21,306,818 *.215/1000 kilotonnes of Big Macs = 4581kt equivalent to 15kt of TNT Not unreasonable if you consider that oxygen has to be added to obtain the energy, where TNT has to include the oxygen (together with nitrogen) in its composition in order to detonate "instantly"?

I am still wondering if the smoke from wildfires (they started early this year?) is shading the ground up north - leading to the low 80N temps. Smoke might also heat the atmosphere up higher which might reduce the differential temperature north to south, trapping the warm air to the south?

Probably going off at a tangent, but: What has happened to the smoke from the big wildfires, especially as they started early this year? I well remember watching smoke from a bonfire drifting in front of the sun one February - the light became orange and the warmth disappeared. If the smoke from the wildfires drifted into the Arctic early that could account for the dip in the DMI Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic graph. I also wonder if smoke absorbed the sun's energy higher in the atmosphere whether that would tend to block air coming up from lower latitudes, so that areas like Siberia would not be able to dump heat to the Arctic. That could help explain the high temperatures experienced further south? Would smoke also increase the out-going LW radiation, especially as it would be above much of the CO2 which is thought to be contributing to global warming? Then there is also the possibility of the particles aiding the formation of extra clouds, increasing the albedo in the Arctic? So are there any measurements that have been taken that show where the smoke has gone, or its effects?

Martin, you point out some of the complexity of bio-char production and use, the original source would be better used as fuel in place of mined coal? Saves transporting it around too. Jai, I agree geo-engineering just deals with the symptoms, the thought delays action on the problem. Just Testing, afraid I agree. The simplest way of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is photosynthesis, no factories or human chemistry involved! What we have to do is live within our energy supply without dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.(We might be able to turn CaCO3 rocks into bicarbonate and keep the oceans alkaline to help things with shells - but would the dissociation complicate things???) At the moment aircraft require the high energy content of hydrocarbons, many (most?) other activities can be done with lower grade fuels if we move more slowly?

Making bio-char takes energy, produces CO2 and other toxic wastes - and finally could be seen as a good source of energy if it was too concentrated in the environment!! Coal is better, left in the ground (with no energy consumption used mining it!). Energy efficiency must be the only way to go to get out our consumption addiction.

Can you imagine the resources needed for geo-engineering plastic balls etc - and white-anything will provide a new environment for growing something (probably a dark Cyanobacteria!). Even if it contains toxins it would get coated with dark bodies of things it had killed. I was once puzzled by slight circular depressions in tarmac paths - then I noticed there was not enough traffic on them to stop lichens from growing there. The sun shines, frazzles the lichen, which shrink, pulling up the softened tarmac underneath! Life???

Are clouds supplying the missing heat? http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Thin_clouds_drove_Greenlands_record_breaking_2012_ice_melt_999.html

I had suggested (in previous years) that the increase in sea-ice in the Bering might be due to cold surface water flowing from the Beaufort. The flow would also leave space for more warmer water to enter the Arctic from the Atlantic side, which would help explain the low ice on that side?

Looking at DMI http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/kennedy.php on my computer the images looked very similar:- Kennedy = Lincoln = MorrisJessup (slight movement right) Kane = Qaanaaq = Pituffik Not as described as far as I can see! (I was trying to see Petermann 2012 in Kane Basin, wondered whether it showed as a blockage)

Lodger, My point was that nothing has been maintained properly at Barrow - the bear put an end to the Mass balance site early last year, the airport weather reports/forecasts on the site have not been updated since late November and the camera on the bank building has not been working for some time. I did try to communicate when the Mass Balance numbers stopped for the second time last year but got no response. I wondered if the funding had dried up? It was always interesting to watch the temperature profile of the ice change as spring arrived . . .

Re:- Barrow - camera location:- This image has been recorded by a web cam overlooking the landfast ice (or coastal ocean during the ice-free period in summer) from atop the bank building in downtown Barrow, Alaska. The camera is looking approximately North. Not bear-proof?? Also the weather reports on the breakup part of the site have not been updated since late November. I have tried Googleing the 2013 Mass Balance Site, best references seem to go to Andy Mahoney (and I have not contacted him) from site:- http://climate.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=356&currTab=simple The Barrow data is very informative when the bears leave the equipment alone and it is kept up to date!

A-team, think there is a lot going for estimates of 2m km2 (or less) area minimum this year, it will be interesting to see what the polls show beforehand. Neven, please may we have polls for maxima & date soon?

I am watching for the Ross Ice Shelf to start breaking up (large crevasses have been visible from space for 10+ years). If large bergs calve, or parts of the shelf break up like the Larsen, Mr Watts (WUWT) will be delighted with the increase in sea-ice area to 'prove' the lack of global warming. I still wonder if the slow increase in SH ice area is not due to the vast volumes of ice liberated a decade ago (also from massive Ross calvings) spreading out and breaking up. Also there has been the increased flow-rates from glaciers freed from the restraints of their shelves to contribute area.

Very impressed by Wipneus's map, but I can imagine that at the end of the year it will need revising if us "warmists" see what we expect. The past year's melt surpassed almost everyone's expectations on this site (>95%?). Perhaps the map will become a classic, showing a "conservative warmist" assessment of the situation this winter? When the ice disappears in a summer soon, Watts and his team should be able to answer his question (WUWT) - "No ice" - unfortunately! (Unless he says "What ice?" - then we will be able to say "Watts's ice is another name for water"?).

