Soon to change.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/us_min_temp_000.png

I assume you are referring to Hudson Bay?  If so, I'm not sure what value that chart offers?  It seems to be the GFS minimum projected temperature in the next seven and a half days and doesn't offer much about the daily maxima and minima?

you will see that the daytime temperatures over Hudson Bay stay stubbornly above zero for some time yet.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Oh dear oh dear! We seem to have put clear water (literally!) between us and 09'/07' now. With all this talk of 'cold to come' (like a microcosm of the normal septic rallying call?) why are we not growing ice around the margins? I guess we'd better wait until late Feb/Early March to see the 'growth spurt' some folk are expecting?

Meanwhile Fram is still full of the summers polar ice cap (2nd ,3rd and 4th year ice?)....and in amongst it Buoy 2 from the North Pole web cam........

Hi Gray-Wolf

I track this on a regular basis. After that spurt from the end of October that added one million sq km in 10 days things have slowed right down again - less than half a million added in the last 12 days, well below the normal run-rate for this stage.

Currently around 9.5 million.

Key milestones to watch for:  the norm used to be 12 million by the end of November, 14m before the end of the year and 15m by the end of January.

We need to wait patiently to see how the trends develop.

Seems this thread has been forgotten about in all the recent excitement. However, I was expecting a better show in the Barents Sea by now, given the prevailing synoptics:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html

If we look through we'll see that not many areas are where they should be right now apart from the Arctic Basin itself. All the areas to the west of our cold plunge seem to be faring rather poorly? If we get a steady ,over the U.K.,of polar air then what replaces it at the pole?

Hi MM.

I have been watching the very slow recovery of the ice but not bothered to add further comment here.

One other area of note is the total absence of ice in Hudson Bay, which is quite remarkable at this stage.  I've looked back at some old charts for late November and found nothing to compare.

The ice extent reached 9.7m sq km yesterday - only 2006 and 2007 have failed to reach 10m by now and the 1979-2000 mean is 2 million more.  Even against the mean for the 21st Century we are 5% below.

I think some folk got a tad carried away by the compression of ice across central Arctic basin at the end of Sept /Early Oct (seemingly the same folk that got carried away with the high extent in spring?) without noting the 'standstill' occurring in areas that would normally have shown growth at this point?

As for Baffin/Hudson/Greenland/Barents, as we have been shipping in cold from the pole (and shipping old ice out through Fram) those areas are on the opposite side shipping in warm.

In my youth there was plenty of cold to go around but these days any cold out of the Arctic is replaced by warm air influx and not filled with home grown cold. Throw in a bit of Arctic Amplification through Oct/Nov in those areas around the periphery of 80N (south Beaufort for example) and you start to get the flavour of the new Arctic.

The 'new' 12month losses, via Fram/Nares throw us the added curve of shipping out older ice to be replaced by new ,salty,weak ice.

I personally would place 4 million as the best we can hope for in Sept's from now on and ,come a high melt ,high transport year, seasonal ice levels.

The ice may be low at the moment but SST anomalies contine to fall and la Nina persists.  We may be in for an extended freeze this winter.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

It's not over until the little girl stops singing.

Except that the anomaly chart shows that virtually the entire sea area remains above normal by a degree or so and the area west of Greenland up into the Davis Strait is 2 to 4 degrees above normal.

Anyway, the ice extent has just crept above 10m sq km - the second latest date this century and 20% below the 1979-2000 normal level for the end of November.

I think the little girl may be wimpering but some people seem not to be listening....

That would be a reflection of the recent synoptics.

Equally Hudson Bay is still almost completely ice free, which is highly unusual for the end of November:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

"flopping around"? I think a 'straight exchange' of warm air in and cold air out (or ,if you like, cold air out drawing warm air in)

I agree the cold plunge can occur anywhere around the northern hemisphere but the warm always goes to the same place ....The Arctic.

Sorry Stephen, when you comment on something you reallty need your facts to be supporting you.  If you take the trouble to look back you will find you are talking nonsense.

Facts - for Hudson Bay ice extent on 30 November since 1979:

Covered >95% : 17%

Covered >75% but less than 95% : 17%

Covered 50-75% : 17%

Covered 25-50% : 26%

Covered 5-25% : 10%

Covered less than 5% : 13%

The years with less than 5% were: 1998, 2006, 2009, 2010

The years with 5-25% were 1999, 2003, 2008

So, a virtually clear Hudson Bay at the end of November was exceedingly rare before 1998 and remains very unusual.

Would you like to retract your inaccurate dismissal?

In passing, as Hudson Bay has little connection with ocean currents we can dismiss your usual excuse explanation for the dramatic decline.  I wonder what else might be responsible? AGW perhaps?

I think you misread my post.  The anomalies are falling, not low.  If they continue to fall as they have done then then will will become neutral and eventually negative.  Its a second order kind of thing :-)

Hi. No, I did understand your post.

It's just that the state of the ice remains poor - the current figures confirm this.   Let's hope you are correct but did you note my point about Hudson Bay?  I followed that up with some detailed analysis on the Cryosphere site when Stephen posted his customary dismissive response.

It will be interesting to see how the mechanisms play out.

Stephen, I took the trouble to analyse the images on Cryosphere, which refute your point completely and utterly.

I dont' really understand your attempted defence?  What's this about 'maximum cold' and referring to the air not water?  That's entirely irrelevant - your original post suggested that this was just the normal result of cold air spilling out somewhere else in the northern hemisphere.  The records show otherwise.

I did, in my wishful thinking, assume that you would concede this point as it is so obvious.  Clearly your blinkered adherence to your unique view of the climate system is preventing you from seeing and accepting the obvious.

It's just one small are affected by local warmer weather until recently.
Trying to make out a milder November there is an indication of global warming is simply laughable.
Ice lingered there later than averge last summer if I recall correctly.

Weather is not climate (unless it's warm weather obviously)

This all supports the idea that during historical times there was more 'bouncing' of the jet stream. And, as part of the scenario, the jet would, for months at a time, get locked in a particular pattern.

As an example, in the early eighties, a huge and very cold cut-off low moved to and remained over France, Germany and elsewhere. The forecasters at the time said that we could expect the cold weather last for a minimum of two weeks and perhaps upto a month. This probably happened several times in the 70/80's.

Good grief Stephen.  I am not seeing catastrophe.  I was attempting to point out to you that your simplistic dismissal of the lack of ice in Hudson Bay was incorrect.

Your dismissal remains incorrect and I think your complacency is somewhat worse than my heightened concerns.

Clearly you didn't look at my analysis above?  It shows quite clearly a trend towards less ice in the last dozen years - all bar one of the years with less than 50% ice cover at the end of November have occurred since 1998.

I think that is closer to 'climate' than 'weather' - but then you needed to have read and understood my post, rather than wander off on another typically blinkered response.

You can lead a sceptic to some facts but you cannot make him think....