I would like to see the evidence to back up this wild claim made earlier.

There has never been so little ice in the last 2000 years estimated.

  

This should help for a start, this is a figure taken from the journal article doi:10.1038/nature10581

Well that takes us back nearly three quarters of the way. Reconstructured from what? The link you provided doesn't work.

A few years ago on here I can vaguely remember somebody posting a link to Royal Navy ship logs going right back three or four centuries. There were also details taken from whalers who hunted up in the Arctic. There was some excellent descriptions of conditions experienced at the time. I had the link but that would have been about four computers ago. 

Well that takes us back nearly three quarters of the way. Reconstructured from what? The link you provided doesn't work.

The DOI is a unique identifier for the paper, not a link. This one was published in nature. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=08&fy=2012&sm=06&sd=08&sy=2013

While we may be 'cheered' by the slowness of ice loss at present one look at the above may bring us back down to the reality ofthe ice condition even compared to last year.

The 'average summer' of the Arctic 2012 managed to take that image to a record low so what should we think about this years image?

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=08&fy=2012&sm=06&sd=08&sy=2013

While we may be 'cheered' by the slowness of ice loss at present one look at the above may bring us back down to the reality ofthe ice condition even compared to last year.

The 'average summer' of the Arctic 2012 managed to take that image to a record low so what should we think about this years image?

 

While the cyclone is causing alot of damage it is also responsible for restricting melt in most of the basin. However when the cyclone clears and High pressure takes charge we are likely to see flash melting particularly at the coast, and temps in the basin will rise above freezing. The longer the cyclone stays, the longer we will have to wait but it cannot last the entire summer. 

Well that takes us back nearly three quarters of the way. Reconstructured from what? The link you provided doesn't work.

The DOI is a unique identifier for the paper, not a link. This one was published in nature. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

So they are using tree ring proxies to get this result. Nothing controversial there then after the Yamal debacle. Looking at the places on the map(it's hard to see) but I think where the tree ring proxies were taken from is above the current tree line.So how does that work?

This below is a direct quote from the paper, hardly a ringing endorsement. 

Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century-

My concern is that the ice is being 'primed' for rapid melt later and the constant movement of the ice is eroding the larger floes into ever smaller floes. we know how important ice mass to surface area is come any 'melt' and so the worry has to be that the upcoming 'warmth' of summer will have no difficulty in reducing the rubble to water?

Imagine a drink with ice cubes and a drink with crushed ice. which loses it's ice first?

My concern is that the ice is being 'primed' for rapid melt later and the constant movement of the ice is eroding the larger floes into ever smaller floes. we know how important ice mass to surface area is come any 'melt' and so the worry has to be that the upcoming 'warmth' of summer will have no difficulty in reducing the rubble to water?
Imagine a drink with ice cubes and a drink with crushed ice. which loses it's ice first?

My concern is that the ice is being 'primed' for rapid melt later and the constant movement of the ice is eroding the larger floes into ever smaller floes. we know how important ice mass to surface area is come any 'melt' and so the worry has to be that the upcoming 'warmth' of summer will have no difficulty in reducing the rubble to water? Imagine a drink with ice cubes and a drink with crushed ice. which loses it's ice first?

What if your concerns are futile and we start to see the signs of a recovery taking place, will the goalposts be moved like they are in every other area of this so called scientific theory. Pure speculation GW but unlike you I have no idea at what the outcome will be.

There is a near consensus of what the outcome will be. Stop being ridiculous and look at the evidence, the sea ice volume is disturbingly low, with absolutely no sign of a recovery. Every year, the ice gets thinner, basically without exception since 2007. Conservative models suggest we will be effectivly ice free by 2025, and more realistic mathematical models suggest 2017 or even sooner by which time the only place in the arctic that will have ice will be a small region in the canadian archipeligo which may take until 2040 to finally dissapear. 

That's assuming continued warming, which is not happening.

My concern is that the ice is being 'primed' for rapid melt later and the constant movement of the ice is eroding the larger floes into ever smaller floes. we know how important ice mass to surface area is come any 'melt' and so the worry has to be that the upcoming 'warmth' of summer will have no difficulty in reducing the rubble to water? Imagine a drink with ice cubes and a drink with crushed ice. which loses it's ice first?

What if your concerns are futile and we start to see the signs of a recovery taking place, will the goalposts be moved like they are in every other area of this so called scientific theory. Pure speculation GW but unlike you I have no idea at what the outcome will be.

What if it turns out that your groundless endless criticisms turn out to be deeply flawed?

If the ice recovers, i.e. we see a sustained upward trend, not another blip in the downward trend, I'll be amongst the first to celebrate.  But if we see a continuing decline at what point will you put up your hands and admit you (and a few others) were wrong?

That's assuming continued warming, which is not happening.

No it isn't, even if the global temperature stayed constant over the next decade then positive feedback mechanisms are already taking over. The collapse in sea ice occured in the last decade when temps were relativly constant globally. 

That's assuming continued warming, which is not happening.

Isn't it?  You do seem very confident in your occasional forays here, Four.  Confident and provocative.

Plus ca change.......

Well that takes us back nearly three quarters of the way. Reconstructured from what? The link you provided doesn't work.

