Neven, I think you are looking at Greenland melt the wrong way round. My Faux News brain tells me that there's no need to worry as they have every eventuality covered. Anything under 573 Gtons, a massive recovery, which shows the utmost fraudulence of the alarmists, utterly crushing their case for ever. 573 Gtons. We told you the problem wasn't real. Recovery is happening fast. 574 Gtons. The position is totally stable. Nothing to see, move on. 575-650 Gtons. Statistically insignificant change caused by natural variation. Nothing to see, move on. 651-1500 Gtons. Who believes scientists, GPS, or tide gauges anyway? Nothing to see, move on. 1500-15000 Gtons. Who's worried about the odd centimeter or two of SLR? It's been happening for millennia. 15001-100000 Gtons. The number of ports that can handle deeper draught ships is a great benefit to commerce, especially with the newly opened up transpolar routes. What's wrong with that? Entire GIS melts, killing or dispossessing 1.5 billion people. We told you that God was angry with the gays. Now he has drowned all these coastal Sodoms and Gomorrahs. We warned you that this would happen, but you didn't listen.

Kudos to Professor Julia Slingo for deciding to take an urgent look at the weather weirding and a possible (I'd say likely) link to the loss of Arctic ice. Would that the policy makers in the USA should listen to their scientists in the same way. But when the Koch brothers own half of a gerrymandered House of Representatives, such hopes will be vain until after disaster strikes.

Yet another positive feedback, as has already been noted. I do not think that the extra CO2 sequestered by this new growth will balance the extra warming. The growing season will be short and the light intensity will be less than nearer the equator. Meanwhile, the increased albedo and likely release of carbon, both as CO2 and methane, will easily outweigh any CO2 sequestered by this extra growth.

Hi Neven, Two weeks ago I returned from Colorado to England near the River Severn. The contrast could hardly be greater. In N Colorado, at 7700 feet the grass was straw coloured and the ground was bone-dry. The only green was the needles of the ponderosa pine-those that have survived the fires and the ravages of the pine bark beetle. A 3000 acre forest fire was still growing in December. Back in England I've seen more rain in two weeks than in three months in Colorado. The grass is incredibly green and the ground is waterlogged. I see streams where I've never seen them before and the bottom of our road floods regularly. Walking the dog, I stick to the roads as the fields are so muddy and wet. There is constant running water on the roads and the back garden is sodden. The main news is about more flooding. It was a ten hour trip from drought to flood. But I think the two are connected by the Arctic ice. According to Jeff Masters, the contiguous states in the US are going to smash the yearly temperature record in 2012. Now we see this odd weather in Russia. And the high there may be stalling all these fronts over the UK The Age of Consequences has indeed arrived.

I lived in the US for over 12 years, including 7 in New Jersey, but couldn’t recall any late October hurricanes hitting the north east, so I did some googling and found the following from http://m.weatherbug.com/weather-news/weather-reports/5496 The northeast U.S. coastline north of Cape Hatteras did not experience any land falling October hurricanes between 1900 and 2000. However, 2 minimal hurricanes in the 1800s did make landfall there. One hurricane in 1864 passed across southeast Virginia and onto the Delmarva Peninsula. And from http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-unusual-northeast-track-20121024?pageno=3 How Unusual Is This Track? • Prev In the historical best-track database, there have been only 6 hurricanes with surface pressures at or below 960 millibars (lower pressure = stronger cyclone) within 200 nautical miles of the Eastern Seaboard north of Virginia Beach, Va. to have also made a U.S. landfall: Irene (2011), Bob (1991), Gloria (1985), Esther (1961), "Long Island Express" (1938), Unnamed (1869) Interestingly, not one of these particular landfalling systems occurred in late October. The two most recent examples occurred in late August. Gloria, Esther and the "Long Island Express" were in late September. The 1869 hurricane was in early September. Not in this list was Hazel, which made landfall as a category four hurricane on October 15, 1954 near the N.C. and S.C. border, taking a quick northward path into eastern Canada as an extratropical storm. A total of 195 were killed in the U.S. and Canada, with severe rainfall flooding in Toronto. What about the "Perfect Storm" you ask? Despite the significant damage from coastal flooding, beach erosion, and high winds, the center of the "Perfect Storm" never made U.S. landfall. While it's the pressure gradient that ultimately drives wind speeds (VIDEO), the lowest central pressure of this historic storm was "only" around 972 millibars. This storm ahead could have a significantly lower central pressure! So it does appear that if Sandy hits the Northeast, it will be a very unusual event for this time of year, and may well be related to unusual events in the Arctic blocking it from drifting into the Atlantic. Let us hope that it does not cause major damage. NOTE TO KARL. Next time you want to hit Neven with a driveby pelting of rotten eggs, don’t break the eggs before throwing them. Check your facts!

