wayne... "...the Pack is much more solid towards Greenland and CAA where a High is suppose to settle soon." If a persistent high were to set up over Greenland and the CAA, we could be in trouble. Atlantic waters are anomalously warm and any ice transported through the Fram or into the Barents east of Svalbard will melt quickly. I still feel this is the key to the final totals for this melt season.

"I always have an early season panic. But unlike others I tend not to get manic. But to be fair. I have to declare. I conceded the chance of a summer titanic." Very nice but the meter is off to be a proper limerick.

With SST on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, this area has become a killing zone for ice. SLP in this area has been relatively high with sunshine so these anomalies will not be going away as open water heats up. What effect will this have on the minimums? It depends on ice mobility. Right now, not much ice is moving through the Fram.

The Rediculously Resilient Ridge has been a persistent anomaly for the past several years, weakening and then restrengthening. It has been causing very warm Alaskan winters and periodic intrusions of warm air into the Arctic. It has also been a significant cause of the drought on the coast which has now spread north into Canada. I fear that this phenomena will be with us from now on as a result of the loss of Arctic sea ice. I hope I am wrong.

Kris wrote: "Remember, Larsen B split into pieces in about 24 h time, but that had nothing to do at all with melt ponds." I have to disagree. When those large melt ponds drain they slice through the shelf to the sea underneath, compromising the strength of the shelf. These melt ponds had been forming and draining for a number of years prior to the abrupt collapse and the shelf was covered with melt ponds when it collapsed. The melt ponds and draining had to have contributed to the shelf collapse.

One final comment..... From the poster sessions, it would seem that the scientific community is rapidly establishing links between Arctic sea ice loss and dramatic changes in northern hemisphere weather. This is a tremendous development as the scientific community will now be able to communicate the sometimes horrific effects to the world community which can only build a consensus that.... SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!!!!

Also, a suggestion.... When you report back, it would be wonderful if you could initiate discussions on the ASIF on topics you feel this community would benefit from and contribute to. I would prefer this as opposed to you having to take on the monumental task of reporting on this amazing list of topics. It would be easier, I think, for you to introduce the topics with a short take-away and links.

Congrats on being recognized by the EGU press team. It certainly is a statement on how this blog is seen in the ongoing discussion of AGW. Also, many of the poster sessions sound like the discussions we have here and on the ASIF. You are doing the world a service.

And I am certain this shocking increase in summer variability is directly related to AGW. Any ideas as to why this is happening?

If these additional ads have an impact on the variable interface proximity of dual extrapolation vectors, I'm out of here

If we do want to gain some sense of what the emerging landscape will look like, we should start by looking at existing areas that are adjacent and/or just south of areas that are currently permanent permafrost. I would imagine that an area of continuous permafrost that is transforming into discontinuous permafrost will begin to resemble these ecosytems. While fauna can migrate quite quickly to colonize adjacent areas, flora can't just pick up and move. Since the fauna will be constrained by the slow pace of flora migration, there will likely be large areas of damaged ecosystems that will take decades, perhaps hundreds of years, for an effective transition. I actually believe that we will be forced to engage in efforts of large scale terra forming as we work to effect a quick transition to this transformed landscape. This will look like seeding the emerging landscape with the appropriate flora to allow it to colonize the altered landscape more rapidly.

RNL "Wonder what things will be like when we reach 1.5C?" Bad.

LRC "the ecosystems in the north are very fragile and damaging that has huge ripple effects on what happens potentially to ice and snow. It would also make it harder for new flora and fauna to establish itself." The northern ecosytems are fragile but the earth has a remarkable way of quickly reclaiming an altered landscape. Leave a large parking surface untended and in just a few years you will have bushes and trees growing through it. New flora and fauna will quickly establish in this dramatically altered landscape. I just don't know what the succession would be. It certainly will not look like the existing ecosystem.

And a damn good theory at that.

