosphere Today in the 'modern era'?  I assume not, else you would have drawn a different conclusion.

Quote from the 1st paper:

"After an unsuccessful attempt to make the eastern shore of Greenland in latitude 75 degrees...."

Now look at the late summer state of the ice. Here is the end of August 2008 and 2009:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20080831.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20090831.jpg

Going ashore at 75 degrees would have been a matter of wading through open water.....

The report then refers to the ship having "pushed her way round the fields in a north-easterly direction" and reaching a point 80.5 north and 5 east.  Again if you look at the above images you will see that there is no ice at all on the suggested track

Aside from these specifics, the paper makes no reference to the state of the ice from any other direction.  Therefore you conclusion is at best misleading and at worst another attempt to play down the state of the Arctic ice.

Disappointingly inaccurate but predictable in that you demonstrate yet again your desperation to disprove the case for global warming.

So reduced sea ice in recent years is proof of global warming?

Can you prove that ?

Can you make a post in this forum that is anything other than drive-by rhetoric?

Yes, and (for recent times) an impressive amount of ice. otoh, I think I've seen similar amounts in a recent year (at maximum extent) though I'm not sure which one and there is still time this year for ice to further extend. Perhaps that area of ice can effect our spring weather...

We had similar last spring but at that time had the bering straits 'ice factory' pumping ice out into the bering sea giving is a 'false' high extent.

I expect ,as we saw last year, this ice to be broken and melting by May and that land to the east of it may be a little chillier for a month or so but us here? nope ,I don't think so?

I can prove quite easily that you don't read posts properly.

Yes, the trend is following a similar path.   Just looking at the historical data the last decade has seen increases between zero and 400k from yesterday to the peak - and we know that last year was exceptionally late and probably for the reasons you have mentioned before (i.e. ice break up giving a larger ice extent, whilst ice area behaved more normally).

We are still at 13.6 million sq. km., which means a peak below 14.0 million looks increasingly probable.  This would put it in the lowest two maxima (2006 -13.78m, 2007 - 13.95m).

Any hint of what we could call normal Arctic sea ice extent or thickness as measured over the past thirty or so years are gone.

Changes are clearly evident.

I think we all accept the 'data' and know that we have 'long cycles' in the basin , it's just gone too far this 'warm cycle'. We know we lost 50% of the ice there between 1955 and 1980 (most of it in the 70's) and the rest we saw ,via satellite, over the last 30 years.

We seem to have lost over 100,000 today and I fear that we are seeing a very early end to freeze this year. I very much suspect that any increases from here on in will be via fragmentation and drift.

We all know just how much 'young ice' is in the basin (ice under 5 years comprises over 95%!) and that this ice will naturally 'fade away' over any normal season. Any 'early start just opens up dark water to speed the process.

I am so very worried about what we are witnessing. i thought we would have had more 'extent' and that 'freeze' would have been at least 3 weeks longer. with the synoptics over Bering and Barents being so warm i can only see more losses this coming week and ,to me, this will mark the beginning of the melt season.

I am so very sorry for those holding out hopes of recovery, I know what it is to hope beyond hope, but we must accept our new reality and move forwards?

It might not happen ,but if there is a repeat of 2007 It would be an eye opener.

More guesswork Stephen. You have little support for your position on this. The reality is that the ice extent is on a downward trend and that there is sufficient evidence that this is highly unusual.
If the Inuit, for example, are reporting unprecedented changes then I will take more note if this than of your musings.

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

In fairness Gandalf, reports from the Inuit, although indicative, are hardly scientific either.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

What is the average life span of an inuit compared to the 1000-2000 years context of arctic sea ice extent which is what we need to judge the recent decline with?

So stories don't get handed down from generation to generation?  Sorry I must have made a mistake.

More guesswork Stephen. You have little support for your position on this. The reality is that the ice extent is on a downward trend and that there is sufficient evidence that this is highly unusual.
If the Inuit, for example, are reporting unprecedented changes then I will take more note if this than of your musings.

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

In fairness Gandalf, reports from the Inuit, although indicative, are hardly scientific either.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

True AIMSIR, but neither are Stephen's musings - which was the point to which I was responding.

A big loss of ice extent yesterday - the biggest since September, just at the end of the melt season.

It certainly doesn't look good.Gandalf.
I'm glad I don't have shares in Arctic Sea Ice.

No it doesn't.  I've just started a new thread with a link to an excellent article describing the changes occurring in the Arctic and it makes for sober reading.   Hopefully at some stage we will move from petty bickering in this Forum about the causes and onto what we can do to mitigate the effects.

Now, if there was a market in Arctic Ice that would also be in meltdown.....

Another late winter day of stunning gains.........not

I think it's 'over'

MODIS will show well any 'collapse and spread' of fragmented ice at the periphery of the pack and we are still 8 weeks away from 'visible' inspection of the central pack... not happy ,not happy at all!

Well, a small gain on the revised figures but we are still left with a small net loss over the last week.

Nearing the peak in the cycle now - in the last decade we have seldom exceeded the levels of the end of February by very much more than 100k - except last year.

What is also worrying is that this low maximum is on the back of a La Nina and solar minimum, both of which should have kept ice levels up. I wonder what would have happened had the opposites been in place?