I have been studying Arctic sea ice for several years now and have attempted to read every possible article ever written about it, dating back for more than 100 years.
Having said this, I disagree with some of the conclusions that this post presents.
It's not that I disagree with some of the facts presented, or even the data used to draw upon the conclusions.
I just don't agree.
Science suggests that we are in a inter-glacial period. Simple stating, that we have either reached the absolute minimum of a warming period or soon shall; only to have our Earth return to a path of thousands of years of cooling.
But for now and hopefully for years to come, we may enjoy the comforts of a warming planet and the abundance of life it brings.
What many have said, in just a few years time though, is that this warming is somehow exaggerated due to increases in Co2. But to that discussion, I will leave for another time.
For now though, I just want to comment on some poor conclusions made regarding sea ice area and extent.
It has only been recently that such scrutiny has been projected onto Arctic Sea ice. Its like some child's play at work here. Proclamations about a particular day or a particular month, suggesting its worse than before. Multi-year ice thinner than any time before. So on and so forth.
The truth is, we don't know. Historical records only go back a few decades. Some sporadic observational data has come from sea captains over the centuries, but nothing to conclude one way or the other if Arctic Sea ice is has trended in increasing or decreasing amount.
While the Northern Sea Route has been open and operational for decades, only a handful of ships(mostly yachts)have traversed the Northwest Passage successfully, dating back to 1906.
Most scientists, when discussing the extent of sea ice, usually refer to the maximum and minimum period of sea ice extent. It's usually the period of minimum sea ice in September that most scientists use to calculate annual trends. It is with complete certainty, that no one year of sea ice resembles another. There is no observational data to suggest, that if one day or one month of sea ice is higher or lower than another year, to conclude how high or how low sea ice extent will be for any specific year. It just doesn't work that way.
There is just not enough evidence to suggest that any one year can have a higher annual sea ice extent or a lower annual sea ice extent, pointing at a particular day or month. It just can't be done.
What we do know is, is that based on a few decades of record keeping, that 2007 had the lowest amount of Arctic sea ice extent.
Since then, going on 4 years now, that minimum of 2007 has not been reached again.
Logic would lead anyone with a brain, that if less ice is melting, then more layers of ice must be developing. If the annual minimum sea ice was getting less and less each year, then more thinning would occur. But that's not what we are recording. Data suggests that 2007 was a year of lowest sea ice extent and that each year since, there has been less melting.
Coming sometime in the middle of September this year, we will know if there was less or more annual sea ice melt.
If the minimum sea ice is greater(less melt), then this will be 4 straight years of Arctic Sea ice growth.
Will this trend continue or not is uncertain. Some scientists have created models, that use Co2 to predict Arctic Sea ice melt, saying, 'by some date in the future(dates vary anywhere from 2015 to 2100) that the Arctic could become ice free.' Simply suggesting that the Arctic sea ice would completely melt, by summers end.
Yet, these models have not predicted any increase in annual sea ice though. But that is what is happening, and the scientists don't know why.
If Co2 increases temperature, and temperature melts sea ice; then increases in Co2 should continue to melt sea ice, annually.
So what is the conclusion that these men and women that have placed their faith in this model.
They conclude that, though sea ice extent has not melted less than the 2007 sea ice minimum, due to natural variables, i.e. PDO, ENSO, etc., but sea ice extent will continue to trend downward over time in spite of natural variables, because the model can't be wrong.
So what are we actually discussing here ?
Are we discussing the future of Arctic Sea Ice using models and their predictions, or are we discussing the current trend of Arctic Sea ice using observational data.
Because they are not the same thing.