Interesting read.....two comments. Having an ice free Arctic as the trigger seems unnecessary. Any disaster scenario I can imagine would not differentiate between ice free and nearly ice free. Second, as I was reading and enjoying the short story, it occurred to me that there are an endless number of ways that this could play out, limited only by our imagination, our ability to think about the unthinkable.

Also....if you do take this rather obscure discussion to the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, please find an appropriate thread to hold the discussion. I visit there daily as well and this discussion would not belong on a thread that is discussing the 2014 melt season or some of the excellent threads set up discussing the Antarctic. The good news is there are literally hundreds of discussions on the Forum. I am sure there is one that would be appropriate. If not, you can create one.

Hmmmm....quick string of comments regarding ship movements and nuclear testing as a cause of global cooling mid-20th century. While interesting as a Forum topic, this is way off topic for this thread. You should take this discussion to the forum so I don't have to skip these comments in order to get at the relevant ones that help me understand Greenland melt.

One of these big things which I believe is related to this topic is..... What happens as a cold pole forms over Greenland 6 to 9 months out of the year? I think this is already emerging and impacting us as NH snow and Arctic sea ice melts more rapidly. How will this impact the polar jet stream if at all? What about Greenland melt? Is this a positive or negative feedback?

I have been enjoying your links to Transformational Climate Change.... ...but I fear it is a lot worse than this... "Very few people understand what it is to live in a 3 degree, 4 degree, 5 degree world and that needs to change! My biggest fear is that none of us actually know what it is to live in such a world. While some have a better idea than others, as temps rise, we are all going to be shocked! I think Sam, above, has the idea. There are very big things, poorly understood. Sam has listed two. There are bound to be others.

Boa05att..... Nature Paper: Half Of Arctic Warming Due To Pacific http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/nature-paper-half-of-arctic-warming-due-to-pacific-variations.html This statement in their paper and their conclusion that 50% of Arctic Warming is due to Pacific tropical warming seems contradictory. "It remains to be seen to what extent the Pacific temperatures may themselves be responding to human effects on the climate system, they report."

Well, I've got an Obamacare story for you. Five years ago, I contracted a life threatening illness that eventually cost me my job and access to employee offered health insurance. I recovered but because I had had several bouts of melanoma prior to this, I simply could not afford a break in my health coverage and I was shoved into the private insurance market. With the ACA in place, I was able to get a plan through BCBS. The coverage is much better and I am saving $3800 per year in premiums. That Republican shit won't stick for any of the 14 million people who now have health insurance, nor will it stick for all the family and friends of those 14 million who are now relieved that the people they care for are covered. Oh, and if you want to alienate a large block of voters, tell them you are going to take their health insurance away.

I'd also like to congratulate you for the well deserved recognition. It makes me feel important just cause I hang out here a bit.

NeilBlanchard So, it appears that we have just seen the peak area of Arctic ice. And rather late, too. That late peak in SIE sure is disturbing but I am even more concerned by the late peak in SIA. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png Both, combined, would suggest their is some fairly fragile ice that could melt out rapidly. The ice just hasn't had enough time to strengthen.

AWH.... I've read this presentation before. It was linked over on the ASIF. If the difference in temperature drives this bifurcated switch to a single cell, it would seem that a move towards an ice free Arctic in the winter would be needed to reach the point where it rapidly switches. You may want to visit ASIF to be part of a fairly in depth discussion of the 3 cell versus 1 cell climate.

Let's assume the doubling rate of 10 years is confirmed by additional observations. http://mashable.com/2014/03/16/greenland-ice-melt-sea-level-rise/ "Already, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is one of the largest contributors to global sea level rise, accounting for about .02 inches of the 3.3 inches per year global average sea level rise." By 2020, the contribution will be .04 inches. By 2030, it will be .08. By 2040, it will be .16. By 2050, it will be .32. By 2060, it will be .64. By 2070, it will be 1.32 inches per year! By the end of the century, Greenland ice mass loss will be contributing 10.5 inches of sea level rise annually! Good luck with that!