The post at Our Changing Climate is definitely an interesting one. It's disappointing--though entirely expected, of course--to see Judith Curry downplaying the role of greenhouse gases in the disappearance of ice, and practically going into contortions to do so. Though I suppose the fact that she's willing to admit a 50/50 split between natural variation and anthropogenic causes is a sign of progress where she's concerned. At any rate, I, too, tend to agree with Curry's colleague--NSIDC's Walt Meier--in his agreement with Day et al. 2012, who (as noted in the article) arrived at a 70-95% anthropogenic origin for ice loss based on the following: The decline in sea ice correlates with the increase in global temperature.The decline is outside the range of normal variability over the past several decades and probably over the past several centuriesThe decline is pan-Arctic, with all regions experiencing declines throughout all or most of the year.Climate model simulations cannot explain the decline without taking greenhouse gases into account.There does not appear to be another mechanism to sufficiently explain the long-term decline.

(Cross posted on the sea ice forum) Now I will place money that this year's Arctic sea ice maximum was indeed reached on Day 59, with 13,799,198 square kilometers. My thinking: On Day 81 (yesterday), sea ice area decreased around another 100k km2. That's the sixth drop in the last seven days, for a single week decrease of 341k km2. To surpass the maximum to-date, area would have to grow by nearly 344k, and that much post-Day 81 growth has never happened (See the linked image). Even last year's unusual late growth spurt added just 108k km2 after this date. Only four years in the SIA record had maximums occurring after Day 81: '85, '99, '03, and '12. Area is currently 145k less than on this same day last year. By this day in 2007, area had already fallen below 13 million km2 on its way to a new record minimum. Various forecasts hold out little hop for a late freeze. So, while my word doesn't mean much, I'm 99% certain that this year's area maximum has been reached, and we're on the way to a new record low minimum roughly 6 months from now.

I would tend to agree about both area and extent, but after having been burnt so badly with last year's failed prediction(s), I'd be hesitant to lay any money down just yet. 2012 SIA, after all, did see an additional 225,000 km2 growth after yesterday's date. But then again, even that flukish amount wouldn't push this year's area back over its peak-to-date of 13,799,198 km2 on Day 59. And with the forecast, as you've noted, even that much further growth doesn't seem likely. Extent seems a little iffier as the putative peak is so close and so recent, but the same forecast applies, so it's probably done, as well. (FWIW, "plume" projection graphs for both Arctic sea ice area and sea ice extent indicate that this year's respective maximums have probably been reached. So: good. Bring on the melting; 2013 is going to be very, er, interesting...

I've seen the 'R' word thrown around here a bit IRT Piomas sea volume, but to be honest, I'm not quite sure why. Some facts: For all of January 2012, SIV was higher than it was on the same day in 2011. For much of March 2012, SIV was higher than it was on the same day in 2011. For a goof part of April and May 2012, SIV was higher than it was on the same day in 2011. In fact, 2012 volume was higher than same-day 2011 volume on all but 35 of the first 130 days of the year. The point being, it's neither logical nor historically valid to speak of a recovery based solely on Q1 data. No, I'm afraid that, much as some may wish otherwisee, there simply are no reliable signs of an incipient recovery.

Neven wrote: Perhaps they should focus the models more on the consequences of disappearing sea ice, instead of the disappearing itself (as they might not be able to model that before it's gone)? I tend to agree. At the present, we're like shopkeepers obsessing over the exact placement and angle of our store's security cameras, while thieves busy themselves emptying out the place. Or, for a possibly better analogy, we're like doctors so taken with guessing when I our patient may die that we fail to notice that he already has... Werther wrote: We eagerly await any sign on the quality of the ice cover as we enter a summer that could bring an ice free North Pole for the first time in at least 5000 years Of course, that will be followed by a "recovery" of historical proportions. I can already see October's WUWT headline: "In blow to alarmists, Arctic sea ice grows from 0 to 3 million km2 in just four weeks, the fastest freeze ever recorded!"

I just wanted to make note (and if someone else has already done so, my apologies) that as of Day 45 (2/14), CT SIA is currently at 13.231 million km2, which is already 87,000 km2 greater than 2011's record low area maximum of 13.144 million km2. Since it's likely to be around three to four more weeks (or longer) before this year's maximum is reached, the 2013 maximum may very well end up higher than just about any year since 2003. I wouldn't be surprised, in fact, if SIA were to nudge over the 14 million mark this year for the first time in a decade. However...as has been stated many times, including after last year's late and high maximum--all the new ice is thin and fragile, and will begin to disappear in massive clumps once the sun starts popping over the Arctic horizon.

