Does look like we're at the minimum unless there's serious winds or temperature anomalies that kick up. Don't see much forecast in in the next 7 days from http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/ NCEP GFS

Off topic here, but this graph seems to indicate a deviation from the "fits and starts" of the total area. That line of descent is remarkably smooth, and the steepness of that descent seems to be stronger than other years. That -1.6M sq.km anomaly is lower than any in the past two years. Shouldn't it be slowing down a bit by now? Anyone else notice this trend? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

Looking at http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/ there's a very large dominating low coming in late this week. Really big, and sitting right at the Pole. I can't imagine the winds associated with it are going help reduce the ice loss in the Basin.

What part have forest fires played in this years Arctic sea ice melt due to soot in the atmosphere blocking incidental solar radiation? Meanwhile: The heat content of the oceans continues to go up inexorably - the variations year to year is ice are subject to weather, and atmospherics like the amount of soot. With certain weather conditions, it's apparent that the Arctic could be effectively free of sea ice in any given year. It's only a question of when this happens now. Once long term sea ice is gone, the knock on effect year to year will dominate, leading to even greater likelihood of near ice free conditions during subsequent summer months. We're looking straight at it; trying to pretend that a few years of reduced rate of reduction of Arctic sea ice is a reprieve is to deny all the data that's readily available.

Thank goodness there's an influential Republican fundraiser who can clearly see that a 'hug' and working with the President of the United States in response to a disaster is clearly more important than any rank bribery, intimidation, RICO violations and lying under oath could ever be. After all, Republicans have to keep their standards UP!

Global warming potential of methane is based upon the expected operational lifetime of it, before it breaks down as a result of photolysis in combination with hydroxyl radicals. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/044007/ Since amount of available solar energy is fixed, at some point higher concentrations of upper atmospheric methane should result in a non-linear dynamic, increasing the global warming potential of methane by extension of increasing its half life, and therefore persistence and global warming potential. I have yet to see any study on this potential [and potentially disastrous] phenomenon. This dynamic is yet another potential positive feedback variable. Anyone have any data?