Neven, thanks! AJbT, don't know if you ever sample Tamino's "Open Mind", but this might interest you: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/arctic-heating/ It's important to note that the analysis there takes in a much wider area of the Arctic that the DMI 80N index does. (And also, that the DMI index isn't properly area-weighted, a fact that's been noted here before--I think John Christenson pointed it out to me--and which you can find on the DMI site if you dig hard enough. That doesn't mean it's not of interest, of course.)

Hmm. My comment seems to have gone away for some reason. Basically, I noted that NSIDC has called the preliminary minimum, and responded to AJbT and JC. In the first instance, I said that such swings are common in the 'off season'; in the second, I said that I think his suggestion makes sense.

FWIW, and as an actual, real live, South Carolinian, I suppose I should note that the flooding in the Pee Dee region continues, and in fact has worsened in some places (notably, Georgetown, SC)--though the latest forecasts now call for it to be 'less worse'. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-florence/south-carolina-city-hopeful-as-flooding-remains-a-threat-idUSKCN1M512G?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews The Waccamaw River smashed its flood record by about 3 feet, so 'unprecedented' is merited for that river. New Berne was trashed early on, and Conway--on the Waccama--is currently being seriously affected. More on Conway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway,_South_Carolina It's another historic disaster for SC, in addition to the 2015 floods (Hurricane Joaquin played a role) and Matthew (2016). Irma (2017) also had some significant impacts, including 5 fatalities, so we've taken a hit every year since 2015.

Well, it sure looks to me that JAXA's 4.46, reached on the 21st, will hold up as the annual daily minimum for that data set. Basically the same as last year's number--though I note that because of the minimum being relatively late, today's value--which, of course, reflects yesterday's measurements (ie., 9/24/18)--is also the lowest value for the date since 2012, and third-lowest of all-time. (The second-lowest extent for 9/24 having come in 2007.)

Thanks, Neven. Shared. On another topic, interesting that we're not yet clearly at the annual minimum. Not unprecedented, I know, but still relatively late arriving. I for one continue to watch with interest.

Clueless FM-- I'm not sure I understand you. You say that "Hundreds of volcanoes and black steamer chimneys discovered as recently as this decade, among them Lokeslottet, or Loki's Castle." OK, so if they've been there a decade or more, then why is this the case: "the diff to the same time of the year in 2014–15 was 8–12°C?" Is there an observable change in activity level or something of the sort?

AnotherJourneyByTrain asks: "...some of the news feeds are saying there is a delayed spring in the North: how true is this?" IMHO, it's a highly selective reading of the facts at best. It's true that the northern tier of the US has had something that might be called a 'delayed spring', but here in the South it's more accurately characterized as an 'unstable spring'. And actually, the most remarkable winter month in the US in terms of records set was February, for which something like 16 states in the East (including South Carolina, where I live) were record-warm. Right now, the NH as a whole is 0.8 C--the same as the global anomaly--and western Europe looks pretty toasty to me, as does most all of East Asia and Northern Africa: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom (Note: this page will update, so later readers of this comment will see a different picture, but my comments are/were accurate as of writing.) Once again, though, there is a lot of cool territory in the US northern tier and in Canada. Somehow that region tends in general to drive a lot of comment/coverage... quite a bit of which tends not to reflect the rest of us in the NH at all.

"2) Global temperatures are never gonna stop at 1.5 or 2C, what will all the positive feedback loops humans have triggered." Let's not go full-on-McPherson here. *If* emissions can be made to follow something like the 2 C trajectory, then yes, what we know says that temps will indeed 'stop' at something like 2 C. And that's important, since if your statement were true the logical conclusion would be "Let's party like it's 1999."

Fascinating, and a little unnerving. One possibility for Nome would be extra spring snow, if conditions set up a storm. That open water could bring the 'lake effect' to bear, theoretically.

Thanks for another valuable summary, Neven! I have an odd feeling about this season, but we shall see how it plays out. "Odd feelings" are quite often nothing more than that.

John, I don't think that you're correct about the DMI-80 methodology. At least, what it says on their page is this: The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. Since the number of model grid points per latitudinal band is not constant, the issue you identify should not arise. Here's what they have to say about the grid structure: https://www.ecmwf.int/en/what-horizontal-resolution-data "The standard Gaussian grid has the disadvantage that the east-west distance between the grid points decreases polewards. To avoid some numerical problems around the poles and to save computing time, a reduced Gaussian grid was introduced in 1991, which reduces the number of grid points along the shorter latitude lines near the poles, so as to keep the east-west separation between points on different latitudes almost constant."

