frontranger8

I'm not sure you understand "cheerleading". It's all discussion. Move along.

I'm such an idiot.

And I believe it's being discussed? Geez...ice narrative nazi here.

You're confusing this with the musings of exceptionally early mins (before 9/5) we hear every year. You think we'll see a min after 9/12?

Given the upcoming pattern, a late minimum (past 9/12) looks very unlikely. Good chance the min is before 9/10.

It was actually prior that I said that. Probably depends on how long the dipole persists. Hard to say, given that it's a pretty destructive pattern, but coming so late in the season. I'd probably say 3rd-5th is most likely at this point for area, at least.

And that pattern was much different than the one we've been in the past few days. Much smaller cyclone, stronger, and not nearly as cold. Looks like a dipole develops next, though, so should see losses pick up again soon. But we're well past peak melting season, so that's the good news (if you're rooting for ice survival rather than annihilation).

Ice loss has slowed the past few days, as expected. No Icepocalypse, nothing like 2012.

That pattern is actually just now setting in.

I think at this point, 4th-6th is most likely for both extent and area. It looks as though we'll remain in a favorable pattern for the ice through the 20th. By then, it starts getting a lot tougher to lose big chunks.

However, this upcoming PV does look to provide anomalously cold temps for much of the basin. Definitely not way above the 20th century average.

I don't think so. It's very broad and actually quite cold at times for this time of year. Similar pattern to what we've seen much of this summer, only stronger and colder. Some areas that have very thin ice and get strong winds will break up more, but overall it looks like more of an ice preservation pattern. Definitely not Icemageddon.

Looks like a pretty cold and large PV coming back here soon.

I don't understand that. It's been proven repeatedly that there is little predictability until late spring at the earliest.

This is not a fair statement. How many sources do we have actually measuring LT temps? And yet you claim the satellite sources are "outliers". Being inconsistent with the theory does not make a source an outlier, as Will explained above.