Bob, I agree with your timing. Following the different threads I see some of the complexity of the maths, but most of the 'official' models are a long way behind the observed state of the ice. "Keep It Simple, Stupid" is probably helpful in judging what the true situation is, too much complexity in models and their graphs appears to be an excuse for inaction. Having said that, we all rely on the images we get from space, etc., obtained through complex assessments of data, interpreted by the wise, into the graphs and models we can understand!

As I read it, the deep 'warm' water is melting the PIG from below. Any melt would tend to float towards the surface as it would be less dense than seawater. The topography(?) of the underside of the ice-sheet then channels the melt to the positions of the polynyas, where this water may appear 'warm' at 0C when compared with ice melting in seawater?. One feature that struck me from the Earth Observatory image was this year's lack of sea-ice near the glacier, with traces of ice (or fog?) being blown away from the glacier towards the remaining sea-ice further out - possibly indicating stronger katabatic winds to account for the increase in Antarctic sea-ice too?

Chris, Yes, the temperature of moist soil is lower so LESS outgoing long wave radiation, but more short wave from the sun absorbed because it is darker, actually making the energy balance even worse globally? Aral Sea has ended up giving salty dust storms, really could do with being filled to get back where it used to be.

Just seen pictures of Pine Island Glacier on NASA Earth Observatory, calving cracks in about the same place 11 years apart. But look at the difference in sea ice 79 days earlier in the melt season! http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79730

I put my Weatherbug link up above because of the following paragraphs:- Barges carry 20 percent of the country's coal and more than 60 percent of its grain exports. Other cargo, including petroleum products, lumber, sand, industrial chemicals and fertilizer, also gets shipped along the Mississippi River. Barge operators and those who ship on the Mississippi have warned that a shutdown would have disastrous economic consequences on those industries, with companies laying off workers if it lasts for any significant amount of time. CO2 production is related to economic activity, if it is depressed there will tend to be less? Therefore wars and their preparations are probably big, unprofitable (for the environment) sources of CO2, judging by their size in national budgets!

Large bodies of water moderate climate, cooling summer heat and warming winters, the drying of the Aral Sea has made the fluctuations much worse. They also provide more moisture for the atmosphere. Not sure whether they increase global warming by increasing absorption of solar radiation (including water vapour) or decrease it by providing more clouds - probably depends on location. My gut feeling is that moist land is darker, vapour is a gh gas so net warmer. Balance is that local climate would be better for crops/people?

Just seen this:- http://weather.weatherbug.com/weather-news/weather-reports.html?zcode=z5545&region=8&region_name=North%20America&country=US&country_name=USA&state_code=AK&state_name=Alaska&zip=99723&city_name=Barrow&stat=PABR&story=14279 - flow on the Missouri is too low because of the drought, the corps are going to release less water so even the lighter loaded barges won't be able to work. That threatens farming and industry that depend on the the barges for transport. If things seize up the weather (climate?) will have struck a bit of a blow against CO2 emissions!

Terry, In your calculation of heating in the Arctic (above) the figure of 8.6C looks suitable with the heating seen in the open seas in summer. However your number of 1.21x10^12 m3 multiplied by 80 = 0.968x10^14, which will come out at 0.86C temperature rise for the 1st metre depth over the Arctic. I am hoping I am right as that will mean the problem is less bad (and also that I have not missed something!) There are a lot of variables which are beyond estimating (changes in albedo, fog, cloud) and the big (unexplained?) loss of volume occurred in 2010 and has not been as high since. Certainly the Arctic is ahead of most of the models, some of the graphs seem to be doing better (or worse for the ice!). One problem I see with shading/reflection is that any effect is likely to be aimed at lower latitudes, which will make the differential temperatures with the poles decrease even further. It ain't that I am against "fixes", just they are not as good as sorting the problems (if we can afford to?)! I think of Easter Island, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island are we heading there on a global scale?

Hi Fufufunknknk, I'm sorry but mitigation on the scale required looks like breaking the first rule of holes - if you are in one, stop digging! The energy required to put something into orbit would be more economically spent propelling other things round down here - apart from cluttering space up with junk! Let's try to get the reaction right - start to solve the problem, not the symptoms. Your radiator needs the hole fixed so the engine can run at its design temperature (100C+), not be pumping out warmed water faster than you can put cold in? If sea ice albedo over 13M Km2 winter area cannot keep up at the moment where will we be in the future - how many Km2 shading are you going to keep at the top of the atmosphere? Oh, and anything in the atmosphere will act like clouds, interrupting the long-wave radiation going out, so nothing is a one-way ticket! White roofs under blue skies in parts of the world might help, but under clouds the energy bounces around. (Mirrors or PV cells might be even better, supplying power.).

Fufufunknknk, As I see it almost any attempt to reduce incident radiation from the sun will consume more energy (CO2) than it saves. Balloons lose helium by diffusion, party ones in a few days not years, if they were better made they would be heavier and even less viable. Anything put in space consumes a vast amount of energy (at great cost too!). Hydrocarbons are the most energy-dense form of practical mobile power (they obtain their oxidant from the air, not from the other half of a cell) but we are wasting vast quantities in mooching around towns in cars with huge engine capacities. Efficiency is a good starting place, even Americans limit speed to save fuel! One answer would be to limit engine size and run them at their most efficient speed to charge batteries - with the whole set up kept simple to reduce weight. Henry Ford had the right idea - Model T - no choice, no one-up-man-ship, produced efficiently!

Ayles tracker finally seemed to stop on Aug 24! Did wonder if Ayles was the piece of ice that frightened Shell into moving their rig one day after they started drilling their hole??!