http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/WEBCAM1/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam1_20130614202216.jpg Is that open water on the right side? Looks like we have a beach-side view now. This says something about the state at the pole. Sun is out as well...

3.1 (same as last month) Hunch rather than any mathematical process. Expecting 'dead cat bounce' because of change of state of ice. expecting type of weather to make little difference - therefore to be consistent have to stay with original number even if this summer is going to have cool weather. I don't believe the start to melting has been that slow - it's just the numbers used to measure ice melt aren't showing it (yet) e.g. PIOMAS is a model - if the ice state is a new state then how can it model it accurately? However there is less confidence in the guesstimate than last month. It seems the melt is on a knife edge. We could be seeing some new (unexpected) negative feedbacks coming in due to the new state of the ice.

3.1 million km2 history would suggest a rebound after last years significant decrease. However (unlike previously) the majority of last years decrease was not caused by extreme weather. Arctic cyclones could now be the norm. This suggests a paradigm shift has occurred in the cryosphere. positive feedback of reduced albedo, increased inflow of warmer water, reduced snow cover, less multi-year ice etc. suggests there will only be decreases until zero is reached.

Werther, Whitebeard: I suggest not proceeding down that route with the antarctic data. That can lead to the two sides just talking numbers to each other - the majority (who we are trying to persuade) can get fed up with both sides and lose interest. It will be better to focus on why the antarctic figure is not matching the arctic melt even though the antartic is warming. AGW will impact different regions in different (often unpredictable) ways at different times - this is a key message. actually in this case the mechanism seems to be quite straightforward and is understood. in other scenarios it may not be. Also what do you say in the future if antarctic increase is greater than arctic decrease? This is theoretically possible because the annual arctic decrease is bounded (and getting more bounded all the time) and the antarctic increase is in the short term unbounded.

@Karl, I suggest you look at the skeptical science website, especially the following links rebutting specific points you have made. If you have any questions on these points please post them on the correct thread on skeptical science. "natural cycles powered by solar cycles" http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm "only causing warming at certain times and in certain places" http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm "look at a trace gas" http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

and for webcam watchers, surf's up at Barrow (again). Also there seems to be a lot of standing water, and they seem to be building additional sea defences... http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam

imho, when the history of AGW comes to be written one of the major mistakes noted will be the over reliance and too much emphasis being put on computer models. Too inaccurate and too easy to attack by skeptics. Hansen and Alley seem to have realised this and now only focus on the paleoclimate record - after all the earth is the best model for the earth. IIRC antarctic ice sheet started to appear when C02 dropped below 450ppm. From current observations, summer arctic ice disappears at approx. 390-400ppm. GIS presumably disappears somewhere between these two: 400 and 450ppm. Do we need to know anymore than these three numbers?

Hi Lodger, Roman: I think what Roman means is 1st Sept image - here (sorry if link is wrong - first time embedding a link on this site). If you go straight to Webcams it never shows latest image (don't know why) - you have to go to archive to see those. On left hand side is open water - that is not a melt pond imho. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120901124421.jpg

@oldleatherneck & neven: Additional to people thinking AGW will only impact in the future is people thinking that the impact will be a single step change. I think this is partly due to the wording of some AGW projections e.g. the sea level change projections: "sea level will be x metres higher in 100 years time". This immediately makes you think that some time between now and then sea levels will rise x metres almost overnight in a single step. Although a hardship all people living in affected areas will have to do is move to higher ground and rebuild cities & infrastructure at the higher point and that will be it. Must admit I got to thinking this way for a while. Of course the killer is that the changes will be either continuous change or worse with erratic bursts of increase and then periods of no increase. In this scenario how do you plan and build new ports, oil terminals, sea defences etc.? There must be some way to build all these with robustness to SLR change built in - I suspect this makes them much, much more expensive. This is one area where Bjorn Lomberg et al. miss most of the implications and therefore miss most of the costs (both human and economic)

Hi Rob, Also struck me this morning how the ice is centred on the NP stretching out to on average of 80 degrees south. One explanation is that the way in which the ice melts has changed: Instead of a solid ice-pack which melts in-situ it is now a slush puppy which gets moved about by wind and water. Melting IS happening North of Svalbard it's just that the ice is being constantly replenished. If you like north of svalbard is the new Fram Strait. Next year it may be cold over svalbard and warm over the other side. Likely that in late summer the ice will again be centred over the NP. What's wrong with the above is if the ice was a slush puppy I would expect the buoys to move more than they have.It looks like buoys 4 and 6 are hardly moving...

Hehe good mis-type: "arctic CO2 sink" mime. The mime artist slowly pulls out an empty pocket on the left. No CO2 sink there. Then they slowly pull out an empty pocket on the right - no CO2 sink there. Then they look straight at the audience with a very sad stare and shrug their shoulders showing both empty hands. Nope - no CO2 anywhere.

While we are waiting to see what happens with the storm, it seems to be a good time to ask this (most probably stupid) question which has bugged me for some time which I can't find the answer to. Assuming an ice-free arctic ocean in the future what will the track of Arctic lows be? The simple model I have in my head says that the track of an LP mainly depends on three factors: 1) Heat energy. The low needs energy (mainly from surface water) to continue to keep itself alive. This means the lowest pressure tends towards areas of highest energy (warmest water) 2) High-level winds can drag the top of the LP and the lower (in height) parts of the LP follow: I always picture a tornado leaning over with the top leading the surface part of the funnel. Scale this up and a similar process happens in an LP. By high level winds I mean the global circulations e.g. jet stream 3) rotation of the earth. Don't know exactly the impact of this but I would have thought this must have an effect either via Coriolis effect or indirectly via (2) Taking all of the above at the north pole 2) and 3) will be roughly zero. Does this mean that if enough energy is provided an LP could be located at the north pole indefinitely and never move? PS: Great blog Neven. I have watched and learned for 3 years. Now seems the time to come out of the shadows.

Ah yes, thanks - didn't know those pictures existed.

Espen: Those pictures haven't been updated since July 22nd. Does anybody know why?