Gawd, you are still arguing about the wrong problem.
A long time back it was established that the AGW computer models are
using the too large totals for the amount of fossil fuels that are
available for burning.

AGW is just not going to happen, whether the theory is correct or not
is irrelevant.

Buzz, did you factor in the methane deposits in permafrost, methane and methane clathrates in the shallow areas of Polar waters,methane contained in retreating glaciers, and methane stored in the Gulf Stream? A paper released about a fortnight ago shows how climate change is happening in all regions of US.

cohenite, made a comment about sea ice in the Arctic in relation to 1974, in comparison to the later 70s.
A quote from nsidc:" Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007)."
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

No Ant, I did not factor anything in.
It does not matter, if the numbers are wrong the computer output is wrong.
GIGO !
There is not much point worrying about it, at least until or if the warming resumes.
Then it will be time to see if there is to be a race between melting
and fuel burning to see what ends first.
Most AGW advocates seem to be arguing about what will happen in fifty
years time when oil & coal will be too expensive to burn.

Bazz, if you had read the reference I gave you would realize that glaciologists in the Arctic are saying that the computer models created by the IPCC are behind what is happening. The levels of methane and methane clathrates have been calculated from observations, no computer models used.
"... of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007)."

There have been a significant number of climate change papers published by scientists since the beginning of this year. Could climate deniers please direct us to as many quality, peer reviewed papers showing their case?

if evolution can be classed as 'science ' so can the fairies.

I did read the link, though not very deeply.
As far as the Antarctic is concerned I don't see the vast bulk of it
ever getting near melt point.
It would need a 20 deg rise in temperature, at least.
The point I was making is that the IPCC works on three amounts of fossil
fuel, but they have worked on the "resources" figures but the economic
"reserves" are a different matter altogether.
The reserves that can be mined or drilled and sold are already on the way out.
The fracking that is going on in the US is in the source rocks.
That is like the sucking noise you hear when getting to the bottom of a milkshake.

The source rocks is where the oil was made in times long gone and from where it
migrated upwards to where we originally found it.
Having already found all the "pools" of oil we are now sucking out
the last bits that are being held tight by the source rocks.
It is very expensive and is pushing up world prices.
We are already at peak for tight oil and only one field in the US is
doing well but will enter the big slide sometime around 2017.
It doesn't matter whether AGW is true or not !

That is why I am saying you are worrying about the wrong problem.