Meanwhile, jaxa May 10 extent up by 15,000 km2. That is 10 days and very nearly 700,000 km2 behind 2016, and 5th lowest in the satellite record. And yesterday AMSR2 volume ticked up a bit. That is a lot to make up in the remainder of the melting season.
On the other hand, the latest from robertscribbler.com confidently predicts significant arctic warming events in the next few days, and ASIF is full up images of the mess the ice cap is in.
But as of today as far as extent is concerned 2017 is a very ordinary year.
This has been said countless times, but apparently it needs to be said once again: extent is often not a meaningful figure for a melting season in Arctic. Your post even confirms this: extent is "ordinary", but plenty other things are not (volume, temperature anomalies, jet stream state, Greenland melt, algae, etc). What's more likely: all those things being unusual having no significance - or extent figure simply failing to grasp how abnormal this year is?
It is because "extent" does not equal "area". If there is one 16x16 miles square of solid ice surface, with 0.0 square meter of open water - this counts as 256 square miles of ice "extent". But then if there is another 16x16 miles square which has one piece of ice 40 square miles in size, and the rest of that 16x16 miles place is 216 square miles of open water, - that ALSO counts as 256 square miles of ice. And nobody has ANY idea how many such 16x16 "mostly water" areas are included into the total "ice extent" figure reported from having that total extent figure itself, only. Same for 16x16 mile blocks having ~half, third, quarter open water, etc, - all those are also "100% ice extent", and that's totally official.
Proof.
What is given for the reason for such a method of sea ice observation statistic there - is much outdated: satellite sensors are now better than they were when satellite observations only started (which is when it was decided to use this kind of extent calculation), plus nowadays, with thinner and thinner ice, fragmentation and "slush" become more and more common and large-scale features of Arctic melt seasons.
How on Earth anybody could make serious conclusions nowadays about whether we have "ordinary melt season" or "exceptional melt season" based on extent alone - is simply beyond me... IMO, it's simply impossible.