Looks like shadows from clouds.

It seems there is a blue streak through the middle of the arctic basin. https://go.nasa.gov/2ufJQtu

Hans, as the ocean warms it can't hold as much CO2 (or methane or O2). Also, as the ocean acidifies, it can't absorb the CO2 as quickly. Also, as you noted, we might also be venting more from feedbacks. Finally, we are also destroying the remaining rain forests, which were also carbon sinks. It seems that despite a plateau in emissions, CO2 levels will continue to increase, and even accelerate. We humans are screwed, as are the millions of other species with which we share the biosphere.

Edit: Polar bears might disagree that volume is more important than extent and area.

I agree with those questioning the usefulness of the extent statistic. The 15% threshold is utterly arbitrary. I think area is a more useful metric than extent. I agree that "a high resolution pixel by pixel" count sounds most accurate. I am surprised extent is followed so closely, considering a strong wind can significantly affect extent without affecting area or volume. While area is important for determining how much of the sea surface is exposed, volume seems by far the most important metric. I understand that volume us harder to measure, and so less reliable volume data is available. I always look forward to the PIOMAS updates, as I feel they say the most about the condition of the ice.

Here is the latest NASA Worldview of the sliver: http://go.nasa.gov/1Ufs8b7

When the Central Arctic basin eventually becomes mostly free ice, hopefully in the distant future, will it result in a large clockwise gyre about the North Pole? Will the Beaufort Gyre still be strong, or will it get sucked into the polar gyre? Will the increasing polar warmth tend to decrease the gyre strength?

Sadat, Yes. the Navy thickness graphics are rather scary, especially with the current and projected warm temperatures. Comparing the 2012 and 2016 graphics is even more worrisome. The Kara sea looks a little better than 2012, perhaps, but the rest of the ice looks worse, especially the Beaufort and the ice in Canadian Archipelago. http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticict/nowcast/ict2012052218_2012052000_035_arcticict.001.gif I was also wondering if a big chunk of the ice rotating in the Beaufort will end up rotating isolated near the middle of the Arctic basin. It is both exciting and sickening to watch, but I can't look away.

Okay, thanks. And yes, I am guilty of "feeding".

When I see business as usual philosophy and phrases like "doomers spread false alarm" I take it personally. If there is even a 1% chance of a large methane burp, then nobody is spreading false alarm. If you are not already alarmed, you are not paying attention. Given the complexities of nonlinear systems and the "quicker than ever before" changes we have already made to these systems, concern is more than justified. Neven, I agree with D, aka fish, I smell a troll.

@Villabolo When I clicked on the link I was redirected to a porn site. Perhaps it is just my ipad, but I am suspicious about the link.

@ Brian Wood Righteous rant. I know how you feel about these impending catastrophes not getting the serious attention they deserve. Bad things look likely to happen, but the media and society in general seem unimpressed. Some are certain technology, which is how we got in this mess, will rescue us. Others await the second coming,, so why should they care? Minimizing the huge future impacts, even as the current minor impacts cause death and chaos, is another approach. Plain old denial is also popular. Looking at the numbers and projecting to an ice free arctic, along with its feedbacks, leaves me very pessimistic and in need of a good glass of wine.

Great post, as usual! Yes, this stuff is too important and potentially catastrophic to lose sight of the forest. Ocean acidification is another potential time bomb from our carbon emissions. If humans are confronted with the loss of protein from the ocean at the same time droughts, flooding, heat waves, and ground water depletion are creating agricultural losses, it could get very ugly for our growing population. Some whine about the costs of combating climate change. Few consider the long term consequences of global warming.

I favor the idea of naming storms. It simplifies discussion. I too think one should be named Neven - ideally, the first named storm. I favor denier names until there are too few left. After that, assuming buy-in from the Inuit, using simple Inuit names sounds good. A denier might be concerned about having a storm named after him/her. It would also bring additional publicity to the unfolding disaster. For example, imagine the headline: Cyclone Limbaugh Rages On. As far as the criteria, the simpler the better. My meteorological knowledge is too limited to suggest anything, despite all I have learned from visiting this site. Speaking of my limited meteorological knowledge, what are the likely long term climatic consequences of an ice free Arctic? Clearly it will be much warmer at the pole in the summer. After many hours of summer sun in an ice free arctic, could the ocean surface eventually warm so much that the arctic basin is warmer than the surrounding arctic land? If so, what type of weather system would be expected to emerge? Any ideas? Upon further reflection, I realize the topic of post arctic sea ice weather and climate might already be a topic of discussion in the forums. If so, any direction would be appreciated.

3.1 .4 higher than my initial estimate. The poor condition of the ice doesn't seem as important as I thought. Looking at the numbers, even 3.1 seems way too low. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised by something much lower, given the right weather conditions.

Welcome Mary. I too found this site via Daily Kos.

Viewing the Navy 30 day gif, I noticed the last frame, which is projected - not actual, shows a huge chunk of thick MYI pulling away from the north coast of Greenland. Hopefully the Navy forecasts are not as accurate as they seem to me. Otherwise, if not this year, then probably soon, the thickest ice will become quite mobile. That is worrisome.

@ Kevin, Fascinating prediction. Their approach and conclusions seem quite reasonable. They have taken into account the motion and thickness of the ice. I would like to see their model also make use of long term weather predictions, say a 90 day forecast, if any exist, for the arctic. I notice the model is the work of graduate engineering students.

I rate myself a 2 on the given scale, since 2006.

@ulicescervantes. If you check out A-Team's excellent animation near the end of the comments to Neven's Update 2: Shaken and stirred, I think you will see what appears to be the goat's head dancing near the North Pole. As a naive spectator, I am dumbfounded at the persistence of this landmark. I am starting to think there might be an actual giant goat staring up from the arctic basin. I can't otherwise understand how it survives the weather for so long.

I am going to stick with 2.7 million km^2. It seems low given current area, but I am swayed by the melting from within which should soon start. The HYCOM thickness models show many thin areas near the pole. This should split the ice cover and increase the ice/water boundary. Only the thickest ice that doesn't go thru the Fram should remain in September.

Is that goats head dancing about the North Pole? It is hard to believe it has survived. A-Team, awesome job with the animation, as usual!

If Dr. Francis did the presentation Gungham Style the video might reach 500 million.

Newbie here. I have been casually watching the arctic melt since 2007. I have been lurking and learning here for about a year. It has been nice to see such smart well informed people discuss climate without having to put up with ignorant deniers. I have a background in pure math, but not much science. I predict 2.7 because the minimum volume is dropping so fast and there is plenty of FYI. Plus, 2.7 is charmingly close to e. Thanks to Nevin and all the other folks (A-team, etc.) for this important and informative blog. I can't imagine a more important service to humanity than warning about the climate cliff we find ourselves careening off of.