Mallow

Again, please show me the observational studies or data which suggest that El Niños are strongly correlated to low Arctic sea ice. I am not aware of such a linkage. Warmer global temperatures during El Niño are mostly associated with elevated SSTs in the tropics and midlatitudes (especially the tropics). As far as I am aware, there is not a strong correlation between ENSO and overall Arctic sea ice. Indeed, a cursory glance shows that some of the strongest El Niño events in recent record (1982-1983 and 1997-1998) were not followed by particularly anomalous Arctic sea ice minima (1983 was near or even slightly above the average of the time, and 1998 was below the average of the time, but not remarkably so). Other moderate El Niño events such as 1986-1987, 1987-1988, and 1991-1992, were followed by anomalously high Arctic sea ice minima for their time. Furthermore, the extremely anomalous 2012 sea ice minimum record was preceded not by an El Niño, but by a La Niña.

El Niño is not associated with reduced Arctic sea ice in general. Indeed, over the Barents and Kara Seas region, based upon my own research, enhanced central Pacific equatorial convection is associated with reduced temperatures and increased sea ice. The effects of ENSO on Arctic sea ice vary from region to region, and I am unaware of any recent study that shows (in observations) that there is a strong correlation between ENSO and overall Arctic sea ice. As for the statement "there is nothing unusual about our current climate," if one is comparing our current climate to that of recent centuries, one could not be further from the truth. But that point has been rehashed repeatedly and can be easily researched with a small bit of time and effort.

Yep. As far as I could tell, this is the only year on record that the NH summer peak in global sea ice was higher than the NH autumn peak. I couldn't find one in the past that was even close.

But why would that show up as polynyas in all the basins at once this year, and not in any previous year? Not even a hint...

I think that was the general consensus. It's just so strange to me that it would seem so steady, and then suddenly collapse. Perhaps feedbacks are more important down there than I realized.

Wow... that has to be an error, doesn't it? That would be like if NYC's record high and low for a date were 80°F and 40°F respectively, and then they go and record an 18°F.

There is no conspiracy here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence--anecdotes based on memory are about the weakest form of evidence one could present. In other words, you're going to have to present data (again, not anecdotes, but real, comparative data) which support your claims in order for people to take your hypothesis more seriously.

That's not entirely true. The projection shown in that temperature plot looks like a polar stereographic projection, which is much better than, say, a mercator or equirectangular projection when looking at the accuracy of polar regions.

Could this be the first time on record that the global SIA peak happened in June rather than Oct/Nov?

I don't understand the point of your original post in any context. You seem to be trying to call people out on their hypocrisy, but when people tell you they never said those things, all you say is "well I know some people said them." Okay? And some people say the Earth is flat... so... If you're going to call someone out on their hypocrisy, please be more specific about WHO said what before (a quote, preferably), and WHAT that same person is saying now that's inconsistent with their previous positions. Otherwise, you're doing the same thing you're claiming others of doing--basing your arguments on your own memories or assumptions about what other people believe.

On NSIDC, we're now below 2011, and almost tied with 2007 for second lowest on record. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

I had said 2017-2018, but it's looking more likely that it'll be 2016.

I don't agree. The lag is longer than 15 to 30 years.

Indeed, we'll find out pretty soon! For the second-to-last paragraph, that's why I also included the data back to 1979. That trend line is tempered strongly by the 1979-1995 "slower melt" period, and yet it still suggests your bolded comments are too extreme. I think you ascribe too much to the negative feedbacks at the expense of the positive (albedo/oceanic heat content) feedbacks. Both could be important, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume the trend line will change so drastically based on conjecture of which feedbacks are most important.

Including all the data, chubbs is right about 2018: Will's predictions still seem pretty out there to me, even with all the data.