donsutherland1

Do you have a source of data that indicates the current coronal holes are largely unprecedented?

Coronal holes have been observed since the 1950s (https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/Preprints/eaaa_holes.pdf). If coronal holes were largely responsible for the current low ice conditions in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, one should have seen similar issues across time. That there is a linear decline in Arctic sea ice underway suggests that something other than coronal holes is responsible, given that they've been occurring regularly.

Ice extent data from 2003-16 (except for Fall 2016 and Annual 2016):

Fantastic comparative information.

Arctic sea ice extent fell 18,045 square kilometers on November 19. That brings the 3-day decline to 162,147 square kilometers. The daily figure of 8,302,669 square kilometers is 1,102,391 square kilometers below the previous daily record low figure of 9,405,060 square kilometers, which was set in 2012.

There has been amazing warmth in the Arctic region this fall.

FWIW, the November 18 Arctic sea ice extent figure would be equivalent to a November 18 high temperature of about 87° in NYC on a standardized basis. The existing record for the date is 73°, which was set in 1921 and tied in 1928.

Yes. It was a huge loss.

On November 18, 2016 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (JAXA) was 8,320,714 square kilometers. That was a decline of 97,385 square kilometers from the previous day. It is also 948,831 square kilometers below the previous record minimum for the date of 9,269,545 square kilometers, which was set in 2012. The biggest 1-day declines in the October 1-December 31 timeframe: 1. 97,385 sq. km., 11/18/2016 (exceeded the biggest 2-day decline for this timeframe). 2. 54,064 sq. km., 12/25/2011 3. 53,292 sq. km. 12/1/2007 4. 51,274 sq. km. 12/17/2011 5. 48,440 sq. km. 10/25/2009 The November 17, 2016 decline of 46,717 square kilometers ranked 6th biggest for this timeframe. The 11/17-18/2016 2-day decline of 144,102 square kilometers exceeded the previous record of 81,804 square kilometers, which was established on 12/1-2/2007.

It was working this morning. Perhaps there's a temporary issue that is sending visitors to the site's twitter stream.

You can find the data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

It does. To date, 2016 has set daily minimum records on 46% of days this year.

The 9/6 Arctic sea ice extent figure on JAXA was 4,022,615 square kilometers. That was a decrease of 22,855 square kilometers from 9/5. It would represent the 2nd lowest minimum figure on record.

9/5 JAXA figure: 4,045,470 square kilometers, down 10,836 kilometers. This would be the second lowest minimum figure on record.

9/4 JAXA figure: 4,056,306 square kilometers. This was a slight increase from 9/3, but it is not likely the minimum for this year.

Arctic sea ice extent falls to 2nd lowest on record... The 9/3 figure on JAXA was 4,054,179 square kilometers. That would ranks as the 2nd lowest minimum figure on record. Only 2007 (4,065,739 square kilometers) was lower. The 5-year average decline in sea ice extent from 9/3 would produce a minimum figure of 3,852,090 square kilometers. The minimum decline (2002-15) would result in a figure of 3,950,344 square kilometers. The maximum decline (2002-15) would result in a minimum figure of 3,647,151 square kilometers. A minimum extent under 4,000,000 square kilometers appears very likely (> 90%) and a figure just under 3,900,000 square kilometers appears possible.

The 9/2 figure on JAXA was 4,090,129 square kilometers. That would rank as the 3rd lowest minimum figure on record. Only 2012 (3,177,455 square kilometers) and 2007 (4,065,739 square kilometers) were lower. The 5-year average decline in sea ice extent from 9/2 would produce a minimum figure of 3,875,040 square kilometers. The minimum decline (2002-15) would result in a figure of 4,000,554 square kilometers. The maximum decline (2002-15) would result in a minimum figure of 3,610,482 square kilometers. A minimum extent under 4,000,000 square kilometers appears very likely and a figure just under 3,900,000 square kilometers appears possible.

The 9/1 figure on JAXA was 4,168,394 square kilometers. That would rank as the 3rd lowest minimum figure on record. Only 2012 (3,177,455 square kilometers) and 2007 (4,065,739 square kilometers) were lower. The 5-year average decline in sea ice extent from 9/1 would produce a minimum figure of 3,931,250 square kilometers. The minimum decline (2002-15) would result in a figure of 4,050,385 square kilometers. The maximum decline (2002-15) would result in a minimum figure of 3,663,584 square kilometers. A minimum extent under 4,000,000 square kilometers appears likely and a figure just under 3,900,000 square kilometers appears possible.

The 8/31 figure on JAXA was 4,242,650 square kilometers. That would rank as the 3rd lowest minimum figure on record. Only 2012 (3,177,455 square kilometers) and 2007 (4,065,739 square kilometers) were lower. The 5-year average decline in sea ice extent from 8/31 would produce a minimum figure of 3,979,208 square kilometers. The minimum decline (2002-15) would result in a figure of 4,092,669 square kilometers. The maximum decline (2002-15) would result in a minimum figure of 3,740,828 square kilometers.

That's the way it appears. That's why I still think there's a reasonable prospect that the minimum will be under 4 million square kilometers.

Now that August is ending, a closer look at the Arctic sea ice extent figure is in order. The 8/30 figure (JAXA) was 4,302,421 square kilometers. If that were the minimum, it would rank as the 5th lowest on record. However, it is all but certainly not the minimum. A number of scenarios for the minimum figure: Smallest decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2002-15): 4,140,726 square kilometers (would rank 3rd lowest) Largest decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2002-15): 3,793,311 square kilometers (would rank 2nd lowest) Average decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2011-15): 4,007,579 square kilometers All said it appears very likely that 2016 will see the 2nd or 3rd lowest Arctic sea ice extent minimum on record. There remains a reasonable possibility of a minimum figure below 4 million square kilometers for only the 2nd time on record (JAXA). 2012 is currently the only such case.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/pdf/ngeo1580.pdf

All the RATPAC data can be found here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/

At this time, I don't think there's strong reason to avoid using RATPAC. It will be interesting to see if RATPAC picks up on the El Niño's impact in the lower and middle troposphere before UAH (especially UAH v.6.0).

Thanks for the kind words. There's no risk of such an outcome.