Dear Mr Elisee Reclus, when you have ocean surface temperatures on a latitude almost on the northern beaches of Greenland at +16–18°C in mid–January, at 16–18°C in mid–February, at 16–18°C in mid–March, at 16–18°C in mid–April and at 16–18°C in mid–May of the same year, most science literate people on this planet would agree that something out of the ordinary is happening. Even something out of the ordinary for a rapidly warming planet. After doing my homework in terms of some amateur Citizen Scientist research, I’ve concluded that the most likely source of this extreme and mid–winter heat is a local one, from the seabed, based on the very active nature of said seabed. Now, you may (all) of course challenge that conclusion, but I don’t see you doing that. You’re not coming up with better explanations for this extreme ocean heat. I’m simplifying–in–order–to–understand when I pose the question of what could possibly cause this extreme surface heat in the middle of permanent dark polar winter. This is because I want to understand that phenomenon. You, on the other hand, seem to be doing the opposite: You seem to be trying to complicate in order to not understand, indeed, you’ve already stated in clear text that you don’t understand what I’m saying. In a word, you’re baffled. Just baffled. Another baffled guy is Kevin McKinney, who seemingly has a theory that volcanic processes are always at a constant level, while real life of course tells us that they come and go, like eruptions in a volcano. Having watched Tyson’s «Cosmos» at least twice, I’m fully aware that any piece of new knowledge will be attacked mercilessly, and so I have no illusions that my presentation of new facts about hotspots west of Svalbard will pass without personal attacks. Let me just say that *understanding* what I presented isn’t as hard as you make it out to be. It’s basically an «X causes Y» proposition. Instead of repeating tirelessly that you cannot understand the «X causes Y» basic logic, you might want to try and challenge the statement, like in a real* scientific debate. *) Of course, the real life history of real scientific debates through the centuries and millennia has been replete with personal and ad–hominem attacks, even murder, but you know what I mean.

Known hydrothermal vents (left), and 16–18°C SST (yellow) for May 28th (right)

Dear Elisee Reclus, would you say you are more baffled by what I mean, or by what you mean? I like the italicised narrative, but I believe that to be your narrative. Implying that mine is different from yours. So, if your question is really whether my narrative equals yours, then the answer is no. Simple as that. I believe mine is still available above, so if truly curious about its contents, it can be read again.

Kevin, I believe the answer is already included there, in your question. In a word: Yes.

Here’s an interesting piece of amateur Citizen Scientist research solving (?) the deep mystery of the consistent 16–18°C SSTs off the west coast of Svalbard. Following questions raised about this all over the Forum and social media, my first though was to contact the proper authorities, that is, the authorities assumed relevant *before* I knew the answer to my question. My letters containing high–resolution SST maps were swiftly dismissed as being in error, as both the Met.no and Polar.no were in possession of *low–resolution* SST maps, where said extreme temperatures didn’t occur. Problem solved, it seemed. A concerned citizen asking questions about something out of the ordinary must simply be wrong, otherwise we would have known about it already. Well, not being known to give in easily, I went over to NOAA to find the corresponding SST map archive for the extreme hotspots showing up on Earth.Nullschool. When I took some samples and systemised them in a table, (displayed here), I quickly found that all through winter the contrast to 5° closer to the coast of Svalbard was 16–18°C in favour of the hotspot to the west, and that the diff to the same time of the year in 2014–15 was 8–12°C, meaning this is a very local heating up of the top of the ocean, and it’s very recent and extremely persistent through all the dark winter months. The extreme temperature differences and the stable temperature of the hotspot led me to exclude everything but geothermal / volcanic causes, as I’d also seen the bathymetry out of curiosity on the standard Google Maps view, turned to ‘Satellite’ mode. Then it was just a matter of Googling for Svalbard and volcanic, et voila. Hundreds of volcanoes and black steamer chimneys discovered as recently as this decade, among them Lokeslottet, or Loki's Castle.

Sorry, 12th earliest, copyerror. 2018 seems to be the 2nd lowest maximum for volume, right? And the 12th earliest. 1 — 2017 20,756 2 — 2018 22,376 3 — 2011 22,677 4 — 2016 22,717 5 — 2014 23,115 1 — Day 92 | 1995 2 — Day 98 | 2007 3 — Day 100 | 2010 4 — Day 103 | 2009 5 — Day 104 | 1991 5 — Day 104 | 1999 7 — Day 105 | 1988 7 — Day 105 | 1997 7 — Day 105 | 2003 7 — Day 105 | 2006 7 — Day 105 | 2014 12 — Day 106 | 1990 12 — Day 106 | 2018