AJbT, I had to look to see what 'normal' meant, as the term has been, er, 'unstable' in recent years! As of today (the 10th), I'd say it means 'significantly but not drastically above climatology for the season.' So, warm but not crazy warm (for the time of year). That's following an upspike since your comment, which was probably made roughly when the anomaly was almost down to climatology. That dip is probably actually below current norms--the DMI climatology is normed to 1958-2002. It's now quite rare for the anomaly to get down to the old norm during the winter months. (It basically didn't happen at all in 2016, and only for about half a dozen brief excursions in 2015.) With a Nina probable, we'll see whether there's a few more such in the works for this winter.

Responding to the last few comments in order--- 1) The DMI north of 80 temps continue to be 'interesting', to say the least... 2) Trump *should* change to win re-election, but IMO lacks the capacity... 3) Yes, a nice addition to the DMI site!

Most unexpected bit: "Surrounding Tuk are countless bays, inlets, and lakes, with sea surface temperatures resembling those of more Mediterranean climates thanks to the long daylight hours and shallow coastal shelf." Mediterranean!?!?! Should have expected it, I suppose--that's why most people with summer cottages in the Sault Ste. Marie of my boyhood had built them on Batchewana Bay, as opposed to some less sheltered bit of Lake Superior! And they only get something like 15 hours of sun at midsummer.

Following on from Glen's comment above, those interested will find a guide to Arctic sunset here: http://www.athropolis.com/sun-fr.htm FWIW, from today (Aug 18), the Pole will get sun for 36 more days; the 'mid-Arctic' will get sun for 4 more days, when it will then set for 26 minutes; and the Arctic Circle will receive 16 hours and 35 minutes of sun. So there you have it.

AnotherJourneyByTrain: Your question is completely unrelated to Arctic Sea Ice. You could try asking it elsewhere, say RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/ However, in the spirit of saving you some time there, I will gently suggest that you ask it more clearly than you have asked it here. I think many will be quite curious as to just what you mean by "possibly alarmist ends." Remember, "alarmed" calls a different world into being than "alarmist."

"But either way, Trump is not concerned about climate change, so there is a good chance he will not spend much effort on fighting science. There will be plenty other stuff to keep him busy." Yes. I've been thinking about an open letter on climate change to the President Elect, but I'm not sure drawing it to his attention would be a good thing.

OT, though not unrelated: " Protest my Southern cousins by going hyper green." The South is generally more conservative, it is true, but note that metro Atlanta, as well as Savannah, Augusta and Macon, went for Hillary. I believe that similar patterns hold elsewhere, which suggests the real issue isn't so much South versus North as urban versus rural.

Re the snow on ice thing, it connects with a point denialati tend to miss, which is that ice mass balance (if I can borrow a term from the glaciologists) isn't just a product of the melting season, but of the accretion season. Hence I've been told by such folk that Arctic temps can't possibly be affecting sea ice, because they haven't changed much during the summer. Of course, there has been a highly marked *winter* warming, and of course that reduces ice growth rates during the freezing season, just as can deeper snow.

Rather intriguing. Will keep an eye out. Thanks, Neven, you rock (as they say.)

Sorry to hear of the hassles you're having, Neven. Best...

"Anybody else notice the growing epidemic of writing "minima" for the singular "minimum"?" I hadn't, actually--though I probably will, now that you've pointed it out. But I've been very bothered by the redundant and superfluous double 'is': "The fact of the matter is, is that…" Sadly, the estimable Mr. Obama is one of the guilty parties. Returning to the topic at hand, thanks, Neven, for another concise yet comprehensive roundup. You keep getting better. And since we're speculating, I'm going to go with the idea that the anthropogenic warming trend, combined with additional water vapor and energy in the troposphere, will result in a warm winter north of 80, and even lower ice formation rates than 'the new normal.' Which means PIOMAS will continue to slump throughout the freezing months. The echoes of that may persist right into the melting season. There, pure speculation. But I rather think it could play out that way.

Down to 4,257,003. "Fascinating."

"Kevin, I think you are right about calling the minimum, but the minimum value on JAXA was 4,279, 543 sqkm on the 8th; which puts 2015 in 4th position on the scoreboard behind 2012, 2007 and 2011 (by a whisker!)." I wish! Sic transit gloria, and all that! Although there may be a glimmer of hope, in the form of a revision. They do sometimes do that, I've noticed (and actually I'm pretty sure that's what led to the discrepancy between the number I typed and the number Phil (correctly) gave later.) Certainly, today's sharp drop looks a tad suspicious. No time to check the weather setup right now, though.

I'm about ready to call the 8th the minimum in JAXA--today's update will do it for me if there's no increase. The 2015 minimum extent value (JAXA flavor, of course) would then be 4,358,918 km2, which (unsurprisingly to most here) would be 4th lowest, behind 2012, 2007, and 2011. Of course, I've got no money riding on it--it probably won't be completely 'safe' for another week or so. We'll see--which seems like my constant refrain in matters Arctic.