2006 is a curious starting year but if you track minimum volume from 2007, we see a clear downward trend after 2009 but then a rebound back to 2009 levels by 2014.

I've been skeptical that the 2007-2012 atmospheric pattern was mainly due to sea ice loss. I am of the view that it helped enhance the loss of the ice but was not caused by it. The block was centered over Greenland those summers which is typically a very warm pattern for the arctic. Subsequent seasons in 2013 and 2014 have not yielded that same pattern. 2014 had a -NAO but not like the -NAOs of 2007-2012. The main block was centered much further south. 5-6 years worth of data is pretty small to try and make an attribution.

Wayne, We'll agree to disagree then. The area of ice in the Canadian Archipelago is the highest since 2004 looking at archived AMSR-E maps. The NW passage I predict will not open this year. If it does, it won't be the main portion through the Parry Channel, it will be by the skin of its teeth through one of the southern routes.

I don't see any sign of the NW passage about to open. The NW passage looks about as choked with ice as it has been the last decade.

The SLP pattern has definitely not been like 2013, and more like 2007-2012. The biggest difference though for 2014 compared to 2007-2012 is the colder temperatures over the arctic. I suspect (but am not sure) this is because of the subtle differences in the pressure pattern even though 2014 is more similar to 2007-2012 versus 2013 for SLP pattern. 2014 since 6/18: http://s1.postimg.org/kul28r7ov/compday_N6m_Hp5v_No.gif 2007-2012 mean summer pattern: http://s1.postimg.org/5kudt1qy7/y_Owh_LB9_Z6_N.png The high pressure system through years 2007-2012 is displaced to the south and southeast over Greenland. This is traditionally a warmer pattern for the arctic. The classic -NAO. The high in 2014 is over the central arctic and even skewed slightly on the Asian side. This has made the 2014 temperatures more similar to last year versus the mean of previous 6.

Thanks for the reply Chris, though you only gave me temperature in May for above 80N. My temps have much of the arctic basin warmer than 2013 in May. A lot of the cold this year was shoved out into the Atlantic side or onto mainland Siberia. Visual graphic here: http://oi57.tinypic.com/xnywsh.jpg I don't disagree with you re:extent. It is a hard metric to predict. Area has higher correlation further out in time. I think an area below 3.0 this year is quite unlikely. We'll need to see almost record area loss from this point forward to achieve it. I'll bet against that. You mentioned 2011 and 2012 for extent. Well if you take 2012 losses in area from this point, we end with an area of 3.13 million sq km. If we take 2011 losses from this point in 2014, we end with an area of 3.41 million sq km. I suppose that means you assume that extent will track like those years but area will decrease at near or above a record pace from here on out. Also thanks for the info on the East Siberian Sea. I did know that usual June melt there wasn't huge, but didn't know it was as low as you listed. But I would still think there is some truth to my assertion that something should be showing up there by now if the ice was in that serious trouble in 2014. My hunch is it will start getting torn up soon, but that the colder June cost us a chance to see it retreat as far as years like 2012 or 2007. I believe even 2011 had an extension of ice still in the East Siberian Sea at the end.

Chris, as a better illustration of perhaps the temperature argument, I subtracted 2007-2012 mean June temperature anomalies from 2014. http://oi60.tinypic.com/bgb689.jpg My opinion is that the colder temperatures have easily offset the thinner ice profiles. The ice compacted for extent loss, but it did not melt as much which kept the area much higher.

Thanks for the response Chris. I just do not see a reason why we should expect a drastic fall and for your prediction scheme to fail this year. I am too intrigued by the extent loss vs area, but digging deeper into it, we aren't seeing the big concentration drops on the periphery like previous big years. My hypothesis is we had some good pressure patterns for compaction but this was not seen in the form of warm temperatures too like 2007 was. Didn't June come in even colder than last year despite the higher pressures? http://oi61.tinypic.com/2ziu4k7.jpg The piomas May data is an interesting argument, but I would have expected that to show up by now in the form of ice getting obliterated in the East Siberian Sea. But it has been stubbornly holding at very high concentrations. Maybe it was very thin but the June temperatures were just too cold to take advantage of it. My hunch is that it won't be 2013 at the end either, but I am also not thinking it is 2007. I would guess closer to the former.

The lack of area drop is convincing me this will be closer to last year than many of the previous recent years. Also the refusal of the arctic to really warm up this year. Every time I check the NOAA one day anomaly chart, the temps seem to be near ot below average. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.gif

@Blaine: I don't see how June has been good for melting so far. It's been colder than even last June. Maybe it's finally changing now but I'm wondering if it is too little to late.