Thx, Wayne. 2018 seems to be the 2nd lowest maximum for volume, right? And the 13th earliest. 1 — 2017 20,756 2 — 2018 22,376 3 — 2011 22,677 4 — 2016 22,717 5 — 2014 23,115 1 — Day 92 | 1995 2 — Day 98 | 2007 3 — Day 92 | 1995 4 — Day 100 | 2010 5 — Day 103 | 2009 6 — Day 104 | 1991 6 — Day 104 | 1999 8 — Day 105 | 1988 8 — Day 105 | 1997 8 — Day 105 | 2003 8 — Day 105 | 2006 8 — Day 105 | 2014 13 — Day 106 | 1990 13 — Day 106 | 2018

Wayne, «The CAA has had the coldest steady upper air since 2002, this will shape the entire melt season» I'm wondering whether or not your report implies that inversion over the CAA is gone or about to be lost, as we've also seen over Svalbard. Inversion means lower air is colder than the upper air, and loss of this inversion is spreading in the Arctic, and is also one of the most powerful positive feedback loops in the collapse of Arctic sea ice.

IMHO, this is what happens when you put polluticians in charge of scientists. Rejection of yet unproven scientific hypothesis about future feedbacks and future warming, truly is insane, and also indicative of the polluticians–in–charge paradigm that was chosen for the IPCC. Science cannot prove a future event, and dismissing that event from being likely or possible goes against the much touted precautionary principle. During most of my adult life there's been a saying that when we positively know 100%, it'll be too late. You do the math, seems the IPCC was designed to be too late.

«stick with the evidence » — The official (United Nations) line is to just ignore evidence, innit?

James Cobban already said much of it, but I'll agree with Kevin on the *IF*s. There are 3 big IFs as I see it: IF #1: If nations improve their game so UN modelled necessary emission cuts are met relating to "Paris" and "2C warming". IF #2: If UN model blind–spot feedback mechanisms and time–lags do not really mean anything. IF #3: If "terribly bad luck" weather-wise does not happen (think Blue Ocean events), and additional (yet unknown) feedback mechanisms or similar do not happen. Somehow, I think these 3 big IFs indicate global temps are not gonna magically stop at 2C. Because, after all, what Kevin McKinney is suggesting, is that we could somehow stop global warming in its tracks, just by polluting the atmosphere a little less with fossil carbon than homo saps did for decades at the height of their folly.

Several problems with that, I believe, AnotherJourneybyTrain. 1) Ice–free once every 40 years sounds nice, but how likely is that when A) we have global warming, and B) the ice–free state is a game changer on its own? 2) Global temperatures are never gonna stop at 1.5 or 2C, what will all the positive feedback loops humans have triggered. There seems to be some idea in the media that we'll enter a "new normal", and then things are just going to be stable at a slightly lower level of Arctic ice — for instance 51 weeks of sea ice in one year, and then 52 weeks of sea ice the next 39 years, with a repeat every 40 years until the sun implodes. While that sounds nice and all, I'm not sure it's the correct interpretation of what the relevant science reports say.

Thx for yet another brilliant and most importantly *fact–based* update, Neven! As you may or may not know, a certain professor of Doom & Gloom has gone on record stating that October added no sea ice volume, and recently that (late) December to March added no significant volume (see link below), which if you add up those two claims amounts to about 10,500 km³ of “not seen” Arctic sea ice volume increase over 4 of the 7 months of refreeze period. And as the first week of July last year had about 10,500 km³ of sea ice, it makes one wonder whether or not this glaring blind–spot of his could explain why the good professor says “it would not surprise me at all if we had an ice–free or nearly ice–free Arctic in July”. Whereas if he wasn’t so abysmally bad at even basic research, and his statements were indeed true that for the first time in human history October didn’t refreeze and Winter Solstice to late March saw no significant refreeze, hitting a virtually ice–free state even before July 1st, would be a walk in the park. Ref: http://youtu.be/-xhhvNWxUHY

Eric Holthaus eating some delicious winter max crow today, while pondering whether or not to appear as a guest star on his own ‘Warm Regards’ Green BAU–sponsored climate podcast for the first time in 2018, and, looking back through his archives, for the first time since October 2017. So he’s been on holiday / sick leave for a full five months.

Found this on the Forum this week: «No. growing up would entail not being scared of being ridiculed or called unscientific, or alarmist for not being ultra conservative and understating everything. Even in an anonymous poll people are scared to express an opinion that might be too extreme. Growing up would not be allowing oneself to be bullied into silence and child like submission by vested interests in industry and the reputations of outdated science. Growing up would be realizing that action avoiding a chance of a major disaster occurring at the risk that some might claim it never would have anyway, is much better than not speaking or acting and living with the consequences.» Well put. And by the way: Where are the grown–ups with regard to admitting the 2017 average sea ice volume was lower than ever recorded?

Arctic sea ice volume for January-November was lowest ever at 12.9 k km³. 2017 is bound to go lowest on record for the full year at 12.7-12.9 k. Previous record low 2012 ended at 13.5 k km³. https://twitter.com/IceGoingSouth/status/937898294805778432

Deleting the biggest sea ice news of the year doesn't make us NOT lowest ever, fascist.

[edit: Nice self-advertising, Vid, but I'm not biting; N.]