Artic and Antarctic ice expansions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMN3a6u91M (thanks Poirot for this link from threads past))

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html The extent of ice is not a pointer to ice volume.

Sea level rise will not occur even if Antarctica melted completely (prove this with ice in a glass of water filled to the brim) It is the melting of northern continental ice sheets that will cause this together with thermal expansion of water.

Whatever, IJN has retreated to "I too believe the climate is changing.", making all the argument here just deck coits, while not accepting the best hypothesis we have for the reason.

So the questions are, IJN,

1)Is the change normal? Most reasonable people would concur that the rate of climate change is currently abnormal and begs a reason:

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf and

2) What should we do about climate change? The best working hypothesis we have as reason for its cause is the place to start. Both the rate of climate change and its trajectory are of concern. Can humanity adjust to both the rate of change and to the various scenarios projected? Here's a summary of the position (that won't hyperlink) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NgIqKD_aX4Y3Y0dG9pdDFEUGc/edit?pli=1

This works and is better

https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=explorer&srcid=0B5NgIqKD_aX4Y3Y0dG9pdDFEUGc&docid=e73beb68456ab5a310eaa280ad0a0a3b%7C67a652d697b3744513d2e5804dd5800c&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=800

Just checking back on OLO and, oops, I meant Arctic ice two posts back. Antarctica completely melting would be a cataclysm!

People might suggest that with all the snow that has fallen in weird places in the USA that shows that warming is not happening. But we have countervailing weather in other parts of the planet; Australia, Arctic region, Scandinavia etc. So while we have experienced extreme weather the aggregate of temperature world wide will in most likelihood continue to show some warming.

Luciferase said " The extent of ice is not a pointer to ice volume."
Very true from what I have read the structure of ice is what is important. There was a larger ice sheet in 2013 compared to 2012. But scientists talked about how the ice was more friable and the ice sheet is much thinner and liable to break up. Unexpected fissures were noticed in the ice sheet in 2013. I have seen a photo on Facebook of the Arctic ice sheet in 2013 showing fractures, I can't locate the same photo but here is another which shows the same but does not show the thinness of the ice. The photo I had seen previously had a blue tnge an indication of the lack of thickness of the ice.

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/crackarticice.php#.Uy582fmSw1I

Yet to see you contribute that article I challenged you to write.

I would not turn on my bilge pump on in here. It would clog up with c..p.

Argonomist and haudell

All these issues have been covered I depth on previous threads. Ask Witless.
Key to many of them was information, current and referenced, provided by Cohenite.

Without exception you warming terrorists were unable to disprove that data. Ask Witless.

I can plow through those threads if I must but it will be time consuming and probably won't shake your zealot faith in warming. So it would be pointless.

Agro you did not address the selective use of data thats distorted todays picture of climate change. Until you do you lack any credibility and your position looks silly.

Cheers kiddies.

ta.As