Good to see you writing again, Dave. Pointless suffering is indeed ubiquitous. Really, all suffering is pointless. It just happens, like shit. I wonder if we're the only species that thinks about this stuff; the downside of having "intelligence". I suppose religion could be a kind of safety net for those who perhaps have figured out that suffering is pointless, since they can always believe that god moves in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform, avoiding the need to think about the pointlessness of suffering any more. Thanks for the reminders.

Sam, there does seem to be an inevitability about events. After all, humans are a species with a characteristic behaviour so we cannot expect that to change in any significant way. I suspect most who visit here do see the inevitability of a sea ice free Arctic very soon and perhaps have an excitement about it despite declaring that they don't want it to happen. Once it does, a year round sea ice free situation will seem inevitable too, due to sea ice dynamics. I guess somewhere between the ice free summer and the ice free year, this blog will become extinct.

Yes, NeilT, changing light bulbs are hardly going to make much difference to our predicament. In any case, not everyone will or can change, making it almost a futile gesture in overall terms, though I do feel better by doing so. Indeed, light bulbs illustrate the dangers of concentrating on one predicament, thus allowing others to worsen. As I understand it incandescent to CFL to LED in progressing up the toxicity ladder in order to progress down the GHG emissions ladder. By the way, I'm fairly certain that we haven't stopped growing CO2 emissions, though the estimated growth has been very small in 2014 (about 0.6%, I think) and 2015 (perhaps even lower). Aside from that, emissions of other GHGs are growing faster. We're now above 485 ppm CO2e in the atmosphere and that is what counts, so we don't have to wait for 2050 to get there in CO2, as we're already there in CO2e.

AnotherJourneybyTrain, the 5-year cycle is, I believe, an hypothesis by Viddaloo, whereby plotting average annual extent (actually, running 12 month mean) seems to show a repeating pattern of 5 year cycles, with each 5th year showing a marked decline. I'm not sure if there is enough data to have a lot of confidence in the pattern but the 12 month running mean hit a new low this year, already, in the 4th year of the cycle, so next year could be very interesting. However, this is just my recollection. Maybe Viddaloo could clarify this.

Good on you, Neven, for getting your priorities sorted. Nothing is going to change the trajectory of Arctic sea ice, so it's merely an observation game (plus a few hypotheses thrown in). But it'll be good to see you posting from time to time.

Thanks, Neven. And thanks for mentioning MASIE (thanks to other commenters on the last topic, also). Seems like MASIE is better to reference if you're planning on sailing through those waters and it is a higher resolution. MASIE is still showing 2016 as below 2012, but only just.

MASIE has 2016 again squeezing below 2012. https://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_plots.html Can anyone comment on the difference between the MASIE plots (which are available via NSIDC) and the main NSIDC plot? It's quite marked. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Well, 2012 has gone below 2016 again, on Masie. They seem to be vying for the lead.

MASIE is showing NH (presumably, Arctic) sea ice extent below that of 2012, at the same point. The main NSIDC daily plot isn't showing that. What should I make of this, as MASIE has a higher resolution?

Thanks for the correct link, Chris. So that seems to alter your commentary a little, as you mentioned Washington Post several times. The NYT piece doesn't quote Rignot at all in doubting Hansen's projections but does offer its impression that "Rignot does not think the oceans will rise quite so considerably", whilst also making clear that Rignot thinks the IPCC projections are probably far too cautious. He also thinks that the Greenland ice-sheet is gone at 2C, thus casting doubt, also, on the Paris agreement achieving anything that could be considered a "solution". bobcobb, I realise that your own view hasn't changed, though I note that you're using much more vague characterisation of Rignot's position, which I guess, is progress of sorts.

OK, Chris. I was hoping you might point to the Washington post article you were referring to as bobcobb didn't link any Washington Post article on the previous page, or even in comments on the previous post. Maybe it was earlier, but I was hoping you might be able to point to it, since you spent the time to comment on it. However, it's entirely up to you how you spend your time, but thanks for at least modifying/correcting bobcobb's position, as many others have done here.

Chris, I'm not really sure which Washington Post article you're referring to but you said "Rignot doesn't seem to be saying Hansen's absolutely right, which means he may be wrong." If it just "seems" that Rignot is saying Hansen may not be absolutely right, then that doesn't mean "he may be wrong". It simply means that, to you, the article gives the impression that Rignot thinks Hansen is not absolutely right. I think if Rignot actually said that the paper could "possibly be in error", then one might reasonably go away with the idea that Rignot thinks that Hansen is wrong. However, if he said "I'm not sure Hansen is completely right", then one might reasonably go away with the idea that Hansen is definitely on the right lines, according to Rignot, but may have a few things wrong. Those are two different impressions. However, from your comment, I get the impression that Rignot said neither of those things. Do you have a link to the article you were talking about.