The DOI is a unique identifier for the paper, not a link. This one was published in nature. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

So they are using tree ring proxies to get this result. Nothing controversial there then after the Yamal debacle. Looking at the places on the map(it's hard to see) but I think where the tree ring proxies were taken from is above the current tree line.So how does that work?

This below is a direct quote from the paper, hardly a ringing endorsement. 

Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century-

No, Beaufort, try looking more closely at the link.

They used:

• Ice cores


• Tree rings


• Lake sediment


• Documentary ocean cores (whatever they are)

I don't think your flippant dismissal is justified.

Your readiness to jump to dismiss evidence presented here suggests that you seem to be digging yourself deeper into a blinkered sceptic (bordering on denialist) mindset, which isn't what I expected when you started to contribute here.

That's assuming continued warming, which is not happening.

No it isn't, even if the global temperature stayed constant over the next decade then positive feedback mechanisms are already taking over. The collapse in sea ice occured in the last decade when temps were relativly constant globally. 

I think you're mistaking Four's contribution as being informed comment when it is merely the usual provocative nonsense.  Best to ignore him - a bit like those nuisance telephone cold calls.  He has shown no capacity to take on board the evidence or the science, he just regurgitates the same cycle of mindless one-liner denials.

My concern is that the ice is being 'primed' for rapid melt later and the constant movement of the ice is eroding the larger floes into ever smaller floes. we know how important ice mass to surface area is come any 'melt' and so the worry has to be that the upcoming 'warmth' of summer will have no difficulty in reducing the rubble to water? Imagine a drink with ice cubes and a drink with crushed ice. which loses it's ice first?

What if your concerns are futile and we start to see the signs of a recovery taking place, will the goalposts be moved like they are in every other area of this so called scientific theory. Pure speculation GW but unlike you I have no idea at what the outcome will be.

What if it turns out that your groundless endless criticisms turn out to be deeply flawed?
If the ice recovers, i.e. we see a sustained upward trend, not another blip in the downward trend, I'll be amongst the first to celebrate. But if we see a continuing decline at what point will you put up your hands and admit you (and a few others) were wrong?

My concern is that the ice is being 'primed' for rapid melt later and the constant movement of the ice is eroding the larger floes into ever smaller floes. we know how important ice mass to surface area is come any 'melt' and so the worry has to be that the upcoming 'warmth' of summer will have no difficulty in reducing the rubble to water? Imagine a drink with ice cubes and a drink with crushed ice. which loses it's ice first?

What if your concerns are futile and we start to see the signs of a recovery taking place, will the goalposts be moved like they are in every other area of this so called scientific theory. Pure speculation GW but unlike you I have no idea at what the outcome will be.

What if it turns out that your groundless endless criticisms turn out to be deeply flawed? If the ice recovers, i.e. we see a sustained upward trend, not another blip in the downward trend, I'll be amongst the first to celebrate. But if we see a continuing decline at what point will you put up your hands and admit you (and a few others) were wrong?

Its called constructive criticism Gandalf. GW and a few others think its a foregone conclusion, whilst I think nothing in life is certain and as four says all assumptions are reliant on warming continuing. Which regardless of trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, is not!

My concern is that the ice is being 'primed' for rapid melt later and the constant movement of the ice is eroding the larger floes into ever smaller floes. we know how important ice mass to surface area is come any 'melt' and so the worry has to be that the upcoming 'warmth' of summer will have no difficulty in reducing the rubble to water? Imagine a drink with ice cubes and a drink with crushed ice. which loses it's ice first?

What if your concerns are futile and we start to see the signs of a recovery taking place, will the goalposts be moved like they are in every other area of this so called scientific theory. Pure speculation GW but unlike you I have no idea at what the outcome will be.

What if it turns out that your groundless endless criticisms turn out to be deeply flawed? If the ice recovers, i.e. we see a sustained upward trend, not another blip in the downward trend, I'll be amongst the first to celebrate. But if we see a continuing decline at what point will you put up your hands and admit you (and a few others) were wrong?

Its called constructive criticism Gandalf. GW and a few others think its a foregone conclusion, whilst I think nothing in life is certain and as four says all assumptions are reliant on warming continuing. Which regardless of trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, is not!

Yes, I find this strange, when the MetO and NASA have recently said specifically or implied that "the climate (system) is much more complicated that was thought" How can that not suggest a little caution might be appropriate?

What they mean by that is there is considerable uncertainty over the scale of warming likely over the next 100 years. Some models suggest as high as 9C and others as low as 2C in the arctic. What they do not mean is the science of antropic induced global warming is still uncertainin its existance or that it has happened. Again, to use my metaphor we may not understand everything about the hedgehog ansestory but we do not deny evolution is real nor do we claim that it is uncertain or still up for debate. 

Why? oh why, oh why must certain folk displace onto other posters? Witnessing is not the same as actively hoping for. It may suit some folks 'agenda' but it does not come close to reflecting the reality.

Any further drop in ice would be an unmitigated dissaster for both our home and humanity and ,as such, i cannot see why some folk appear so unpeturbed about it?

At present the basin is obviously primed for rapid losses (through July and Early Aug) yet some folk can only 'see it' when it is water they see? they cannot see it as it progresses toward that state? odd that? Do they not realise that the Lurkers only see who was correct in their 'prediction' of the season and so help lend further credence to any fufure cogitations they may have on the 'state of the Arctic'?