Since we're being all spirally and whatnot, I thought I'd mention that I've posted a new "death spiral"-type image. Click to enlarge: This one should be self-explanatory, but in brief, it's a(nother) polar plot showing September average (note: not minimum) PIOMAS volume by decade and year, with one full decade required to complete each circuit. It's pretty clear that the bullseye will be reached within just a handful of years. (I plan to animate this one very shortly; that should be eye-opening.)

Yeah, I'm truly shocked that Little Anthony hasn't yet run a breathless headline on this latest record... ;-) Since we're talking about sea ice area, I thought now would be a good time and place to mention that--no surprise--November was the sixth consecutive month, and the seventh month this year, for which the 2012 monthly average Arctic SIA was the lowest on record: MONTH / FIRST / SECOND / THIRD JAN / 2011 / 2010 / 2006 FEB / 2012 / 2006 / 2011 MAR / 2011 / 2006 / 2007 APR / 2007 / 2006 / 2004 MAY / 2011 / 2006 / 2011 JUN / 2012 / 2010 / 2007 JUL / 2012 / 2007 / 2010 AUG / 2012 / 2011 / 2007 SEP / 2012 / 2007 / 2011 OCT / 2012 / 2007 / 2011 NOV / 2012 / 2007 / 2009

@Wipneus: excellent. Thanks! @Neven: I believe you are correct, sir!

A quick note about CT SIA: the dataset wasn't updated yesterday (for .7671), but was updated this morning to include only .7699. That's not an issue. However, at the moment, the line for 2012.7699 contains the average anomaly for day .7671 (not .7699 as it should), and thus reflects an incorrect anomaly for the day of -2.4731667. The actual anomaly as calculated against the average for .7699 is -2.5723857, making it the eighth largest ever in the CT SIA record. I hope that made sense... ;)

--Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area gained 109k km2 yesterday, the largest daily gain since March 20, and the twelfth century increase of 2012. --As noted above by idunno, 2012 area spent 44 days below the previous record annual minimum set just last year. By comparison, 2011 area was only below the previous record minimum (2007's) for a single day. --2012 SIA was below 3 million km2 for 49 days. 2011 spent just 12 days below that mark. --2012 SIA has now held the daily minimum record for 96 consecutive days, and 112 of the last 117. --The 2012 negative anomaly has been larger than 2 million km2 for 63 consecutive days. That stretch has included 10 of the 20 largest negative anomalies on record.

I've updated my PIOMAS volume charts, as well. No surprises: things are, as we all know, getting ugly. Or uglier... The polar ("Death Spiral") graph shows just how close ice volume is getting to becoming non-existent in summer (click for larger image): This chart clearly shows that, in terms of percentage, the total volume lost this year was the greatest on record at 85.12% (click for larger image): And this chart shows how quickly the lines denoting maximum volume and volume lost are converging (click for larger image):

The "silly season", indeed. Not that I ever expect anything more out of denialists. The thing is, even were the Antarctic ice sheet to somehow melt away entirely in the next six months, denialists would ignore that--and, of course, the catastrophic 60-meter sea level rise--and say, "Yeah, but Fairbanks, Alaska, got two inches of snow last night. So much for your global warming! Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk." (And I'm sure Watts and Goddard would be right there with all the kindergarten-level charts and graphs a denialist could want.) The depth of ignorance displayed by some (both intentional and unintentional) is astounding, and--often--very depressing.

Karl (September 18, 2012 at 18:10): I come to this site for different reasons. And just what would those reasons be, Karl? Because judging by your 15 comments to-date, it's been to either complain about how great the site used to be but no longer is (6), to complain that people here have been mean to you (2), to post debunked denialist talking points (5), to generally insult everyone who frequents these forums (2), or some combination of the above. So, again, why are you here? I mean, really? I'm dying to know...

@Karl: You'll find no one here ever trying to "close down" rational thought. What you will find here, however, is people intimately familiar with the signs and science behind what's going on, and thus very predisposed to tuning out denialist rhetoric. Or combatting it. Or--my favorite--ridiculing it for the utter nonsense it is. The thing is, anyone who comes in here posting garbage from Watts' silly site, or who comes here to constantly lament how great this site "used to be before it got all political", or who repeatedly ignores the vast body of evidence that supports AGW theory to instead cherry-pick a few out-of-context tidbits they feel support the denailist POV, is going to meet a pretty stiff wall of factual resistance. I've got no right to suggest anyone go away, so I won't do that here; the more eyes, the merrier. But I do think you'll find a possibly more eager and willing audience for illogical, debunked, non-scientific blather elsewhere than you will here. Cheers!

