The deletion of my two entirely reasonable posts [snip; They were not reasonable posts and neither was this one. This blog is not a conduit for one-dimensional and irrational conspiracy thinking. Please, go find an echo chamber where you feel more at home; N.]

Ad hominem. [snip] [First we troll, then we whine about ad hominems. Please take WUWT tactics elsewhere; N.]

[I'm removing the big strawman filled with conspiracy theory fluff. There's an inkling of truth in everything, but an inkling will always lack nuance. For instance, 'we need to understand how our planet works, because we're conducting an uncontrolled experiment on a planetary scale'; N.]

[snip, please write in English, and stop trolling in any language, thanks; Neven]

We know almost nothing. Agree or disagree. That's what the IPCC says.

Kevin O'Neill: Your quote: "The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)." Lat's just agree that we know very little. Almost nothing. OK?

Kevin O'Neill: Your qute: "The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)." Show us the proof.

A general remark: where denizens of WUWT would like Arctic ice to grow, to prove their theory that human-induced warming has little impact on temperature and thereby on the melting of Arcic ice, I find the opposite on this forum: Here on this forum, people are cheering on the ice to melt as soon as possible. Looking for evidence of melting, hoping for the weather to be conducive to melting, hoping for an ice-free Arctic to make headlines across the world. Both groups are blinkered, one-eyed, two-tongued, deaf by choice, unscientific cheerleaders, disconnected from the reality that normal people inhabit. Most of the warming we have seen in normal times is probably natural. Even the IPCC admits it, finally. And when the world community asks the question: "How much warming can we expect from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere?" The IPCC answers: "we have no idea. We used to think it was around 3 degrees. Recent studies now indicate it might be much less, but there are scientific differences, so we now refuse to give you a number. It would be a lot lower than last time, so you might use it against us and against our cause, so we prefer not to give you that number." Good stuff, IPCC. Stabding up for science and rationa.ity in the face of politics and the irrationaity of emotions!

"Being the first to call the maximum is nothing more than a speculative exercise. The maximum should not be called before it is IMPOSSIBLE that it will be overturned." I agree.

I am not criticising the media. Of course they will report whatever interesting factoids they catch a sniff of. So no surprise there. What is more concerning is an increasing tendency to publicise records early - especially when some sort of record can be announced. We have seen this trend in both global and regional temperatures previously. And looking at the latest NSIDC charts, it seems to me it is very close and still rising as we speak, so there can still, theoretically be a new max this season. But of course if you are right - that there is 100% certainty already, then my criticism has been unfounded in this case.

What strikes me is: Why not wait for another week or two, until it can be called with more certainty? The answer of course is explained early in the above article: The media pics it up because some type of record can be claimed. Waitt another week and perhaps there will be no record, and no media :( So to capitalize on possible media attention it is better to practice a little premature ejaculation. Afterall - if this proves not to be the max anyway, no media outlet is ever going to correct the first story, and so the story will stick. It is a dishonest and politicised way of reporting science.

[Edit Neven: Sorry, no links to Iago McIntyre's blog.]

[edit Neven: Sorry, no Serengeti strategy here. Take the hyena food elsewhere, please.]

It has to come from the outside.

CR: "So based on this I don't see any grounds for claiming that conditions within the Arctic are driving a pause in winter peak sea ice extent." And I agree. There are no conditions arising from within the Arctic which could explain the ten year pause in winter sea ice extent. Quite the contrary:

Careful reading of my above post will reveal that I am not making any conclusions (CR) or any assertions (jdallen). "I tend to favour" were the words I used, and they can hardly be less assertive. True, I am speculating here, but why not. My main position or agenda, as CR puts it, is that we actually know very little and that too brash conclusions have been drawn on such a flimsy foundation. But it is not just a hunch. One of my arguments is that the winter maximum has not been going down now for 10 years: http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png This year it seems likely that this trend will continue. And it seems unlikely that 10 years of halt in the winter extent is caused by a series of diverse and scattered weather events. And when the winter extent stops decreasing and even grows - what is more natural than this also affecting the summer minimum in due time? It seems a reasonable and logical argument to me, not just a "hunch".

CR: I have yet to see a convincing summary of the different factors of weather and their relative contribution to seasonal melting, and I am not convinced that random weather events is the FULL explanation for what we have seen over the last couple of melting seasons. And by weather I of course mean isolated events as opposed to changes in longer term patterns. So is the uptick over the last couple of seasons isolated weather events, or are they the beginning of what may be a shift in the general trend, which will last for some years to come? I tend to favour the latter, eyeballing soem of the trends in temperature and sea ice extent, but of course have no more conclusive proof than those who think that it is all just weather and will return to the downward trend soon.

What is most amazing about the latest POMAS numbers is the speed of recovery since the volume bottomed out in 2012. 1/3 of the volume loss over the entire observed period since 1979 has been recovered in little more than two years. If the trend since 2012 continues for only four or five more years, the entire volume loss since 1979 will have been recovered. This bodes well for the future health of the Arctic ice sheet.

Piomas doing a frisky uptick this time: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png Starting to look like a 4-year pause in melting allready. Much like 1982-87. I have yet to hear any plausible reason for the break in the trend this time, but northern polar temperatures have been gpoing down over the last few years, much like they did in the 80's: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

Please. Do not be afraid. There is someone who thinks he or she knows much better than you somwhere in the vincinity.

Dude. We are seing the bounceback. The big one. The ice is back. The recovery. Roald Amundsen driftet across the polar basin. Yeah.

Just a thought: 1. Global temperatures are having a pause. 2. Arctic sea ice maximum has turned a decade ago. 3. There are signs that Arctic sea ice minimum has also started on route towards expansion. So - could it be that the pause in global temperature is now starting to have an effect on the Arctic sea ice? First on the winter maximum, but to an increasing extent also on the summer minimum? It certainly seems so.

Just a suggestion Neven: Create a header for the Forum among the headlines at the top of the page. As it is now, it is hard for newbies to even know the forum exists, never mind finding it...

Pathetic and self-serving people. I am sorry.

This is exactly it. One thinks one is "involved in science", but sadly, one is just a sheep, following the wooly ass in front of one self.