Chris Reynolds, interesting perspective. However, I think that even the weaker "possibly in error" is difficult to justify from the articles linked to by bobcobb.

bobcobb, Noone here corroborates your view of Rignot's position on his own paper. And yet you continue to have utter faith that your characterisation of Rignot's view is accurate. By all means email Rignot, or any of the other authors to find out what they think of that paper but please post any responses exactly, rather than giving your interpretation of them (though you are welcome to do that after quoting the responses accurately).

bobcobb, I see you're changing tack now, with Rignot. Rather than admit that Rignot doesn't think the Hansen et al projections are "highly questionable", you've now switched to a fairly bland statement that he thinks the projections are "extreme". Well, duh! He's definitely admitted that they are possibly worst case scenario but also that they are "not unlikely" and "absolutely realistic" (those quotes from the links you, yourself, provided). Now please divest yourself of the notion that Rignot somehow disagrees with the projections of a paper he co-authored and stop misrepresenting his views.

bobcobb, ice-free is usually defined as below 1,000,000 square kilometres, not 1,000. Regarding Rignot, again you failed to support your claim that Rignot thinks Hansen's projections are "highly questionable". The worst he said, in your latest linked article, is that he doesn't think the worst projection will happen. But even in that article his stance is that the situation is worse than commonly portrayed. There has been much said about that Hansen et al paper but, as far as I can tell, no-one has shown that it is wrong. I think we have to take it seriously as Hansen and other co-authors are serious climate scientists who have demonstrated their capabilities. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice continues to track well below 2012.

By the way, bobcobb, I didn't call you a denier, only that you were using the tactics of deniers.

bobcobb, The link you provided contains this, regarding Rignot's views: The recent Hansen paper was a “worse-case scenario,” said NASA scientist Eric Rignot, one of its coauthors. Rignot said the Antarctic study published Wednesday was “absolutely realistic.” “I think it is setting up a new paradigm for sea level projections, because their numbers are much higher than those from traditional ice sheet models with incomplete or simplified physics,” Rignot said. “Once the ice shelves are gone, melted away, calving of big walls will be the dominant process of mass wastage. It is a great paper.” I'm amazed that you think that equates to Rignot thinking that the projections of the paper he co-authored are "highly questionable". Rather, he said "it is a great paper" and "absolutely realistic." Is there somewhere else that you believe he called the projections "highly questionable", because it certainly wasn't in the link you gave.

bobcobb, It's simply not true that Eric Rignot thinks that the projections on sea level rise in a paper that he co-authored are "highly questionable". Indeed, in this article 'Hansen’s co-author Eric Rignot said in an email that the exploration of such extreme scenarios was justified “because they are not unlikely, and they are more likely than the more conservative scenarios branded by [United Nations] reports.”' Please don't make things up, that is the province of the deniers. So far, 2016 extent is tracking well below 2012, so your skepticism has little foundation, anyway. But, yes, I've seen Arctic sea ice make sharp adjustments to its trajectory so that predictions made on the basis of the past few days (notoriously exemplified by the invented Sam Carana missives) often turn out to be highly premature. Eventually, 2012 will be beaten. I don't see any reason to suppose it will not be this year, though that may well turn out to be the case.

Thanks, Neven and John. Apologies for not taking in the second comment (which I had actually read ... d'oh!).

The sea ice area shown in a couple of graphs here and here, suggest that area has increased in recent days. I kind of expect area and extent to be the other way round, on occasions. Anyone like to offer an explanation? The only one I can think of is that a large area of ice is becoming very slushy and spreading into previously "open" water, perhaps fooling the area calculations whilst not impacting extent.

Looks like sea ice area and extent are creeping up. Area is now above 2007 and 2011. It was amusing seeing all the extrapolation going on by the doomers who jump on anything to promote end of the world scenarios, with projections of zero sea ice early summer. As Neven said, an early maximum says nothing about how the subsequent melt season will play out. It looks decidedly dodgy for a while but is starting to look almost normal (i.e. heading for the now normal long term decline). This is a good blog for finding out some of the real story on Arctic ice (and it's a worrying story, of course).

Interesting comment by Kevin Cowtan (of Cowtan and Way [2014] fame) on SkepticalScience: "One other feature of interest: Arctic temperatures (and hence the Arctic contribution to coverage bias) have largely stablised since 2005. The big change is from 1997-2005. From this and from looking at similar behaviour in climate models, I do not think that we should assume continued rapid arctic warming, or an early disappearance of Arctic sea ice. My currect working hypothesis is that the models are right when it comes to an ice free Arctic." http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin_cowtan_agu_fall_2014.html#109011

This quote from the BBC article caught my eye: "The spacecraft observed 7,500 cu km of ice cover in October when the Arctic traditionally starts its post-summer freeze-up. This was only slightly down on 2013 when 8,800 cu km were recorded." Since when is 1,300 cu km "slightly" down? That's almost a 15% decline! Disappointing.

I'm not sure which planet Wade Smith is on but saying this has been a good weather year just ignores all the extreme events that have been happening almost non-stop around the globe, with some causing loss of life in the many hundreds. Extreme heat, droughts, storms, floods. Just because the Atlantic hurricane season has been fairly subdued this year and Arctic sea ice is only just a bit below last year, suddenly everything is hunky dory. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.