http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDBO6NSJwK0&feature=g-all-u

One big smash of the record could be written off as a fluke, a second 5 years later now requires something pretty substantial to justify holding onto any position other than we are probably experiencing a very rapid change in the climate of the Arctic.

"So far, air temperatures have remained above freezing and Stroeve has not observed any ice formation. " Blimey.

The problem with using paleo is that the holocene thermal optimum was caused by the orientation of the axis changing so that it was Northern Hemisphere summer when the earths orbit was closest to the sun. This would have changed the thermal equator and had a very large impact on high latitude northern hemisphere summers and also winters, as the winters would have notably weaker insolation than today. Paleo can give an indication but the forcings are likely to play out very differently as winter will warm faster than summer and all kinds of other effects that have not been thought off may yet come into play. Expect the unexpected, this includes counter intuitive things like perhaps places getting colder or snowier, more precipitation may thicken in the NH winter snow packs and perhaps slow the warming rate in spring, perhaps not. Well anyway, models will have advantages over paleo because we are in rather different situation (warmer winters and colder summers as the background and CO2 acting different to insolation changes)

D'Aleo, Watts, Bastardi,Coleman. There is s trend.

The potential radical shift of an entire ocean biome Extinction: It's not just for Polar Bears any more

Peter Lilley the rent a quote skeptic brought in for this TV program has an interesting new job. Recently appointed non Executive Chairman of an oil exploration company. Hat tip to Leo Hickman. http://www.tethyspetroleum.com/tethys/newscontent.action?articleId=2355562

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pix2gaX9320&feature=g-all-u Interview with Greenman and Mauri

Michael Tabony "Is there instrument errors " These kind of readings are not unusual. They are routine and corrected. Even if it is in the actual atmosphere there are many potential sources. No need to jump through hoops to imagine some methane release from the oceans.

The full suit now in.

Measurement errors are routinely jumped on as signs of a catastrophe. Two or so years ago there was a similar reading at Zepplin station that also turned out to be just erroneous readings.

Lilley was absolutely seething at the BBC piece. How dare they use current data rather than 5 year old models.

How does he calculate this and what are the parameters? What I mean is "this will be like" or "this is like" two different things.

The Canadian Archipelago is where we are likely to see an increase in sea level rise come from. A few years ago over on SkSci I had a chat with someone about defending cities from sea level rise. During it I had the epiphany that many big cities sit up stream of estuaries where the river water slows and spreads out to meet the sea. That rising sea levels will push these estuaries up the river to where the cities are. These have much more volume than the river passing cities so will need much more space, but the flood plains they should spread too are now occupied by some of our most valuable cities. Personally, living in East London, this is of more than academic interest. The glaciers in the Canadian Archipelago are likely to be react quicker than Greenland as they dont have that huge bulk of thick cold ice to protect them.

NSIDC is the "big one", the closest to an official record we will get.

I can barely keep up with the blog these days. Every thing is happening so fast!

"But isn't this just the ocean acting as a storage cell, like a battery or capacitor. In the annual total the energy gained would be virtually the same." It would be a storage cell of sorts but it would mean open water for much of autumn as energy is released back into the atmosphere. This will change weather patterns. Also much thinner ice is an energy gain and the open water would have quite a significant water vapor feedback through the late summer.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php Domino 2, DMI? Can only be a day or two left.

"Neven is probably right, but I bet area anomaly (CT's) will go well below -3M come October" Anomaly will most likely bottom out somewhere near the end of November early December.

Should take a couple of years for this to start showing up on the sea level rise. But it reminds me of what Stephen Schnieder used to say, that we know there are tipping points but we just dont know where they are. We may have already crossed a tipping point but it could be decades before it becomes obvious and when it does, it will be far too late.

50% grabs you by the throat and says "something is happening".

Our friends are a little quiet on that Guardian thread. Took them a while to get going. Unusual, perhaps a bit of daylight has sunk into one or two of them (posting as Hithlum on there)

"Denial is a river in Greenland" commentator on a Guardian blog post. Thought it had a certain ring to it. :-)

If there has been a lot of churn would we be expecting some enhanced bottom melt for a few days afterwards or is this just 'wait and see'?

"reality reluctant" Oh that made my day. But we have been tracking near the record all summer. So people try to pin it on the storm then it is easy to show them up, where there is a battle with a neutral audiance that would be a misstep for the "reality reluctant".