Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 13 – 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum reached, it's all gain from here

Arctic sea ice has been steadily receding for many years. What is not often mentioned is that the water temperature in the Fram Strait [east coast off Greenland] has warmed by ≈3.5ºC over the past century.
Once again, CO2 has nothing to do with Arctic ice cover. Nothing. Ocean currents shift over time, and they get warmer and cooler. Naturally. And since global warming amounts to only 0.8ºC, then other regions of the planet must be commensurately colder.

D. J. Hawkins says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:23 am

I don’t believe the open water will have aborbed much in the way of incoming energy due to the high effective albedo as a result of the angle of incidence.

There are several papers by Kato and Loeb that look at this issue, sadly behind paywalls. But you can see from the figures available that the albedo of open sea water is always significantly lower than ice, even at high latitudes.
Sure, heat will be re-radiated upwards, into the atmosphere and eventually out into space. But that heat (which in its travels creates water vapor and higher air temperatures) would never have been absorbed at all in the alternative, ice covered scenario. In this sense I disagree with David M. Hoffer, who wrote:

As several people have pointed out, the absence of ice mean an awful lot of energy being dissipated that would otherwise have been trapped under the ice.

No, the absence of ice means the absorption of heat that otherwise would not have been absorbed at all. The alternative is that the ice would never have melted at all, as in earlier years in the satellite record. The incoming radiation of late August and early September would have been reflected out to space immediately, not captured, held, and gradually re-radiated.
And why aren’t we discussing the IMS sea ice chart? Wasn’t there a post on this blog just a little while ago holding up that chart as the gold standard?

dvunkannon;
In this sense I disagree with David M. Hoffer, who wrote:
As several people have pointed out, the absence of ice mean an awful lot of energy being dissipated that would otherwise have been trapped under the ice.
No, the absence of ice means the absorption of heat that otherwise would not have been absorbed at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are forgetting that the sun has a high angle of incidence this time of year for only a brief part of the day. The rest of the time the angle of incidence is rather low, and water reflects the bulk of the insolation at low angles of incidence, even more than snow and ice. Catch the sunset reflecting off of water and it is blinding. Not so much with snow and ice. Plus the days are getting shorter, so night time hours will soon exceed day time hours. As for absorption and re-radiation, uhm…. from what? Ozone concentrations are beginning to collapse (as they do every year at this time), and at surface temps of zero C or less, the amount of atmospheric water vapour is almost nil. CO2? Not enough to matter by comparison, not to mention that with all that cold water suddenly exposed to the atmosphere, CO2 is being sucked out of it like mad.
So, not much heat being absorbed from the sun, plenty being radiated out, and much if it with a free pass to outer space.

William says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:16 am
“http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612145v1.pdf
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays By, Henrik Svensmark
Contradictory trends in temperature in Antarctica and the rest of the world, which are evident on timescales from millennia to decades, provide a strong clue to what drives climate change. The southern continent is distinguished by its isolation and by its unusual response to changes in cloud cover. While the rest of the global surface is (on balance) cooled by clouds, they have a warming effect on high-albedo snowfields[5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].”
From prior posts as well, I’m starting to recognize your name as one of the most informative posters here.
Good link. Indeed. (And, for example, in http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg , one can see a sharp contrast between the GCR and cloud-driven temperature change over Antarctic snow/ice whiter than even the clouds versus over the lower-albedo surrounding ocean right nearby; for later years and more globally, the prime cause of the false divergence in cloud cover trends from the ISCCP at Hansen’s GISS versus cloud cover trends from other sources and that expected from GCR trends is noted at http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ ).
——————-
If anyone has not seen some paramount graphs noted in a prior thread:
The actual picture of arctic ice extent from the 1970s to now in annual trends less misleading than single months alone:
http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo
showing how, in annual averages (not a single month post-storm), recent years are comparable to the mid-1990s in arctic ice extent
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
showing how the mid-1990s had less warm arctic temperatures than reached in the 1930s
Plots from http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm include the following of August ice extent in the Siberian arctic basin from the 1920s through the end of the 20th century, with once again the decline in the latter time period being just rather similar to when it went down more than a half-century ago (before later up again during the 1960s – early 1970s era of the global cooling scare, which occurred for a reason):
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig2.gif