Whichever way you look at it, Gompertz or exponential, it's only a few years differet. For someone of my age, early 60s, it might mean I can avoid the consequences if a slower decline occurs. Hiwever, I suspect I will see the Age of Consequences. Even if I don't, my 4 month old grand niece will, no matter what the final death curve is. A few years in an interglacial that has lasted 10,000 years, is of lttle longterm sgnficance. An expnential decline would match ever-increasing open water in the summer. With more warmth likely to be advected into the Arctic, I thnk a slowdown less likely, though I hope I'm wrong. So I expect exponential decline but hope for Gompertz or slower. Given a choice between what I expect and what Watts claims, I would prefer the latter to be correct. Sadly, I learned as a child that reality always trumps fantasy

The refreeze this year will be fascinating. After, IIRC, a low pressure system moved west from the Labrador Sea in Dec 2010, remelting much of Hudson's Bay, it was for the first time not fully frozen at the end of the year. http://climatesignals.org/2011/01/open-water-on-hudsun-bay-at-years-end-for-the-1st-time-on-record/ Then earlier this year, the Kara Sea melted out in February. http://barentsobserver.com/en/news/kara-sea-ice-free It will be interesting (or horrifying) to see how much accumulated and advected heat goes into the Arctic this winter and where it goes. If the heat flows north of Norway then I would expect the Barents Sea to reman ice free. The Kara Sea would appear to be the next domino that could become ice free, or end up with very thin cover. With the "Laptev Bite" this melt season, a lot of heat appears to be flowing under the Kara and some churn mght well bring up warmer, saltier water to the surface. Perhaps the anomolus heat Jim Williams refered to earlier will end up off northern Russia. Or it could be bad news for the polar bears of Churchill.

Does anyone know whether the individual N_daily_extent_hires.png images of Arctic ice extent are archived by NSIDC? I have been downloading them daily on my laptop, but now it refuses to turn on. They always have the same file name when I download, so I've been changing it to the date to save them. Thanks.

Thanks for that post on the Greenland quakes, Seke Rob. I'm awaiting/dreading the GIS ice loss this year. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but this makes it look less likely.

Quoting Karl: Chris, I am a Doctoral student at a leading UK teaching university, Before that I was an engineer in industrial measurement and process control for 22 years with a BSc (hons) as well as a BA in History and a Master of Education. I teach science teachers, mainly physics, part time and study and research the rest. So your comments were not only hurtful but also I would suggest libelous and as such warrants an apology. I do not accept CAGW but rather see natural cycles as being the main driver of climate change all powered by the main power source available, the sun. Really? I too have several degrees (MA and PhD in Chemistry, Diploma in Computer Science and a Masters in Epidemiology), and worked in the engineering industry for 25 years. So my opinion is probably at least as good as yours. The sun had maxima in the fifties and the eighties and it's output has been slightly lower since. see http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_1024.jpg Solar irradiance and global temperature have diverged increasingly since the 1960s and the very hot year of 2010 corresponded to the longest solar minimum in many years. So explain how lower solar output causes rising temperatures. The physics of the greenhouse effect were explained well by Arrhenius in 1896. Since then we have had Planck's radiation law and the quantum theory which explain why greenhouse gases absorb and emit IR. Measurements of incoming and outgong radiation show the Earth is in heat imbalance. Optical pyrgeometers measure the DLR from the sky and show greater emission lines from CO2 and other GHGs. How can this extra radiation not warm the Earth? When you post showing that you actually understand the theory and put up legitimate arguments as to why you are roght and the scientific community is wrong then we may take you seriously. As it is, I think you are a buffoon suffering from "Mockton Syndrome." Put up and prove me wrong, or shut up.

Djprice537 Your suggestion has left me in the doldrums. I think you can probably remain becalmed in the doldrums. I expect the northern Horse Latitudes to move up with the Hadley cell. Unless, of course, a group of southern Republican Governors combine to hold a day of prayer, when all will be well. The refreeze will be fascinating. On the one hand, less ice means less insulation of the sea, so a greater heat loss by radiation and evaporation. On the other hand, more water vapour and clouds implies a greater greenhouse effect, slowing the refreeze. Then there is the question of water stratification. There is also the concern that extra heat may be advected into the Arctic, especially from the Atlantic. We shall see over the next few months how these, and probably other factors like land snow cover, play out. With so much water to refreeze, will the latent heat of freezing (80 cal/gm if my memory serves me correctly)also slow things up further?

Peter, you are most welcome. Anything at all that can convey the message is useful. This year, I have been working in Colrado. At home on England, it has rained out the summer, but here all the state is in severe drought or worse. In June I had to evacuate at an hour's notice because of the massive High Park forest fire and was unable to return for 17 days. I consider both the UK's lousy summer and what I'm seeing here as closely connected to what is happening in the Arctic. I could return here next year, but if the winter is dry, I hate to think how many high temperature records will go next year and how many million acres will burn. Yet most people here are unconcerned, and Romney is promising a policy of "burn, baby, burn" for fossil fuels. Congress, completely in hock to the polluters, is doing its very best to sabotage all forms of conservation and alternative energy. To take the Titanic analogy one step further, had it been Captain Romney in charge, rather than the reckless Captain Smith, after the collision, they would not have even checked for damage, but Captain Romney would have reversed the ship to have a second tilt at the iceberg. However, unlike Captain Smith, he certainly wouldn't have the decency to go down with his ship.