@jd_allen This doesn't mean we cannot make educated predictions with the information we have. If the thinning of the ice and loss of volume over the past decade makes a sudden melt late in the season much more likely, then wouldn't we see it in the records as a a trend? We don't. It seems the largest effect of the thinner ice is seen early in the summer and not late. At least when it comes to area. 2012 was already in last place by a mile for area at this point. I'm all for learning new clues, but just saying "its unprecedented" isn't good enough for me. Maybe its my error. I haven't seen a good reason why area can't be trusted as a good predictor by late June.

@wayne and DavidR: I would be more confident of "catching up" if there was good precedent for it. But there hasn't been. You would expect losses from late June onward to increase over time as ice has thinned, but I believe Chris Reynolds showed that they did not. Therefore, being well behind on area is going to matter.

A 2 day drop of 65k will put us way behind the other years with big cliffs. This is prime time for huge losses in typical big melt years.

I predict almost a 0% chance of catching 2012. Looking at the two years side by side, the differences are stunning already by this point.

NeilT, I think it would be quite difficult to get to 4.6 million sq km on extent with the amount of time that is left in the season. A 3.77 area is very high in relation to the 2007-2012 timeframe. In fact, it is slightly higher than 2009 on this date. I do think we could make it under 5.0 million though.

Great article and congrats! I mentioned in the new thread, but wanted to rehash in this one that I am NOT the same Henry that trolled this board over the weekend. I put the "1" after my name so people don't get the wrong impression. This is one of the more valuable sources of discussion on arctic ice on the internet.

Did I somehow get flagged with that other "Henry"? He is different than me.

I thought my account was hacked for a minute. But apparently that is another "Henry".

@mps Agree wholeheartily with most of your post. I have been lurking here for a couple years and just started posting earlier this season, and it seems that we've seen many uncharacteristic posts recently. Not just in this thread, but several others. I don't know if its because the severity of last year's melt got a lot of us over confident on the science, but to be frankly honest, many in here sound like the deniers. So much time is spent laughing at denier blogs like WUWT which is easy to do at times like last year. However, I'm not sure how many realize that our prediction from this site has a great chance to be a laughing stock at the end of the season while denier blogs like WUWT end up way closer on their predictions. It doesn't mean they are correct in their "science", but what it does mean is that we need to look at ourselves in the mirror and reevaluate how much science we actually preach on this blog. Perhaps we don't know nearly as much as we thought a year ago. Science is extremely humbling and I'll never fault scientists for taking a more conservative approach when the amount of uncertainty is as great as exists in arctic sea ice.

@M Owens I think you are wrong on the "new sea ice growing back quickly is not a negative feedback". If we take the alternative option, which is sea ice NOT growing back quickly and seeing more open water, then we have even thinner ice by the time next summer comes around which allows even faster melt and more area of open water by the minimum. Hence, faster regrowth of sea ice in the autumn is definitely a negative feedback because its preventing us from seeing earlier meltouts the next season. It sort of puts a "cap" on how thin the first year ice is the next season. Obviously the first year ice will eventually become thinner as winters keep warming and refreeze eventually takes longer, but right now, we haven't really seen a definitive jump in date when the refreeze begins. Its still almost purely driven by insolation.

@Lord Soth I am in agreement that we can't flash melt enough of the remaining ice to challenge any records like last year. I do think there will be some big time loss days coming up with the weakened ice in the Chuchki, Beaufort, and East Siberian Sea. The recent days have been so slow that its almost inevitible that we'll see a couple biggies. You can see the weak ice fanned out in spots ready to disappear. 2009 had a minimum above 5 million sq km. This year is currently close on extent to that year but it appears on area its lower so I don't expect a repeat. I think high 4s is possible this year though.

Seems like the storm weakened some ice over the Chuchki, East Siberian, and Beaufort but the overall effect was fairly small. The numbers aren't looking good for low extent and area this year.

@wayne The SIE predictions are for NSIDC September average extent, not area like CT does. Our site had an average of 3.2 million sq km for average September extent on NSIDC. I think we will be off by more than WUWT sadly. But still some time to go.

Another big drop on CT Area. Its getting close to years like 2007 and 2011. Quick question though: Looking at CT area maps, am I the only one that is noticing how much lower the concentration appears versus the SSMI/S Bremen maps? CT uses SSMI too, correct? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmisdata/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2013/jul/asi-SSMIS17-n6250-20130724-v5_nic.png Comparing those two, it shows huge areas of near 60% on CT while Bremen shows very little outside the edge near the Beaufort. What gives?

Looks like a pretty big loss on IJIS but CT area is running slow again back up to 670k higher than last year.