James Abbott says:
“And before anyone says it – yes the antarctic sea ice is behaving differently – accepted.”
Not accepted. How many times do we have to post the evidence? Arctic ice has receded more than at present at various times during the Holocene. That is a fact, based on empirical data and eyewitness observations. In other words, based on scientific evidence.
Next, your first link says:
The potential sources of this discrepancy include: observational uncertainty, physical model limitations and vigorous natural climate variability.
That is far from scientific evidence. In fact, the authors admit they do not have scientific evidence, which consists of raw data and verifiable, testable scientific observations. So that link does not support your argument.
Your second link says nothing whatever about anthropogenic CO2, which was my comment that you responded to. That is known as moving the goal posts, AKA: a straw man, or red herring fallacy.
You also argue against basic thermodynamics when you apparently claim that warming in one region is not offset by cooling in one or more other regions. And of course you disregard the fact that the Antarctic is cooling, and also adding ice mass.
Finally, what is the problem, exactly, with an ice-free Arctic? The benefits are clear: lower shipping costs and more easily recoverable energy sources. All the wild-eyed arm waving over Arctic sea ice is because every other prediction made by the alarmist cult has been falsified.
• • •
johnpetroff says:
“Thank you for admitting warming is occurring. Was that so hard?”
“Admitting”? You condescending know-it-all. My clearly stated position since WUWT began is that the planet is recovering [warming] from the Little Ice Age. It is warming naturally. There may be a small amount of warming due to CO2, but it is so minuscule that it can be disregarded for all practical purposes.
Temperature has a far greater effect on CO2 than vice-versa. The effect of CO2 [which I think exists] is so small that it is not measurable. Thus, no time, money or effort is needed to address CO2 emissions — which are entirely beneficial, and harmless.
Next, Wood For Trees is a data base that is accepted by everyone on both sides of the debate. Well, everyone except you. You are just hoping to find something wrong with the CO2/T relationship, but it just isn’t there. CO2 continues to rise. But temperature does not follow, as was universally predicted by the alarmist crowd. They were wrong, as usual.
Finally, NOAA’s use of a zero baseline chart is done deliberately to fool the eye into believing that global warming is accelerating. If they used a trend chart like this…
http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg
…it would show that the long term trend [the green trend line] remains unchanged, despite the large rise in CO2. The natural global warming since the LIA is the same whether CO2 is high or low. But the truth would spoil their alarming narrative, so they use a zero baseline chart to fool the credulous.

James Abbott says:
September 19, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“Variations in ocean currents do not alone explain the observed arctic melt. A common sceptic error is to use black and white arguments that exclude multi-forcing mechanisms.”
This is the funniest and hypocritical post I have seen in a long time. Let me correct it to reflect reality:
“Increases in Co2 do not explain the observed Arctic melt. A common warmist error is to use black and white arguments that exclude multi-forcing mechanisms.”

A couple of days ago I notice the average temperature above 80°N dipped sharply below 0°C. That signalled to me the ice extent upturn probably was beginning.
With more open ocean well above 80°N, with temperatures much colder than average available, the ice extent could rapidly rebound. Nothing new in that; we should expect it. More interesting is the date of the minimum. That seems to have returned to the old average, and suggests the north may be starting on path back from the low ice extent levels of the recent past.
The unusual stormy weather this year makes the anomaly more anomalous, and perhaps less meaningful in terms of global warming. However, we all know warmistas will glom onto anything that supports the cause, regardless of scientific merit.

I said,
I don’t think anybody has predicted a death spiral already in Antarctica, especially not in winter. Have they?
David said,
Wrong, the climate models did, as well as James Hansen.
Am I wrong, or are you faking it? Show me where “the climate models” or James Hansen predicted there would be “a death spiral already in Antarctica,” especially in winter.