Thank you, Larry, for that graph. Eyeballing it, perhaps there has been a slight increase n Antarctic sea ice, but with a layer of cold fresh meltwater spreading out from increased melt, it's neither surprising nor any comfort. The overwhelming message of that graph is the decline in the Arctic ice, and even a small increase in the Antarctic is unlikely to alter the dire prospects we in the Northern Hemspere face. No doubt, if Goddard and co had been on the Titanic, they would have looked at the flotsam and claimed that what remained of the ship, like the deckchairs, were now truly unsinkable, so there's nothing to worry about. From the point of view of many denialists there is little to worry about; the checks they bank from the polluters will tide them over even as much of the biosphere, including most of humanity, pays the price for years of greed, mendacity, and indifference.

Thanks again, Neven, for your great work alerting those who don't want to look the other way, as to the seriousness of the situation. The phrase "The Age of Consequences," is all too appropriate. Looking at the US drought monitor, I can't help wondering if we aren't already seeing those consequences. I expect the northern Hadley cell to expand as the Arctic cooling system of the Earth declines. The area in moderate drought or worse hit a new record this week. See http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/ For Nebraska, it's 70% in exceptinal drought http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_state.htm?NE,HP for anti-science Kansas it's 100% in severe or worse, with 51% in exceptional drought see http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_state.htm?KS,HP and for denialist King Inhofe's Oklahoma it's a mere 99.87% in severe drought or worse with 42% in exceptonal drought. See http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_state.htm?OK,S Unless there is substantial winter and spring precipitation, I hate to think what these areas could look like in a year. The Age of Consequences indeed.

This looks like a slow motion replay of a head-on train wreck. At the current frame, the bits are flying off the locos, and the carriages are still intact. However, we all know that they have a lot of momentum, and that the passwengers are about to pay the price of the recklessness of those who ran the railroad. All the directors are, of curse, cashing their bonus checks for their cist-cutting successes. "Quos Deus vult pedere, primus dementat!"

Neven, Thank you for a most informative blg, and one that covers a subject of vital importance to the whole world. Enoy your holiday. You've earned it! Now I must look at something much more impoortant. Just what are our soccer players up to?

It is fascinating, in a morbid kind of way, to see the different measuring systems, in their own time, move towards new records. I would not expect them all to break records at the same time as they are using different methodologies and are measuring different things. However, the results seem as inexorable as divine retribution in a Greek tragedy. Putting on a "skeptic's" hat and using a massive dose of Doublethink, I think I can hear the WTF crowd saying, "Look, they're not accurate! They didn't all show the same thing at the same time." Of course, if all the records fell at once, they would say, "They can't all show the same thing at the same time. They're colluding with Al Gore, the U.N. etc." Such is the beauty of Doublethink, as George Orwell explained so well. And don't forget the record refreeze to come. Even if it doesn't get up to that of previous years, the lower it is now, the greater will be the ratio of 2013's maximum to 2012's minimum. "Every cloud has a silver lining." Even an ice-free September would be spun as a victory, because any ice in the winter would be an infinite ratio increase over none in the summer.

With regard to a lower ice extent allowing greater heat loss in the fall, I wonder whether this will matter in the next melt season still. With a huge new source of heat through advection into the Arctic-as discussed here a few weeks ago-that may well overwhelm any extra heat loss in the fall. If that is much greater than the residual heat, then the pattern of low ice followed by a slower melt would no longer hold.

Thanks, Neven. I've been reading your blog for about 18 months now, but this is the first time I've commented. This is a great service that you have performed for all of us, covering one of the most important stories around-a story totally ignored by most of the MSM and a story vehemently denied by those whose financial and ideological oxen would be gored by facing the truth. Now it looks as though the chickens are coming home to roost. I expect to see dire climate ramifications from what I regard as a catastrophe, and a completely avoidable one at that. As a child, I was sent to a small state-run boarding school for partially sighted children on the Sussex coast of England. The education was fairly rudimentary, but there was one notable exception, the science teacher. Mr. Hemingway told us about CO2 and global warming in 1961, including the possibility that it would melt the ice caps. Fifty-one years later, he has been proved right. But I cannot help reflecting that, if he knew then, others should have known too, and this disaster, ultimately driven by greed, could have been averted. Keep up the great work. Some will deny GW as Manhattan floods, but I hope there are enough reasonable people to at least keep the damage to the minimum now possible. Cheers Syd Bridges