I really do not think so - let me again provide the NAO JJA perspective: John Christensen, you have a point, of course, but at the same time, like Chris Reynolds says: AO/NAO do not necessarily tell us where the highs and lows are positioned, and this is crucial. It's the reason I tend not to look at AO/NAO that much, although it is a rough indicator. No, I don't see it as the reduction of heat entering the Arctic, I see it as an increase in mid-latitude water vapor entering the arctic, leading to increased relative humidity, cloud cover and cooler temperatures. I remember you (and others) writing about that on the ASIF at the time. It's a very interesting explanation of why temps were lower this year, despite periods of high pressure and thus insolation.

Thanks a lot for your comments, Blaine, and sorry to hear about your problems with TypePad. Don't forget: TypePad loves you. ;-) So, to summarize, 2014 in principle was similar to 2007-2012, atmospherically speaking, but because of the way the atmosphere was set up - ie distribution of highs and lows - less heat entered the Arctic. This caused a start of the melting season that saw very little melt ponding, which, if the work by CPOM scientists is correct, has consequences for the minimum. Although the Sun reached the ice due to large high pressure areas over the Pacific American side of the Arctic, the lack of low pressure on the Siberian side caused a more or less static situation where the ice was melting in situ, instead of being sloshed around, compacted and transported towards lower latitudes. The result was very marked (compared to previous years) on the Atlantic side of the Arctic. The ice over on the Pacific side was strengthened compared to 2013, and thus we saw the same phenomenon as in 2010 and 2011 where a barrier of multi-year ice protects the rest of the ice pack behind it (from warmer SSTs etc). Because of all this (lack of melt ponds and transport) the ice in the Central Arctic thickened some more, and the rate of PIOMAS modelled volume decrease slowed down considerably. Is this summary about right?

Neven, I'm not sure if I'm going out on a limb here, but with the creation of the forum, it seems that you have diverted the best, and most serious scientific crowd sourcing work to the sideline, only to leave your main blog open to abuse by septics. The forum definitely plays a role, but I think it's also because of the 'boring' melting season (would be far from boring just 10 years ago) and because I'm not blogging as much as I should. That last reason is also a bit because of the Forum, because I now have to read 10 times as many comments as I used to here. :-) The reason a couple of people have now shown up who are convinced that the chances that AGW could serious problems is zero, obviously has to do with this second rebound year. This is only logical, and I will even let their comments stand, especially if they concern Arctic sea ice, but my patience for proven misinformation and disparaging broad brush generalisations has just about run out. Create one forum entry for comments that contain ad hominems and insults (your call). Just dump the whole comment in there, and replace the comment with a pointer to the forum entry. Then create a forum entry for a known myth, and drop each comment that advertises that myth into that thread. That way, you remove all off-topic distractions on your main blog, but posters still have their comments available and other people can still comment on them. Away from your main blog threads. Good idea, Rob, but too much work. At one point I'll just block people, like I've done twice before in the past 5 years (if memory serves me well).

Thank you for sharing your superiority with us, Ostepop. Now back to WUWT you go, to converse with the scientific-minded elite.

I'm a bit tired and don't have a lot of time. Next commenter who regurgitates fake skeptic zombie myths, will be shown the door.

Neven. Can you explain for me why these scientists from India are "Not trustworthy" please. Is it because they are from India? Like jdallen_wa says: Andrew Orlowski from the Register is not a trustworthy source of information. Handle with care. The 'discussion' you're trying to initiate here by jumping from one argument to another, has been, is still being, and will be discussed for thousands of times on the Internet. This is not the appropriate venue for it. It's boring and useless. If you want me or others here to explain or correct misinformation regarding the Arctic and its sea ice, then fine. But you'll also have to make an effort and not resort to simply copying and pasting d/misinformation from highly unreliable sources. Please, be skeptical.

That's another highly untrustworthy source of information, Kristian. It's too bad you think it's reliable enough to post as a completely off-topic item on this blog. Please, don't do that anymore.

Another fantastic year of coverage of this ongoing debacle, Neven! Thanks, A-Team. Just wait until I'm finally done building the house, aka Arctic Sea Ice Blog headquarters. ;-)

Has somebody opened up a portal to the dolt-dimension (i.e. WTFWT)? Oh, I remember, it was you Neven.... I believe it's a portal that opens itself, Chris. And as a fellow-dolt I can be somewhat empathic and indulgent. :-) It's unfortunate that people so uncritically assume misinformation to be true and then spread it around the Internet. Rebounds soon become recoveries, even though it's too early to tell, slowdowns become hiatuses/pauses/stops/reversals, even though there are several short-term factors at play that will flip again one day. I'll have more to say about this in due time.

Too bad it's not just a game, keithwqq.

Radiative imbalance doesn't say anything about where the energy is going. BTW, I'm posting the ASI update 9 next week, as I expect the minimum will be reached around that time.

PIOMAS post will be up tonight, John.

