I find it hard to fault people for taking actions that contribute such a small part of the problem. The problem is a collective one and cannot be solved by individual action. Principled stands and example setting aside, the solution for reducing global emissions has to ultimately be a top down enforcement of new laws.

On the NH graph Cryosphere Today shows 2014 about 0.5msqkm behind 2010, but when I compare the side by side images for this date it looks like 2014 is well ahead: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=11&fy=2010&sm=07&sd=11&sy=2014 I realize eyeballing the maps is unreliable but 2014 seems so far ahead and yet is so far behind on the graph, what am I missing?

"Oh, and further global average temps are dropping and have been since 2002, and have not risen since mid-90's." needless to say your own link to HadCRUT4 refutes that. It shows temperatures now about 0.2C warmer than in the mid 90s.

"Antarctic sea ice extent above normal and at or near historic high" "Why do I think things are returning to normal?" Uhh if Antarctic sea ice extent is above normal, then why are you citing it as evidence that things are returning to normal? "actual government data" Oh I think I see now.

Make sense of http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=22&fy=2013&sm=08&sd=04&sy=2013

4.24 +- 0.007 millions km2

henry, i agree

Last year was an example of what happens with conditions conductive to melt. This year is the opposite. The current normal is somewhere between. There'll probably be a big drop off in extent in July/August but this year isn't going to beat last. Can't have a new record every year, the weather is too important a factor.

I wonder if Happer would really press a 1000ppm button if it was in front of him. I suspect faced with the reality of the choice he wouldn't.

In June and July when insolation is high in the Arctic the difference between ice free and ice covered ocean would be chalk and cheese. Not only would the oceans be absorbing a hell of a lot more sunlight if open, but there would be no ice with it's absurdly high latent heat to buffer against temperature increase. It's like the ice is the Arctic's suncream which it puts on in winter. That seems to worryingly explain the drastic difference between cooler arctic (recently) vs much warmer arctic (paleo). Of course it explains nothing really as I am just guessing, but it does seem to fit. Then again I sure the climate models are better than my guesses.

Ice free conditions in the Arctic will only be the beginning, a milestone but only the beginning. The next record-watch after that will be for "number of days with zero ice". As that extends it will result in low ice conditions moving deeper into earlier summer months. The Arctic receives more insolation in June and July than the equator. Then insolation drops off a cliff during August. To date much of the high insolation in June/July/early August could not be absorbed by the arctic ocean because it was largely covered in sea ice. What will be the impact if late July/early August becomes largely ice free?

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/and-now-a-word-for-our-sponsors.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b014e8b949e6f970d#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b014e8b949e6f970d for those interested in one year cycles.

"I would be very surprised if NIC shows less ice in mid-September than 2007." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/nsidc-satellite-measurements-of-ice-are-consistently-wrong/#comment-120899 http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/sea_ice_only.jpg

I saw the newsnight episode on TV. The arctic ice story was given a low priority behind other stories and came near the end. First they showed a 5 minute segment explaining the arctic situation and let Professor Wadhams talk. Then they had a "green activist" and a "prominent climate skeptic" (didn't catch his name) in the studio to talk about it. Typical scenario: climate skeptic gets away with false claims unchallenged (arctic warmer with less ice in 30s) because the "green activist" has no idea about the subject. The climate skeptic began by attacking Professor Wadhams as a "well known alarmist", complaining that his claims were not peer reviewed and insisted that we should be trusting the IPCC projections, even quoting them to claim sea ice won't be gone until at least 2070. No this isn't a joke - the skeptic really did praise the last IPCC report and say we should follow that, attacking the BBC. The green activist was clueless and kept fumbling answers. I honestly have no idea why she came on the program unless she was a ploy to discredit the science. Even when Paxman (the presenter) challenged her by saying (paraphrase) "so if the ice is going to disappear in a few years what is the use of cutting CO2?" (ie we can't cut emissions in time if the arctic is ice free in a few years) she fumbled around for the obvious answer, before saying it would be good for jobs and the economy. Seriously. Paxman quite rightly pointed out that had nothing to do with climate. Only then did she murmur something about it would get worse. She should have pointed out that the initial loss of sea ice in summer will only be the beginning. After that the ice-free period will expand possibly covering many months (refer to the distant past). If these green activists want to defend the science on TV they need to learn it. They need to read all the stuff on skepticalscience. Ideally Id prefer it if a non-green activist was on the program to counter the climate skeptic. Even a climate scientist might not be good enough. You need someone familiar with the subject AND familiar with skeptics.

wait for NSIDC etc to call the minimum, there'll probably be a relative surge of news stories then.

People are still clutching at straws imagining they can deny away what's happening. How long can this kind of attempt to sow doubt really last? http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/the-mystery-of-the-disappearing-graph/

CT tale of the tape some red line is descending at the top of the graph. I know it's inconsequential but it's bugging me what it is. I thought it might be the arctic basin anomaly bleeding through but it doesn't quite fit.

People have Leake pinned wrong. He isn't deliberately putting out misinformation, he's just reporting what christy, etc tell him when he looks for alternative opinions. I know there's the issue of verifying information, but attacking him may be counter-productive rather than leading him to realize certain sources are not reliable.

"the NSIDC graph on its front page to me looks 5 standard deviations from the mean. Maybe more. In other words, around 1 year in 30,000." the sd can't be used to determine the frequency of the event in that way.

"Next up is NSIDC daily sea ice extent or Arctic ROOS sea ice extent" Is that all that's left?

That's the 2007 record downed then. Preliminarily.

The last 7 day rate of loss in IJIS is quite high. On one hand that would suggest the domino fall is imminent, and I strongly think it is, but on the other-hand I am always suspicious when fast declines happen that the decline may be getting a little ahead of itself and a subsequent correction in the form of a prolonged stall in decline is due. Quite close to September now so a prolonged stall in decline could possibly keep the domino from falling. And yet all other years decline from this point, so it would be unusual if 2012 didn't decline more. But then 2012 is an unusual year.

Quick number comparison. 227K: The amount of decline needed for JAXA to reach a new record low. 200K: The amount of decline in JAXA in the last 2 days.

Dr Laxon has responded to Andrew Orlowski's pathetic misinformation on the topic at The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/14/arctic_ice_everybody_panic/ More scientists should take his lead and call out "journalists" that do this.

The media will report at minimum, especially if it's a new record. That's when the story is most powerful. They could report what's going on now but it would be dwarfed by the eventual story of a new record minimum anyway. Also careful what you wish for. If the media did report current conditions, eg this storm for example, rather than the long decline over summer, then deniers will be able to spin that to claim the entire loss of ice in summer 2012 summer a new record minimum was just the result of a storm.