Hi Gray-Wolf,

I agree. Like Ulric I have been watching the gradient on decline in ice extent and we are heading for a date low shortly.

Taking away the daily variations in the rate of decline I have also been tracking the monthly average.  May is about to drop below 12 million and will drop below the 2007 figure of 11.94M even if there is no more melt this month (which is improbable).  Not the lowest (2004) but certainly makes the period of high summer critical.

I think that the 'late winter' that the Canadian sectors have had has 'skewed' the ice loss figures thus far but we need remember that some of those areas (Hudson/Baffin) are pretty far south and had a very late 'freeze' date so the ice there cannot be exceptionally thick? As such these areas will 'let go' over the next 5 or 6 weeks impacting the daily loss figures.

The last 5 days of May need to be 60k or more to drop us below the 11 million mark (a first) before the start of June.

The other thing to keep our minds on is that a lot of the melt occurs from below. As such it is only the end phase (when the ice melts out) that we see or measure (which is why 'thickness' is so important). IceBridge has shown that Beaufort is down on thickness so can we expect this area to melt out (and present dark water) earlier than last year but how much of the basin is in the same position?

I am sold on the impacts of the Arctic Amplification but they may be exerting themselves over an ever longer time span. Was the late vortex over Canada/Alaska due to the late freeze there? Has this vortex left us with strange teleconnections beyond that of a fading Nina? Time will tell but surely the folk who think that the ice loss is something that won't affect them need to re-think their position. Last years Russian drought (and impact on grain prices) and this years European drought (and it's impact on Grain prices) lead to inflationary impacts which hurt us all!

There is no evidence to suggest that the extent of arctic sea ice, or global warming in general, caused either the Russian drought or the European drought [apologies if that is not what you were implying]. Reductions in sea ice will of course add to global warming by feedback that is mainly positive, and this in turn can amplify the effects of persistent synoptic patterns by increasing rainfall in flood events and increased heat in drought events.

Incidentally, what are these 'strange teleconnections' you refer to?

Hi John!

We'll not get into ascribing individual events (or their frequency) and AGW and I'll try and find the 'route' I used to come across the forum that was discussing ENSO and the polar Vortex link but it seemed to make a lot of sense as I read it! Suffice to say the last P.V. of the strength/position to rival this winters end one was prior to the super Nino of 97' so I'll be watching how our 'Neutral' conditions respond over summer (could they possibly flip to Nino???) with added interest.

The ramifications of the A.A. impacting global (and not just N.Hemisphere) circulation would be a spanner in the works we could all do without even if it is just an augmentation to the patterns we are used to.

As ever the thing to look out for are increased frequency of extreme evens and /cycles not providing what we would expect.

There's no evidence for all these strange connections you fantasise about.
You predicted the ice bridge was about to collapse weeks ago and it still hasn't.
I don't understand why you are so anxious to present the current un-interesting ice situation as one of imminent global catastrophy.
Or rather I do - but you will breezily pretend you don't know what I mean as usual.

And this thread was proceeding so pleasantly.

That's a delightfully toxic mixture of ignorance, prejudice and rudeness.  Perhaps it would be best if you didn't bother us with your unhelpful "contributions"

If you think the current position is "un-interesting" (sic) then you have little idea and precious little to contribute.

I'll save this, just to see who is right come September...

About the Global catastrophy?
That's 2012 isn't it

How is the ice bridge today ?

In about the same state as your understanding of the subject....

I believe the word 'brittle' might be apposite.

Looks like his opinion to me, his thoughts, his view.

Perhaps you should put your views rather than the constantly negative dissing of others you go in for???

What do you think the 2011 Arctic sea ice minimum will be? Why do you think the trends (by whatever measure, thickness/extent/area) are strongly down?

Its almost likely daily scaremongering.

Or it might just be the informed opinion of someone who has taken the time to study the subject in some depth?

Do you have a view on why, despite the supposed global cooling, we continue to explore new lows for Arctic ice cover?

GW posts on netweather usually, where his annual predictions of imminent total meltout are something of an amusing institution.
(only rivalled by the wild claims of his hero Mark Serreze)
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2008/06/an_ice_free_north_pole.html
A crescendo is always reached by this time of year. It will go quiet later no doubt.
I would think the minimum area-extent-volume (which is trendy this year?) will be not that different to last year.

I see there's more older ice than in 2008 and that year recovered significantly making an ass of several experts.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/ice-age.html

Also the supposed thin ice at the pole might result in a wider area remaining covered.
The pole is only thawing territory very briefly and some years hardly at all.

The amount which melts is mostly affected by local weather and ice export caused by sea current and wind - inconveniently not a symptom of global warming which is the subtext in the wailing of the previous dozenz of posts.

It is true that certain synoptic patterns are more favourable for ice melt than others, but the effect on the trend is minimal. Ice extent was lower than expected in summer 2007 and December 2010 due to synoptics that favoured low ice. Conversely the rate of ice melt in April 2011 was much lower than I was expecting and I have suggested this might have been due to the record breaking positive AO that month.

In which case what is your learned explanation for the very clear downward trend in ice area, ice extent and ice volume over the last 30 years?  Is there some recurring pattern of local weather never before experienced which might explain this very stark trend?

Waits....

Like a iced drink warms because of what goes on in the glass...

Have you been visiting a particular site again SC?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/22/arctic-cycles-amopdo-corresponds-to-arctic-station-group/