August ARCUS forecast poll – What will the September NSIDC Arctic minimum extent be?

If all of the Arctic icecap were to melt – that is, all of the 4 – 5 million square kilometers now covered at the minimum point of Sept 15 to 22, what would happen?
Oddly, amid all of the many dozen different college meteorology summaries, class exams, lesson plans and earth science and physics texts I’ve read on-line and on paper, none have ever calculated the actual reason for the recent warming, and none have calculated what would happen if all the ice were gone. Most conventional CAGW paper and lesson plan does discuss the difference in albedo and reflection between ice and water, and a few actually show the calculations. But even those do for a single piece of miraculous square meter of ice: in orbit, directly above the equator on the equinox, during a perfectly “average” day of a perfectly circular earth’s orbit for perfectly flat square meter of perfect substrate at the instant of solar noon. Some continue, like the national ice research center’s website, to wave their hands – so to speak – about albedo feedback and increased melting causing increased heating of the earth. But none have actually shown why a measured 1/4 of one degree warming in the earth’s supposed “average” temperature can actually melt as many tons of ice that they claim.
No calc’s have ever used a real piece of real ocean water (or real Arctic sea ice) with real waves set at the Arctic’s latitude during the entire 24 period of a real day at every relevant part of the year with real values of atmospheric attenuation and real world “rough” ice/air/water albedo and reflectivities and absorption at angles under 15 degrees. So, how can they claim their much-vaunted “positive feedback” for the Arctic sea ice? They have never shown what the feedback is. (Granted, some begin to approach this: I have seen “average” albedo values for ice, pure water, and melted spots. But those albedos are quoted for the equator, when the sun is directly above the surface. For a flat surface -with no waves or wind or ice hummocks and ridges. And even those “average” values for albedo vary all over the map. No reference presents data for the attenuation of sunshine due to clouds for each month of the year in the Arctic. No paper or lesson plan uses actual values for reflection from the ice, the water, or the broken up and irregular pack ice. None list month-to-month values for how much energy is absorbed in the atmosphere before it even reachs the surface to even have a chance of being absorbed by the ice to begin its melting.
If there were a catastrophe could be calculated – and just fear-mongered with exaggerations about future warming and massive feedbacks, you’d think somebody at NSIRD would have published some measured values for the area where the catastrophe were beginning.
Do they somehow claim that increased CO2 levels can heat the Arctic air so high that the sea ice will not re-freeze each November-January-February-March-April when there is no sunshine up for 12 months of the year? Winter average temperature is -25 degrees C. The sea ice will re-freeze each winter. And re-melt each summer.
—…—
Further, if conventional CAGW theory holds that Arctic sea ice melting is a definite symptom of CAGW warming, and is at the same time “proof” of that global warming, why have they never calculated how a mere (and measured) 1/4 degree temperature increase in the air melt that many millions of tons of sea ice? (Yes – sea ice is melted from below, from the relatively warmer waters of the Arctic Ocean melting the bottom of the ice faster than the cold air mass above can freeze more. So, why have we never seen calculations of the time of year, average temperature of water, sea ice, and air, and a real value for the heat exchange coefficients?
Worse – the DMI HAS measured the temperatures at 80 north latitude every day since 1958. And Arctic summer temperatures have consistently gone down since that date. Why does Hansen claim his +4 degree rise?