-Incredible as it is to believe, 2012 CT SIA is now more than a million km2 lower than it was on the same day (XXXX.7096) last year. (2.244 M to 3.272 M). -The current area anomaly of -2.546m km2 is the largest yet this year, the ninth largest ever, and the biggest since Oct. 24, 2007. (All eight of the largest negative anomalies took place in October of that year; it obviously remains to be seen whether the same will happen in 2012.) -The negative anomaly has been at or greater than 2 million km2 for a total of 103 days since 1979. 49 of those occurrences (47.6%) have been this year, including that last 47 consecutive days. -My own little non-amazing-but-still-interesting fact: CT SIA has been at or below half of the daily average a total of 14 times since 1979. All 14 of those have been in the past 15 days.

I wish I could share your enthusiasm, Bob, but it's not quite as contagious as you might wish. ;-) As you know, by far the largest reason US CO2 emissions have dropped to a 20-year low is because the sudden abundance of cheap(er) natural gas caused many power plants to switch over from coal. The drop didn't come about because we learned to better conserve; it didn't drop because we've made the move to clean and renewable sources of power; it didn't drop because Americans finally understood the perils of increasing CO2 concentrations and did something about it. No, it dropped simply because we switched from one non-renewable GHG-emitting fossil fuel to another non-renewable GHG-emitting fossil fuel. In other words, it's not as though we've kicked our drug addiction; we just found a source for cleaner needles with which to shoot up. That's progress, yes. But not really the kind anybody should stand up and cheer about just yet. (Not to mention, the production of natural gas brings with it a whole slew of nastiness, such as the still-unknown dangers of fracking and the possibility of massive "fugitive" methane leaks from gas drilling sites.) One thing is clear: as Michael Mann has said, people will follow their wallets where global warming is concerned. So absent a breakthrough in technology that will cause clean energy prices to become distinctly less expensive than oil, coal, and gas, intervention from the government will be the only thing that will keep us from milking the fossil fuel cow for all the relatively cheap milk she can give us. And the only way to get that government intervention is by convincing people of the truth--and doing that will entail being sure clowns like Bastardi, Goddard, and Watts are shouted down whenever possible. I intend to keep doing just that. Not for my pleasure, as you stated, but for my planet. It's the least I can do.

Bob Wallace: Joe's cherry-picking is not exactly a serious topic. But I think it is, Bob. Because so long as voices like Bastardi's are playing to the fossil fuel-addicted masses--and fossil fuel cash-addicted politicans--simply ignoring them means they reign. And those voices that reign, win. Getting us out of our CO2 hell isn't a single-pronged approach. That is, while it's obviously vitally important that we pursue rapid research and development of non fossil fuels like wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and tidal, it's also vitally important that we continue to publicly call out and battle those anti-science voices that are doing all they can to stifle that R&D and keep the world sucking the oil spigot for as long as possible. So long as that remains the case, spotlighting, as Neven has done here, the antics and motivations of people like Bastardi, Watts, and Goddard is, I believe, a necessary and noble thing.

My, but that is a whole lot of anti-scientific stupidity rolled into a tiny, smelly ball of Forbes-ian blather. In just a few hundred words and a handful of paragraphs, Hendrickson managed to hit on every major denialist "debate" point. How very economical of him! Of course, it clearly doesn't matter one bit to him that every one of those points has been throughly refuted and debunked countless times; for people of his ilk, there's comfort and assurance in simply repeating the same lies as if telling them for the very first time. Hendrickson is, of course, a huge believer in allowing the powerful hand of the unrestrained free market to take the world where it needs to go. Nevermind that that hasn't worked out so well, either; if you just say it often enough, it becomes part of the very fabric of your skewed reality. Here, read this quote from Hendrickson's piece on the oh-so-silly progressive "infatuation" with "unnecessary laws" and regulations: "Some will say that Wall Street professionals cannot be trusted to do the right thing. ...We respectfully disagree. There is abundant evidence that the vast majority of people who work in the financial industry are upright, honorable, and trustworthy." So in Hendrickson's world, there's "abundant evidence" that the very people who took the world economy to the brink of catastrophe just a few years ago through rampant greed are all stellar citizens not driven by a lust for profit but rather by care for every man. Yet there's no evidence whatsoever that the planet is warming, or that that warming is caused mostly (if not wholly) by CO2, or that that CO2 is from our unimpeded burning of fossil fuels. Yeah, I see what you did there, Hendrickson. Well played, sir!