John, everything you write is true. In fact, in 2010, when the ASIB came into existence, there was a significant amount of open water near the North Pole. But the title of the blog post is: Ever sailed to 85N?

Given the weather forecast, the ice might retreat a bit more northwards. Would 87N be possible?

Thanks for your concern, ClimategateNL, but I don't see what my dad has to do with this. ;-) It is so dad that you took this one dimensional natural parameter as spreadhead for your societal concerns rather then directly address human issues like stupipdity and aggression. You can mock me if you like, but I'm entirely transparent about my motives, unlike the people you probably go to for your (dis)information. Now you picked the wrong indicator and you will be forces to drink the cup till the last bitter sip. You are now set up to be the documenter of the final nail in the coffin of the global warming religion! Que sera, sera, and I will document things as objectively as I can. But the same thing was said in 2010, which was followed by record tying 2011 and record smashing 2012. So I wouldn't be too triumphant just yet. The Arctic isn't very cooperative that way. As far as PR goes: this second rebound year will obviously be used to spread confusion with regards to the severity of the situation up North, where the consequences of the dramatic sea ice (and snow cover) loss are felt acutely on a regional level, through coastal erosion, melting permafrost and an increase in forest fires. These consequences will reverberate across the Northern Hemisphere (and globe), if they don't already do. But it will probably take a while for the influence on the jet stream, carbon cycle and sea level rise to become statistically significant. In this sense, an ice-free Arctic would be a much quicker and more difficult to deny piece of evidence that yes, human activities are changing the planet we all live on, and no, these changes will probably not have benign effects on human societies (that are already bumping into various limits to growth, like recessions, resource wars and massive public health issues). But it's definitely better for everyone and everything if the sea ice becomes healthy again, and these rebound years are followed by harsh winters and more cold and/or windless summers, so that the sea ice becomes as thick as it was 30 years ago, and the 75% loss in sea ice volume is reversed. So yeah, I'm all for nails in the coffin of global warming religion (and the coffin of free market fundamentalism). Even better would be if the global warming theory turned to be completely false. And for Liechtenstein to win the FIFA World Cup.

btw under SIA I think you mean "...that massive melt pond refreeze on the Atlantic side of the Arctic..." No, I did mean Pacific, East Siberian Sea to be specific. There was a huge amount of yellow and green two weeks ago, signalling low concentration (I think melt ponds because of insolation and warm winds). This then turned purple and pink again, ie higher concentration. I think it's one of the main reasons CT SIA stalled despite all of the action. Neven - to what extent does the pronounced cold patch east of Spitzbergen in the SST Anomalies plot reflect a lack of penetration by the Gulf Stream ? Very good question, Lewis. I'm wondering the same. I don't know to what extent sea surface temperatures say something about what happens lower down. But the relative cold, SST as well as SAT, in the Barentsz and Kara Seas have also been a defining characteristic for this melting season. Quite a change from previous years.

Hi Neil, Did you wonder if the fissured and fractured nature of the early pack is now draining the melt ponds before they are able to get going? The pack seems to have significant areas which are no longer contiguous ice but have hundreds of meters of open water between them. Could be, but there haven't been that many melt ponds this year anyhow. Could this be changing the weather over large areas of the pack? I wish I knew the answer to this question! Certainly you can't see 2014 as any kind of recovery. I see it as a rebound, the second one in a row (just like following the 2007 record). We'll have to wait and see what remains of it at the start of the 2015 melting season. And, of course, a rebound compared to pre-2007 is not really a rebound. A recovery would mean several years like this in a row, preferably happening even when weather conditions are conducive to melting. More volume, more and thicker multi-year ice, no passages opening up, etc. The most interesting thinking in this area (or adjacent to it), has been Chris Reynolds' new Slow Transition theory. But that's more about a plateau that a recovery. The ice is in worse state than ever, not by statistics, but actually by looking at how it fits together. I don't know, Neil, you really have to be an avid ice watcher (like Werther for instance) to be able to make a pronouncement on the general state of the sea ice compared to previous years. You know, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 were pretty hefty in their own way too. Also I note that there is now significant clear water north of the islands making up the Vilkitskiy Strait, making the Northern Sea Route open if you want to go round that way. The strait itself appears to be opening slowly, but the route itself is now open. Indeed, you're right. I hadn't looked that closely. Still, I think most shipping companies preferring taking the Vilkitskiy Strait route as soon as it clears. The northern route is perhaps too close to the ice pack. I might be wrong though.

PS I have posted the August polls for NSIDC SIE and CT SIA minimums on the ASIF. Commenter slow wing has posted an August PIOMAS SIV minimum poll. Please, take a few seconds/minutes to vote, as I'm interested in seeing how collective voting changes over time.

Somewhat belated, but not too late I have posted the August polls for NSIDC SIE and CT SIA minimums on the ASIF. Commenter slow wing has posted an August PIOMAS SIV minimum poll.