Ah, great - thank you for that!

Great summary as usual overall. One quibble, though: "Not enough Antarctic sea ice melted to clinch the global sea ice record (coming in second lowest on record), " Did you mean the area record specifically here? Also, one point that I'd like to make regarding dodging bullets is that we don't have nearly as much northern hemisphere snow cover this year as last. Could help swing the difference.

Dispiriting that the first response is of the kind it is, but it does touch on an interesting fact: deaths in natural disasters have dropped dramatically over the last eighty years or so, even as the number of people affected has grown; generally this is a result of our construction, planning, forecasting and response becoming more robust. See here for graphs of both deaths and people affected over time: https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

Another factor pointing to a possible rebound: concentration is looking better than the same time last year: https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/concentration-maps/sic0613 I know this doesn't show thickness, but still... reason for hope that things might not go all runaway melt this year.

*lower albedo (not yet had my morning coffee)

@Abbottisgone, Doh! Yes, lower thinness. @DCS, I think a new low minimum volume is a very strong probability at this point. The question is how low.

I wonder to what extent we can expect positive feedback, and whether 20800km3 or so will prove significantly more vulnerable than the previous maxima of over 22000 km3. If it's thin enough to melt out earlier with higher albedo and more holes / exposed edges, we could see a very low minimum indeed this year.

Thank you for the analysis, Kevin. Based on those numbers, if I was to guesstimate, I'd say around 2000 km3, halfway between the average and max loss from this date. I'd predict more than average loss since refreezing conditions still look poor now and export high, plus having less ice to start with translates to greater vulnerability later. I wouldn't predict more than max loss, however, because the max loss must surely have been set in 2012, when melting conditions were exceptional. Of course, nobody actually knows...

Barely more than half the volume in 1979... And based on recent previous years, this would predict a max volume of about 21k (if the freezing season actually gets back to normal volume generation). Pretty scary.

*Ice free

SimonF, I'm no expert, but based on this graph (https://d3800158-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm/PIOMAS%20min-max.png?attachauth=ANoY7crVHP6iyp6k4piKYFJ8Tyv2SeJcNlyCPqhWj9LfECHqFZWpupdjr6wALn3OJgkYJiiD1WFfGgtGza9Q4sPwvprBxA5LHuBcxKfBzIb46VgrXTHKxdoPZqCW6An6qyAOOj-omAuDwUalWvRNcmHZe8OWyY6UZhZf4gVZIMdyOrHvAZwmE4FhMwoIfpR2ynOX1d4UMUepSxdSFXrsy8vopVh4WTxWPuOjFkGQuka6hqfbEodBTiI%3D&attredirects=0) the typical annual drop from maximum to minimum is about 17000 km3 or so. Of course, this may increase with albedo and ice fragility feedback the less is left at summer maximum, and "I've free" is generally taken to mean an extent of <1 million, so your figures of 20,000 km3 doean't sound far off.

@StuartP, I'm no expert, but between loss of albedo, loss of protection from wave action, and possibly loss of a little direct mechanical restraint, I can't imagine sea ice loss helps the stability of sheet ice or coastal glaciers.

Speculation: If the storms calm down for most of February/March, peak Arctic extent may not be especially low, as a thin layer of ice might still have time to form in the usual places, and the exported ice may work as something of a seed if it hasn't been blown too far. Even in this optimistic scenario, however, volume would remain pretty low, and the ice that does form would likely melt fast

How low do we think it's possible for area to go? With maybe 2 million to lose in Antarctica, and not much to gain in the Arctic with the storm that's coming, I wouldn't be surprised if it went below 13 million myself.

2017 so far is there on the left hand side of the graphs, Hans. Unless you mean the volume chart, for which we won't have a January figure until feb

We live in interesting times.

Apologies... I hadn't checked DMI temperatures in the past week, and should note that they're now dropping a little. Still not great, mind you.

Given how sharply 2013 January sea ice volume climbed, how leisurely 2017 January sea ice extent is now climbing, and current DMI temperatures, I'd hazard a guess that the gap between current levels and the previous record low may be growing still.

David, Population growth has been pretty linear around 75 to 80 million people a year from 1980 to 2015. It's now expected to slow down as a much higher proportion of people worldwide become elderly, with death rates expected to climb in consequence while birth rates continue to fall. But... There are still a number of places worldwide where some fundamental drivers of the demographic transition to a low fertility rate population just aren't there. Particularly drivers such as women's access to education, work and contraception. And if we support enabling such access further, we may be able to v sightly speed the transition and thus also put the brakes on population growth very slightly sharper.

Anyone else guessing that a new record low global sea ice area below 14 million is not unlikely in Jan/Feb 2017? Between temps staying high in the Arctic and sea ice cover having been very low in the first months of peak insulation in the south, I wouldn't be betting on either hemisphere normalising very soon.

It seems like a very interesting shift. However, the increase in ability to detect arctic thunderstorms over the period (particularly the documented step change in 2012, although I'd imagine there must have been other smaller changes over the period) make it a little hard to judge what actual degree of change there was in their size, latitude, and incidence. Does anyone know more about the source of this data, and to what extent our ability to detect thunderstorms up there has changed?

It seems like a very interesting shift. However, the increase in ability to detect arctic thunderstorms over the period (particularly the documented step change in 2012, although I'd imagine there may have been other smaller changes over the period) make it a little hard to judge what actual degree of change there was in their size, latitude, and incidence. Does anyone know more about the source of this data, and to what extent our ability to detect thunderstorms up there has changed?

Link to numbers here: http://www.ciffc.ca/rss/report_en

@Colorado Bob, Indeed. With 1.5 million hectares burnt in the USA (mainly Alaska) so far this year and 2.4 million hectares burnt in Canada (principally Saskatchewan but generally all over the north and west of the country), and no end in sight on either side of the border, this looks like a big year for wildfires.

So an atypical year, with lots of ice melting in situ but very little export. @Jim Hunt, Those wildfires may not be Alaskan. Millions of hectares have been ablaze in Canada too. http://www.ciffc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=27