Thanks, Dan. Twemoran: You poetry deserves a much wider audience, permission to promulgate? (with proper sourcing of course) terry, feel free to use it however you like... ;-) Rob Murphy, the patience you displayed with the fool over at the oxymoronically-named "Climate Realists" site shows that you have far greater tolerance than do I. Nevertheless, your responses were awesome, and showed the illogical shill for what he is.

Ode to the Apoplectic Skeptic Joe Bastardi found a cherry, Making Joey very merry. And that cherry that he found Was quickly picked, then passed around. And skeptics, in their desperation, Danced and screamed in jubilation, For that cherry, they were told, Was evidence of coming cold. "The ice is back!" Bastardi's shout. "It's cooling fast, without a doubt! And someday, right around the bend, This 'Global Warming' lie will end! And ice will come in lofty sheets While wooly mammoths roam the streets! And best of all--I promise you-- We'll hear no more of CO2!" But poor Bastardi--foolish chap-- Had never learned to read a map. Through ignorance and wishful thinking, Joe had erred: the ice was shrinking. Yes, this climate malcontent Was unaware that ice extent Continued melting, never ceasing; Arctic ice was still decreasing. The question, then: should Joe admit His Arctic knowledge deficit? Or should he sing his normal song, Proclaiming that those maps were wrong? Alas, he did what "skeptics" do: He wrote a bunch--sans peer review-- That scientists had missed, not he... Then climbed back up his cherry tree.

The long-term mean average day for CT SIA minimum is 256 (XXXX.6959), with a median of 254. We're obviously beyond both of those, so any day now should be it. I'll do complete stats on SIA once melt season is definitely over, but for now I wanted to note a few things: ---Area is currently 665k km2 below last year's record; --2012 has been in first place for least area for 76 consecutive days, and 92 of the past 97; --The current CT SIA anomaly of -2.5008738 million km2 is the largest so far this year, and the 11th largest ever (the 10 largest occurred in October 2007); --Prior to 2012, SIA had never been at or below half of the long-term average; it's now been there 10 of the past 11 days.

Bastardi is, for lack of a better word, a buffoon. He is a climate clown. He makes huge, sweeping, grandiose forecasts about climate that never come to pass--global cooling is coming soon, next month will be far colder than this month, the ice will fully recovery this winter, a great global ice age is going to creep up on us any minute now. But he then never displays humility, never stands up to admit that he missed by a mile and that he was wrong. To Bastardi and his sycophants, the absence of so much as a single sign indicating that we're speeding toward his Great Hoped-For But Always Just Around The Corner Fantasy Cooldown is evidence that it's even more imminent than ever. I used to maintain a list of Bastardi's blown climate (and weather) forecasts, but I stopped when the fun ran out--that is, when it became too much like stealing candy from a baby, as his misses were more numerous than his hits. I tend to do nowadays what so many others do: simply ignore him.

Jim Williams [September 09, 2012 at 16:07]: Jim Pettit, would you please add your volume graphs to the same page as the area and extent graphs (reachable from Nevens' Arctic sea ice graphs page) so I can find the most recent versions when I want them? Done. I realize my graphs site, particularly the home page, is starting to become an overloaded mess. After the melt season is over, I plan rename and rearrange the various graphs into a more logical structural order. I hesitate to do it now, as people don't like things not being where they're used to them being... ;-)

I've heard yet another silly denialist meme twice since yesterday. The claim is that 450 more cubic kilometers of ice volume went away in 2010 (18,974 km^3) than have so far this year (18,523km^3), meaning--of course--that the ice is in "recovery". Sigh... That's about as witless an argument as one will ever hear. The fact is, there's less ice to melt every year, so of course there'll be less total melt. Extending that silly argument into the future, then, one supposes that the ice will be in full recovery a short number of years from now when "only" a few thousand cubic kilometers of ice form during winter, meaning that "only" a few thousand cubic kilometers of ice are available to melt during the following summer. "Recovery" for the win!!! Not. Anyway, should you run across any WattsBots™ attempting to avoid reality by using this particularly lame argument, just show them this graph (click for larger image): The total amount of melt is less important than the total percentage--and that percentage is rocketing upward, as anyone not blinded by either disconnected ideology, or sycophantic loyalty to Watts can see. (FWIW, I also created also a version of that chart based on CT SIA. It tells pretty much the same story.)